No More Learning

**#
We have explained causes (hetu). What are conditions (pratyaya)? 417
Where is this said?
In the Sutra, it says "There are four conditions (pratyayas), namely causes as a condition (hetupratyayata), an equal and immediately antecedent condition (samanantarapratyayata), an object as condition (alambanapratyayatd), and a predominating influence as condition (adhipatipratyayata). "
6lc. The pratyayas are said to be four.
? 418 Pratyayata means "a type of pratyaya-
***
What is "cause as a condition"?
61d. The pratyaya that bears the name of hetu is five hetus.
Excepting karanahetu, the five remaining hetus constitute hetu- pratyayata, causes as condition.
***
What is "an equal and immediately antecedent condition"?
62a-b. The mind and its mental states that have arisen, with the exception of the last ones, are an equal and immediately antecedent condition.
If one excepts the last mind and the last mental states of the Arhat at the moment of Nirvana, all minds and mental states which have arisen are an equal and immediately antecedent condition.
i. Only mind and mental states are equal and immediately antecedent conditions. Of what dharmas are they the equal and immediately antecedent conditions?
1. This type of condition is called samanantara (equal and immediately antecedent) because it produces equal (sama) and im- mediate (anantara) dharmas. The prefix sam is understood in the sense of equality.
419
Consequently only minds and their mental states are equal and
immediately antecedent conditions, for there is no equality between a
cause and its result with respect to the other dharmas\ for example the
material dharmas. In fact, after a rupa of the sphere of Kamadhatu,
there can arise at the same time two rupas, one of Kamadhatu, the
420
, or two rupas, one from Kamadhatu, the whereas one mind in Kamadhatu and one mind in Rupadhatu can never arise at the same time after a mind in
other from Rupadhatu
other pure;
421
The Indriyas 297
? 298 Chapter Two
Kamadhatu. The appearance of the rupas is confused: now an equal and immediately antecedent condition does not produce confused results; hence material dharmas are not equal and immediately antecedent conditions.
Vasumitra says: A second rilpa of accumulation can arise in the
same body, without which the series of a rilpa of accumulation would
more or by less. Hence it is not an equal and immediately antecedent condition. Less arises from more: as when a great mass of straw, burned, becomes ash. More arises from less: as when a small seed produces the roots of a fig tree, its trunk, its branches, and its leaves.
2. [Objection:] When minds immediately succeed one another, do they always admit the same number of types of associated mental states? No. The earlier mind admits of a larger number of types of mental states, and the following mind, a lesser number; and vice versa. Minds, good, bad, or neutral, succeed one another; but they do not admit of the same number of associated mental states (ii. 28-30); the absorptions, which succeed one another, admit of or do not admit of vitarka and vicara (viii. 7). Hence there is no equality for the mental states as well as for the material dharmas (Vibhasd, TD 27, p. 52a21).
That is true: there is a succession from less to more, and vice versa (second opinion of the Vibhasd); but only by the accumulation or the diminution of the number of types of mental states (Vibhasd, TD 27, p. 50c5). There is never any inequality with respect to a determined type: more numerous sensations never arise after less numerous sensations, nor vice versa; this means that a mind accompanied by a single sensation is never followed by a mind associated with two or three sensations. The same for ideas (samjna) and the other mental states.
Thus is it only in relation to its own type that an earlier mental state is an equal and immediately antecedent condition of a later mental state? Is sensation then the equal and immediately antecedent condition of a single sensation?
be broken; hence rilpa is not an equal and immediately antecedent 422
condition.
The Bhadanta says: A rilpa dharma is immediately followed by
423
? No. In a general way the earlier mental states are equal and immediately antecedent conditions of the mental states that follow, and only of the mental states of their type. But there is no succession from less to more with respect to one type, and vice versa: this justifies the expression samanantara, "equal and immediate. "
3. The Abhidharmikas who take the name of Samtanasabhagikas (Vibhasd, TD 27, p. 50c5) maintain on the contrary that a dharma of a certain type is only an equal and immediately antecedent condition of a dharma of that same type: mind arises from mind, sensation arises from sensation, etc.
