English
is stated with reference to rootless relinking. Here, it should be understood that it illustrates the sense-sphere relinking without eyes, accompanied by equanimity, and the formless-sphere relinking of similar characteristics. However, in some manuscripts, "rootless formless" The reading "by way of rebirth-linking" is seen, and that is better. For it is said, "There, faith, mindfulness, and wisdom are entirely absent, but concentration and energy do not attain the state of faculties." But if concentration and energy are present, it cannot be said, "they do not attain the state of faculties," because of the statements, "Is concentration the faculty of concentration? Yes." and "Is energy the faculty of energy? Yes." And in a rebirth-linking consciousness without root causes, just as there is a trace of concentration, one-pointedness, there is not a trace of energy in the same way. Therefore, it should be said thus here: "There, faith, energy, mindfulness, and wisdom are entirely absent, but one-pointedness is merely a trace of concentration." This might be the intention here: just as in some other rootless consciousnesses, concentration and energy are present and attain the state of faculties, so here concentration and energy do not attain the state of faculties. By showing the absence of the faculties of concentration and energy, it is distinguished from other rootless states. There, when it should be said, "concentration and energy are not present," it is said "do not attain the state of faculties" because of the presence of a trace of concentration that has not attained the state of the faculty of concentration, not because of a trace of energy. For a qualifier applies to what is qualified. But in those books where the reading is "there, faith, energy, mindfulness, and wisdom are entirely absent," that is even better. Until the eye-faculty arises, there is the state of those in the womb who are without eyes. With this intention, it is said, "For those with root causes who are without eyes is said by way of those lying in the womb and by way of those without form." But it should be understood that those lying in the womb who will not necessarily develop an eye-faculty are not found. "For those with eyes who are dissociated from knowledge" is said by way of those with a two-root rebirth-linking in the sense-sphere. Here also, those with a rootless rebirth-linking and without eyes are indeed found. The arising of the faculties of femininity and masculinity is by way of rebirth, and their cessation is by way of death, mostly It is supported. For sometimes, for those of the first aeon and so on, there are origination and cessation even in the course of existence. Here, it should be understood that in the root-yamaka of the faculties, at the end of the male faculty, in the first questions, the faculties such as the eye-faculty, being determined by the conclusions taken, going by way of rebirth and death, the life-faculty and so on, which are obtainable even by way of the course of existence, are taken in the second questions by way of rebirth and death only, by the conclusions. 190. The material life-faculty goes in the same manner as the eye-faculty and so on, only by way of death and rebirth, for the sake of showing the cessation of the arising of the continuum. Therefore, it is said, "At the moment of origination of a mind dissociated from joy in the course of existence," this is said with reference to the immaterial life-faculty. Here, "by way of whatever is obtainable for these and other five faculties," for these life-faculties and so on, in death, rebirth, and the course of existence, and for the other eye-faculties and so on, in death and rebirth, such obtainability should be seen. As for "this is indeed a section," here, the name "section" should be understood for the last part, when that complete question is answered by showing its nature in each case. Or, if the faculty of joy does not arise for someone, does the life-faculty not arise for them? For those who are reborn without joy, at the moment of origination of a mind dissociated from joy in the course of existence, the faculty of joy does not arise for them, but it is not that the life-faculty does not arise for them. Here, the non-mention of "those who have attained cessation, the non-percipient beings" indicates that the material life-faculty is of the same movement as the eye-faculty and so on. For its origination should be said to be only at rebirth. In "for those who are reborn without joy," including the non-percipient beings, they and those who have attained cessation are not mentioned by way of the course of existence, but its non-origination should be said only at death and rebirth, not in the course of existence. In the last part too, "for all who are dying, at the moment of dissolution of the mind in the course of existence, for them the faculty of joy does not arise and the life-faculty..." and does not