English
for one who is reborn not in the sense-sphere," it would not be understood as "for one who is reborn in this particular (sphere)." Therefore, in the applications based on that, first, by applying "for one who passes away not from the sense-sphere, for one who is reborn in the sense-sphere, the form-sphere, the formless-sphere," and then, in sequence, the application like "for one who is reborn not in the sense-sphere" is made. For in this way, it is understood that by the terms "not in the sense-sphere," etc., only the spheres mentioned are taken, not any other. Just as in the latent-tendency section, it was said, "the meaning 'are born' is taken for the word 'lie latent'," there too, it is not possible to take "are born" referring only to what is being born, because of statements like, "For whom does the latent tendency of sensual lust lie latent, for him does the latent tendency of aversion lie latent? Yes." Even if the meaning "are born" is taken there referring to non-abandonment, it is not unsuitable here either. "Are broken" means are to be broken, are to be made twofold. But no latent tendency is to be made twofold as "lies latent and does not lie latent" for one who is being born in that place. Why then were the questions and answers made there: "How many latent tendencies are broken? There are no latent tendencies that are broken." For a doubt is not suitable in the absence of another kind. It is not unsuitable, because if "there are no latent tendencies that are broken" were not said, the absence of breaking would not be understood. The commentary on the Sphere Section is finished. The commentary on the Latent Tendency Yamaka is finished. 8. The Mind Yamaka Commentary on the Outline Section 1-62. In the commentary on the Mind Yamaka, from the very beginning, there are three pure great sections. This means these three great sections are mixed with passion, etc., and with wholesome, etc., and are pure; among them, the pure ones come first. And in the mixed ones, in each mixed mind with passion, etc., there are three great sections. These, when stated in their respective places, are summarized as "sixteen individual sections," etc., and are not stated continuously. "Whose mind arises..." "birth does not cease, his mind will cease, will not arise," and so on. Because each question proceeds by way of the connection of arising and ceasing, and of present and future times, it is called "the section of the intermingling of arising, ceasing, and time." Thus, the respective names of the other sections should also be understood according to the Pāli. The explanation of the Summary Section is finished. Explanation of the Detailed Section 63. "Referring to the mind of such an Arahant whose defilements are destroyed" - this (statement) should be understood as said, considering that when a person is intended who is endowed with the moment of arising, endowed with the last mind, that mind itself is also intended. "Even the last mind of an Arahant does not arise, it ceases" - this kind of statement is said referring only to that which is endowed with the moment of cessation. 65-82. In the second answer to the question of the Arising Section, regarding "at the moment of the mind's cessation, for those who have attained cessation, for non-percipient beings, their mind arose, but their mind does not arise," the meaning of "their mind arose at the moment of the mind's cessation" is stated as "the mind of all, being momentary and present, having passed the moment of arising, is called 'arose'." And regarding "at the moment of the mind's arising, their mind both arose and arises," it is not possible to say both "it arose because it reached arising" and "it arises because it has not passed" in this way. Indeed, in what is momentarily present, there is no past tense usage "arose." If it were so, then in "whatever mind arose, that mind arises," it should be analyzed without saying "no." Similarly, in "whatever mind arises, that mind arose," it should be said "yes" without saying "no." However, by "at the moment of the mind's cessation," a person endowed with a mind that is ceasing is meant; for him, a past mind arose, but no mind arises. And by "at the moment of the mind's arising," a person endowed with a mind that is arising is meant; for him too, a past mind arose, That mind arises, thus here the meaning should be seen. For 'mind' is a general term, standing in one and in many, according to the specific sense taken. "Or for whom will a mind arise, for him does a mind arise?" "At the moment of the mind's dissolution." Here, by this determination "or for whom will a mind arise," it is at the moment of dissolution of the mind of that very person who is taken. Thus everywhere the rule should be understood according to the determination. The section on arisen and arising, and the section on ceased and ceasing, in all three, starting with the person-section, are taught and explained without