[Objection:] In this hypothesis, when a defiled (klista=akusala or nivrtavyakrta) dharma arises after an undefiled dharma, this defiled dharma does not proceed from an equal and immediately antecedent condition.
It is a previously destroyed defilement that is the equal and immediately antecedent condition of the defilement that defiles this second dharma. The previous defilement is considered as immediately preceeding the later defilement, even though it is separated by an undefiled dharma, separation by a dharma of a different nature does not constitute separation, as the leaving-mind of the absorption of extinction (nirodhasamapatti, ii43a) has for its equal and immedi- ately antecedent condition the mind-of-entry-into-absorption which was previously destroyed: absorption does not constitute a separation.
We think that the theory of the Samtanasabhagikas is inadmissible, for, in this theory, a pure mind produced for the first time (i. 38b) would not have any equal and immediately antecedent condition.
424 4. The samskdras dissociated from the mind {viprayukta, ii. 35),
like the material dharmas, are produced disparately: hence they are not equal and immediately antecedent conditions. In fact after possession in the sphere of Kamadhatu, possession relative to the dharmas of the three spheres of existence and to pure dharmas etc. , can be produced at the same time.
ii. Why deny that the future dharmas are equal and immediately antecedent conditions?
Future dharmas are disparate: there is not, among them, any early
The lndriyas 299
? 300 Chapter Two
425
and later (see p. 266).
A. Then how does the Blessed One know that such and such a
future dharma will arise first, and that such and such a dharma will arise later? He knows the order of the arising of all that arises until the end of time.
426
1. First answer.
{anumana) drawn from the past and the present. He sees the past: "From such a type of action such a retributive result arises; such a dharma proceeds from such a dharma\ and he sees the present: "Here is such a type of action: such a retributive result shall arise in the future from this action; here is such a dharma', such a dharma shall proceed from this dharma?
However the consciousness of the Blessed One is called pranidhi- jnana (vii. 37), and is not a consciousness from inference. By means of inferences drawn from the past and from the present, the Blessed One immediately sees the dharma that resides, disparately, in the future, and he produces the consciousness, "This man, having accomplished
428 such an action, shall certainly receive such a future retribution. "
To believe you, if the Blessed One does not consider the past, then he does not know the future. Hence he is not omniscient.
His consciousness results from an inference 427
429
certain dharma which is the indication of the results which will arise in
2. According to other Masters,
the future, namely a certain samskara disassociated from the mind.
430
The Blessed One contemplates it,
without his having cultivated the Dhyanas and the Abhijnas (vii. 42; cyutyupapadajnana) for it.
The Sautrantikas: If this is the case, then the Blessed One would be
431
an interpreter of signs;
3. Consequently the Blessed One knows immediately and at his will
all things, not be inference, and not by divination. This is the opinion of the Sautrantikas, justified by the word of the Blessed One (Ekottara, TD 2, p. 640a4; comp. Digha, i. 31), "The qualities of the Buddhas, the spheres of the Buddhas, are incomprehensible. "
B. If the future does not have any earlier or later division of time, how can one say, "Only duhkhe dharmajnanaksanti arises immediately
there is in the series of beings a
he would not be a "seer. "
and he knows future results
? after the laukika agradharmas, and not any other dharma" (vi. 27) and thus following until "Ksayajndna arises immediately after vajro- pamasamddhi (vi. 46c)? "
[The Vaibhasikas {Vibhasa, TD 27, p. 51bl) answer:] If the arising of this dharma is bound to that dharma, then immediately after that, this arises, as a bud arises after the seed without any equal and immediately antecedent condition intervening.
iii. Why are the last mind and the last mental states of the Arhat equal and immediately antecedent conditions {Vibhasa, TD 27,50a22)?
Because no mind or mental states arise after them.
But you have said (i. 17) that the manas is the mind that is disappearing and which serves as the support of the following mind. Since no mind follows the last mind of an Arhat, this last mind should not receive either the name of manas, or the name of equal and immediately antecedent condition; and yet you consider it as being manas.
