English
" For there is no difference in nature of states due to their temporal divisions. Therefore, the past and present nature of latent defilements is obtained indirectly, and thus it is said in the commentary: "It is also past," etc. Such kind: kinds of latent defilements, meaning they are capable of arising when the condition is met. The intention is that such a kind, in the context of arising, is taken by the word "arises" to indicate the unbroken continuity of its potential for arising. Therefore, he said: "Not like in the aggregates yamaka, etc., where it means 'is arising'," which means "is present." By that very reason, etc.: makes the aforementioned meaning clearer. There, "non-differentiation" means "non-distinction." Because of the non-differentiation of the arising latent defilements, it is said in the Vibhaṅga: "Here this craving arises when arising, here it settles when settling." Here, "settling" is intended as "latent defilement." Now, wishing to show the indirect way in which the term "latent defilement" applies to past and present states, he includes the future with them and says: "But a suitable condition... etc. ...are called." By this, he shows that the potential for arising in past and present states should be understood by way of their former existence. The potential for arising means that the defilements have not been eradicated by the path. And since this potential exists even in past and present states, he explains their indirect nature as latent defilements in another way. Therefore, he said: "But of the path," etc. Such ones: those that have the potential to arise in the absence of path development, such ones. And a state itself arises, not the form of a state. What is the intention? For it is not said that the characteristics of phenomena, such as impermanence, arise. If they were endowed with arising, etc., they would be phenomena themselves. Therefore it is said: “It is not proper to say that a characteristic that is not abandoned arises.” Also, showing that the objector objects by taking only the state of not being abandoned, without taking the state of being firm, he says: “If the latent defilement of beings… …would arise, then?” For if the state of being firm is taken, there is no room for objection. Therefore he says: “It does not arise,” and so on. It is said in the commentary, and not only in the commentary, this meaning is in the text itself. Therefore, showing that it should be taken just so, he says: “Being firm… …is proper.” Then, to remove the doubt about what that state of being firm is, he says: “Being firm means… …is said.” There, “not common to others” means a unique characteristic of those defilements, like the nature of defilements in the objects of defilements, etc., which is not found elsewhere apart from lust, etc. From which they are called the seed of existence and the root of existence. And because the state of being firm is their unique characteristic, therefore it is said to be a latent defilement. Showing this, he says: “Being firm means being endowed with latent defilements.” “In whom the latent defilement of sensual lust lies dormant, in him does the latent defilement of aversion lie dormant? Yes.” The meaning stated in the section on latent defilements (Yama. 2. Anusaya-yamaka. 3) is the same as that stated in the section on arising: “In whom the latent defilement of sensual lust arises, in him does the latent defilement of aversion arise? Yes.” (Yama. 2. Anusaya-yamaka. 300) So the characteristic of lying dormant is taken by the word “arises” in the section on arising. Therefore, regarding what was said: “The section on arising is distinguished from the section on latent defilements by a different method of explanation,” he begins an investigation, saying: “Because the sections on latent defilements and arising have a similar course.” The word “arises” might be a word indicating the characteristic of not being abandoned in the section on arising. And if that is the case, just as in “the arising of this,” the meaning “the non-cessation of this” is also understood, so when “arises” is said, the meaning Therefore, "it does not arise" this meaning is stated, because the unabandoned nature is of a non-arising state, being without the nature of arising. Presenting the objection, "If it is said that 'it is not possible to say that it arises because that statement has not been made'," he says. "By the specific meaning of the words, both of these are stated." By this, he shows that even in the absence of a difference in phenomena, there is a teaching of alternative explanations due to a difference in word meaning, as in the cases of co-arising and conjoined. "Having obtained a suitable cause," etc. is begun to clarify that specific meaning of the words. "Fit for arising" means "fit for arising," that is, "of an arising nature." Because