English
in the summary statement below. The meaning is that one-door consciousnesses, etc., and those entirely door-freed, are respectively thirty-six, etc., and nine, thus explained in five ways. 134. The collection of consciousnesses and mental factors by way of the distinctions of objects such as forms, etc., is the collection of objects. [102] But in the commentaries, "The collection of objects by way of their nature, their distinctions, and the consciousnesses pertaining to them, is the collection of objects" is said. That is not good. For this is a collection of consciousnesses and mental factors only, not of objects. The meaning of the word 'forms, etc.' will come later. That which is grasped by consciousnesses and mental factors, not letting go, like a weak man by a stick, is an object (ālambaṇa). But when the word 'ārammaṇa' is used, it means that consciousnesses and mental factors come and delight in it. [103] But what is in the Vibhāvanī, "That which is grasped by consciousnesses and mental factors, like a weak man by a stick. Or, they come and delight in it, thus it is an object (ālambaṇa)" is said. That is not good. Indeed, these terms are established separately. "Form itself" means the sense-base of color itself. Whatever class of phenomena, free from the five sense-objects, whether existing or not existing, whether real or unreal, is indeed a mind-object. But that, when comprised by its homogeneous parts, is said to be of six kinds. The mind-object, moreover, is comprised in six ways. "Therein" means in those six, form and so on. Eye-door consciousnesses, arisen only following forms striking at the eye-door, are not able to apprehend other objects. Even forms, past and future, without striking, are not able to be apprehended. Thus it is said, for all eye-door consciousnesses, form itself is the object. That indeed is present. Even in ear-door and so on, this is the same method. Therein, that which has arisen dependent on this and that cause is present. "Existing" is the meaning. "Even sixfold" means even sixfold by way of form and so on. "Having gone beyond, gone, passed, occurred" means past. "Comes, will come" means future. Present, and past. "Not yet come" means future. Only conditioned phenomena, of the nature of arising, occur in the three times. Therefore, designations of Nibbāna, devoid of arising, truly unconditioned, should be understood as "free from time." But in the Vibhāvanī, "Due to the absence of destruction, and due to not being spoken of by way of past and so on, the designation of Nibbāna is called 'free from time'," it is said. That should be investigated. Indeed, all conditioned phenomena are preceded by the state of being future. Therefore, when they stand in the category of being spoken of as "will arise" after obtaining the full complement of conditions, then they are called future. When, having obtained the full complement of conditions, they have arisen, then they are called present. When they have ceased, then they are called past. Thus, for those of the nature of arising alone, the three-temporality rooted in arising is established. But for those devoid of arising, even the state of being future does not exist. How then can there be states of present and past? Therefore, for the designations of Nibbāna, freedom from the three times exists. "Due to the absence of destruction," but this (refers to) past time This is the cause of freedom from time. It should be understood that by this, it does not prove their freedom from other times. However, the appropriate division will come later, starting with "in these very ones," and so on. And for those free from doors, the object is of six kinds – this is the connection. Just as the object of the six-door consciousnesses, such as advertence, in a previous existence or in the earlier part of this existence, may have been apprehended by some door or not apprehended. To show that it is not so for these, it is said "apprehended by the six doors in a previous existence." For those who, having aspired to a particular existence and performed kamma, are reborn there, their object is indeed apprehended by some door in a previous existence. However, in the Vibhāvanī, it is said: "To show that their object does not become an object of experience, like that of advertence, without having been apprehended by any [door], it is said 'apprehended by the six doors'." That is not appropriate. For the object of five-door advertence, too, may indeed have been apprehended or not apprehended by some other door previously. Thus, what was previously apprehended with "I will obtain this, I will eat this, I will see this" does not fail to be an object of advertence later. Nor is the state of not having been apprehended by any consciousness previously in a single advertence-process a criterion here. And just as the object of five-door consciousnesses is exclusively present. And just as the object of mind-door consciousnesses