Homage to the Blessed One, the Worthy One, the Perfectly Self-awakened One

Canon of the Higher Teaching

6. Commentary on the Pairs (First Part)

1.

Pairs on Roots

Explanation of the Synopsis Section

1. The Mūla-yamaka, the Khandha-yamaka, the Āyatana-yamaka, the Dhātu-yamaka, the Sacca-yamaka, the Saṅkhāra-yamaka, the Anusaya-yamaka, the Citta-yamaka, the Dhamma-yamaka, and the Indriya-yamaka - it has been said that this treatise is divided in ten ways by means of these ten pairs. Therein, the meaning of the name of those ten pairs by means of which this treatise is divided in ten ways, and of this treatise itself, should first be understood thus - In what sense is it "pairs"? In the sense of a couple. For a couple is called a pair - as in such instances as "the Twin Miracle, the twin Sāla trees" and so on. Thus, because it is taught by means of pairs, which are termed couples, each one among these ten is called a pair. But because of the collective nature of these pairs, this entire treatise should be understood as "Pairs."

Therein, because it is taught by making questions and answers by way of roots, the very first of the ten is called the Mūla-yamaka. It has two sections: the synopsis section and the analytic explanation section. Among those, because what has been recited is to be explained in the order of recitation, the synopsis section comes first. Of that, "Whatever mental states are wholesome, are all of them wholesome roots?" "Or else, whatever are wholesome roots, are all those mental states wholesome?" - this pair is the beginning. Its paired nature should be understood in three ways: as a pair of meanings, by way of the two meanings termed wholesome and unwholesome roots; or as a pair of mental states, by way of those same meanings through the textual mental states proceeding in forward and reverse order; or as a pair of questions, by way of questions proceeding in forward and reverse order. The same method applies in the remaining ones too.

Now, in this Mūla-yamaka taught by means of these pairs, the determination of the text of the synopsis section should first be understood thus, by way of the classification into methods, pairs, questions, and meanings - For in dependence on this first term "wholesome mental states" of the matrix of the triad of wholesome, there are these four methods: the root method, the root-root method, the root-ish method, and the root-root-ish method. In each of those methods there are three pairs each: the root pair, the one-root pair, and the mutual-root pair. Thus in the four methods there are twelve pairs; in each pair, by way of forward and reverse order, there are two questions each, making twenty-four questions; in each question, by way of ascertainment and doubt, there are two meanings each, making forty-eight meanings.

Therein, "whatever mental states are wholesome" - because there is no doubt regarding wholesome states as "are they wholesome or are they not wholesome?", in this term the meaning of ascertainment should be understood. "Are all of them wholesome roots?" - because it is asked by way of uncertainty thus "are all those wholesome mental states wholesome roots or not?", in this term the meaning of doubt should be understood. And that is stated for the purpose of illustrating doubt at the point of doubt for those amenable to instruction, but for the Tathāgata there is no such thing as doubt. The same method applies to the subsequent question terms as well.

And just as in dependence on the wholesome term there are these four methods, twelve pairs by way of three pairs each in each method, twenty-four questions by way of two questions each in each pair; Forty-eight meanings by way of two meanings each in each question. In dependence on the unwholesome term likewise. In dependence on the indeterminate term likewise. Having combined all three terms together, in dependence on the designated noun term likewise - thus it should be understood that in the four terms of the matrix of the triad of wholesome, altogether sixteen methods, forty-eight pairs, ninety-six questions, and one hundred and ninety-two meanings are stated by way of the synopsis. By this much, the root section is first recited.

Thereafter, "whatever wholesome mental states there are, all of them are wholesome causes" and so on - nine sections were recited by way of synonyms of that very root section. Thus the root section, the cause section, the source section, the origin section, the production section, the origination section, the nutriment section, the object section, the condition section, and the arising section - all ten sections there are. Therein, by the very delimitation arrived at in the root section, the methods and so on should be understood in the remaining ones too - thus it should be understood that in all ten sections, one hundred and sixty methods, four hundred and eighty pairs, nine hundred and sixty questions, and one thousand nine hundred and twenty meanings have been recited. Thus, for now, in the synopsis section, this should be understood as merely the establishment of the canonical text by way of the classification of methods, pairs, questions, meanings, and sections.

The verse "Root, cause, and source" is called the summary verse of all ten sections. Therein, root and so on are all synonyms for reason only. For a reason is a "root" in the meaning of foundation. It sends forth and proceeds for the purpose of producing its own result - thus it is a "cause" (hetu). As if showing "Come, take it!", it points out its own result - thus it is a "source" (nidāna). The result comes into being from this - thus it is "origin" (sambhava). It originates - thus it is "production." The result arises here, or by this it arises - thus it is "origination" (samuṭṭhāna). It brings about its own result - thus it is "nutriment" (āhāra). It is held on to by its own result which is not to be rejected - thus it is "object" (ālambaṇa). Dependent on this, without rejecting, the result goes and proceeds - thus it is a "condition" (paccaya). The result arises from this - thus it is "origin" (samudaya). Thus the meaning of the words of these terms should be understood.

Explanation of the Synopsis Section.

Explanation of the Detailed Exposition Section

50. Now, the section on the detailed exposition has been commenced by the method beginning with "whatever mental states are wholesome." Therein, "whatever" is an expression meaning without remainder. "Wholesome mental states" means those of the characteristic stated in the word-by-word analysis of the triad of wholesome, unblameable, having pleasant results, of wholesome intrinsic nature. "Are all of them wholesome roots" - it asks: are all of them indeed wholesome roots? "There are only three wholesome roots" means not all of them are wholesome roots, but only three beginning with non-greed are wholesome roots - this is the meaning. "The remaining wholesome mental states are not wholesome roots" means the remaining wholesome mental states beginning with contact are not called wholesome roots. Or alternatively, the meaning is that the remaining ones beginning with contact are called just wholesome mental states indeed, not wholesome roots. "Or else, whatever are wholesome roots" - by the second term of the first question, "wholesome roots," the three beginning with non-greed are taken. "Are all those mental states wholesome" - it asks: are all those three mental states also wholesome? "Yes" - he says this accepting the wholesome nature of all the wholesome roots. This, for now, is the meaning of the root pair in the root method. By this method, the manner of answering in all the questions should be understood. But wherever there is only a distinctive point, that alone we shall explain.

51. In the One-Root Pair, firstly, "all of them are of one root with a wholesome root" should be taken not in the sense of counting as one-rooted, but should be taken in the sense of the same. For the meaning here is this: all of them are of the same root with a wholesome root. Whatever is the root of contact, that itself is the root of feeling and so on. Then, accepting their such condition, he said "Yes." "Wholesome-originated" means wholesome consciousness-originated materiality is shown. "Of one root" means of the same root with the wholesome root beginning with non-greed. For just as non-greed and so on are the root of contact and so on by being the root condition, so too they are for that originated materiality as well, but because of the absence of the wholesome characteristic, that is not wholesome.