The case is not the same. That which constitutes the manas is not its activity, the fact of supporting the susequent mind; rather, it is the quality of being a support {dsraya) for this mind; whether his (latter mind) arises or does not arise is of little importance. The last mind of an Arhat is "support:" if a subsequent mind, which would be supported by this support, does not arise, it is through the lack of other causes necessary to its arising. On the contrary, what constitutes an equal and immediately antecedent condition is its activity. Once this condition has grasped or projected a result, nothing in the world can hinder this result from arising. Hence the last mind of an Arhat is justly called manas, but not an equal and immediately antecedent condition.
iv. Does a dharma which is cittasamanantara, that is, which has a certain mind {cittankantara) for its equal and immediate antecedent
432 condition, immediately follow this mind?
There are four alternatives:
1. The mind and the mental states of leaving of the two
absorptions free from mind (ii. 41), and all the moments of these two absorptions with the exception of the first, have the mind entering into absorption for their equal and immediately antecedent condition,
The Indriyas 301
? 302 Chapter Two
but they do not immediately follow this mind (ii. 64b).
2. The characteristics (laksanas, ii. 45c) 1) of the first moment of
the two absorptions, and 2) of all minds and all mental states of a conscious state, immediately follow a mind, but do not have any equal and immediately antecedent condition.
3. The first moment of the two absorptions, and all minds and mental states of a conscious state, have the mind that they immediately follow for their equal and immediately antecedent condition.
4. The characteristics 1) of all the moments of the two absorptions with the exception of the first, and 2) of the mind and the mental states of leaving these two absorptions, have no equal and immediately antecedent condition, for they are dharmas disassociated from the mind {viprayukta, ii. 35); and they do not immediately follow a mind
###
What is an objea as condition?
62c. All dharmas are the objects of consciousness.
All the dharmas, conditioned as well as unconditioned, are "objects of consciousness" of the mind and its mental states, but not in- discriminately so. For example, the visual consciousness and the mental states, sensation, etc. , which are associated with it, have all visible things for their object; the hearing consciousness, sounds; the smelling consciousness, odors; and the touch consciousness, tangible things. The mental consciousness and the mental states that are associated with it have all the dharmas for their objects. (Karika 62c is then understood literally with respect to the manas).
When a dharma is the objea of a mind, it is not possible that this dharma, at any moment, is not the object of this mind. This means that even if a visible objea is not grasped as an object by the visual consciousness, it is an objea, for, whether it is grasped or not grasped as an object, its nature remains the same, as fuel is combustible, even when it is not on fire.
We can establish a threefold determination in considering the
? problem from the point of view of the mind that grasps a dharma as its object. The mind is determined 1) with regard to its ayatana: for example, a visual consciousness is supported only on a visible thing (rupa-ayatana)', 2) with regard to the dravya or substantial thing: a certain visual consciousness, the consciousness of blue, of red, etc. , is supported by blue, red, etc. (see i. 10); and 3) with regard to a moment (ksana): a certain visual consciousness is supported in a certain moment of blue.
Is the mind determined in the same way with regard to its support
(dsraya), that is, its organ, the organ of sight, etc. ? 433
The response is affirmative. However, in the present, the mind is bound to its support; but in the past and the future, it is separated from it.
According to others, it is bound to its support in both the past and
434 the present.
***
What is a predominating condition?
62d. The cause termed karana is called adhipati, predominant.
AdhipatipraSyayatd or predominating condition is karanahetu, the "reason for being'* cause (ii. 50a), for karanahetu is a "predominating condition" (adhipatipratyaya).
This name is justified from two points of view. The predominating condition is that which belongs to the greatest number of dharmas, and which is exercised with respect to the greatest number of dharmas.
1. All the dharmas are "an object as condition" of the mental consciousness. However the dharmas coexisting with a certain mind are not the object of this mind, whereas they are karanahetu of it. Thus the dharmas, without exception, are "predominating conditions" as karanahetu, not as "an object as condition. "
2. Every dharma has all dharmas for its karanahetu, with the exception of itself.
No dharma of any type is a condition of itself. And a conditioned
The Indriyas 303
? 304 Chapter Two
dharma is not a condition of an unconditioned dharma, and vice versa. ***
In what state (avastha), past, present, or future, are the dharmas found with regard to which the diverse conditions exercise their activity?