difference. There, in the person-section, generally referring to any such person, "arisen, arising," etc., is stated. In the phenomenon-section, it is the mind itself. In the person-phenomenon-section, it is the person and the mind. This difference should be seen here. 83. In the section on past time, because this is a person-section, a person is questioned, so the answer should be about the person. Just as by "for whom a mind arose" no person is not taken, so by this determination "for whom a mind, arising moment by moment, has passed, is past time," no one is not taken. For there is no such person for whom the mind's moment of arising is not past. And those whose minds have passed the moment of ceasing are not non-existent. So the first question should be answered "Yes." Similarly for the second and third. But the fourth (question) should be answered thus: "At the moment of dissolution of the last mind, for them the mind's moment of dissolution has not passed, but for them the mind's moment of arising has not passed. For others, the mind's moment of dissolution has not passed, and the mind's moment of arising has not passed." Why then, without answering thus, is the mind itself analyzed everywhere? Because persons are distinguished by means of the mind. For by the statement of past time due to the passing of the moment, and by means of the present mind, a person is called one whose mind's moment of arising is past, past... And that, there, the division of persons, such as 'for the former, the mind has not passed the moment of dissolution; for the latter, it has passed,' by which mind the determination of persons occurs, is shown by demonstrating the passing or non-passing of that mind at its respective moment. Thus, in all explanations, the mind itself is divided. Or rather, here, a person distinguished merely by phenomena is not asked about; rather, it is the mind distinguished by the person. Therefore, it should be understood that the mind itself is explained. Even if the question is person-centric, or even if it is mind-centric, in both cases, 'yes' should be said to the second question. However, without saying so, it should be understood that 'past mind' is stated to show that the present does not have a past state by passing the moment of cessation, like a past state by passing the moment of arising. Here, 'whose mind is not arising' means 'whose mind is not in a past state, having passed moment by moment of arising'. This method applies also to 'not ceasing'. 114-116. In the mixed sections, the question 'for whom a mind with craving arises but does not cease, will that mind cease but not arise?' and the answer 'no' are shown in the commentary. However, in the Pāli, because it is stated in the establishment of the matrix: 'for whom a mind with craving arises but does not cease, will that mind with craving cease but not arise?', it is understood that the explanation is abbreviated, having extracted the question in the sense of determination and doubt, based on mixed minds such as those with craving, and stating that the answer should mostly be made in the same way as in the pure sections, by a method such as: 'at the moment of arising of the last mind with craving, for them, a mind with craving arises but does not cease, will cease but not arise; at the moment of arising of the mind with craving for others, for them, a mind with craving arises but does not cease, will cease and will also arise'. Exposition Chapter The explanation is completed. The explanation of the Citta-Yamaka is completed. 9. The Dhamma-Yamaka 1. The Section on Concepts Explanation of the Section on Exposition 1-16. In the explanation of the Dhamma-Yamaka, having set forth the matrix of wholesome and other phenomena, the meaning is that it is taught here, having placed at the beginning that matrix of phenomena such as wholesome and others, which begins with "wholesome and unwholesome phenomena," without teaching them in the way that wholesome and other phenomena are taught in the Mūla-Yamaka, and without teaching them in the way they are gathered differently, starting with "the five aggregates," in the Khandha-Yamaka and others. The explanation of the Section on Exposition is completed. 2. Explanation of the Section on Occurrence 33-34. In the answer to "For whom wholesome phenomena arise, for them indeterminate phenomena arise?", it is stated in the commentary: "Indeterminate (phenomena) are said in the sense of mind-originated matter." But in this question, kamma-originated matter and other kinds of matter are also obtainable. However, in the answer to the reverse section, for all those who are passing away, at the moment of the dissolution of consciousness in the course of existence, at the moment of the arising of unwholesome phenomena in the immaterial realms, it is said: "For them wholesome phenomena do not arise, and indeterminate phenomena do not arise." Here, because it is said "indeterminate phenomena do not arise"