English
after one mind-moment, it is called the extremely great object path. And here, as many form-objects as arise in the eye-path and reach the stage of persistence, it should not be said that they do not strike any of the forty-nine eye-sensitivities that are in the stage of persistence and are prior and posterior. But among them, that one eye which appropriately performs the function of base and the function of door for this path, and where the form-object has struck Concerning which this thought-process proceeds. This very thing is called the accomplishment of function. Which they call of middle life-span, but the others are called futile objects, which they call of short life-span and of long life-span. But those, from the accomplishment of function as stated, are of two kinds: prior and posterior. Both of these, being obtained in the state of duration at the moment of the arising of eye-consciousness, should be understood as forty-eight in number. But the remaining ones, those even prior and even posterior to that, even though they have made contact, are not taken here, because they are not involved in the accomplishment of the function of the object-door. Here it might be asked: At the time of the arising of this thought-process, does that person know, "I see this thing," or does he not know? He does not know. When then does he know? When the discerning thought-process is occurring. Thus indeed, first of all, the eye-door thought-process occurs. Then the mind-door thought-process following it. Then the one grasping the aggregate. Then the one discerning the color. Then the one grasping the object. Then the one discerning the object. Then the one grasping the name. Then the one discerning the name. There, when the discerning of color is occurring, with "I see blue color" and so on, he discerns the color. With the discerning of the object, he discerns the shape. With the discerning of the name, he discerns the name. Thus, only when that particular discerning thought-process is occurring, does he know, "I see that particular thing." And here, like the grasping of a fire-wheel, the third mind-door thought-process, which grasps the aggregate of forms repeatedly grasped by the two previous thought-processes, is called the aggregate-grasping. For without grasping the aggregate, a clear grasping of color is not possible. But that which is past, being unable to reach up to the arising of retention. Having been unable to proceed twice up to the arising of retention, it is of two or three past thought-moments. For which indeed two or three thought-moments are past. That is unable to proceed, cannot, up to the arising of retention. Thus being unable, it is past. This is the meaning. "Come into view" means come into view at the eye-door and at the mind-door. Here, regarding "there is no arising of that apperception," for that whose three mind-moments have passed, it is correct to say that there is no arising of that apperception in that remaining portion of the object, which has fourteen mind-moments of duration, because it has ceased together with the seventh javana. For the Aṭṭhakathā teachers do not desire that minds in one javana-process should have different objects in terms of time, just as they do in terms of dhamma. But if it is said that for that whose two mind-moments have passed, one tadārammaṇa should arise in the remaining portion of the object, which has one mind-moment of duration, after the seventh javana, then it is "No." For such an object, which is close to cessation, cannot be a condition for the arising of tadārammaṇa even once. Thus, in the Mahāaṭṭhakathā, in the section on vipāka, in the counting of mind-processes, it is said that there are two tadārammaṇas, and only two tadārammaṇa occurrences are mentioned. As for what is said in the Vibhāvanī, "The arising of tadārammaṇa is indeed limited to two times in the Pāḷi," there, "in the Pāḷi" should be understood as referring to the Aṭṭhakathā tradition. For there is no such Pāḷi text where the arising of tadārammaṇa is limited to two times. The Majjhimabhāṇakas, however, desire even one tadārammaṇa. But since it is rejected by the author of the Saṅgaha, it should be understood that it is also rejected here by the Elder. If so, why did the Elder say in the Paramatthavinicchaya, "sometimes one, sometimes two tadālamba"? It should be understood that it was said according to the view of the Majjhimabhāṇakas. But Acariya Ānandatthera desires even one. For just as the adventitious bhavaṅga occurs once, it cannot be said that tadārammaṇa does not occur once. And what is said in the counting of mind-processes, that there are two tadārammaṇas, that too is said by way of the highest limit, and it cannot be said that it is not so. The connection is: "passed, unable to continue even until the arising of javana." For an object whose four, five, six, seven, or eight The mind-moments have passed. That cannot continue until the arising of