English
If, in the sections on pure aggregates and so on, only those things like form, which are qualifiers of aggregates, are to be taken, then why is the meaning shown by means of things like form, which are different from the qualifiers of aggregates? Referring to this question, it says "but in the commentary" and so on. The former meaning is suitable, the reading is stronger than the reasoning. The description of the section on designations is finished. 2. Description of the section on occurrences 27-164. The understanding of suffering, up to the overcoming of suffering, even if it occurs with a specific location, might it be conducive to that purpose? Lest someone should have such a doubt, showing this, it says "because of being noble... and so on... said after making." Some here state the reason "because of being in the final existence," that is not suitable, because it is an investigation of suffering by means of origination, and not all Pure Abode dwellers are in their final existence, according to the saying about those who ascend upstream. "For whom the truth of suffering arises" refers to the state of arising. Showing that the dhammas included in the truth of suffering without distinction, and the person endowed with it, are spoken of in the sense of being connected, after saying "all those who arise" and so on, since this meaning is grasped decisively, and the meaning that is decisive must be shown by division, therefore it says "among those very ones... and so on... only arisen." There, the connection is that some are shown among those very ones. Those endowed with the arising of one category, means those endowed with the arising of the category of suffering. "Among those" means among those grasped with certainty. "Among those endowed with the arising of the path and fruit" or this is the reading. Here, by "and here" and so on, it shows the collective meaning of the passage "of all" and so on. There, "the arising of the truth of suffering mixed with the arising of the truth of origin" this is in the sense of disregard. is the meaning. In some places, it is explained as the arising of the suffering truth without the arising of the origin truth, even when mixed with the arising of the origin truth in the suffering truth. Some, however, read "unmixed with the origin truth." For them, "without it" should be understood as an explanation of the meaning of the preceding word. "With it" means it is explained as the arising of the suffering truth together with the arising of the origin truth. "Of them" refers to the non-percipient beings. It means that the arising of the suffering truth in existence is not included in either of the two divisions mentioned as "in existence" and so on. However, the arising of it at rebirth is indeed shown to be included in the first division. "And similarly cessation" means just as the arising of the suffering truth for non-percipient beings at rebirth is included in the first division, but in existence it is not included in the two divisions, similarly for them, the cessation of the suffering truth also. Thus, the Pāli text proceeds in the cessation section with "for all those passing away, at the moment of the dissolution of the consciousness disconnected from craving in existence" and so on. "The same method" means the method of meaning of the Pāli text stated in the origin truth pair as "and here" and so on, is the same method in the path truth pair. It means that the meaning should be understood there in the same way. Thus, the Pāli text proceeds there with "for all those being reborn" and so on. "And if this is so" means if there is such a taking of opportunity by moment, it contradicts the meaning stated earlier by not agreeing with it. "In the resolution of this" means in the resolution of this pair-word. "At the moment of the arising of the highest path, at the moment of the arising of the consciousness of Arahants, at the moment of the arising of the consciousness of one who will attain the highest path immediately after that consciousness, for non-percipient beings being reborn, the suffering truth arises there for them, but the origin truth will not arise there for them" (Yama. 1. Sacca-yamaka. 71). Since the first division is present, there is no contradiction. It is said, "in the posterior portions," and so on. There, "therefore" means: Because the moment of the arising of the rebirth consciousness is not the basis for the future arising of the origination, but rather the sense-sphere realm and so on, therefore. "This is the personal and spatial section" means: Because this is the personal and spatial section, therefore, in "for them there," the meaning of the word "there" should be understood in terms of space. If, in the personal and spatial section, the meaning is to be taken only in terms of the sense-sphere realm and so on, and not in terms of moments, then why, by saying "for all those being reborn," and so on, is the explanation given there without referring to space? Responding to this question, it says, "there... and so on... that very same." "There, there" means: in the spatial section. "For the purpose of showing specific individuals" means: for the purpose of showing specific individuals. "Where they" means: in which sense-sphere realm and so on, those individuals are. "Some" refers to the Elder Dhammasiri. For he says, "at the moment of the dissolution of consciousness in the process, the truth of suffering does not arise." Here, he states the reason that only mind-born matter is intended, as it is dependent on consciousness for its existence. Others say, "in the formless realm" can also be understood as referring to the preceding context. Thus, by specifying the process, this meaning is stated in terms of the formless existence. Therefore, in "for whom, or for what, the truth of origination ceases, does the truth of suffering arise? No," and so on, the meaning should be understood in this way. "The individual is not taken solely with reference to consciousness" is said because consciousness is not primarily emphasized. However, where there is the intention for the arising of the truth of origination, there must also be the intention for its non-arising, and without consciousness, the individual himself is not found. Therefore, in "for whom the truth of origination does not arise," it can be understood that consciousness, as the basis of the truth of origination, is implicitly taken. Moreover, even in the case of matter bound to faculties, it cannot be said that all arising of matter is absolutely dependent on the arising of consciousness, because the arising of matter is seen there even without the arising of consciousness. Therefore, only mind-born matter arises at the moment of the arising of consciousness, not other matter. Other matter, however, in all three moments of that (consciousness). It arises, this is the conclusion to be reached here. "There is no undivided thing to be divided," this objection might arise in the first instance. But in the second instance, it is just division, so this objection is not accepted. Or even in the first instance, this objection does not arise. Why? For this is the nature of the Yamaka, namely, the arrangement according to what is available. Regarding "when the second consciousness is occurring," here they say, "the first is bhavanga, the second is consciousness." Even the adverting consciousness at the end of an existence can be called "second," because it is dissimilar from the occurrence of resultant consciousness. From that point onwards, some say, "previously, the truth of origin did not arise for him there." However, the first co-arisen consciousness at the end of an existence is here intended as the second consciousness. Considering all that occurred before that as one, due to their similar nature of being indeterminate, it is said that from that point onwards, the truth of origin did not arise for him there. Therefore, it is said, "by the very last division," and so on. "In that" means in that second consciousness. "Because of having the same course" means because of having the same course as that aforementioned second consciousness, or because of the state of being able to say that for one endowed with it, the truth of suffering arose, but not the truth of origin. "And having done so" means because of having shown that same course. "As stated" means those endowed with all consciousnesses prior to the second unwholesome consciousness are not taken, due to the absence of the other state. To confirm the meaning already stated by another reading, "just as," etc., was said. "Those" are the four-constituent beings. "To be excluded" means to be set aside by the qualification "of others." "Just as the five-constituent beings, the Suddhāvāsas, as stated" means just as the five-constituent beings called Suddhāvāsas, described as being endowed with the second moment of consciousness, were mentioned before, so too, the four-constituent beings were not mentioned before. This is the explanation. Regarding "for whom, where," persons and places are expected in the sense of container and contained. Therefore, it is said, "persons and places are taken as mutually delimited." "In the sense-sphere... etc....born" here means those who have realized in the sense-sphere, the form-sphere... who have been reborn, who have attained in the rūpa-sphere, who have been reborn in the arūpa-sphere, and by the word 'vā' (or), it should be connected that 'who have attained in the kāma-sphere, who have been reborn in the arūpa-sphere.' Therein, 'there' means in the place of rebirth. 'Attainment' means the attainment of the higher path. As long as one has not been reborn, those individuals reborn there are not included in this second division mentioned as 'who have attained,' and so on, because individuals and places are distinct from each other. If so, are they not included in this pair?