English
Wherever else, however…pe… Yes. This method applies to those rooted in doubt as well. Where the underlying tendency to craving for existence lies, does the underlying tendency to ignorance lie latent there? Yes. Wherever else, however…pe… lies latent there, in the Sensual Realm, in three feelings, only the underlying tendency to ignorance; in the Form and Formless existences, "But in these, both do not underlie," this is the single-root method here. "For whom...pe... does not underlie. For whom...pe... the conceit-underlying tendency does not underlie, but for the Arahant, both do not underlie. Or for whom...pe... Yes. For whom the sensual-desire-underlying tendency does not underlie, for him do the view-underlying tendency and the doubt-underlying tendency not underlie? Yes. Or for whom...pe... do not underlie? For two individuals, only the doubt-underlying tendency does not underlie, not the other, but for the non-returner and Arahant, both do not underlie," and so on, by the method in the individual section, "Where the sensual-desire-underlying tendency does not underlie, there does the aversion-underlying tendency not underlie? In painful feeling, only the sensual-desire-underlying tendency does not underlie, not the other, but in the realms of form and formlessness, both do not underlie. Or where...pe... does not underlie? In the sense-sphere, in two feelings, only the aversion-underlying tendency, but in the realms of form and formlessness, both do not underlie. Where the sensual-desire-underlying tendency does not underlie, there does the conceit-underlying tendency not underlie? In the realms of form and formlessness, only the sensual-desire-underlying tendency, but in painful feeling, and in the unincluded, both do not underlie. Or where...pe... Yes. Where the sensual-desire-underlying tendency does not underlie, there do the view-underlying tendency and the doubt-underlying tendency not underlie? In painful feeling and the realms of form and formlessness, only the sensual-desire-underlying tendency, but in the unincluded, both do not underlie," and so on, by the method in the location section, "For whom, where the sensual-desire-underlying tendency does not underlie, for him, there does the aversion-underlying tendency not underlie? For three individuals, in painful feeling, only the sensual-desire-underlying tendency, but in the realms of form and formlessness, both do not underlie, for two individuals, everywhere both do not underlie. Or for whom, where...pe... does not underlie? For three individuals, in the sense-sphere, in two feelings, only the aversion-underlying tendency, but in the realms of form and formlessness, both do not underlie, for two individuals, everywhere both do not underlie. For whom, where the sensual-desire-underlying tendency does not underlie, for him, there does the conceit-underlying tendency not underlie? For three individuals, Lust remains in the realm of form and formlessness, Only lust, not other defilements. For the painful feeling, Both do not lie dormant in the non-returner, Lust remains in the two feelings of the desire realm, And in the realm of form and formlessness. But for the Arahant, Both do not lie dormant anywhere. This method should be understood, According to what was said in the section on beings and locations. Here, "For whomever the tendency to lust lies dormant, For that one, does the tendency to aversion lie dormant?" The answer given, "Yes," Seems poorly given. Why? Because lust and aversion do not arise in one moment. Just as, "For whomever the mind-base arises, For that one, does the idea-base arise?" The mind-base and idea-base arise in one moment, But lust and aversion do not, Since they arise separately. Therefore, here a "No" should have been the denial. But without doing that, Since the answer "Yes" was given, Like in the yamaka sections below, Without grasping the usage of the present tense, In terms of momentary presence, It should be understood differently. How should it be understood? In terms of non-abandonment. For it is in reference to non-abandonment, That this usage of "lies dormant" in the present tense is spoken, Not in terms of momentary presence. Therefore, for this question, "For whomever the tendency to lust is not abandoned, Not brought to the state of non-arising, For that one, the tendency to aversion is not abandoned, Not brought to the state of non-arising," Such is the meaning to be understood. And because in those lusts and aversions, For whomever one is not abandoned, For that one, the other is also not abandoned, Therefore, "Yes" was said. In similar instances after this, In the answers to the arising sections and so on, This is the method. Three beings: the ordinary person, stream-enterer, and once-returner. Two: the stream-enterer and once-returner. Thus, arising is shown. In the first and second questions of the location section, Because lust and aversion do not arise in one thought, Therefore, the