52. In the Mutual Pair, without asking "whatever are wholesome," the question was made as "whatever are of one root with a wholesome root." Why? Because that very same meaning is possible even by this phrasing. "Wholesome roots" is a qualification of the former. For it was said "the roots which arise together," but those can be wholesome roots as well as unwholesome and indeterminate roots; here "wholesome roots" was said for the purpose of showing the distinction. "And mutually rooted" means they are mutually conditions by way of root condition - this is the meaning. In the reverse question of that very same, without saying "are all those mental states of one root with a wholesome root," it was said "are all those mental states wholesome." Why? Because of the absence of a distinction in meaning. For if the question were made as "of one root with a wholesome root," the answer would have to be given in the very same manner as stated below, namely "the roots which arise together," and this being so, there would be no distinction in meaning. Therefore, not having done so, the question was made thus. By this method, the distinction in the questions in the Mutual Root Pair in the root-root method and so on should also be understood.

53-55. In the Root-of-Root Method, "are all of them roots of wholesome roots" asks whether all of them are roots reckoned as wholesome roots. "Of one root-root" means they are of one root-root in the sense of the same, thus "of one root-root." "Mutually rooted in roots" means the root of one another is the mutual root; the mutual root is the root of these in the sense of root condition, thus "mutually rooted in roots."

56. In the Mūlaka method, "rooted in the wholesome" means the wholesome is the root of these in the sense of root condition - thus "rooted in the wholesome."

57-61. In the root-rooted method, "rooted in wholesome roots" means: the root of the wholesome is the wholesome root. The wholesome root is the root of these in the sense of root condition only - thus "rooted in wholesome roots." This, for now, is the specific meaning in the method pair questions in dependence on the wholesome term.

62-73. In the case of the unwholesome term and so on too, the same method applies. But this is the distinction: "rootless unwholesome" is said with reference to delusion associated with sceptical doubt and restlessness.

74-85. "Rootless indeterminate" means the eighteen arisings of consciousness, matter, and Nibbāna. "Not of one root with an indeterminate root" - but here, setting aside matter originated from indeterminate with root, the remainder is obtained. Matter originated from indeterminate with root is of one root with an indeterminate root; having made that negligible, this answer was given by way of what is obtainable together only.

86-97. "Mental states that are mental" means mental states termed as mentality. These, in meaning, are the four immaterial aggregates and Nibbāna. "There are only nine mentality roots" means nine roots by way of wholesome, unwholesome, and indeterminate roots. "Rootless mentality is not of one root with a mentality root" means rootless mentality - that is, all eighteen arisings of consciousness, delusion associated with sceptical doubt and restlessness, and Nibbāna - is not of one root with a mentality root. For it does not arise together with that. In the passage "mentality with root, with a mentality root" too, the meaning is "mentality with root, with a mentality root." The remainder is of manifest meaning everywhere.

Commentary on the Root Section.

98-99. The meaning in the section on root and so forth should also be understood by this same approach. The verse "Root, cause, and source" is stated again by way of the summary for all ten sections as indicated.

Commentary on the Root Pairs.

2.

Pairs on Aggregates

1.

Explanation of the Concept Synopsis Section

1. Now, having collected by way of aggregates the very same wholesome and other mental states taught in the Mūla-yamaka, there is the commentary on the Khandha-yamaka taught immediately after the Mūla-yamaka. Therein, the determination of the text should first be understood thus - For in this Khandha-yamaka there are three major sections - the section on description, the section on occurrence, and the section on full understanding. Among those, the section on description is called the section on description because it has proceeded solely by way of purifying the name and appellation of the aggregates. The section on occurrence has proceeded purifying the occurrence of the aggregates whose name and appellation have been purified by that, by way of arising and cessation; therefore it is called the section on occurrence. The section on full understanding has proceeded explaining in brief only the three full understandings of the aggregates occurring in this order; therefore it is called the section on full understanding. Therein, the section on description is defined in two ways by way of synopsis and analytic explanation. In the others there is no separate synopsis section. From the beginning they are defined in one way by way of question and answer. Therein, beginning with the term "five aggregates" up to the term "not aggregates, not activities," the synopsis section of the section on description should be understood. The section on questions is also a name for that very same one. Therein, "five aggregates" - this is the synopsis of the aggregates to be questioned by way of pairs. The aggregate of matter, etc. The aggregate of consciousness - this is the defining of names of those very same by way of classification.

2-3. Now, by way of these aggregates, there are four method sections: the term-purification section, the term-purification-root-wheel section, the pure-aggregate section, and the pure-aggregate-root-wheel section. Therein, that which has proceeded by purifying only the terms by the method beginning with "matter is the aggregate of matter, the aggregate of matter is matter" is called the term-purification section. That is twofold by way of conformity and reverse order. Therein, in the conformity section, there are five pairs beginning with "matter is the aggregate of matter, the aggregate of matter is matter." In the reverse order section too, "what is not matter is not the aggregate of matter; what is not the aggregate of matter is not matter" - and so on, just five. Thereafter, having combined those very aggregates purified in the term-purification section into four wheels each with each aggregate as root, by the method beginning with "matter is the aggregate of matter, aggregates are the aggregate of feeling," because of the existence of wheels rooted in term-purification, it is called the term-purification-root-wheel section. That too is twofold by way of conformity and reverse order. Therein, in the conformity section, making four each with each aggregate as root, beginning with "matter is the aggregate of matter, aggregates are the aggregate of feeling," there are twenty pairs. In the reverse order section too, "what is not matter is not the aggregate of matter; what is not aggregates is not the aggregate of feeling" - and so on, just twenty.

Thereafter, that which has proceeded by way of pure aggregates alone, by the method beginning with "matter is an aggregate, aggregates are matter," is called the pure-aggregate section. Therein, in such passages as "aggregates are matter" and so on, the meaning should be taken as "aggregates are the aggregate of matter, aggregates are the aggregate of feeling." Why? Because it is so analysed in the detailed exposition section. For therein, "Is matter an aggregate? Yes." "Are aggregates the aggregate of matter?" - "The aggregate of matter is both an aggregate and the aggregate of matter; the remaining aggregates are not the aggregate of matter." Thus, the meaning of "aggregates are matter" and so on has been analysed by extracting the term by the method beginning with "aggregates are the aggregate of matter." And for that very reason this is called the pure-aggregate section. For here, as in the purification of expression, the expression is not the measure. But in whatever way pure aggregates are obtained, in that way the meaning alone is the measure. In the Āyatana-yamaka and so on that follow, this same method applies. This pure-aggregate section too is twofold by way of conformity and reverse order. Therein, in the conformity section, there are five pairs beginning with "matter is an aggregate, aggregates are matter." In the reverse order section too, "what is not matter is not an aggregate, what is not aggregates is not matter" - and so on, just five.