Let us first examine cause as condition, that is, as five causes, with the exclusion of karar^ahetu.
63a-b. Two causes exercise their activity with regard to a
4 perishing dharma. ^
"Perishing" means "of the present. " A present dharma is called "perishing," "in the act of perishing," because, having arisen, it is turned towards its destruction.
Sahabhilhetu (ii. 50b) and samprayuktakahetu (53c) operate with regard to a present dharma, because they operate with regard to a
436
dharma that arises at the same time as they do.
63b-c. Three, with regard to an arising dharma.
"An arising dharma' means a future dharma, because a future dharma, not having arisen, is turned towards arising.
The three causes in question are sabhagahetu (ii. 52a), sarvatra- gahetu (54a), and vipakahetu (54c).
Concerning the other conditions:
63c-d. Two other conditions, in reverse order.
First in the list of conditions there comes the equal and immedi- ately antecedent condition: it exercises it activity as do the three causes, namely with regard to an arising dharma, for the minds and mental states of a given moment cede their place to the mind and mental states which are arising.
Next in the list there comes an object as condition: it exercises its activity as do the two causes, namely with regard to a perishing dharma: this perishing dharma is mind and mental states, the "subjects
? of the consciousness" (dlambaka), which, perishing,--that is, of the present,--grasp a present object.
The activity of predominent influence as a condition only consists in not creating any obstacle either to a past, present, or future dharma.
#*#
The different types of dharmas arise by reason of how many conditions?
64a. The mind and its mental states arise by reason of four
437 conditions.
1. Causes as conditions: the five causes; 2. equal and immediately antecedent condition: the earlier mind and mental states, which have arisen not separated by other minds or mental states; 3. an object as condition: the five objects of which physical matter is the first, or, in the case of the mental consciousness, all the dharmas; and 4. a predominating influence as condition: all the dharmas, except the mind and its mental states whose arising is under consideration.
64b. The two absorptions, by reason of three.
One must exclude the object as condition, because the absorption of non-consciousness (ii. 42) and the absorption of extinction (ii. 43) do not grasp an object. We have: 1. causes as conditions: two causes, sahabhuhetu (the laksanas, arising, etc. ii. 45c, of the absorption), and sabhdgahetu (the good former dharmas, already arisen, belonging to the stage of absorption, that is, to the Fourth Dhyana or to Bhavagra, according to the case); 2. an equal and immediately antecedent condition, the mind of entry into the absorption and the mental states that are associated with this mind; the mind of entry is not separated by any mind of any of the moments of the absorption; and 3. the predominating influence as condition, as above.
These two absorptions arise from an application, from an inflec- tion of the mind: they then have the mind as an equal and immediately antecedent condition. They hinder the arising of the mind: thus they
The Indriyas 305
?
306 Chapter Two
are not equal and immediately antecedent conditions of the mind leaving the absorption, even though they are immediately contigous to it (nirantara, see p. 301).
64c. The other dharmas, by reason of two.
The other dharmas, namely the other samskaras disassociated form the mind and the material dharmas, arise by reason of the causes as conditions and the predominating influence as condition (Vibhdsd, TD 27, p. 702b21).
##*
All the dharmas that arise arise by reason of the five causes and the four conditions that we have just explained. The world does not proceed from a single cause that is called God, or Purusa, or Pradhana,
438 or any other name.
How do you prove this thesis?
If you think that the thesis is proven through arguments, you betray your doctrine that the world arises from a single cause.
64d. Not from God or from any other cause, since there is a
439 succession, etc.
That things are produced by a single cause, by God, Mahadeva, or Vasudeva, is inadmissable for many reasons.
1. If things were produced by a single cause, they would arise all at the same time: now each of us knows that they arise successively.
[The Theist:] They arise successively by virtue of the desires of God, who says, "May this arise now! May this perish now! May this arise and perish later! "
If this were the case, then things do not arise from a single cause, since the desires (of God) are multiple. Moreover these multiple desires would have to be simultaneous, since God, the cause of these desires, is not multiple, and things would all arise at the same time.
a. [ The Theist:] The desires of God are not simultaneous, because God, in order to produce his desires, takes into account other causes.
