English
"Being momentary, utterly opposed to the latent tendencies" means being momentary, utterly opposed to the latent tendencies. "Of those endowed with the path" means of those on the path. Here, by taking "utterly opposed to the latent tendencies," it refutes their potential for arising. For they do not have the potential for arising after their utter opposition has arisen. By taking "endowed with the path," it refutes their having attained the potential for non-arising. For at the moment of the path, they are not said to have attained the potential for non-arising, but rather are attaining it. By taking "being momentary," it refutes the continuity of their activity. Therefore, it is said, "no one," and so on. There, "they" refers to those endowed with the path. Not only in the case of the eliminated round, but also in others, showing this, it says, "latent tendency... and so on... taken." 275-296. Where a latent tendency has the potential to arise, there alone is its potential for non-arising to be brought about. Thus, it is said, "in its own place, it is brought to the state of having the nature of non-arising." For it is said, "The eye is lovely and delightful in the world; here, when craving arises, it arises; here, when it settles, it settles" (Vibh. 203), and then again it is said, "The eye is lovely and delightful in the world; here, when craving is eliminated, it is eliminated; here, when it ceases, it ceases" (Vibh. 204). Therefore, because the statements "eliminated" and "not eliminated" indicate the very place, the very place of the sense-sphere, and so on, of the latent tendencies, therefore. "The statement of both of these in a non-place is said" because the place of arising for the two latent tendencies of sensual passion and aversion is the same place of elimination. there is no room for them to be with each other. In that absence of room, it is said that there is no statement of abandonment or non-abandonment of both. For in the room of the sensual passion latent tendency, the aversion latent tendency is not abandoned, so it should not be said that it is "abandoned there." But because it does not exist, it should also not be said that it is "not abandoned there." Therefore, in the absence of room, it is said that there is no statement of both. "Having the same room as that" means having the same room as that sensual passion. If it were said "in a common place," it would mean that it is abandoned in the sensual realm, in pleasant equanimity, but not abandoned at the same time, because the sensual passion and conceit latent tendencies are excluded from the third and fourth paths. The explanation of the section on abandonment is finished. 7. Explanation of the section on realms 332-340. Showing that the unabandoned, arising, and remaining states here are the following and lying down, he says, "in which… and so on… is the meaning." "It is appropriate here too" refers to the meaning stated previously. For it was said, "it shows those who are worthy of arising when the cause is obtained" (Yamaka Mūlaṭīkā, Anusaya Yamaka 1). "Six negative statements" are statements made by way of negating the three realms distinguished by passing away and reappearing. Therefore, they are not determinations of specific realms. For "negation" here means the negation of beings, so he speaks with that intention. In other places, however, there is no such fault in the negative particle. "This particular realm." "Based on that" means based on the negation. "For thus" means when there is the first construction, "for one who has passed away from the sensual realm, not reappearing in the sensual realm," and so on. By mentioning reappearance in "not the sensual realm" and so on, and by taking "not the sensual realm" and so on, the specific realm is understood by meaning, because it is taken. Therefore, he says, "not the sensual realm… and so on… is understood." "To be broken down" means to be analyzed. Here, two kinds of analysis are desired, so he says, "the meaning is that it should be done in two ways." "Questions and answers" are questions and answers. Just as it must be said, "there is no breaking down of latent tendencies," because the absence of breaking down is not understood when it is not stated, so too, this "how many latent tendencies are broken down?" expects that, and that too must be stated. Question Indeed, it is a release from attachment. The description of the Chapter on Elements is finished. The description of the Chapter on Latent Tendencies is finished. 