Thereafter, having combined those very pure aggregates into four wheels each with each aggregate as root, by the method beginning with "matter is an aggregate, aggregates are feeling," because of the existence of wheels rooted in pure aggregates, it is called the pure-aggregate-root-wheel section. Therein, in such passages as "aggregates are feeling" and so on, the meaning should be understood by the method beginning with "aggregates are the aggregate of feeling." Otherwise, there would be a contradiction with the detailed exposition section. That too is twofold by way of conformity and reverse order. Therein, in the conformity section, making four each with each aggregate as root, beginning with "matter is an aggregate, aggregates are feeling," there are twenty pairs. In the reverse order section too, "what is not matter is not an aggregate, what is not aggregates is not feeling" - and so on, just twenty. Thus, for now, the synopsis section of the section on description should be understood as adorned with one hundred pairs, two hundred questions, making two meanings each for each question by way of ascertainment and doubt, and four hundred meanings.

Explanation of the Concept Synopsis Section.

1.

Explanation of the Concept Detailed Exposition Section

26. Now, the section on the detailed exposition has been commenced by the method beginning with "Is matter the aggregate of matter?" Therein, "Is matter the aggregate of matter?" means whatever is called matter. It asks for the purpose of purifying the expression: is all that matter the aggregate of matter? "What has a dear nature and a pleasant nature is matter, not the aggregate of matter" - the meaning is that what is stated as "matter" in "what has a dear nature and a pleasant nature" is matter only, not the aggregate of matter. "The aggregate of matter is both matter and the aggregate of matter" - the meaning is that whatever is the aggregate of matter, it is proper to call it both "matter" and "the aggregate of matter." Regarding "Is the aggregate of matter matter?" - herein, since the aggregate of matter must by fixed course be called matter. Therefore he said "Yes." By this method, the meaning in all the answers should be understood. But wherever there will be a distinction, that we shall explain accordingly. In the Saññā-yamaka, "perception of view" means the perception of view that has come in such passages as "perceptions of obsession" and so on. In the Saṅkhāra-yamaka, "the remaining activities" means the conditioned phenomena remaining apart from the aggregate of mental activities that have come in such passages as "impermanent indeed are activities" and so on. The same method applies in the reverse order section too.

The term-purification section is completed.

28. In the Root Cycle of Term-Purification, "are aggregates the aggregate of feeling" asks whether whatever aggregates there are, are all of them the aggregate of feeling. The same method applies in the remaining questions too. In the reverse order, "is what is not aggregates not the aggregate of feeling" - here, those phenomena reckoned as concepts and Nibbāna that are not aggregates, since they are also not the aggregate of feeling, therefore he said "Yes." The same method applies in the remaining answers too.

The term-purification-root-wheel section is completed.

38. In the Pure Aggregates Section, "Is matter an aggregate?" - whatever is said as "whatever matter," it asks whether all that is an aggregate. Therein, because whether it be matter reckoned as having a dear nature and a pleasant nature, or primary and derivative materiality, all goes into inclusion in the five aggregates. Therefore he acknowledges "Yes." In the second term, where it should be asked "Are aggregates matter?" - since by the expression "matter" only the aggregate of matter is intended, therefore, not heeding the expression, asking by way of meaning, he said "Are aggregates the aggregate of matter?" By this method the meaning should be understood in all terms. In the sections on the detailed exposition of the Āyatana-yamaka and so on that follow too, this same method applies. Regarding "Is perception an aggregate?" - here too, whether it be perception of view or perception itself, because all of it has the nature of an aggregate, "Yes" was said. In the term "Are activities an aggregate?" too, the same method applies. For there is no such thing as an activity released from the aggregates.

39. In the reverse order, "is what is not matter not an aggregate" - it asks whether that phenomenon which is not matter is also not an aggregate. In the answer, however, "setting aside matter, the remaining aggregates are not matter, but are aggregates" means that the aggregates other than matter, namely feeling and so on, are indeed not matter, but they are aggregates - this is the meaning. "Setting aside matter and the aggregates, the remainder" means Nibbāna, which is free from the five aggregates, and concept. The same method applies in the subsequent passages with the term "remainder" as well.

The pure-aggregate section is completed.

40-44. In the section on the wheel of pure aggregate roots, the meaning of "Is matter an aggregate?" and so on should be understood in the same manner as stated above.

The pure-aggregate-root-wheel section is completed.

Explanation of the Concept Detailed Exposition Section.

2. Commentary on the Occurrence Section

50-205. Now, the section on occurrence has been commenced by the method beginning with "for whom the aggregate of matter." But why is the synopsis section not stated here? Because the method has been shown above. For in the section on description, the method was shown in the synopsis section. But since by that method it can be known even though not stated here, without stating that, only the analytic explanation section was commenced. But in this great section termed the section on occurrence, there are three sub-sections: the arising section, the cessation section, and the arising-cessation section. Among those, the first is called the arising section because it illustrates the characteristic of arising of phenomena. The second is called the cessation section because it illustrates the characteristic of cessation of those very same phenomena. The third is called the arising-cessation section because it illustrates both characteristics. And here, by the arising section, only the mode of arising of phenomena is illustrated. By the cessation section, the impermanence of those very same phenomena is illustrated as "there is nothing that has arisen that is permanent." By the arising-cessation section, both of those.

Therein, in the arising section, by way of three periods of time, there are six divisions of time - present, past, future, present with past, present with future, and past with future. Among those, "for whom the aggregate of matter arises" should be known as the present by way of the present designation. That is stated first because it is very easily understood, since present phenomena are to be apprehended directly. "For whom the aggregate of matter arose" should be known as the past by way of the past designation. That is stated second because, through inference from past phenomena previously experienced directly, it is more easily understood than the future. "For whom the aggregate of matter will arise" should be known as the future by way of the future designation. That is stated third because it is to be apprehended by inference from phenomena apprehended both directly and by way of what was previously experienced, as "in the future too, phenomena of such a nature will arise."

"For whom the aggregate of matter arises, did the aggregate of feeling arise for that one" should be known as the present with past by way of the past designation together with the present. That is stated fourth because it is more easily understood among the three mixed ones. "For whom the aggregate of matter arises, will the aggregate of feeling arise for that one" should be known as the present with future by way of the future designation together with the present. That is stated fifth because it is more easily understood in meaning due to the existence of phenomena to be apprehended directly. "For whom the aggregate of matter arose, will the aggregate of feeling arise for that one" should be known as the past with future by way of the future designation together with the past. That is stated sixth because it is difficult to understand compared to the former ones.

