English
he supports the meaning stated above with another reading. In which existence, by which faculties one is to be, for that being, or for that continuum, whose faculty is inevitable by the kamma that produces that particular faculty, "But for whom will the faculty of form..." If a sense-base will arise, will the eye-sense-base arise for him? Yes. Or if the form-sense-base will not arise for him, will the eye-sense-base not arise for him? Yes. And thus, this two-question-and-answer sequence that proceeds is well-established due to the nature of the arising of the sense-bases. Here, by "etc." in "those of the last existence, etc.", those who arise in the formless realms and attain final Nibbāna are included. This is also an explanation. "To be rejoiced in" means "to be assented to" with "yes". The connection is that which is said, "for those without a nose who are reborn in the sense-sphere." That karma whose result will cease even before the arising of the nose-sense-base is called "karma that does not produce the nose-sense-base." How is it known that such karma exists? It is said, "wherever for whom," etc. Even so, in response to the question, "How is it known that only one in the womb is intended here as 'without a nose'?" To establish that meaning by saying "not indeed," etc., it is said, "in the Dhammahadayavibhaṅga," etc. For not speaking of it is indeed a rejection in the Abhidhamma, according to the teaching of the Dhamma. "Here" means in this pair of sense-bases. "As shown" refers to questions of the type shown, such as: "Or if the ear-sense-base will not arise for him, the eye-sense-base does not arise for him; and for whom, where the nose-sense-base does not cease, for him, there the form-sense-base will not cease." The connection is, "It is said 'yes,' so why is it not understood?" The meaning is, "Why is no answer given in response to these questions?" "Of the meaning grasped by the conclusion" refers to the meaning grasped by a concluding phrase such as: "Or if the ear-sense-base will not arise for him; for whom, where the nose-sense-base will not cease." Due to the possibility of a doubtful meaning in one part, due to the possibility of a meaning to be doubted in one part, and due to not giving an answer to the doubtful meaning which is the counterpart of the conclusive meaning, the answer "yes" (is given). because it is not to be done, because the meaning is not to be broken up and made into one, because it is not to be spoken. Therefore it is said: “There is no answering for what is to be broken up.” If it were so, if there were an answering even for a meaning that is to be broken up and spoken, there would not be a complete answer, because there is no scope, and because it is to be broken up— that is the meaning. Thus, “For those who attain final Nibbāna in the five-constituent existence, for those who are final-existents in the formless realm, and for those who will be reborn in the formless realm and attain final Nibbāna, as they are passing away, the ear faculty will not arise, and the eye faculty does not arise,” and similarly, “For those who attain final Nibbāna in the form realm, for those in the formless realm, there the nose faculty does not cease, and the eye faculty will not cease”— the remaining text proceeds there by way of division. “Then why,” if there is an answering for what is not to be broken up, not for what is to be broken up, in that case, “For whomsoever the faculty of joy arises, for him does the faculty of sight arise? Yes.” Why is it not understood from this answering that there is no joyful rebirth-linking for those in the womb, and that it should be accepted that there is no answering for what is to be broken up? That is not so, because that meaning is understood from another Pāli text— showing this, he says, “in the sense-sphere realm,” and so on. “Whatever consciousness arises, does not cease, that consciousness will cease, will not arise? Yes.” Just as the cessation of that very consciousness is stated at its moment of arising in terms of future time, so too the cessation of that very karmic continuum should be stated at its arising in terms of future time. By this he shows: “The cessation of a single consciousness is said to be in future time at its moment of arising; how much more so for a single continuum!” Everywhere, in every future tense. That cessation is stated in future time only by way of those arising; why is cessation not stated here by way of those that have arisen? He says, “But for those that have arisen,” and so on. Just as it is stated Of one's own karma-born continuum only. Therefore, since cessation is said to begin from the moment of arising, therefore. Even though there is a distinction, even though there is a reason for considering a distinction in time. By way of considering future time only, by way of cessation only, the two answers are appropriate, indeed suitable. Because it is not possible to speak of