? If this were so, then God is not the single unique cause of all things. And the causes that God takes into account are produced successively: they depend then on causes which are themselves dependent on other causes: an infinite regression.
[The Theist:] It is admitted that the series of causes has no beginning.
This would admit that samsdra does not have an origin. You then abandon the doctrine of a single cause and return to the Buddhist theory of causes (hetus) and conditions (pratyaya).
b. [The Theist:] The desires of God are simultaneous, but things do not arise at the same time because they arise as God wishes them to arise, that is, in succession.
This is inadmissible. The desires of God remain what they are. Let us explain. Suppose that God desires "May this arise now! May that arise later! " We do not see why the second desire, at first non- efficacious, will be efficacious later; why, if it is efficacious later, it will not be so initially.
What advantage does God obtain from this great effort by which he produces the world?
[The Theist:] God produces the world for his own satisfaction
(ptiti).
He is then not God, the Sovereign {Isvara), in what concerns his
own satisfaction, since he cannot realize it without a means (upaya). And if he is not sovereign with regard to his own satisfaction, how can he be sovereign with regard to the world? Further, do you say that God finds satisfaction in seeing the creatures that he has created in the prey of all the sufferings of existence, including the tortures of the hells? Homage to this God! Well said, in truth, is the popular stanza, "He is called Rudra because he burns, because he is excited, ferocious, terrible,
440
an eater of flesh, blood, and marrow/'
3. The followers of God, the single cause of the world, deny visible
causes,--causes and conditions,--the efficacy of the seed with regard to the sprout, etc. If, modifying their position, they admit the existence of these causes, and pretend that these causes serve God as auxiliaries, this then is no more that a pious affirmation, for we do not maintain
The Indriyas 307
? 308 Chapter Two
any activity of a cause besides the activity of the so-called secondary causes. Furthermore, God would not be sovereign with regard to auxiliary causes, since these cooperate in the production of the effect through their own efficacy. Perhaps, in order to avoid the negation of causes, which are visible, and in order to avoid the affirmation of present action by God, which is not visible, the Theist would say that the work of God is creation: but creation, dependent only on God, would never have a beginning, like God himself, and this is a consequence that the Theist rejects.
We would refute the doctrine of Purusa, of Pradhana, etc. , as we have refuted the theist doctrine, mutatis mutandis. Thus, no dharma arises from a single cause.
Alas, persons are unclear! Like the birds and the animals, truly
worth of pity, they go from existence to existence, accomplishing
441 diverse actions; they experience the results of these actions and
442
falsely believe that God is the cause of these results. (We must
explain the Truth in order to put an end to this false conception. )
***
We have seen (ii. 64c) that the material dharmas arise by reason of two conditions, causes as conditions and predominating influences as conditions. We must specify and see how the primary elements {bhutas or mahdbhutas), and the dharmas of derived matter (updddyarupa or bhautikas), are causes as conditions, either among themselves, or one from the other.
65a. The primary elements are the cause of the derived
443 elements in two ways.
The four primary elements of earth, etc. , are causes of the four primary elements in the quality of similar causes (sabhdgahetu), and of mutually coexistant causes (sahabhuhetu).
65b. And of the derived elements, in five ways.
The four primary elements are causes of the derived elements--
? color, taste, etc. --in five ways, in the quality of janana, nisraya, pratisthd, upastambha, and upabrmhanahetu^
Jananahetu or generating cause, because the derived elements arise
445
from them, like a child from his parents.
Nisrayahetu or tutelage cause, because the bhautikas, once arisen,
submerge their influence, as a monk is under the tutelage of his Acarya and his Upadhyaya.
Pratisthdhetu or supporting cause, because the derived elements
446
are supported by them, as a picture is supported by a wall. Upastambhahetu or maintaining cause, because the primary ele-
ments are the cause of the non-interruption of the derived elements. Upabrmhanahetu or growth cause, because the primary elements
are the cause of the development of the derived elements.