Thus, among these six divisions of time, as regards this first one, the present, therein there are three sections: by way of person, by way of location, and by way of person and location. Among those, "for whom" is the person section, illustrating the arising of aggregates by way of person. "Where" is the location section, illustrating the arising of aggregates by way of location. "For whom where" is the person-location section, illustrating the arising of aggregates by way of person and location. But these three sections too were first described by the forward method and afterwards described by the reverse method. Among those, because of the expressions "arises," "arose," "will arise," the forward method illustrates arising. Because of the expressions "does not arise," "did not arise," "will not arise," the reverse method illustrates non-arising.

Therein, in the present time, firstly, in the conformity method of the person section, "for whom the aggregate of matter arises, does the aggregate of feeling arise for that one. Or else, for whom the aggregate of feeling arises, does the aggregate of matter arise for that one. For whom the aggregate of matter arises, does the aggregate of perception, the aggregate of mental activities, the aggregate of consciousness, arise for that one. Or else, for whom the aggregate of consciousness arises, does the aggregate of matter arise for that one" - thus there are four pairs rooted in the aggregate of matter; By the method beginning with "for whom the aggregate of feeling arises, does the aggregate of perception arise for that one," three rooted in the aggregate of feeling; Two rooted in the aggregate of perception; One rooted in the aggregate of mental activities - by the taking up of what was not taken up, there are ten pairs.

Therein, among the four rooted in the aggregate of matter, only the first from the beginning was answered. The remaining ones, since they have similar answers, were abbreviated by the text for the purpose of brevity. In those rooted in the aggregate of feeling and so on too, "yes" is the one similar answer only. Therefore those too were abbreviated by the text for the purpose of brevity - thus it should be understood that these ten pairs in the present time, in the person section, in the conformity method, are answered by the answer of just one pair alone. And just as ten in the person section, so ten in the location section, ten in the person-location section - thus in the present time, in the three sections, in the conformity method, there are thirty pairs. And just as in the conformity method, so too in the reverse method - thus altogether in the present time there are sixty pairs. Among those, it should be understood that there are two thousand questions and two hundred and forty meanings. Thus in the remaining five time-divisions too, by way of the classification into person and so on, by way of the conformity and reverse methods, there are six sections each. Making ten in each section, sixty pairs each - three hundred pairs. Those together with the former ones make three hundred and sixty pairs, seven hundred and twenty questions, and one thousand four hundred and forty meanings. This, for now, is the determination of the text in the arising section. And just as in the arising section, so too in the cessation section and in the arising-cessation section - thus in the entire occurrence major section, it should be understood that there are one thousand and eighty pairs, two thousand six hundred questions, and four thousand three hundred and twenty meanings.

But the text in the arising section and the cessation section, in the three unmixed time-divisions, was abbreviated by answering only one pair in each respective section. In the three mixed time-divisions, by the method beginning with "for whom the aggregate of feeling arises, did the aggregate of perception arise for that one," one pair was answered in those rooted in the aggregate of feeling and so on too. But in the arising-cessation section, in all six time-divisions, that same was answered. The remaining ones were abbreviated because of having the same answer. This is the determination of the text in the entire occurrence major section.

But for the purpose of determining the meaning, this characteristic should be understood - For in this occurrence major section, the determination of meaning should be understood by placing the five answers of the four questions into twenty-seven positions. Therein, the prior question, the subsequent question, the complete question, and the empty question - these are the four questions by name. For in each pair there are two questions. In each question too there are two terms. Therein, in whichever question, in the answer, the arising or the cessation of the aggregate taken by just one term is obtained, this is called the prior question. But in whichever question, in the answer, the arising or the cessation of the aggregates taken by both terms is obtained, this is called the subsequent question. But in whichever question, in the answer, the arising or the cessation of the aggregate taken by even one term and of the aggregates taken by both terms is obtained, this is called the complete question. But in whichever question, in the answer, a rejecting or a negation is obtained, this is called the empty question. But since this, when not shown, cannot be known, therefore we shall show it.

In the question "Where the aggregate of matter does not arise, does the aggregate of feeling not arise there?", to begin with, in this answer "arises", the arising of the aggregate of feeling grasped by just one term is obtained. Thus this and any other such question should be known as a prior question. But in the question "For whom the aggregate of matter arose, did the aggregate of feeling arise for that one?", in this answer "Yes", the arising in the past of the aggregates of matter and feeling grasped by two terms is obtained for whatever being. Thus this and any other such question should be known as a subsequent question.

But in this first question "For whom the aggregate of matter arises, does the aggregate of feeling arise for that one?", in this answer beginning with "for those being reborn in the non-percipient being realm", in this portion "for those being reborn in the non-percipient being realm, for them the aggregate of matter arises, but the aggregate of feeling does not arise for them", the arising of the aggregate of matter grasped by just one term is also obtained. In this portion "for those being reborn in the five-aggregate constituent realm, for them both the aggregate of matter arises and the aggregate of feeling arises", the arising of the aggregates of matter and feeling included by both terms is also obtained. Thus this and any other such question should be known as a complete question. "Prior-and-subsequent question" is also a name for this very same. For in the answer to this, in the first portion, the arising of only the aggregate of matter included by one term is shown. In the second portion, of the aggregates of matter and feeling included by two terms. And by this very characteristic, where the arising or cessation of an aggregate included by one term is obtained, that is called a prior question. Where the arising or cessation of aggregates included by both terms is obtained, that is called a subsequent question.

But in this question "For whom the aggregate of matter had not arisen, had the aggregate of feeling not arisen for that one?", in this answer "there is not", rejecting is obtained. In the question "For whom the aggregate of matter arises, does the aggregate of feeling cease for that one?", in this answer "no", negation is obtained. Therefore this twofold and any other such question should be known as an empty question. It is also called a hollow question. Thus, for now, four questions should be known.