cessation by way of others, "arahat" is said. If cessation is said to begin immediately after rebirth, then why is cessation spoken of as 'death'? Addressing this question, it says: "But cessation is spoken of as 'death' because of its termination." "Because of its termination" means because of the termination of that continuum. "It proceeds" and so on, is an elucidation of the meaning already stated. There, "of that" means of the continuum. "He will speak" and so on, is also a statement of the reason for taking only the cessation of death, not considering cessation in the ongoing process. "By that" means by that alternative reading as stated. "Here" means in this pair of sense bases, such as "whose eye-base will cease." If cessation is desired only at death, even for what has ceased in the ongoing process, how is "for those with eyes" and so on? It says: "In 'for those with eyes' and so on, the meaning is understood as 'for those who have obtained eyes' and so on." Those are the last-existents in the formless realms. And the statement "without eyes" is to be construed as having a remainder. The explanation of the process section is finished. The explanation of the pair of sense bases is finished. 4. The Pair of Elements "Related to the sound element" and so on, refers to those pairs of sound based on the eye element and so on, and all those based on the sound element. For these are not obtained by way of death and rebirth, like those related to the eye-consciousness element and so on. By this same token, the unavailability of pairs related to the sound element in the process section of the pair of sense bases should also be understood. The explanation of the pair of elements is finished. 5. The Pair of Truths 1. The explanation of the designation section "That" is the word for suffering. "Elsewhere" means in the foundations of suffering, such as suffering due to formations, suffering due to change, and suffering itself. Independent of others. is independent of the terms like formations. By that, because the term suffering is taken as independent of others. In that suffering of suffering, which is the object. This word suffering is the first word suffering in "suffering, the truth of suffering." And that suffering of suffering. In "suffering, the truth of suffering," it is not desirable to take this as an exclusive statement, that suffering is only the truth of suffering; rather, it is desirable that suffering is indeed the truth of suffering, thus it says, "it is exclusively the truth of suffering." Among the origins mentioned in the Saccavibhaṅga, none exist among the resultant phenomena. This means that among the five kinds of origins mentioned in the Saccavibhaṅga, not even one has the nature of a result; there is no nature of a result. The reading "there are no resultant phenomena" is also found. And the word path among the constituents of fruition, means that the word path, which appears in the common constituents of fruition such as right view, etc., as "a constituent of the path, included in the path," operates due to its being the fruit of the path, by way of a metaphorical attribution of cause. Therefore, it says, "not due to the existence of path-functions," etc. Therefore, because in the teaching of the truths, only phenomena with the nature of origination, etc., are spoken of by way of origin, etc., not those without the nature of origination, etc., therefore. And here, since the three-fold worldly phenomena are appropriately included in the truth of suffering and the truth of origin, when excluding phenomena that are not truths and phenomena that are truths, it excluded only resultant phenomena. But are not phenomena associated with the path also not truths, so they should also be excluded? No, because they are related to the path. In "among resultant phenomena," the taking of the word "phenomena" should be understood as including them as well, like phenomena associated with results. By the purification of terms...etc... taken here, by this it states that phenomena that are not truths are excluded by the context. Of those, of suffering, etc. The specific connection of that qualification, means the distinctness due to that specific connection of suffering, etc. The state of suffering, etc., being knowable, etc., is established solely by their being specific truths, thus it says, "because they are exclusively truths." And just as here, in this pair of truths, in the pure truth section, only those that are specific truths, such as suffering, eaten, taken. Thus, in the pairs of aggregates and so on, this method is not shown only in the pure truth section, this is the meaning. In the section on word analysis, and in the section on the root wheel, since only composite terms like "form is the aggregate of form" are stated, there is nothing to be said, therefore it is said "in the sections on pure aggregates and so on." And here too, this method is shown only in the pure section.