arise.” Thus, by including the non-percipient beings among “all those who are passing away,” and by their occurrence, those who have attained cessation are not mentioned. The meaning is that those who have attained cessation should not be shown or taken in whatever context. For the phrase “of those who have attained cessation” is not like the phrase “of non-percipient beings” which indicates a sphere, nor is it like phrases such as “at the moment of the arising of a mind accompanied by equanimity, at the moment of the dissolution of all minds” which indicate moments of non-arising of faculties like the faculty of joy; rather, it indicates individuals. In the past tense, regarding the moment of the arising of the rebirth-consciousness of the Suddhāvāsa deities, where it is stated that for them the faculty of joy did not arise there, and the faculty of life did not arise there, why is “at the moment of the arising of the rebirth-consciousness” said? Should it not be said “of those who are being reborn,” as in “for those who are being reborn into the Suddhāvāsa realms, for non-percipient beings, there the faculty of joy did not arise, and the faculty of mind did not arise” (Yama. 3. Indriyayamaka. 277)? It should not be said. For just as individuals who are being reborn are endowed with rebirth-consciousness in terms of the faculties of joy and mind, they are not similarly endowed with rebirth in terms of the faculties of joy and life. For in terms of the faculty of life, as long as the first material life-faculty endures, they are called “being reborn.” And at that time, from the second consciousness onwards, it cannot be said “the faculty of life did not arise,” because the immaterial life-faculty has arisen and ceased. Therefore, both are indicated by the moment of arising. Just as the characteristic “did not cease” is found in two moments of the rebirth-consciousness and is indicated by the moment of dissolution of the very first rebirth-consciousness, so too should it be understood here. In the future tense, after making a determination about what will arise, the arising of something else is questioned. There, just as in the present tense, Since it is taken as only arising by distinctions of certainty and doubt: "For whom the eye-faculty and so on arise, for that one being reborn, the life-faculty and so on arise." For those questioned as being reborn, their arising is possible only in rebirth, not elsewhere. It is not so here: "For whom the eye-faculty and so on will arise, for that one being reborn, the life-faculty and so on will arise." For those questioned as being reborn, their arising is not possible elsewhere than in rebirth. Therefore, it is said: "For whom the eye-faculty will arise, for him will the pleasure-faculty arise? Yes." And having done thus, in the cessation section too, it is said: "For whom the eye-faculty will cease, for him will the pleasure-faculty cease? Yes." It is not that for whom the eye-faculty will cease, for him the pleasure-faculty will not cease. This holds true even for one in their last existence, whose rebirth is accompanied by equanimity. For one being reborn, the cessation of the pleasure-faculty before their death is indeed possible. Indeed, in the first questions here, the meaning of certainty is the basis of what is to be questioned. This is like the faculty of arising in rebirth, or the faculty of both arising. Even if the meaning is reversed, it remains the basis of what is to be questioned. In this way, in the second questions, it establishes only the meaning of certainty. It is not that what is to be questioned there, merely by being in the future, taken in its own nature, whether arising or cessation, is a matter of doubt. And since there is such a rule for the meaning of certainty, therefore it is said: "Or for whom the pleasure-faculty will arise, for him will the eye-faculty arise? Yes." (Yama. 3.Indriyayamaka.281) This method applies also in the cessation section. But in the reverse order, just as in the direct order, "will arise, will cease" future arising and cessation are stated in their own nature. Since it is not stated thus, just as there, of the faculty taken by the term 'doubt', even in its occurrence, arising and cessation, among those rooted in the eye-faculty, which... conquered, it should not be joined thus. For just as origination and cessation, having transcended and not reached, origination and cessation arise, it is not so that non-origination and non-cessation, having transcended and not reached, non-origination and non-cessation arise from the non-arising of non-existence, having transcended and not reached the non-existence of non-existence. And the non-existence of origination and cessation of non-existence is questioned in reverse. Therefore, for that non-existence of non-existence, devoid of distinction, like the origination of existing things, there is no connection with future time. The basis for what is to be questioned