Answer by way of the Pāḷi text, answer by reply, answer by showing in its own form, answer by rejecting, and answer by negation - these are the five answers. Therein, whatever answer resolves the meaning by being itself a Pāḷi term, this is called an answer by way of the Pāḷi text. That is obtained in the prior question. For in the question "Where the aggregate of matter does not arise, does the aggregate of feeling not arise there?", this answer "arises", being itself a Pāḷi term, has proceeded resolving the meaning; therefore in such cases, an answer by way of the Pāḷi text should be known. But whatever answer resolves the meaning by way of a reply, this is called an answer by reply. That is obtained in the subsequent question. For in the question "For whom the aggregate of matter arose, did the aggregate of feeling arise for that one?", this answer "Yes" has proceeded resolving the meaning by way of reply only; therefore in such cases, an answer by reply should be known. Whatever answer resolves the meaning by showing in its own form; this is called an answer by showing in its own form. That is obtained in the complete question. "For whom the aggregate of matter arises; does the aggregate of feeling arise for that one?" - for in this question, this answer "for those being reborn in the non-percipient being realm" has proceeded resolving the meaning by showing in its own form thus: "for these the aggregate of matter arises, but not the aggregate of feeling; for these both the aggregate of matter arises and the aggregate of feeling." Therefore in such cases, an answer by showing in its own form should be known. But whatever answer resolves the question by rejecting the meaning because of the non-existence of such a meaning, this is called an answer by rejecting. Whatever answer resolves the question by negating the meaning because of the non-obtainability of such a meaning at one moment, this is called an answer by negation. That is obtained in the empty question. For in the question "For whom the aggregate of matter had not arisen, had the aggregate of feeling not arisen for that one?", this answer "there is not"; has proceeded resolving the question by rejecting the meaning, that there is no such being; therefore in such cases, an answer by rejecting should be known. But in the question "For whom the aggregate of matter arises, does the aggregate of feeling cease for that one?", this answer "no" has proceeded resolving the question by negating the meaning, that at one moment of conception, cessation together with arising is not obtained; therefore in such cases, an answer by negation should be known.

Now, these four questions and these five answers should be placed in the twenty-seven states, and they should be understood thus - "those being reborn in the non-percipient being realm" is one state, "in the non-percipient being realm there" is one, "of the non-percipient beings" is one; "those passing away from the non-percipient being realm" is one; "those being reborn in the immaterial realm" is one, "in the immaterial realm there" is one, "of the immaterial realm" is one, "those passing away from the immaterial realm" is one, "those in their last existence in the immaterial realm" is one, "those attaining final nibbana in the immaterial realm" is one; "and those who, having been reborn in the immaterial realm, will attain final nibbāna" is one; "those being reborn in the five-aggregate constituent realm" is one, "in the five-aggregate constituent realm there" is one, "of the five-aggregate constituent realm" is one, "those passing away from the five-aggregate constituent realm" is one, "those in their last existence in the five-aggregate constituent realm" is one, "those attaining final nibbana in the five-aggregate constituent realm" is one; "those being reborn in the Pure Abodes" is one, "in the Pure Abodes there" is one, "of the Pure Abodes" is one, "those attaining final nibbana in the Pure Abodes" is one; "of all those being reborn" is one, "of all those passing away" is one; "those in their last existence as common to all" is one, "those attaining final nibbana" is one, "those being reborn in the four-aggregate constituent realm or the five-aggregate constituent realm" is one, "those passing away" is one. Thus, having placed these five answers of these four questions in these twenty-seven states, the determination of meaning in this major section on occurrence should be understood. For having understood thus, one who answers the question has answered it well, and one who determines the meaning has determined it well.

Therein, this is the method - "For whom the aggregate of matter arises" means for whichever person the aggregate of matter arises by being endowed with the moment of arising. "Does the aggregate of feeling arise for that one" - it asks whether the aggregate of feeling also arises for that one at that very moment. "Those being reborn in the non-percipient being realm" means for those being reborn in the non-percipient being existence by way of consciousness-less rebirth-linking. "For them the aggregate of matter arises" means for them the aggregate of matter certainly arises indeed. During occurrence, for those who have arisen, the aggregate of matter both arises and ceases; therefore, without saying "of the non-percipient beings," it was said "those being reborn in the non-percipient being realm." "But the aggregate of feeling does not arise for them" - however, because of being without consciousness, the aggregate of feeling does not arise for them at all. This is the answer by showing the actual form in the first portion of the complete question at the first state among the twenty-seven states. "Those being reborn in the five-aggregate constituent realm" means for those being reborn in the five-aggregate constituent existence by way of rebirth-linking that is a mixture of material and immaterial. "For them both the aggregate of matter arises and the aggregate of feeling" means for them certainly both aggregates, reckoned as the aggregate of matter and the aggregate of feeling, do indeed arise. However, during occurrence, for those who have arisen there, those aggregates both arise and cease; therefore, without saying "of the five-aggregate constituent realm," it was said "those being reborn in the five-aggregate constituent realm." This is the answer by showing the actual form in the latter portion of the complete question at the state of "those being reborn in the five-aggregate constituent realm." By this method, all answers should be understood.

Now, here is the defining characteristic regarding arising and cessation - For indeed, in this entire Khandha-yamaka, even though there exist unlimited arisings and cessations of aggregates for those who have arisen here and there during occurrence until death, since it is not easy to show arising and cessation by making a distinction among phenomena that change rapidly, without touching upon arising and cessation during occurrence, since it is easy to show the arising of rebirth-linking aggregates produced by various actions bringing about a new round of results, the arising section was stated by way of arising at the time of rebirth-linking alone. However, since it is easy to show cessation at the conclusion of the arisen round of results, the cessation section was stated by way of cessation at the time of death.

But what is the evidence here for the state of not being touched upon of arising and cessation during occurrence? The canonical text itself. For in the canonical text, specifically in the future time section of the arising section, this passage "for those in their last existence, for them both the aggregate of matter will not arise and the aggregate of feeling will not arise" is exceedingly strong evidence. For although material and immaterial phenomena are fit to arise during occurrence for those in their last existence, it should be understood that arising during occurrence was not taken, because it was stated having made the conclusion that "the aggregate of matter will not arise and the aggregate of feeling will not arise." But this passage "for those attaining final nibbana in the Pure Abodes, for them there the aggregate of perception had not ceased, but the aggregate of feeling does cease for them there" is exceedingly strong evidence for the state of cessation not being touched upon during occurrence. For those attaining final nibbana in the Pure Abodes, standing at the dissolution moment of the death consciousness, there is no counting of the aggregates of perception that have arisen and ceased during occurrence beginning from rebirth-linking. It should be understood that cessation during occurrence was not taken, because it was stated having made the conclusion that "even this being so, for them there the aggregate of perception had not ceased."

Thus, having understood the defining characteristic of the procedure regarding arising and cessation here, having taken only the arising at conception and only the cessation at death, the determination of meaning of the answers that have come at those various places should be understood. But since that can be known everywhere by the method stated in the first answer, it has not been expanded upon in the order of answers. But whoever cannot know the determination of meaning of these even by the method thus given, by him it should be known by having attended upon teachers and having listened well.

Commentary on the Great Section on Occurrence.

