English
The moment of existence is just two moments. However, even though this view is rejected, it accords very well with the Kathāvatthu Pāḷi. Moreover, just as the cessation of the upward flight of a clod of earth is the consciousness that has arisen... For what is called growth, there is cessation. Indeed, if arising does not cease, decay cannot occur. That very state, existing only until arising, can here be called the 'abiding' phase. But since it is not a distinct, countable single moment, in the Abhidhamma, only two moments of consciousness are stated. However, setting aside the initial point of the arising phase and the final point of the decay phase, the characteristic of ripening, called aging, which is dependent on the two middle parts, is indeed found even in immaterial phenomena. Referring to this, it should be understood that in the Dhātukathā, aging is said to be included in two aggregates. [119] But what is explained (in the Vibhāvanī): "A state distinct from arising and dissolution, a state tending towards dissolution, is also to be desired. That is called 'abiding'," it is said. That does not accord with the Kathāvatthu Pāḷi. Half a day is the moment of arising. Half a day is the moment of decay. The first day is the moment of arising. The second is the moment of decay. Indeed, by considering this, a third state, distinct from the states of arising and dissolution, is rejected in that Pāḷi text. [120] By this, what is also stated there: "But in the Pāḷi, it was not stated in accordance with the disposition of the trainees, by way of showing the method. For even Abhidhamma teaching sometimes proceeds in accordance with the disposition of the trainees. For example, the arising of form is taught by dividing it into two: growth and continuity," it is said. That too is rejected. Indeed, the division of a phenomenon worthy of division is appropriate both by way of the trainees and by way of the Dhamma. But the non-statement in the Abhidhamma of what exists and should be stated separately, saying it is "by way of the trainees," is not appropriate. [121] And what is also stated there: "And in the Sutta, 'These three, bhikkhus, are the characteristics of the conditioned. Which three? Arising is discerned. Decay is discerned. The alteration of what has abided is discerned.' Thus, since arising, etc., are stated for the purpose of showing the characteristics of conditioned phenomena, it cannot be understood that the abiding of the unconditioned, which is a conceptual continuum, is stated there." "tu" is said. That too should not be taken. Even in Abhidhamma, by the method stated below, the designation of conditioned phenomena is seen under the heading of concept. [122] Also there, "And because the prefix operates only in the meaning of the root, 'paññāyati' means 'viññāyati'" is said. That too is not suitable. For the Sutta is a teaching in conformity. Therefore, there, the clear understanding of the trainees is intended. Formless is of a formless nature, thus quickly changing. But form, being of the nature of form, is slow to change, it is said. These, however, are the life-span of material phenomena. [123] But in the Vibhāvanī, "Because the state of the apprehending and the apprehended arises according to each moment" is stated as the reason. That is not a reason. It cannot be said that the apprehending formless and the apprehended form change quickly or slowly for the sake of apprehension's fulfillment. The moments of seventeen such minds are seventeen mind-moments; this is the explanation for the life-span of material phenomena. It is said that moments equal in measure to seventeen mind-moments are the life-span of material phenomena, except for the two kinds of intimation and the characteristics of form. However, in terms of moments, according to the Aṭṭhakathā method, there are fifty-one moments; according to the Mūlaṭīkā method, thirty-two moments. And there, at the beginning, two moments for material phenomena are just one arising moment. At the end, two are just one dissolution moment. In the middle, twenty-eight moments are just one static moment for them, it should be seen. For the arising and dissolution of slowly changing forms cannot be as quick as those of mind. There, the two intimations are of one mind-moment. The continuities of accumulation are just arising; impermanence is just dissolution. Old age should be seen as just the static moment of material phenomena. However, according to the Mūlaṭīkā method, here it should be said that those sixteen mind-moments are the life-span of material phenomena. For the Tīkā teacher, establishing the great Aṭṭhakathā statement found in the Paṭiccasamuppādavibhaṅga, (said) sixteen mind-moments as life-span... One might conceive of such a state. Even so, since the view of the Great Commentary regarding the method of arising and ceasing of material phenomena in the analysis of aggregates has been rejected by the compiler, showing its