English
by the non-existence of origination and cessation of such things as the eye, is determined by conclusion. Therefore, the non-origination and non-cessation of such things as the arising and ceasing of life and so forth, are questioned as a doubtful proposition. Thus it is said: “For whom the eye faculty will not arise, for them the faculty of joy will not arise?” “Yes.” And, “For whom the eye faculty will not cease, for them the faculty of joy will not cease?” “Yes.” It is not said, “Those who, having arisen in the formless realm, will attain final Nibbāna,” as in the case of the life faculty, the faculty of equanimity, and so forth, with an answer. In the statement, “For those who, having arisen in the form realm, will attain final Nibbāna, the nose faculty will not arise, but for them the faculty of joy will arise,” those who will have rebirth-linking with equanimity are included by the latter part of the statement, “and those who, having arisen in the formless realm, will attain final Nibbāna,” due to having similar characteristics. Thus, it should be understood that only those who will have rebirth-linking with joy are spoken of. In the commentaries, in some early manuscripts, it is written: “In the past and future sections, at the moment of dissolution of the rebirth-linking consciousness of the Pure Abodes, the mind faculty also did not arise, not taking the meaning as transcending the moment of arising, as in the Dhamma Yamaka.” That is a mistaken writing. But in those manuscripts where it is written: “In the present and past sections, at the moment of dissolution of the rebirth-linking consciousness of the Pure Abodes, the mind…” and the faculty did not arise, etc. The meaning should be taken as: it had not arisen before in that existence. This reading is seen, and it is indeed better. The description of the Process Section is finished. 3. The Description of the Full Understanding Section 435-482. In the Full Understanding Section, it is said that the mundane unconditioned mixed with the suffering truth are to be fully understood, because they are mixed with the mundane unconditioned which are exclusively to be fully understood as included in the suffering truth. And the full understandability of the mind faculty, etc., like the feeling aggregate, etc., is stated. If full understandability arises from being mixed with what is to be fully understood, why are the pairs not stated in the Dhammayamaka by connecting them with the term 'unconditioned', such as: "Whoever develops a wholesome dhamma, he fully understands an unconditioned dhamma"? Just as there is an inclination to develop and abandon in wholesome and unwholesome things, such as: "I develop the wholesome, I abandon the unwholesome," so too there is an inclination to fully understand in aggregates, etc., such as: "The feeling aggregate is impermanent, the dhamma base is impermanent." There, the feeling aggregate, etc., are to be fully understood as "impermanent," etc., and they are to be fully understood by taking on the nature of the feeling aggregate, etc., not the nature of the unconditioned. Why is it that here, only the abandonment of mental pain, which is included in the suffering truth, is stated, and not its full understandability? Are not the feeling aggregate, etc., which are included in the suffering truth, even if not taken as wholesome or unwholesome, still to be fully understood? It is true. But just as the nature of the feeling aggregate, etc., can exist without the nature of being developed or abandoned, the nature of the faculty of mental pain does not exist without the nature of being abandoned. To show this distinction, only the abandonment of the faculty of mental pain is stated here, and it should be understood that this is not due to the absence of its full understandability. By "the unwholesome is exclusively to be abandoned," it is to be understood that it only prevents what is not to be abandoned, not the nature of being fully understood. The faculty of knowledge is aimed at development, not at realization. Thus, only its nature of being developed is taken. "Two individuals," etc., "the eye faculty is not..." "arijānātī" and so on, what should be written after it, is to be seen as written in reverse order. For indeed, having passed over the root of the eye faculty, this was said in the root of the displeasure faculty: "Two individuals do not abandon the displeasure faculty, nor do they develop the unknown faculty." (Yama. 3.indriyayamaka.440) Here, there are nine individuals: the ordinary person, and the eight noble ones. Among them, the ordinary person is of two kinds: capable and incapable. He is taken without distinction in places where "ordinary person" appears, such as "Six individuals did not fully know the eye faculty and did not abandon the displeasure faculty." In places where "those ordinary persons who will attain the path" appears, such as "Five individuals will fully know the