denial "No" was made. And in the root pairs and so on, because lust... Aversion and so on do not arise in one place, in one mind-moment, or on one object, therefore "no" is the denial there, the meaning is that this question is unprecedented. In the section on persons and locations, "four" refers to ordinary people, stream-enterers, once-returners, and non-returners. In the reverse, "two" is said referring to non-returners and arahants, this is the method in the section on latent tendencies. But in the section on latent tendencies, "Is one who has a latent tendency to sensual desire, one who has a latent tendency to aversion?" "Yes... ...is one who has a latent tendency to conceit?" "Yes. Or is one who has a latent tendency to conceit, one who has a latent tendency to sensual desire?" "A non-returner has only a latent tendency to conceit, not to sensual desire, but three types of persons have both latent tendencies," in this way, in the remaining pairs of roots and so on, the method of questioning and answering should be understood, this is the method in the section on persons. "Where there is a latent tendency to sensual desire, is there a latent tendency to aversion?" "No... ...is there a latent tendency to conceit?" "Yes. Or where there is a latent tendency to conceit, is there a latent tendency to sensual desire?" "In the realms of form and formlessness, there is only a latent tendency to conceit, not the other, in the sense-sphere, in two feelings, there is both," and so on, in the section on locations, "From where there is a latent tendency to sensual desire, is there a latent tendency to aversion?" "No," and so on, in the section on persons and locations, thus in the forward method, and "Is one who has no latent tendency to sensual desire, one who has no latent tendency to aversion?" "Yes," and so on, in the reverse method as well, everywhere in the section on latent tendencies, the method of questioning and answering should be understood according to what has been said. There, "where there is a latent tendency to sensual desire," meaning, from where, due to the arising of a latent tendency to sensual desire, there is a latent tendency, is it said that from there, due to the arising of a latent tendency to aversion, there is also a latent tendency? Since these two do not arise from one place, therefore "no" is the denial, the rest is just the same, this is the method in the section on latent tendencies. But in the section on abandoning, "Does one who abandons the latent tendency to sensual desire, abandon the latent tendency to aversion?" "Yes... ...abandons the underlying tendency to conceit? He abandons it in one place. Or does whoever abandons the underlying tendency to conceit, abandon the underlying tendency to sensual desire? No... Does he abandon the underlying tendency to views, the underlying tendency to doubt? No. Or does whoever abandons the underlying tendency to doubt, abandon the underlying tendency to sensual desire? He abandons it in one place. Or... Does he abandon the underlying tendency to desire for existence, the underlying tendency to ignorance? He abandons it in one place... Or... Does he abandon the underlying tendency to sensual desire, the underlying tendency to aversion, and the underlying tendency to conceit...? There is none," and so on in the section on persons. "When he abandons the underlying tendency to sensual desire, does he then abandon the underlying tendency to aversion? No... When he abandons the underlying tendency to sensual desire, does he then abandon the underlying tendency to conceit? Yes. Or when he abandons the underlying tendency to conceit, does he then abandon the underlying tendency to sensual desire? In the form and formless realms, he then abandons only the underlying tendency to conceit; but in the sense realm, in the two feelings, he then abandons the underlying tendency to conceit," and so on in the section on locations. "Whoever abandons the underlying tendency to sensual desire from wherever, does he then abandon the underlying tendency to aversion from there? No... The underlying tendency to conceit? He abandons it in one place... The underlying tendency to doubt? No. Or whoever abandons the underlying tendency to doubt from wherever, does he then abandon the underlying tendency to sensual desire from there? The eighth person, in painful feeling, in the form and formless realms, he then abandons the underlying tendency to doubt, but he does not then abandon the underlying tendency to sensual desire; that same person, in the sense realm, in the two feelings, he then abandons the underlying tendency to doubt, and abandons the underlying tendency to sensual desire in one place," and so on in the section on persons and locations, thus in the direct method. "Whoever does not abandon the underlying tendency to sensual desire, does he not abandon the underlying tendency to aversion? Yes... The underlying tendency to doubt?