English
At the moment of dissolution of the final mind, so it is. Or rather, whose...etc... yes. Whose mind arose, will their mind cease? Except for the mind ceasing, the final mind, so it is. Or rather, whose...etc... yes. Whose mind did not arise, will their mind not cease? No. Or rather, whose...etc... did not arise? It arose. Whose mind arises, does their mind not cease? Yes. Or rather, whose...etc... arises? For all, at the moment of the arising of mind, so it is. Whose mind does not arise, does their mind cease? For all, at the moment of the dissolution of mind, so it is. Or rather, whose...etc... does not arise? Yes. Whose mind is arising, is their mind arisen? Yes. Or rather, whose...etc... is arising? For all, at the moment of the arising of mind, so it is. Whose mind is not arising, is their mind not arisen? For those abiding in cessation, etc., the mind is so. Or rather, whose...etc... yes. Whose mind is ceasing, is their mind arisen? Yes. Or rather, whose...etc... at the moment of dissolution, so it is. Whose mind is not ceasing, is their mind not arisen? For those abiding in cessation, etc., the mind is so. Or rather, whose...etc... yes. Whose mind has arisen, did their mind arise? Yes. Or rather, whose...etc... Has arisen? For those whose minds are associated. Whose mind has not arisen, has that mind ceased? It has ceased. Or again, for whom…pe… has not arisen? There is none…pe… Whose mind has not arisen, will that mind arise? It will arise. Or again, for whom…pe… has not arisen? It has arisen. Whose mind has ceased but whose mind has not arisen, will that mind arise? Yes. Or again, whose mind will arise but whose mind has not arisen, has that mind ceased? Yes. Here, "but whose mind has not arisen" is said referring to the mindless states of insentient beings. Because there is no fixed arising of mind for them, the reply "yes" is given in both cases. And this turn should be understood as being comprehensive, taking into account all three times. "Whose mind has not ceased but whose mind has not arisen, will that mind not arise?" No. "Or again, whose mind will not arise but whose mind has not arisen, has that mind ceased?" It has ceased. Arisen and arising? The mind at the moment of arising, yes. Arising and arisen? Yes. Not arisen and not arising? Yes. Not arising and not arisen? The past and future mind, yes. Ceased and ceasing? No. Ceasing and ceased? No. Not ceased and not ceasing? The mind at the moment of arising and the future mind, yes. Not ceasing and not ceased? Likewise. Whose mind, as it is arising, moment by moment, has passed, has gone to the past, as it is ceasing, moment by moment, has passed, has gone to the past, is that mind? But the moment of dissolution has not passed, the past mind, both of those have passed. Or again, whose mind, as it is ceasing, moment by moment, has passed, has gone to the past, as it is arising, moment by moment, has passed, has gone to the past, is that mind? The past mind," in this way... In the section on persons, the method of answering should be understood everywhere. There, "the moment of arising" means the moment of that which is arising, meaning the arising-moment. "A moment passed, past time" means not long passed; but that very arising-moment, having passed, goes by the name of past time. "The moment of ceasing" means the moment of that which is ceasing, meaning the dissolution-moment. "A moment passed, past time" – does that mean that even the dissolution-moment of that mind, having passed, is called past time? The mind in the dissolution-moment, the arising-moment, having passed, is called past time, the dissolution-moment, having passed, is called past time; but the past mind, in both moments, having passed, is called past time – thus, the answer is given in terms of the past mind. By this same method, in the remaining sections on meaning, dhamma, etc., the meaning should be understood in all the answers. This is the method in the section on past time. "The mind that arises does not cease; will that mind cease or arise?" Yes. "Or rather, will that mind...?" Yes. "The mind that does not arise ceases; will that mind not cease or arise?" No. "Or rather, the mind that will not cease will arise; does that mind not arise or cease?" There is none. "The mind that arises, is that mind arisen?" Yes. "Or rather... is that mind arising?" The mind in the arising-moment is so, and likewise in the reverse questions and in the rest. "The mind that does not arise, is that mind not arisen?" The past and future mind is so. "Or rather...?" Yes... "the mind in the dissolution-moment," etc. "The mind that arises, has that mind arisen?" No. "The mind that does not arise, has that mind not arisen?" The mind in the dissolution-moment and the future mind are so, etc. "The mind that arises, will that mind arise?" Is it so? No. Or again…pe… No, is that which does not