English
He says, 'they, however,' and so on. Therein, what was said, 'those of similar destiny are not shown separately,' to make that clearer, 'those who have not attained,' and so on, was said. Its meaning is: by this first term 'those who have not attained,' are included all those who are in states where the path has not arisen, in the Pure Abodes, among those who have not attained, among the two kinds of them, the Pure Abodes should be understood as those who have not attained there at that time. To specify the time when they should be so understood, it was said, 'when the second thought of the Pure Abodes is occurring.' By this, by this statement. 'Purification thought' is a thought that is an immediate condition for path thoughts, but here, it refers to the thought of the highest path. Therein, those endowed with thoughts earlier than the aforementioned purification thought, those endowed with thoughts associated with conformity knowledge, and those endowed with the remaining emergence-leading insight thoughts, and so on, are also included. Therefore, he said, 'they are shown up to those endowed with the very last thought associated with craving.' Because the moments of dissolution and arising of rebirth and death thoughts are of similar destiny with the moments of dissolution and arising of thoughts in the course of life regarding the non-arising, and so on, of the truth of suffering, and so on, it was said, 'of the thought in the course of life,' and so on. Therein, it should be understood that the moment of arising of the death thought is also included. In both divisions, in the former and latter divisions, which occur according to the rejection and non-rejection of the cessation that is the outcome of the truth of origination. It is not specified, as in the aforementioned non-rejection and also The meaning is that it is not stated with a specific distinction. The meaning is that the two portions cannot exist because even for one individual, the prior portion, which is endowed with the moment of dissolution of such a path and its fruit, is not obtained. Now, to elaborate on that very meaning, it is said, "For whom the truth of suffering," and so on. For some individuals. And this is a genitive case of determination. Showing the paths and fruits mentioned as "of the path and of the fruit," it says, "of the three fruits and of the two paths." And these are to be understood as the three lower fruits and the two middle paths. Without producing it continuously, it means without making it interspersed with opposing qualities, without doing the continuous action that should be done by one who produces the path together with insight. Therefore, it says, "intermittently... and so on... having produced." When it is said, "at the moment of dissolution of the path and the fruit in the formless realms," without distinction, how is this distinction obtained? It says, "even by a general term," and so on. It shows that this is a universally accepted principle that prefixes enter by way of the context of the object of refutation. The description of the section on occurrence is finished. 3. Description of the section on full understanding 165-170. In this very truth-pair. In "for the purpose of showing non-comprehensibility," the letter 'a' is not a word indicating the absence of comprehensibility, nor is it a word indicating the opposite of comprehensibility, but rather it is a word indicating something else. Thus, the section on the occasion, which is concerned with showing, is applicable only in showing even the abandonment, etc., found in the truths as appropriate. And for those in which it is not concerned with showing, in some truths, this section is not concerned with showing some distinctions, even those found. Showing this, it says, "for the purpose of realization... and so on... and for the purpose of showing." Only the full understanding of abandonment is stated in the origin, not the full understanding of discernment. This is indeed appropriate, as the origin also has the nature of being discerned. But why is it said, "only the full understanding of discernment is stated in suffering, not the full understanding of abandonment"? Is not suffering itself not to be abandoned? Of some portions of the origin stated in the analysis of the truth of origin, suffering This should be understood as a statement of truth, taken either from non-inclusion in untruth, or from non-mixing in the origin of suffering. "In both" means spoken of in suffering and in its origin. Why? Because they are common to them. Thus, to show that the aforementioned task of full understanding, differentiated by common and uncommon distinctions, although obtained at various moments in the preliminary stage, is obtained at a single moment during the path, because it is a single act of knowledge, the statement "for path-knowledge..." and so on, was made. The explanation of the section on full understanding is finished. The explanation of the Twin-Chapter on Truths is finished. 6. The Twin-Chapter on Formations 1. Explanation of the Section on Designation 1. Even though wholesome roots etc. are also differentiated, to show that the division into aggregates etc. is superior to that, he said: "Like the aggregates etc., previously undifferentiated." Or, the word "etc." here has the sense of "kind," as in "bhūvādi" (the root 'bhū' and so on), and should be understood as including wholesome roots etc. By those who discern, due to being unknown. Or, the causal meaning here is implied as "due to not being made known." Although the cause-and-effect relationship is desired in both interpretations of bodily formations, to show that there is still a difference in meaning, even if not apparent in the possessive form, he said: "of the body... (etc.)... in the agentive sense." That is, the agentive sense. 2-7. In the sense of individual words, pure, as in "body, formation" and so on, in each pair of words, as individual words unmixed with each other. Due to the absence of meaning, that is, due to the absence of the intended meaning. Otherwise, the meaning of a body born of karma, etc., would exist. Therefore, he said: "purification of words... (etc.)... due to being unspeakable." Now, showing that same absence of meaning by way of exclusion, he said: "just as..." and so on. But why, when the compound word structure is the same in both cases, is meaning obtained there, but not here? Because their characteristics are different. For there, words like "form-aggregate" are in apposition, so a single meaning based on two words is obtained; but here, words like "bodily formation" are not in apposition, so such a meaning is not obtained. Therefore, he said: "due to the absence of the intended meaning." Without explaining separately, that is, together with "bodily formation" and so on. even when the word 'body-formation' is spoken, without each word illuminating its own meaning, it speaks by way of assuming that it illuminates a single meaning. Thereby it indicates the apposition of the words 'body-formation'. Why is it said, "the word 'body-formation' occurs in the meaning of body-formation"? It should rather be said, "the word 'formation' occurs in the meaning of formation." If this were the case, this statement would be appropriate, that it should be qualified by the word 'body' just as the word 'aggregate' occurring in the meaning of aggregate is qualified by the word 'form'. But when the words 'body-formation' are in apposition, not only does the word 'formation' occur in the meaning of formation, but also the word 'body'. To show this meaning, it might be said, "the word 'body-formation' occurs in the meaning of body-formation," the intention being, "with the word 'body' in apposition." But there is indeed the necessity for formation to be qualified by a word in a different case. Of this section, that is, of the section on pure formations. "Shown by the analysis of terms" - if only this much were said, then due to the generality of being shown there, even pure bodies and so on would be included. To prevent this, it says, "only of those intended." "Because they are not grasped by the words 'body' and so on," that is, because they are not grasped by the words 'pure body' and so on. "Here," that is, in the commentary. Even though it was said with reference to the section on pure formations, not accepting the section on pure formations here, it says, "here, in the formation-pair," meaning the entire formation-pair, "abandonment of the intended meaning," that is, the non-grasping of the intended meaning such as in-breaths and out-breaths, and the grasping of unintended meanings such as volitional body-forming formations. If the sections on pure formations and their root-cycles, such as "the body is a formation," are not to be taken here due to lack of meaning, then why, without beginning the section on occurrence, is the teaching begun otherwise? It says, "by the sections on term-analysis and their root-cycles," and so on. There is doubt due to the generality of the word 'formation' being speakable, and due to the words 'body-formation' and so on being in different cases. Therefore it says, "not in apposition." by disputes…etc…shown.” The description of the Paṇṇattivāra is finished. 2. Description of the Pavattivāra 19. The space for formations and individuals, as being conjoined and a condition of support, and the space for formations as being attainable, and the space for individuals as being jhāna, should be understood. But the plane, to the extent that it is a space for individuals, to that extent it is also a space for formations. Jhāna is taken as a separate space by “in the second jhāna, in the third jhāna,” etc., and the plane by “in the sense-sphere, in the form-sphere,” etc. “Iti” means ‘because’; it means ‘because jhāna is also taken as a space’.