English
In the five-aggregate existence, at the moment of arising, both arise together. Or alternatively, if the mind-base arises, does the form-base arise for them? For those being born in the realm of perception, except for the formless realm... arises. If the form-base arises, does the dhamma-base arise for them? Yes. Or alternatively... arises? Everywhere arises, except for the formless realm. If the mind-base arises, does the dhamma-base arise for them? Yes. Or alternatively... arises? Everywhere arises, except for the mindless realm. Thus, the remaining base-matrix connections, except for the sound-base, should be understood accordingly. For the sound-base is not obtained at the moment of rebirth. This is the distinction in the arising section. In this way, in the cessation section and others, and in the comprehension section, the distinction in connection should be understood. And everywhere, the abundance of aggregates compared to the bases, and the abundance of the pairs of the pairs, should be understood. The rest is just the same. This is the method of explaining the meaning of the base-pairs matrix. Explanation of the Meaning of the Element-Pairs Matrix But in the element-pairs matrix, all the arrangement of the text should be understood in the same way as stated in the base-pairs matrix. This is the method of explaining the meaning of the element-pairs matrix. Explanation of the Meaning of the Truth-Pairs Matrix But in the truth-pairs matrix, the variations of sections and the variations of time and so on, should be understood in the way stated in the aggregate-pairs. In the arrangement of the text here, regarding the four truths, the pair of purification of terms, the pair of the root-wheel of purification of terms, the pair of pure truths, the pair of the root-wheel of pure truths, the calculation of pairs in these four sections should be understood. But in the questions and answers, "du Is suffering, suffering-truth? Yes. Is suffering-truth, suffering? Except for bodily and mental suffering, the remaining suffering-truth is not suffering. But bodily and mental suffering is both suffering and suffering-truth. Is origin, origin-truth? Except for craving, the remaining wholesome etc. phenomena not specified in the analysis of truth is origin, but not origin-truth. But craving is both origin and origin-truth. Is origin-truth, origin? Yes. Is cessation, cessation-truth? Cessation by suppression etc., and momentary cessation are cessation only, not cessation-truth. But Nibbāna is both cessation and cessation-truth. Is cessation-truth, cessation? Yes. Is path, path-truth? Wrong path factors etc. are path, but not path-truth. But the Noble Path is both path and path-truth. Is path-truth, path? Yes. Thus, the method should be understood in the designation section and so on. In the occurrence section, however, "For whom suffering-truth arises, for them does origin-truth arise?" For all those arising in the round of existence, at the moment of arising of mind disjoined from craving, suffering-truth arises for them, but origin-truth does not arise for them. At the moment of arising of craving, both arise. "For whom suffering-truth arises, for them does path-truth arise?"... ...for those in the five-aggregate existence, at the moment of arising of the path, both arise. "Or rather, for whom... ...arise?" For those in the immaterial existence, at the moment of arising of the path, path-truth arises for them, but suffering-truth does not arise for them. For those in the five-aggregate existence, both arise. "For whom origin-truth arises, for them does path-truth arise?" No. "Or rather, for whom... ...no." Thus, in the person section, "Where suffering-truth arises, there does origin-truth arise?" In the non-percipient realm, there suffering-truth arises, but not there that other, elsewhere both. "Where suffering-truth arises, there does path-truth arise?" In the woeful realms, in the non-percipient realm... and also "only suffering ceases there, but not the other, elsewhere both cease" etc., in the occasion section, and similarly in the person-occasion section, thus in the direct method, "For whom the truth of suffering does not arise, for them does the truth of origin not arise?" "Yes." "Or rather, for whom...etc...does not arise?" "For all arising, in the arising moment of the mind disjoined from craving in the process, the truth of origin does not arise, but the truth of suffering does not not arise for them. For all passing away, in the breaking moment of the mind in the process, and in the arising moment of the path and fruit in the immaterial realm, for them both the truth of origin does not arise, and the truth of suffering does not arise" etc., and with "where the truth of suffering does not arise, there does the truth of origin not arise?" "No." "Or rather, where