3. Commentary on the Section on Full Understanding

206-208. In the immediately following section on full understanding too, there are only six divisions of time. From the forward and reverse order, there are only two methods. Among these three - the person section, the location section, and the person-location section - only the person section is obtained, not the other two. Why? Because of the similarity of the answers. For whatever person, in whatever place, if he fully understands the aggregate of material body, he also fully understands the aggregate of feeling. If he fully understands the aggregate of feeling, he also fully understands the aggregate of material body. If he does not fully understand the aggregate of material body, he also does not fully understand the aggregate of feeling. If he does not fully understand the aggregate of feeling, he also does not fully understand the aggregate of material body. Therefore, in those too, having made the question by way of beginning with "where he fully understands the aggregate of material body, does he fully understand the aggregate of feeling there," the answer should be given as just "Yes." "It may be" means because of the similarity of the answers, those are not obtained here - this should be understood.

Or alternatively, the function of full understanding belongs only to a person, not to a location; only a person is able to fully understand, not a location - thus only the person section is taken here, not the location section. But because of its not being taken, the immediately following person-location section, even though obtainable, was not taken. As for this person section that was taken, therein, in the present time, four rooted in the aggregate of material body, three rooted in the aggregate of feeling, two rooted in the aggregate of perception, one rooted in the aggregate of mental activities - by the method already stated above, in the conformity method, by the taking up of what was not taken up, there are ten pairs. Ten in the reverse method - thus twenty. "Likewise in the remaining ones too" - making twenty in each and every time, in the six times there are twenty hundred pairs, two hundred and forty questions, and four hundred and eighty meanings - this is the determination of the text here.

But in the determination of meaning here, the three periods termed past, future, and present are not obtained by way of death and rebirth-linking as in the occurrence section. They are obtained only by way of mind-moments during occurrence. For that very reason, here in the questions beginning with "whoever fully understands the aggregate of material body, does he fully understand the aggregate of feeling," the answer "Yes" was given. For at the moment of the supramundane path, through consciousness having Nibbāna as its object, because of the accomplishment of the function of full understanding regarding the five aggregates, one who fully understands any one aggregate is said to fully understand the other also. Thus here, in the questions "does he fully understand," in the conformity method, it should be understood that "Yes" was said with reference to the possessor of the highest path who has reached the summit of the function of full understanding. But in the reverse method, in the questions "does he not fully understand," "Yes" was said with reference to worldlings and so on. But in this past time section, "had fully understood" - even one established in the highest fruition immediately following the path, because of the completion of the function of full understanding, is indeed called one who had fully understood.

209. By the question "Whoever fully understands the aggregate of material body, did he fully understand the aggregate of feeling?" it asks about the possessor of the highest path. But because he indeed fully understands the five aggregates, the function of full understanding is not yet completed; therefore the negation "no" was made. But in the second question, by "did he fully understand" it asks about the Worthy One. But because he has completed the function of full understanding. There is nothing to be fully understood for him; therefore the negation "no" was made. But here, in the answer by the reverse method, "a Worthy One does not fully understand the aggregate of material body" was said because of the absence of full understanding for the Worthy One. "The possessor of the highest path did not fully understand the aggregate of feeling" was said because of the incompleteness of the function of full understanding for one standing on the path of arahantship. And not only the aggregate of feeling, he did not fully understand even a single phenomenon. But this was said by way of the question. "But not the aggregate of material body" - this too was said only by way of the question. But he also fully understands the other aggregate.

210-211. "Whoever fully understands the aggregate of material body, will he fully understand the aggregate of feeling?" - here, because a person standing on the path is lasting one mind-moment, therefore "he will fully understand" does not go under that reckoning. Therefore it is said "no." "They did not fully understand the aggregate of material body" is said in conformity with the question, but the meaning here is "they did not fully understand." By this method, the determination of meaning should be understood everywhere.

Commentary on the Section on Full Understanding.

The Commentary on the Pairs of Aggregates is concluded.

3.

Pairs on Sense Bases

1.

Explanation of the Concept Synopsis Section

1-9. Now, having collected by way of sense bases the very same wholesome and other mental states taught in the Mūla-yamaka, there is the commentary on the Āyatana-yamaka taught immediately after the Khandha-yamaka. Therein, the determination of the canonical text should be understood in the very manner stated in the Khandha-yamaka. For just as there, there are three great sections - the section on description, the section on occurrence, and the section on full understanding - so too here. The meaning of the terms too should be understood in the very manner stated there. Here too, the section on description is determined in two ways by means of the synopsis and the analytic explanation. The others by way of analytic explanation only. Beginning with the term "Therein, twelve sense bases" up to "what is not a sense base is not mind," the synopsis section of the section on description should be understood. Therein, "twelve sense bases" - this is the synopsis of the sense bases to be questioned by way of pairs. The eye sense base, etc. The mind-object sense base - this is the defining of names of those very same by way of classification. For the purpose of ease of questioning by way of pairs, here first the internal material sense bases are stated in order. Afterwards the external material sense bases. At the end, the mind sense base and the mind-object sense base.

But just as below by way of aggregates, so here by way of these sense bases, there are only four method sections: the term-purification section, the term-purification-root-wheel section, the pure-sense-base section, and the pure-sense-base-root-wheel section. And each of these is just twofold by way of conformity and reverse order. Their meaning should be understood in the very manner stated there. But just as in the Khandha-yamaka, in the conformity section of the term-purification section, there are five pairs beginning with "matter is the aggregate of matter, the aggregate of matter is matter," so here, "eye, the eye sense base; the eye sense base; eye" and so on - twelve. In the reverse order section too, "not eye, not the eye sense base; not the eye sense base, not eye" and so on - twelve. But here, in the conformity section of the term-purification-root-wheel section, making eleven each with each sense base as root, there are one thousand three hundred and twenty pairs. In the reverse order section too, one thousand three hundred and twenty only. In the conformity section of the pure-sense-base section too, twelve; in the reverse order section, twelve. In the conformity section of the pure-sense-base-root-wheel section too, making eleven each with each sense base as root, there are one thousand three hundred and twenty pairs. In the reverse order section too, one thousand three hundred and twenty only. Thus here, the synopsis section of the section on description should be understood as adorned with five hundred and seventy-six pairs, one thousand one hundred and fifty-two questions, and two thousand three hundred and four meanings.

Explanation of the Concept Synopsis Section.

1.

Explanation of the Concept Detailed Exposition Section

10-17. In the exposition section, however, the meaning should be understood by the very method stated below in the exposition of the concept section of the Khandha-yamaka. Except for the distinctions. Therein, this is the distinction - "Divine eye" means the knowledge of the second true knowledge. "Eye of wisdom" means the knowledge of the third true knowledge. "Divine ear" means the knowledge of the second direct knowledge. "Stream of craving" means craving itself. "Remaining body" means the mental body, the material body, the elephant corps, the horse corps, and so on. "Remaining matter" means the primary element and derived materiality remaining apart from the visible form sense base, as well as what has a dear nature and a pleasant nature. "Odour of morality" and so on are names for morality and so on themselves, in the sense of spreading. "Flavour of meaning" and so on too are names for meaning and so on themselves, in the sense of being excellent and sweet. "Remaining mental phenomenon" means the scriptural teaching and so on of many varieties - this here is the distinction.