latent tendencies are called "without arising," this must be absolutely accepted: "For whom the latent tendency of sensual lust arises, for him the latent tendency of aversion arises?" "Yes," and so on, from the statement (Yamaka 2.Anusaya-Yamaka.300). When it is said, "They lie latent, therefore they are latent tendencies," the meaning arises that "Are they always present in the sense of not yet fully developed latency, and therefore called 'latent tendencies'?" To negate this, it is said, "arising having obtained a suitable cause." That the statement of their fitness for arising is indeed well said, in the sense that the state of being without arising is the firm establishment of the latent tendency, he states this meaning with "of the word 'anusaya'," etc. Thereby, he shows that the determination of the meaning of the word 'anusaya' is productive of the teaching of both cases. "That too is well said by this textual authority." This too, he shows, refers to the three kinds of texts that came with "in the Abhidhamma, first," etc., saying, "For by the three texts, concomitance with consciousness is indeed shown." The description of the section on the delimited and the delimiting is finished. Description of the section on the place of arising 2. If this is so, when feelings are to be specified, and the sense-sphere realm is the specifier. The sense-sphere realm's nature as a place of latency is not stated due to its secondary nature, because activity is seen in the primary among primary and secondary, and because it is to be acted upon as a specifier. This is the intention. "What is the fault if it is so?" he might sometimes say. thinking silently The user wants a Pāli to English translation. I need to maintain the original segment structure and rhythm, like folk chants. This means short, multi-line sentences if the original is structured that way. I must output *only* the English translation. No Pāli, no descriptive text. Let's break down the Pāli text segment by segment and translate while keeping the rhythm in mind. **Segment 1:** `āti āsaṅkamāno āha ‘‘dvīsu panā’’tiādi. Dvīsūti niddhāraṇe bhummaṃ, tathā ‘‘tīsu dhātūsū’’ti etthāpi. Tasmāti yasmā dhātuādibhedena tividhaṃ anusayaṭṭhānaṃ, tattha ca rūpārūpadhātūnaṃ bhavarāgassa anusayaṭṭhānatā vuttāti kāmadhātuyā kāmarāgassa anusayaṭṭhānatā ekantena vattabbā, tasmā. Tīsu dhātūsu tīsu vedanāsūti ca niddhāraṇe bhummaṃ, kāmadhātuyā dvīsu vedanāsūti ca ādhāre.` * `āti āsaṅkamāno āha ‘‘dvīsu panā’’tiādi.` * Thinking thus, he said, "But in two..." and so on. * `Dvīsūti niddhāraṇe bhummaṃ, tathā ‘‘tīsu dhātūsū’’ti etthāpi.` * "In two" is a locative of determination, * and similarly "in three realms" here too. * `Tasmāti yasmā dhātuādibhedena tividhaṃ anusayaṭṭhānaṃ, tattha ca rūpārūpadhātūnaṃ bhavarāgassa anusayaṭṭhānatā vuttāti kāmadhātuyā kāmarāgassa anusayaṭṭhānatā ekantena vattabbā, tasmā.` * Therefore, because * the latent disposition's abode is threefold * due to the distinction of realms and so on, * and there, the abode of the latent disposition of craving for existence * is said to be in the form and formless realms, * it must be said conclusively * that the abode of the latent disposition of sensual craving * is in the sense-desire realm. * Therefore. * `Tīsu dhātūsu tīsu vedanāsūti ca niddhāraṇe bhummaṃ, kāmadhātuyā dvīsu vedanāsūti ca ādhāre.` * "In three realms" and "in three feelings" * are also locatives of determination. * And "in two feelings in the sense-desire realm" * is a locative of support. **Segment 2:** `Dvīsvevāti dvīsu sukhopekkhāsu eva. Sabbāsu dvīsūti yāsu kāsuci dvīsu. Tenāti ‘‘kāmarāgo dvīsu vedanāsu anusetī’’ti vacanasāmatthiyaladdhena visesanicchayeneva. Bhavarāgānusayaṭṭhānaṃ rūpārūpadhātuyo tadanurūpā ca vedanā. Na hi dvīsu vedanāsu kāmarāgānusayova anusetīti avadhāraṇaṃ icchitaṃ, dvīsu eva pana vedanāsūti icchitaṃ. Tenevāha ‘‘dvīsveva anuseti, na tīsū’’ti. Aṭṭhānañca anusayānaṃ, kiṃ taṃ apariyāpannaṃ sakkāye? Sabbo lokuttaro dhammo. Ca-saddena paṭighānusayaṭṭhānaṃ saṅgaṇhāti. Tena vuttaṃ ‘‘yathā cā’’tiādi. Aññāti kāmarāgānusayaṭṭhānabhūtā dve vedanā.` * `Dvīsvevāti dvīsu sukhopekkhāsu eva.` * "Only in two" means * only in two, pleasant and equanimous feelings. * `Sabbāsu dvīsūti yāsu kāsuci dvīsu.` * "In all two" means * in any two whatsoever. * `Tenāti ‘‘kāmarāgo dvīsu vedanāsu anusetī’’ti vacanasāmatthiyaladdhena visesanicchayeneva.` * By that, * by the specific determination obtained * from the power of the statement * "sensual craving lies latent in two feelings." * `Bhavarāgānusayaṭṭhānaṃ rūpārūpadhātuyo tadanurūpā ca vedanā.` * The abode of the latent disposition of craving for existence * is the form and formless realms, * and the corresponding feelings. * `Na hi dvīsu vedanāsu kāmarāgānusayova anusetīti avadhāraṇaṃ icchitaṃ, dvīsu eva pana vedanāsūti icchitaṃ.` * Indeed, the determination