arise, will that arise? Future consciousness does not arise, but that consciousness will not arise, consciousness at the moment of dissolution, past consciousness, etc., and with, "Did that consciousness arise, will that consciousness arise? No. Or again…pe… No, did that consciousness not arise, will that consciousness arise? Future consciousness," etc., "Does that consciousness cease, did that consciousness cease? No," etc., "Does that consciousness arise, did that consciousness cease? No," etc., "Does that consciousness arise, will that consciousness cease? Yes," etc., "Did that consciousness arise, will that consciousness cease? No," etc., "Is that consciousness arising, has that consciousness arisen? Yes. Or again…pe… arising…pe… consciousness at the moment of arising," etc., "Is that consciousness ceasing, has that consciousness arisen? Yes," etc., "Has that consciousness arisen, did that consciousness arise? No. Or again…pe… no," etc., "Did that consciousness arise, but that consciousness has not arisen, will that consciousness arise? No. Or again…pe… no. Did that consciousness not arise, but that consciousness has not arisen, will that consciousness not arise? Yes," etc., "Arisen, arising…pe… at the moment of arising, both arisen and arising. Arising, arisen? Yes," etc., "Ceased, ceasing? No," etc., "That consciousness which is arising, moment by moment passing, past time, ceasing, moment by moment passing, past time, is that consciousness…pe… past consciousness," etc., in the section on phenomena, "For whom whatever consciousness arises but does not cease, will that consciousness cease or not arise? Yes," etc., in the section on persons and phenomena, and with terms such as "with lust," etc. Here, the method of answering, with the phrases beginning with "kusala," and in all mixed cases, and in the questions, should be understood according to what was stated below. This is the method of explaining the matrix of the Citta Yamaka. Explanation of the Matrix of the Dhamma Yamaka In the matrix of the Dhamma Yamaka, however, the arrangement of the Pāli text should be understood in the same way as stated in the Khandha Yamaka. Because it comes as, "He who develops a wholesome state, abandons an unwholesome state," here, it is called the Pariññā Vāra, the Bhāvanā Vāra. There, since an indeterminate state should neither be developed nor abandoned, it should be understood that the term itself is not extracted. In the questions and answers here, with "Are wholesome and unwholesome states...? Yes," and so on, and with "Are states unwholesome states...? Unwholesome states are both states and unwholesome states, and the remaining states are not unwholesome states," and so on, the method of answering in the Paññatti Vāra should be known. "To whom wholesome states arise, do unwholesome states arise? No. Or rather, to whom... To whom wholesome states arise, do indeterminate states arise? In the five-aggregate existence, at the moment of arising of wholesome states... arise," and so on, and with "Where wholesome states arise, do unwholesome states arise? Yes... Do indeterminate states arise there? Yes. Or rather, where indeterminate states arise, do wholesome states arise?... In the four-aggregate existence... arise," and so on, and with "To whom, where wholesome states... arise? No," and so on, "To whom wholesome states do not arise, do unwholesome states not arise?... To all, at the moment of dissolution of consciousness, at the moment of arising of indeterminate consciousness, to those attained to cessation, to the non-percipient beings, to them, wholesome states do not arise, and unwholesome states do not arise," and so on, and with "To whom wholesome states do not arise, do indeterminate states not arise?... To all those deceasing, at the moment of dissolution of consciousness in the course of existence..." "And do they not arise at the moment of arising of unwholesome immaterial states?" etc., and "Where wholesome states do not arise, do unwholesome states not arise there?" "Yes...pe... do indeterminate states not arise there?" "They arise." "Or where indeterminate states do not arise, do unwholesome states not arise there?" "No," etc., in the arising chapter, "When wholesome states cease, do unwholesome states cease?" "No," etc., in the cessation chapter, "When wholesome states arise, do unwholesome states cease?" "No," etc., in the arising-cessation chapter, "Does one who cultivates a wholesome state abandon an unwholesome state?" "No...pe... does one who does not cultivate a wholesome state not abandon an unwholesome state?" "Except for one endowed with the fruition of the highest path and an arahant, the remaining individuals," etc., in the cultivation chapter, the method of questioning and answering should be understood according to what was said below. In the determination of meaning here, this is the characteristic.