8. The Chapter on Consciousness Description of the Summary Section 1-62. In "sarāgādi" (with attachment, etc.), the word "ādi" (etc.) includes the section starting from "For whom consciousness with attachment arises, but does not cease" up to "For whom consciousness is not liberated." In "kusalādi" (wholesome, etc.), the word "ādi" (etc.) includes the section starting from "For whom wholesome consciousness arises, but does not cease" up to "For whom consciousness is with refuge, but does not cease." Therefore, "sarāgādīkusalādīhi" means sections mixed with terms from "sarāgādi" (ending with "not liberated") and "kusalādi" (ending with "without refuge"). "Suddhikā" means pure, not mixed with the aforementioned "sarāgādi" and "kusalādi." "Tayo tayo" (three each) refers to three great sections each, based on persons and phenomena. If so, how are there sixteen sections on persons? It says: "by consolidating what is stated here and there." The persons mentioned in the sixteen kinds of consciousness mixed with "sarāgādi" here and there are consolidated and gathered together, and thus "sixteen sections on persons" is stated. The same method applies to "sections on phenomena, and sections on persons and phenomena." "Na nirantaraṃ vuttaṃ" (not stated continuously) means that the sixteen sections on persons are not stated by continuously mentioning only persons in all sixteen places, without referring to phenomena or persons and phenomena. "Saṃsaggavasena" means by way of intermingling, by way of mixing in the teaching. Otherwise, how could arising and ceasing, and past, present, and future times, be intermingled? "Sesānampi vārānaṃ" (for the remaining sections as well) refers to sections like the section on arising and arisen. "Taṃtaṃnāmatā" (that particular name) means that just as the name "section on arising and arisen" is understood from the Pāli, such as "For whom consciousness arises, for him consciousness has arisen," by referring to the state of arising and arisen, so too for the remaining sections. Thus, it says: "that particular name should be understood according to the Pāli." The description of the Summary Section is finished. Description of the Detailed Section 63. "Tathārūpasseva" means only for one possessing the last consciousness. "Tañca cittaṃ" means that very consciousness, as stated. the subsequent mind at the moment of cessation. To show the meaning of "of such a kind," it is said, "endowed with the moment of dissolution," because the disappearing aspect is called "of such a kind." 65-82. "This duality" refers to what is said: "The mind, being momentary and present, arose by the passing of the moment of arising; that same mind, having attained arising at the moment of arising, arose; not having passed, it arises." Both of these. "It is not possible to speak thus" means it is not possible to speak in the manner stated by this. But it is possible to speak in another way—this is the intention. There, "for indeed" and so on, explains the first side. "It should be distinguished" means it should be distinguished thus: "At the moment of dissolution, that mind arose, but does not arise; at the moment of arising, that mind both arose and arises." But it is not distinguished. "Yes" should be said, because both are obtainable in the manner stated for the momentary and present mind, but it is not said. Now, to show the way in which it is possible to speak, it says, "at the moment of the mind's dissolution" and so on. "A person is spoken of"—the intention is that this is a section on persons. "His" refers to the person. "And no mind arises" because of being endowed with the mind's moment of dissolution. "But that mind arises, with which mind that person is endowed"— this is the meaning to be understood here. If this "yamaka" teaching proceeds based on many minds, referring to the objection, it says, "for 'mind'... and so on... remains." The rule should be understood based on determination; otherwise, the negation "and their mind does not arise" and so on, would not be appropriate—this is the intention. "Such" means of that kind, meaning that state, when the state is to be described by terms like "arisen" or "arising." 83-113. "Because this is a section on persons" means because this section on past time, which proceeds in the manner of "whose mind is arising" and so on, is a section on persons. "A person is asked" means "whose mind is arising... and so on... his mind"—the mind. "A person not possessing" is asked, therefore the answer must be about the person himself. Otherwise, something else would be asked, something else answered. No person is not taken, because all beings have unarisen minds. And all those are persons. "A mind that has passed the moment of cessation" means having been the moment of cessation, the mind has passed. Similarly, the second and third (questions): just as the first question, because it concerns all persons without remainder, should be answered with a reply, similarly, from that very (reason), the second and third questions should be answered with "yes," this is the meaning. But the fourth question, having been thus divided, showing that it should be answered only in terms of persons, having said "of the last mind" and so on, showing the reason for not speaking thus, says "because persons are distinguished by mind" and so on. By "the mind at the moment of cessation has passed the moment of arising,"