contradiction with the Yamaka Pāli, it cannot be established. Indeed, when that view is rejected, the sixteen-age or more-than-sixteen-age mentioned therein is also rejected. [124] But what is to be clarified: Having rejected that commentary's method as "this is unsubstantial," by establishing its meaning, the reason given is: "Material phenomena arisen together with the rebirth-linking consciousness cease together with the seventeenth [consciousness] from that point. Material phenomena arisen at the static moment of the rebirth-linking consciousness cease at the arising moment of the eighteenth [consciousness]," and so on, because the seventeen mind-moments are mentioned in the commentary itself. That is not good. Indeed, the compiler's statement about the seventeen-age was examined by the commentator. It is not proper to reject the commentary's method merely by showing that. A moment, like a moment of a single consciousness, is a single mind-moment. Indeed, a moment, though not different in reality, is treated as if different by way of conceptualization, saying "this is of consciousness, this is of material phenomena." Those for whom one mind-moment has passed are "one-mind-moment-past." The extremely great sense-objects. [125] But in the clarification, it is also said: "These are past, thus they are one-mind-moment-past." That is not good. Indeed, it cannot be said that the word "past," whose domain is ceased phenomena, indicates present material phenomena that have come forth, having surpassed something. Those for whom many mind-moments have passed are "many-mind-moment-past." The great elements and so on, the five sense-objects. However, for material phenomena, a little strength is desired in their coming into contact with material phenomena themselves. And it is said that they become strong only at the static moment, having obtained complete conditions, thus "having reached the static state." With this word, he refutes the commentator's view. For he desires that material phenomena strike the sense-faculties even as they are arising. The five objects come into range at the five doors. Here, visible objects and sounds come into range as uncontacted, while the others come into range as contacted. This distinction should be understood by the distinction of impact. For the former two impact by way of a sign, not by way of a substance. But the latter three impact by way of a substance, not merely by way of a sign. Impact by a sign is only for the uncontacted, not for the contacted. But impact by a substance is only for the contacted, not for the uncontacted. Just as the reflections of those walking on the bank are seen in the water of a pond, but when they descend into that water, those reflections are not seen there. Even so, contacted visible objects and sounds do not impact. Why? Because of the absence of light and space between the object and the subject, there is no space for a sign. But uncontacted objects impact by presenting their own sign. Why? Because the space for a sign is obtained. But the other three impact by way of their inherent substance. Therefore, they impact only when contacted, not when uncontacted. Here, those that impact only when uncontacted, remaining far away, impact by presenting a sign. Thus, in each sense-door, even large and many objects, like the disc of the moon and the disc of the sun, or the disc of a thunderclap and the disc of a ram's bleat, come into range. But the other three, impacting only when contacted, it should be understood that only one object comes into range in each sense-door. And this is stated in terms of the five doors. But at the mind-door, all objects come into range as uncontacted. And here, "five doors" is stated to show the specific doors. But when those five objects impact at their respective doors, they also come into range at the mind-door. For it is said in the commentary that each object comes into range at two doors. Therefore, when the moon or the sun, or a mountain, or a tree, or whatever they see. Then, in each eye-sensitivity, in each mind-door, one or many moon-discs, etc., appear at one moment. Thus, it should be understood for other objects. And here, the sudden appearance is like when a carver, having placed the carving block on a palm leaf, strikes it with a mallet, and the carving block suddenly appears on the palm leaf, making the letters appear. Because the doors undergo a change. [126] As for what needs to be clarified, it was said: "Many bundles, according to the attention, come into appearance." Here, "according to the attention" should be investigated. As many as the five objects that stand in the path of the eye, etc., accompanied by light, etc., all those, even for one who is sleeping, or unconscious, or distracted, or attaining some jhāna, or fruition, or cessation, without attention, come into appearance at their own doors. Not only at their own doors, but also at the mind-door. Not only at the bhavanga mind-door,