javana. Thus, being unable to continue, it means it has passed. And javana not arising, means due to the non-arising of javana. This tvā-suffix should be understood in the sense of state, not in the sense of agent. Why? Because it does not have the same agent as its principal verb. [131] But in the Vibhāvanī, it is said, "This tvā-suffix is in the sense of cause." That is not good. For an external causal meaning is not the domain of kṛt-suffixes. Therefore, here the tvā-suffix is in the sense of state. And from that, the locative case is in the sense of cause, this should be understood. By this, the occurrence of tvā-suffixes in the sense of characteristic and cause, which is sometimes stated, is also rejected. For external characteristics and causes are not their domain. And here, for which object nine mind-moments have passed, since the remaining eight mind-moments of that object have ceased together with the second determining consciousness, it is appropriate that javana also does not arise in it. The reason has already been stated. But if it is said that for which four, etc., or eight mind-moments have passed, javana must have arisen in it, no. For an object lasting for the remaining six mind-moments cannot be a condition for the arising of javana. For javana, when it arises, arises only in an object capable of continuing seven times. For by the natural rule, javana's maximum is seven times. Here, however, just as in the states of unconsciousness, fainting, and death, due to the unclearness and weakness of the object, javana occurs even five or six times, so also in normal times, if the object is weak, it occurs even five or six times. Two or three times, means two times or three times. Thus, in the commentary, it is said that after the determining consciousness, one or two thoughts occur. Then, having obtained repetition, after being in the javana stage, it again descends into the life-continuum. For there, having obtained repetition, standing in the javana place, thus it shows the occurrence of the third determining. Otherwise, one or two thoughts occur. Then it would be said, "It descends into bhavaṅga." But the word "one" should be seen as merely cohesive, like "two or three nights." Or, "then" means from one thought or from two thoughts. There, the occurrence of determining is said to be twice for the first, and thrice for the second. But "having obtained repetition" should be seen as merely a conventional expression. For repetition of determining is not stated in the Paṭṭhāna. Here, by Acariya Ānanda Thera, after determining, with four or five thought-moments remaining in the object, the course of the small object is desired by the occurrence of four or five javanas, not by the conclusion of determining. In the Paṭṭhāna, bhavaṅga is said to be a condition for adverting by way of immediate condition, but it is not said that adverting is a condition for bhavaṅga by way of immediate condition. And just as in times of fainting or death, due to the weakness of the base, six or five javana courses are desired, so here, due to the weakness of the object, it cannot be said, "not so." And here, after investigating, with one thought-moment remaining in the object, one determining; with two thought-moments remaining, two; and beyond that, three, would be appropriate. But now, they combine the two-determining with the six small-object courses, and the determining with five. If this is so, it should be investigated: in what kind of small object is there two-determining, and in what kind is there three-determining? But that object which is insufficient for the occurrence of two or three determinings, is said not to be a condition even for the occurrence of adverting. There, there is only the vibration of bhavaṅga. There is no occurrence of a thought-process. There, "only the vibration of bhavaṅga" means there is only the mere vibration of bhavaṅga twice. Thus, at the eye-door, if a visible object that has passed one thought-moment does not appear to the eye... By the method stated, beginning with 'it does not come,' in the eye-door, the occurrence of objects is to be understood in four ways, according to the four turns. And similarly in the ear-door and so on, is the connection. In all ways, it is to be understood as fourfold, is the connection. Even an extremely slight object, by merely coming into range, becomes an object for the empty turn. Not in the sense of making it an object. But the others (objects), in both ways, are indeed objects for the other turns, thus it is said they are objects for the four turns respectively. But in the explanation, regarding 'being objects,' the meaning 'being a condition' is stated, referring to the extremely slight object. For that (object) is a condition for the cognition of the empty turn. The five-door process-consciousness, according to their functions, are seven. The mind-arisings, according to the moment of their arising, are fourteen. The details,