eye faculty and will abandon the displeasure faculty," only the capable one is taken with distinction. And in places where "those ordinary persons who will not attain the path" appears, such as "Three individuals will not abandon the displeasure faculty and will not fully know the eye faculty," only the incapable one. The one endowed with the highest fruit, and the one endowed with the first fruit. The Arahant, too, is of two kinds. That one, too, in places where "Arahant" appears, such as "Three individuals developed the faculty of 'I shall know the unknown' and abandoned the displeasure faculty," is taken without distinction. In places where "who realizes the highest fruit" appears, and in places like "Three individuals abandoned the displeasure faculty, but did not realize the faculty of knowing the known," the one endowed with the first fruit is also taken with distinction. In places where "who has realized the highest fruit" appears, the other one (i.e., the Arahant who has already realized it). Thus, having known the distinction of individuals, and having determined the individuals taken by conclusion in each place, one should explain. they should be joined. The description of the sphere of full understanding is finished. The description of the pair of faculties is finished. The Root Commentary on the Yamaka is complete. The Root Commentary on the Paṭṭhāna Description of the Commencement of the Text They play, they sport, they delight with sense pleasures, etc., or they dwell in them; they wish to conquer their enemies by virtue of their ability to achieve victory; they conduct themselves by receiving honors such as positions of authority and by giving instructions appropriate to various matters; they shine with a radiance attained through the power of their meritorious actions; they go unimpeded to whatever object they desire; or they are devas because they are capable of accomplishing whatever they wish. Or they are devas because they are worthy of being gone to for refuge by those who seek to overcome various misfortunes, or they are worthy of praise. Or they are devas because they are desirable due to their special beauty. They are of three kinds: conventional devas, rebirth devas, and purity devas. The Blessed One, however, is called "Devātideva" (Deva beyond devas) because he is endowed with unsurpassed playful supernormal knowledge, with the highest divine, brahmic, and noble abodes, with the accomplishment of the fivefold desire for victory over Māra, which is established in his own and others' continuities, with an extraordinary mode of conduct consisting of the reception of honors and gifts due to right practice in mental sovereignty, wealth, etc., and instructions appropriate to the nature of the Dhamma, individuals, and their dispositions, with a supreme radiance consisting of the light of his wisdom-body, with an incomparable movement of his knowledge-body, and with an unhindered power in conquering Māra, in accomplishing omniscience, and in benefiting others. Therefore, he is gone to for refuge by the world with its devas, is worthy of praise, and is desirable through devotion. Or Devātideva means a deva more worthy of veneration than all devas, or a deva who, having attained the state of purity deva adorned with omniscient qualities, is superior to other devas. "Of the devas" refers to the rebirth devas who were then recipients of the Dhamma. He was honored by devas such as Sakka and by asuras such as Pahārāda, the lord of asuras. The practice of restraint of body and speech, which is morality, of sense restraint, and of mental restraint, which is concentration. Of narratives, by extreme pacification, pure restraint. "Seventh of the Sages" means among hundreds of praised sages, who attained the designation of "sages" by the path of awakening to the Four Noble Truths, he is exceedingly peaceful and praised. Including Vipassī and others, the Blessed One is called "the seventh." From where consciousness turns back, that name-and-form he ceased by the cessation of its arising; thus, "the ceaser of name-and-form." He taught a treatise adorned with extremely profound methods, called Paṭṭhāna — this is the connection. The description of the commencement of the book is finished. Description of the Enumeration of Conditions "What then are these methods, and what is that called Paṭṭhāna?" This should not be asked. Why? Because in the introductory narrative, in the explanation of Paṭṭhāna, the methods like Anuloma and others, and Paṭṭhāna itself, have been shown. Explaining this meaning, he cited the commentary text stated therein: "Indeed, by the Perfectly Enlightened One... [etc.]... it is indeed called." There, the meaning of the verse and the intention of the commentary we shall explain later. But the meaning of the name Paṭṭhāna is the meaning of the name of Tikapaṭṭhāna and so on, for Tikapaṭṭhāna and others. And here, the inclusion of the twenty-four universal conditions