This means that the primary elements (bhutas) are, with regard to the derived elements (bhautikas), the cause of arising (janmahetu), the cause of transformation (vikarahetu), the supporting cause (ddhara- hetu), the cause of duration (sthitihetu), and the cause of development
(vrddhihetu).
65c. Derived elements are the cause of the derived elements in three ways.
In the qualtiy of sahabhu, sabhdga and vipdkahetu. We do not mention kdranahetu, for any dharma is a kdranahetu of any other dharma.
1. The actions of the body and voice of the category described in ii. 51a (i. e. , the two disciplines), which are derived elements, are sahabhuhetu.
2. All the derived elements which have arisen, are, with regard to similar (sabhdga) derived elements, sabhdgahetu.
3. The actions of the body and voice are vipdkahetu: the eye is produced through retribution of action, etc.
65d. And the cause of the primary elements, in one way.
The actions of the body and voice produce the primary elements as a retributive result: they are then vipdkahetu.
The Indriyas 309
? 310 Chapter Two
We have seen that antecedent minds and mental states are the equal and immediately antecent condition of subsequent minds and mental states. But we have not explained how many types of mind arise immediately after each type of mind.
In order to define its role, we must first establish a classification of the mind.
First, we must distinguish twelve categories.
66a. Good, bad, defiled-neutral, undefiled-neutral minds in
447 Kamadhatu.
Four types of minds belong to Kamadhatu: good, bad, defiled- neutral, and undefiled-neutral.
66b. Good defiled-neutral, undefiled-neutral minds in Rupa- dhatu and in Arupyadhatu.
Three types of minds are in the two higher spheres: all of the above, excluding the bad mind.
66c. And two pure minds.
The two pure minds are those of the Saiksa and the Arhat or Asaiksa. In all, these constitute twelve minds.
[These twelve minds do not indiscriminately arise one after the other:]
67a. Nine types of minds can arise after a good mind in
448 Kamadhatu.
1. Immediately after a good mind in Kamadhatu there can arise nine minds, namely: (1-4) the four minds in Kamadhatu; (5-6) two minds in Rupadhatu: good, when a ascetic enters into absorption, and defiled-neutral, when a person who dies in Kamadhatu with a good mind passes into the intermediate existence of Rupadhatu (iii. 38); (7) a mind in Arupyadhatu, a defiled-neutral mind, when one dying in Kamadhatu is reborn in Arupyadhatu; not good, for, since Arupya-
? dhatu is estranged from Kamadhatu by four estrangements, cannot pass directly from Kamadhatu into an absorption of Arupya- dhatu; (8-9) the two pure minds, of Saiksa or of Asaiksa, at entry into the Understanding of the Truths (vi. 27).
67b. Such a [good] mind can arise after eight types of minds.
2. A good mind can arise immediately after eight minds, namely: (1-4) the four minds in Kamadhatu, (5-6) two minds in Rupadhatu, good and defiled-neutral minds, upon leaving an absorption. It happens in fact that an ascetic, bothered by a defiled {klista) absorp- tion, leaves this absorption: after the defiled (klista-nivrta) mind, which is this absorption, he produces a good mind of a lower stage (viii. 14); and (7-8) two pure minds, of Saiksa or Asaiksa, upon leaving the Understanding of the Truths.
67c. A bad mind can arise after ten types of minds.
3. A klista mind, that is to say, a bad and a defiled-neutral mind can arise after ten minds--excluding the two pure minds, for a mind of rebirth into Kamadhatu is defiled (ii. 14, iii. 38) and can follow any kind of mind belonging to the three spheres of existence.
67d. Four types of minds can arise after such a (= bad) mind.
4. Four minds can arise after a klista mind, namely the four minds of Kamadhatu.
67e. The same for a defiled-neutral mind.
5. An undefiled-neutral mind can arise after five minds.
68a. An undefiled-neutral mind can arise after five types of mind.
Namely the four minds in Kamadhatu, plus a good mind in Rupadhatu: for a mind capable of creating fictive beings (nirmdnacitta) in Kamadhatu, a mind that has for its object the creation of an object of Kamadhatu, follows a good mind in Rupadhatu.
The Indriyas 311
449
one
? 312 Chapter Two
68b. Seven types of mind can arise after an undefiled-neutral mind.