Explanation of the Concept Detailed Exposition Section.

2. Commentary on the Occurrence Section

18-21. Here too, in each of the three sub-sections - the arising section and so on - of the occurrence section, there are only six divisions of time. In each of those times, there are three sections beginning with the person section. All of those are only twofold by way of the conformity and reverse methods. Therein, in the present time, in the conformity method of the person section, just as in the Aggregate Pairs, four rooted in the aggregate of material body, three rooted in the aggregate of feeling, two rooted in the aggregate of perception, one rooted in the aggregate of mental activities - by the taking up of what was not taken up, there are ten pairs. Thus, "for whom the eye sense base arises, does the ear sense base arise for that one; or else, for whom the ear sense base arises, does the eye sense base arise for that one; for whom the eye sense base arises, does the nose sense base, the tongue sense base, the body sense base, the visible form sense base, the sound sense base, the odour sense base, the flavour sense base, the touch sense base, the mind sense base, the mind-object sense base, arise for that one; or else, for whom the mind-object sense base arises, does the eye sense base arise for that one" - thus there are eleven rooted in the eye sense base. By the method beginning with "for whom the ear sense base arises, does the nose sense base arise for that one," ten rooted in the ear sense base; nine rooted in the nose sense base, eight rooted in the tongue sense base; seven rooted in the body sense base; six rooted in the visible form sense base; five rooted in the sound sense base; four rooted in the odour sense base; three rooted in the flavour sense base; two rooted in the touch sense base; one rooted in the mind sense base - by the taking up of what was not taken up, there are sixty-six pairs.

Therein, among the eleven rooted in the eye sense base, only these five were answered: "for whom the eye sense base arises, does the ear sense base, the nose sense base, the visible form sense base, the mind sense base, the mind-object sense base arise for that one." Among those, the first that was to be answered was answered. The second, although having a similar answer to the first, was answered for the purpose of removing doubt as to "how indeed should this be answered," since the nose sense base does not invariably occur in the place of occurrence of the eye and ear sense bases. Three pairs together with the visible form sense base, the mind sense base, and the mind-object sense base were answered because of having dissimilar answers. Among the remaining ones, to begin with, two pairs together with the tongue sense base and the body sense base have similar answers together with the former two. Since the sound sense base is not attained at the moment of conception, there is no answering at all of the pair together with it. Three pairs together with the odour, flavour, and touch sense bases too, being merely similar answers to the former two, were abbreviated by the text for the purpose of brevity. Among those rooted in the ear sense base, whatever is obtained has merely a similar answer to the former ones, so not even one was included in the canonical text. Among those rooted in the nose sense base, one together with the visible form sense base, and two together with the mind sense base and the mind-object sense base - three pairs were included in the canonical text. The remaining ones were not included because of having similar answers to the nose sense base pair. Likewise those rooted in the tongue sense base and the body sense base. Among those rooted in the visible form sense base, only two together with the mind sense base and the mind-object sense base were answered. But three together with odour, flavour, and touch have similar answers to those together with the visible form sense base and the mind sense base. Just as below it was said "for those with material form, without consciousness" and so on, so here too the explanation should be understood as "for those with material form, without odour, without flavour, without touch." And here, odour and so on are intended as being sense bases only. Therefore, the meaning here should be seen by way of sense base as "for those with material form, with the odour sense base."

Those rooted in the sound sense base have not been included in the canonical text because of the absence of meaning. Those rooted in odour, flavour, and tangible object - four, three, and two - have not been included in the canonical text because of having similar answers to the lower ones. The one rooted in the mind sense base has been answered indeed - thus it should be understood that these sixty-six pairs in the present time, in the conformity method of the person section, are answered by the answering of just several pairs alone. And just as in the person section, so too in the location section and in the person-location section, sixty-six each - thus in the present time, in the three sections, in the conformity method, there are one hundred and ninety-eight pairs. And just as in the conformity method, so too in the reverse method - thus altogether in the present time there are three hundred and ninety-six pairs. Among those, it should be understood that there are seven hundred and ninety-two questions, and fifteen hundred and eighty-four meanings. Thus in the remaining five time-divisions too - altogether there are two thousand three hundred and seventy-six pairs. From that, double the questions, from that, double the meanings - this is the determination of the canonical text here in the arising section. The same method applies in the cessation section and in the arising-cessation section too. In the entire occurrence section, there are seven thousand one hundred and twenty-eight pairs. From that, double the questions, from that, double the meanings should be understood. But the canonical text for the mind sense base and the mind-object sense base is similar, there is no difference. But above, having stated "there is an abridgement of the section" and so on, it was abbreviated here and there. Therefore whatever was abbreviated here and there, all that should be observed by those who are not confused.

But here in the determination of meaning, this is the opening of the method. "For those with eyes but without ears" is said with reference to spontaneously born beings deaf from birth in the realm of misery. For he is reborn having been one with eyes but without ears. As he said - "At the moment of rebirth in the sensual element, for some, another ten sense bases appear. Of spontaneously born ghosts, spontaneously born titans, spontaneously born animals, spontaneously born hell beings; at the moment of rebirth of those deaf from birth, ten sense bases appear - the eye sense base, the visible form, nose, odour, tongue, flavour, body, tangible object sense bases, the mind sense base, the mind-object sense base." "For those with eyes and with ears" is said with reference to spontaneously born beings with complete sense bases in fortunate and unfortunate worlds, and material brahmā gods. For they are reborn having been ones with eyes and with ears. As he said - "At the moment of rebirth in the sensual element, for some, eleven sense bases appear; of sensual-sphere gods, first-aeon human beings, spontaneously born ghosts, spontaneously born titans, spontaneously born animals, spontaneously born hell beings, those with complete sense bases. At the moment of rebirth in the fine-material element, five sense bases appear - the eye sense base, the visible form, ear, mind sense base, the mind-object sense base."

"Without nose" is said with reference to the Brahmā's Retinue and so on. For they are reborn having been ones with eyes but without nose. But in the sensual element there is no spontaneously born being without nose. If there were, one would state "for some, eight sense bases appear." But whoever is a womb-born being without nose, he is not intended here because of the expression "for those with eyes." "For those with eyes and with nose" is said with reference to spontaneously born beings both deaf from birth and with complete sense bases. "For those with nose but without eyes" is said with reference to spontaneously born beings both blind from birth and deaf from birth. "For those with nose and with eyes" is said with reference to only spontaneously born beings with complete sense bases.

