English
"Therefore" – because even if there is a place for the latent wrong views and so on to lie latent other than the place for the latent sensual lust, there is no such thing that is free from the three elements and the three feelings, due to the existence of only two feelings. Therefore, those two feelings were not mentioned separately, meaning they were not singled out. "Therefore" – because the meaning "where sensual lusts and so on do not lie latent, there wrong view and doubt do not lie latent" was stated without distinction by the answer "yes," this meaning "where sensual lusts and so on lie latent, there wrong view and doubt lie latent" is also obtained without distinction. Therefore, it is shown that suffering, without distinction, is the place where aversion lies latent. That is why it is said, "without distinction… and so on… it should be understood." There, "without distinction" means without making a distinction between household-based and renunciation-based. "Taking it collectively" means taking it as suffering in the sense of the group of the aforementioned components. The meaning "taking it collectively without distinction" is drawn by the word "tathā" (thus) to "in the two feelings" as well, because the distinction of household-based and so on is not desired there either. If so, how is this passage from the Sutta, "he abandons aversion by that, the latent aversion does not lie latent there"? In anticipation of this question, "apicā" and so on was said. There, in that sorrow… or in the hatred associated with it. This discourse is of inferential meaning, not of definitive meaning, as it shows by saying, "This dejection is based on renunciation," and so on. But why is it not stated here as the discourse was cited? It says, "Because it is a place for the arising of hatred," and so on. How then is there no contradiction between the discourse and the Abhidhamma texts? It says, "This is an unconditioned teaching, but that is a conditioned teaching." And having done so, because it is a conditioned teaching. By "lustful proclivity" is meant the proclivity to sensual lust. Since it is said, "referring to its eradication by the path of the non-returner," therefore, it is not a place for the proclivity of supramundane states, and without touching upon the first jhāna, it is said, "For it is not possible to say that mundane states... do not lie dormant." By "non-object state" means because it is a place of non-arising by its very nature. Here, in this pair of proclivities. By the method stated, by the method stated by "having produced dejection based on renunciation," and so on. By "being its opposite" means because of the existence of the path which is the opposite of those hatreds, and so on. Not only because of the existence of the path, but also because of the existence of strong insight, it shows by saying, "and because of its eradication," and so on. Now, that which is said here and there as "place of lying dormant," that could be either in terms of the states to be grasped or by a specific mode of grasping. There are two alternatives. Referring to the first, it says, "when there is a place for lying dormant in the object." If it is taken that the objects of form, and so on, are the place for the lying dormant of the proclivities, then to show the meaning to which "it is not possible to say" refers, it says, "For suffering," and so on. If it were, if there were a proclivity to sensual lust. Even for this, for the greed associated with the proclivity to views, it should be said that it is a place for sensual lust "in all states included in the personality view," but it is not said. But then, and so on, is said referring to the second alternative. By "inclination by way of disposition" means that even without making it an object, where sensual lusts, and so on, are inclined by way of disposition, that is their place of lying dormant. Therefore it is said: "Having followed, it lies down." But then the connection is "it is said." "Just as" and so on is an explanation of the stated meaning by way of example. In suffering it proceeds only by way of being struck, not by way of making an object, is the intention. Suffering itself is said to be its lying-down place, because the underlying tendency is inclined there. Suffering itself is said to be the lying-down place of that aversion, not the object like form or pleasant feeling, is the intention. Thus, just as even of aversion with another object, because of the underlying tendency's inclination towards suffering, suffering itself is said to be the lying-down place, so too. In sufferings and so on... it is said: "By suffering happiness is to be attained. There is no given," and so on. Even greed with another object, associated with the underlying view arising by way of wrong adherence in the suffering of bodily exertion and in the results of giving, etc., proceeds only by way of attachment to happiness from the underlying intention "thus there will be happiness." The two kinds of happiness, pleasant and tranquil, which are distinguished by happiness and equanimity, are said in the Pāli to be the lying-down place of this greed, not suffering etc. as stated before. Therefore, attachment to existence... does not contradict. "And in one and the same" and so on is stated only for elaborating the second alternative. There, the underlying inclination of lust towards happiness should be understood by way of the person endowed with it, or by its inclination, like the eye's inclination towards unwholesomeness. This method applies to the rest as well. Of these lust and aversion, there is a difference in their lying-down places even in one and the same object, is the meaning. And having done thus, even when there is no difference in what is to be grasped, by the specific mode of grasping, the lying-down place is indeed different. "Where... not" is said, otherwise it would contradict. For by the difference in what is to be grasped, if the difference in the lying-down places of lust and aversion were taken, it would have to be based solely on results, and that is not appropriate, nor is the desirable and undesirable fixed for all sense-doors of persons. Although of the greed stated above, by the stated method, the underlying tendency of sensual lust is possible, but just as in pleasant and equanimous feelings, the desirable object... And the hatred that arises with mental pain is not the latent tendency of aversion due to its weakness. Similarly, the aforementioned greed is not the latent tendency of sensual lust. To show this meaning, the passage beginning "In the commentary, however..." was stated. In "not the latent tendency of aversion," the particle 'na' means negation, not something else. Showing that otherwise, possibility does not exist, the passage beginning "But this..." is stated. There, by "indeed, there is no suspicion of mental pain being a latent tendency of aversion," the meaning of absence is established by showing the non-existence of another meaning for 'na'. "It would be as if the teaching were mixed." Here, to show the mixing of teachings, the passage "even for lust for existence...etc....would be" was stated. Its meaning: Just as the arising of sensual lust is stated as having the sense-sphere as its object in two feelings: "Sensual lust lies latent in the sense-sphere in two feelings." Similarly, if it were said: "Lust for existence lies latent in the sense-sphere in two feelings," then even for lust for existence...etc....it would be. And then the teaching of lust for existence would be mixed with sensual lust. And the distinction of lust for existence from sensual lust should be shown. And that cannot be shown by way of co-arising latent tendencies. Therefore, it must be shown by way of taking an object. Therefore it was said: "Thus, the object...etc....is the intention." There, "by distinction of object" means by the distinction of object reckoned as the form and formless realms. "For showing distinction" means for showing the distinction of lust for existence from sensual lust. Thus the teaching was made: "In the form realm, in the formless realm, the latent tendency of lust for existence lies latent here." Thus, the teaching was made by making the sphere locative. Therefore it is said: "Due to the absence of distinction in co-arising feelings." The description of the section on the place of arising is finished. The Great Section. 1. Description of the section on latent tendencies. 3. "By way of continuous arising" means by way of the continuous arising of latent tendencies, by way of non-interruption. But how do latent tendencies arise at the moment of wholesome and indeterminate consciousness? It is said: "Only by the path...etc....before." 20. Consciousness and mental factors. The place is called the arising of consciousness, thus it says "in one arising of consciousness." Of those various individuals, meaning ordinary people and so on. Naturally, by their own nature. It is naturally established that for painful feeling, there is no lying dormant of sensual passion. Thus, in the remaining cases too, it should be said appropriately. For it will say, "It is said with reference to the natural state of painful feelings and so on, and sensual passion and so on, not lying dormant." By abandonment, meaning by the eradication of that particular latent tendency. Of three individuals, meaning ordinary people, stream-enterers, and once-returners. Of two individuals, meaning non-returners and arahants. Here, in this section on individuals and opportunities. In the former method, in the former explanation method beginning with "of three individuals." Opportunity, meaning the place of arising; here, however, painful feeling should be understood. In the latter method, in the explanation method beginning with "of two individuals." No opportunity, meaning no lying dormant. The description of the section on latent tendencies is concluded. 2.