6. After an undefiled-neutral mind there can arise seven minds, namely: (1-4) the four minds in Kamadhatu, (5-6) two minds in Rupadhatu, good minds, for, after the aforementioned mind of creation, a good mind reappears in Rupadhatu, and a defiled-neutral mind, when a person, dying with this mind, is reborn in Rupadhatu the first mind of which is necessarily a defiled-neutral mind (iii. 38); (7) a mind of Arupyadhatu, a defiled-neutral mind, when a person, dying with this mind, is reborn in Arupyadhatu.
68c. In Rupadhatu eleven types of minds can arise after a good mind.
1. Eleven minds, excluding an undefiled-neutral mind in Rupa- dhatu, can arise immediately after a good mind in Rupadhatu.
68d. A good mind can arise after nine types of minds.
2. A good mind can arise after nine minds, excluding the two defiled minds in Kamadhatu (bad and defiled-neutral) and an undefiled-neutral mind in Arupyadhatu.
69a. A defiled-neutral mind can arise after eight types of minds.
3. A defiled-neutral mind can arise after eight minds, excluding the two defiled minds in Kamadhatu and the two pure minds.
69b. Six types of minds can arise after a defiled-neutral mind.
4. Six minds can arise after a defiled-neutral mind, namely the three minds in Rupadhatu, and the good, bad, and defiled-neutral minds in Kamadhatu
69c. An undefiled-neutral mind can arise after three types of mind.
5. An undefiled-neutral mind can arise after the three minds in Rupadhatu.
? 69d. Six types of mind can arise after such a (defiled-neutral) mind.
6. Six minds can arise after an undefiled-neutral mind, namely: (1-3) the three minds in Rupadhatu, (4-5) the two defiled minds in Kamadhatu (bad and defiled-neutral), and (6) the defiled mind in Arupyadhatu (defiled-neutral).
69e. As above, so too in Arupyadhatu, for these (undefiled- neutral minds).
1. An undefiled-neutral mind in Arupyadhatu can arise after the three minds of this sphere.
2. Six minds can arise after an undefiled-neutral mind in Arupya- dhatu, namely: (1-3) the three minds of this sphere, and (4-6) the defiled minds in Kamadhatu (two) and Rupadhatu (one).
70a. Nine types of minds can arise after a good mind.
3. Nine minds can arise after a good mind, with the exception of a good mind in Kamadhatu and an undefiled-neutral mind in Kama- dhatu and Rupadhatu.
70b. Such a (good mind) can arise after six types of mind
4. A good mind can arise after six minds, namely (1-3) the three minds in Arupyadhatu, (4) a good mind in Rupadhatu, and (5-6) the two pure minds.
70c. Seven types of minds can arise after a defiled-neutral mind.
5. Seven minds can arise after a defiled-neutral mind, namely (1-3) the three minds in Arupyadhatu, (4) a good mind in Rupadhatu, (5-6) two defiled minds in Kamadhatu, and (7) a defiled mind in Rupadhatu.
70d. And the same for it.
6. A defiled-neutal mind can arise after seven minds, with the exception of the two defiled minds in Kamadhatu, a defiled mind in Rupadhatu and the two pure minds.
The Indtiyas 313
? 314 Chapter Two
70e. A Saiksa mind can arise after four types of minds.
A Saiksa mind, the mind belonging to the saint who is not an Arhat, can arise after four minds, namely a Saiksa mind and a good mind in each of the three spheres.
70f. But five types of minds can arise after such (a Saiksa mind).
Five minds can arise after a Saiksa mind, namely the four that have just been named and an Asaiksa mind.
70g. An Asaiksa mind can arise after five types of minds.
An Asaiksa mind can arise after five minds, namely after a Saiksa mind, an Asaiksa mind, and a good mind of each of the three spheres.
71a. Four types of minds can arise after such (an Asaiksa mind).
Four minds can arise after an ASaiksa mind, namely an Asaiksa mind and a good mind of each of three spheres.
The twelve types of mind succeed one another in conformity with these rules.
And again,
71b. The twelve types of mind make twenty.
How is this?
71c.