"With material form but without eyes" - here, among the spontaneously born blind from birth and deaf from birth, either one or even a womb-born being is also obtained. "With consciousness but without eyes" - here, together with the three beginning with the blind from birth stated below, immaterial beings are also obtained. "Without eyes" - here, together with the four stated in the preceding term, non-percipient beings are also obtained. "With material form but without nose" - here, womb-born beings and non-percipient beings and the remaining material brahmā gods are obtained. "With consciousness but without nose" - here, womb-born beings and fine-material and immaterial brahmā gods are obtained. In the terms "without consciousness" and "immaterial beings," however, only single-aggregate constituent and four-aggregate constituent beings are obtained - by this method the classification of persons in all the person sections should be understood.

22-254. In the location section, "where the eye sense base" asks about the material brahma world. For that very reason "Yes" was said. For in that plane, those sense bases necessarily arise at conception. This is the opening of the method here. By this opening of the method, the meaning should be understood in the entire occurrence section as well. The section on full understanding is just as the method stated in the Aggregate Pairs.

Commentary on the Occurrence Section.

The Commentary on the Pairs of Sense Bases is concluded.

4.

Pairs on Elements

1-19. Now, having collected by way of elements the very same wholesome and other mental states taught in the Mūla-yamaka, there is the commentary on the Dhātu-yamaka taught immediately after the Āyatana-yamaka. Therein, the determination of the canonical text should be understood in the very manner stated in the Āyatana-yamaka. Here too, indeed, the three major sections beginning with the section on description, and the remaining sub-sections together with the divisions of time and so on, are just as those that came in the Āyatana-yamaka. Here too, and for the purpose of ease of questioning by way of pairs, having first stated the internal and external material elements in order, the consciousness elements were stated. But because of the multiplicity of elements, here there are more pairs than in the Āyatana-yamaka; the questions are double the pairs, and the meanings are double the questions. Therein, the determination of meaning of the pairs obtainable in the pairs beginning with those rooted in the eye-element should be understood in the very manner stated in the Āyatana-yamaka. The course of meaning below is just similar to that, and for that very reason the canonical text too is abbreviated. The section on full understanding is just straightforward.

The Commentary on the Pairs of Elements is concluded.

5.

Pairs on Truths

1. Commentary on the Section on Designation

1-9. Now, having collected by way of truths the very same wholesome and other mental states taught in the Mūla-yamaka, there is the commentary on the Sacca-yamaka taught immediately after the Dhātu-yamaka. Therein too, the three major sections beginning with the section on description, the sub-sections and the remaining classifications should be understood in the very same manner as stated above. But here in the section on description, the counting of pairs should be understood in these four sections: the term-purification section, the term-purification-root-wheel section, the pure-truth section, and the pure-truth-root-wheel section, by way of the four truths.

10-26. In the exposition of the concept section, however, "remaining truth of suffering" should be understood as phenomena of the three planes free from unpleasant feeling and craving. "Remaining origin" means a condition for the truth of suffering, classified as sensual-sphere wholesome and so on as described in the Analysis of the Truths. "Remaining cessation" means cessation by substitution of opposites, cessation by suppression, cessation by eradication, cessation by tranquillisation, and also cessation by momentary dissolution. "Remaining path" means such as "now at that time there is a fivefold path, an eightfold path, a wrong path, a footpath, a cart-road" and so on.

Commentary on the Section on Designation.

2. Commentary on the Occurrence Section

27-164. But here in the occurrence section, in the present time, in the conformity method of the person section, "for whom the truth of suffering arises, does the truth of origin arise for that one; or else, for whom the truth of origin arises, does the truth of suffering arise for that one" - with three rooted in the truth of suffering, two rooted in the truth of origin, and one rooted in the truth of cessation, having taken both what is obtainable and what is not obtainable, there should be six pairs by way of the text. Among those, since for cessation neither arising nor cessation is fitting, therefore two rooted in the truth of suffering together with the truth of origin and the truth of path, and one rooted in the truth of origin together with the truth of path - three pairs have come. The same method applies in its reverse method and in the location section and so on too. Thus here, in all sections, the counting of pairs should be understood by way of three pairs each. But here in the determination of meaning, this is the characteristic - For in the occurrence section of this Truth Pairs, the truth of cessation is first not obtainable at all. But among the remaining three, the truth of origin and the truth of path are certainly obtained only in occurrence. The truth of suffering is obtained both in death and conception and in occurrence. But the three times beginning with the present are obtained by way of both death and conception and occurrence. Thus here, whatever is obtained, the determination of meaning should be understood by way of that.

Herein this is the opening of the method - "Of all those being reborn" means even of those in the Pure Abodes at the very least. For they too are reborn only with the truth of suffering. "Of consciousness dissociated from craving" - this was said for the purpose of showing the arising of one portion among the truth of suffering and the truth of origin. Therefore it should be taken only by way of the five-aggregate constituent realm. But in the four-aggregate constituent realm, at the moment of arising of the fruition attainment consciousness dissociated from craving, not even one truth arises. This should not be taken here. "And the truth of suffering for them" - this was said with reference to the fact that at that moment, setting aside craving, the remainder is called the truth of suffering. The same method applies at the moment of arising of the path too. But there, only matter is called the truth of suffering. The remaining states associated with the path are free from the truths. For that very reason it was said: "In the immaterial-sphere of existence, at the moment of arising of the path, for them the truth of path arises, but the truth of suffering does not arise for them." "For all those being reborn, during the occurrence of consciousness dissociated from craving at the moment of arising, for them there" means for them at that moment of rebirth and at the moment of arising of consciousness dissociated from craving - thus here the location should be understood by way of moment. The same method applies in other similar cases too. "Of those who have not fully realised" means of beings who have not attained the full realisation termed the penetration of the four truths. "Of those who have fully realised" means of those whose truths have been fully realised. By this opening of the method, the determination of meaning should be understood everywhere.

Commentary on the Occurrence Section.

3. Commentary on the Section on Full Understanding

165-170. In the section on full understanding, however, three full understandings are obtained here: full understanding as the known, full understanding as judgement, and full understanding as abandoning. And since there is no such thing as full understanding regarding supramundane states, therefore two truths have been taken here. Therein, "fully understands the truth of suffering" is stated by means of full understanding as the known and full understanding as judgement only. "Abandons the truth of origin" is by means of full understanding as the known and full understanding as abandoning. Thus, by way of these full understandings, the meaning should be understood in all terms.

Commentary on the Section on Full Understanding.

The Commentary on the Pairs of Truths is concluded.