is either three-timed or free from time, or a concept. To show that it is not so for these, it is said "present, past, or conceptual." And just as the object of six-door consciousnesses may be connected with conventional usage established by tradition, or free from such usage. To show that it is not so for these, it is said "kamma, kamma-sign, destiny-sign, or concept." However, in the Vibhāvanī, it is said: "To show that their object is not free from conventional usage established by tradition, like the impulsion-consciousnesses immediately preceding death, due to kamma, kamma-sign, etc., it is said 'kamma...concept'." That too is not good. From near death, the preceding... Indeed, beings, in part, make their own deeds, or monuments and other deed-aids, their object. Even then, indeed, the deed is just the deed, and the deed-aids are just deed-signs. Having said that the sign, the cause, for the deed's success is a deed-sign. They also say the sign, the object, of the deed is a deed-sign. And like King Ajātasattu, they make destiny-signs, such as dream-visions, their object. Indeed, the king killed his father in two existences. And from the time of killing, as he slept, destiny-signs appeared to him. There, 'as it arises' means according to the suitability of the object that arises, such as rebirth, grasped by the six doors. But the 'as it arises' distinction will come later in the arising of death. 'Mostly' means 'for the most part'. 'In the previous existence' means in the immediately preceding existence, and there, at the time near death. 'Grasped by the six doors' means grasped by the six doors, by the death-proximate impulsion. And here, by 'mostly', it specifies the non-certainty of this statement: 'grasped by the six doors in the previous existence'. Why? Because it can arise even if not grasped. For that which is the object of sense-sphere rebirth, life-continuum, and death-consciousness for those fallen from the non-percipient realm, considered as deed, deed-sign, or destiny-sign; and for those fallen from the formless realm, considered as destiny-sign. That, indeed, is not grasped by any door in the previous existence. And here, because in the Paṭṭhāna, both kinds of pre-nascent condition are denied in the formless realm. And in the commentaries, it is also said that for those fallen from there, the sense-sphere rebirth has a present destiny-sign as its object. And a destiny-sign, they explain, is just a visible object. Therefore, it should be understood that even for their sense-sphere rebirth, that which is considered a destiny-sign is not grasped by any door in the previous existence. Furthermore, the arising of deeds and so forth by the power of kamma at the time near death occurs mostly for those who die a bewildered death. But for others, even by the power of effort, for those who have naturally cultivated well... By the power of recollection too, like righteous lay followers and so on, by the power of devas coming from the deva-world and seizing, it happens. Hell-guards too, coming from hell, seize. And here, the Revati Vimāna should be mentioned. Indeed, two hell-guards took her, first led her to the Tāvatiṃsa realm, and afterwards led her to hell. For they, being of the yakkha species, like Vessavaṇa's retinue, are able to go even to the Tāvatiṃsa realm. Indeed, it is said in the Pāli that Yama's messengers are two yakkhas. Some also say that Vessavaṇa's messengers are here called Yama's messengers. Therefore, those who have thoroughly cultivated samatha signs like kasiṇa and asubha, and having stood in access concentration, die taking those very signs, for them too, the object of sense-sphere rebirth might not have been grasped by any door in the intermediate existence. And for those reborn here from the Brahma-world by the power of access concentration, this is the same method. But what is in the Vibhāvanī, "Solely by the power of kamma, for those fallen from the non-percipient realm, the object of rebirth, such as kamma-sign, arises," it is said. There, by "kamma-sign and so on," kamma itself should be included by the word "and so on." For there is no reason not to include it. But all of these should be understood as arising at rebirth solely by the power of the kamma generating the rebirth. But a future sign, when it arises, might be a destiny-sign. And there is no separate task for it to arise. It is said that when a present destiny-sign is established, it is established, like the present, the past, or a concept. [107] But in the Vibhāvanī, "The future, like the past, is not experienced. Nor does it come into view like a present destiny-sign," this reason is stated. That is not a valid reason. Because the implication is not avoided. For a destiny-sign, even when present, is not experienced. That too comes into view solely by the power of kamma. If this is so, then the future too might come into view solely by the power of kamma, this implication...