the truth of origin does not arise, there does the truth of suffering not arise?" "It does arise" etc., and with "for whom, where the truth of suffering does not arise, for them, there does the truth of origin not arise?" "Yes." "Or rather, for whom, where the truth of origin does not arise, for them, there does the truth of suffering not arise?" "For all arising, in the arising moment of the mind disjoined from craving in the process, for them, there only the truth of origin does not arise, not the other, but for all passing away, in the breaking moment of the mind in the process, and in the arising moment of the path and fruit in the immaterial realm, for them, there both do not arise" etc., everywhere in the reverse method, "For whom the truth of suffering has arisen, for them has the truth of origin arisen?" "Yes." "For whom the truth of suffering has arisen, for them has the truth of the path arisen?" "It has arisen for those who have understood, but not for the others" etc., and with "for whom, where the truth of suffering has arisen, for them, there has the truth of origin arisen?" "For the Pure Abodes, in the second thought moment, and for the unpercipient beings, there the truth of suffering has arisen, not the other, for the others, both have arisen" etc., and with "y For whom the truth of suffering will arise, for them will the truth of origin arise? For arahants endowed with the highest path, whose minds will immediately attain the highest path, for them the truth of suffering will arise, not for others. For the rest, both will arise. And by "...for whom the truth of suffering arises, for them did the truth of origin arise?" "Yes. Or rather... ...arises?" "For all those passing away, at the moment of dissolution of the active consciousness, at the moment of arising of path and fruition in the immaterial realm, for them the truth of origin arose, but the truth of suffering does not arise. For all those being reborn, at the moment of arising of the active consciousness, both the truth of origin arose and the truth of suffering arises." And in the remaining divisions of time, and in the direct and reverse orders, according to what has been said, in the arising section, the manner of answering should be understood appropriately everywhere. "For whom the truth of suffering ceases, for them does the truth of origin cease?... ...at the moment of the cessation of craving, for them both cease." Thus in the cessation section, and in the arising and cessation section, thus in the active section, the application should be understood appropriately everywhere. Similarly, "Whoever fully understands the truth of suffering, do they abandon the truth of origin?" "Yes." Thus, the method of the Pāli should be understood here in the section on full understanding. In the determination of meaning here, this is the characteristic: in the active section, the truth of cessation is not found at all; but in the remaining three truths, the truths of origin and path are found exclusively in activity. The truth of suffering is found in death and rebirth, and also in activity. Thus, here, the determination of meaning should be understood according to whatever is found everywhere. Here is the gateway to the method: "For all those being reborn" means even the Pure Abodes. For even they arise with the truth of suffering. "Of a mind disjoined from craving" is said to show the arising of one part in the truths of suffering and origin. It should not be taken as only five-aggregate existence. But in four-aggregate existence, at the moment of arising of fruition attainment devoid of craving, not even one truth arises. That is both, the truth of suffering and the truth of origin. For at that moment, except for craving, the rest is called the truth of suffering, and this is said with that in mind. But at the moment of arising of the path, only form is called the truth of suffering, the remaining path-concomitant phenomena are free from truth. For that very reason, it is said, "At the moment of arising of the path in the immaterial realm, the path truth arises for them, but the suffering truth does not arise for them." For all who are being reborn, at the moment of arising of a craving-free mind in the course of existence. "For them there" means for them at that moment of rebirth, at the moment of arising of a craving-free mind, thus the opportunity should be understood here in terms of moments. In other such cases, this is the method. "Without fully understanding" means without fully understanding the truths; the meaning should be determined everywhere by this method of exposition. In the comprehension section, three kinds of comprehension are obtained by way of knowing, investigating, and abandoning. But since there is no comprehension in supramundane phenomena, therefore only two truths are taken here.