[1277] For whomever, wherever, the latent tendency of sensual lust (kāmarāgānusaya) does not lie latent, does the latent tendency of repulsion (paṭighānusaya) not lie latent for that person there?
For three persons, in painful feeling (dukkhā vedanā), the latent tendency of sensual lust does not lie latent for them there, but it is not that the latent tendency of repulsion does not lie latent for them there. For those same persons, in the form element (rūpadhātu), in the formless element (arūpadhātu), and in the unincluded (apariyāpanna), the latent tendency of sensual lust does not lie latent for them there, and the latent tendency of repulsion does not lie latent. For two persons, everywhere, the latent tendency of sensual lust does not lie latent, and the latent tendency of repulsion does not lie latent.
Or rather, for whomever, wherever, the latent tendency of repulsion does not lie latent, does the latent tendency of sensual lust not lie latent for that person there?
For three persons, in two feelings in the sense-sphere element (kāmadhātu), the latent tendency of repulsion does not lie latent for them there, but it is not that the latent tendency of sensual lust does not lie latent for them there. For those same persons, in the form element, in the formless element, and in the unincluded, the latent tendency of repulsion does not lie latent for them there, and the latent tendency of sensual lust does not lie latent. For two persons, everywhere, the latent tendency of repulsion does not lie latent, and the latent tendency of sensual lust does not lie latent.
For whomever, wherever, the latent tendency of sensual lust does not lie latent, does the latent tendency of conceit (mānānusaya) not lie latent for that person there?
For three persons, in the form element and in the formless element, the latent tendency of sensual lust does not lie latent for them there, but it is not that the latent tendency of conceit does not lie latent for them there. For those same persons, in painful feeling and in the unincluded, the latent tendency of sensual lust does not lie latent for them there, and the latent tendency of conceit does not lie latent. For the non-returner (anāgāmī), in two feelings in the sense-sphere element, in the form element, and in the formless element, the latent tendency of sensual lust does not lie latent for him there, but it is not that the latent tendency of conceit does not lie latent for him there. For that same person, in painful feeling and in the unincluded, the latent tendency of sensual lust does not lie latent for him there, and the latent tendency of conceit does not lie latent. For the Arahant, everywhere, the latent tendency of sensual lust does not lie latent, and the latent tendency of conceit does not lie latent.
Or rather, for whomever, wherever, the latent tendency of conceit does not lie latent, does the latent tendency of sensual lust not lie latent for that person there?
Yes.
For whomever, wherever, the latent tendency of sensual lust does not lie latent, does the latent tendency of views (diṭṭhānusaya) … the latent tendency of doubt (vicikicchānusaya) not lie latent for that person there?
For the ordinary person (puthujjana), in painful feeling, in the form element, and in the formless element, the latent tendency of sensual lust does not lie latent for him there, but it is not that the latent tendency of doubt does not lie latent for him there. For that same person, in the unincluded, the latent tendency of sensual lust does not lie latent for him there, and the latent tendency of doubt does not lie latent. For two persons, everywhere, the latent tendency of sensual lust does not lie latent, and the latent tendency of doubt does not lie latent.
Or rather, for whomever, wherever, the latent tendency of doubt does not lie latent, does the latent tendency of sensual lust not lie latent for that person there?
For two persons, in two feelings in the sense-sphere element, the latent tendency of doubt does not lie latent for them there, but it is not that the latent tendency of sensual lust does not lie latent for them there. For those same persons, in painful feeling, in the form element, in the formless element, and in the unincluded, the latent tendency of doubt does not lie latent for them there, and the latent tendency of sensual lust does not lie latent. For two persons, everywhere, the latent tendency of doubt does not lie latent, and the latent tendency of sensual lust does not lie latent.
For whomever, wherever, the latent tendency of sensual lust does not lie latent, does the latent tendency of lust for existence (bhavarāgānusaya) not lie latent for that person there?
For three persons, in the form element and in the formless element, the latent tendency of sensual lust does not lie latent for them there, but it is not that the latent tendency of lust for existence does not lie latent for them there. For those same persons, in painful feeling and in the unincluded, the latent tendency of sensual lust does not lie latent for them there, and the latent tendency of lust for existence does not lie latent. For the non-returner, in the form element and in the formless element, the latent tendency of sensual lust does not lie latent for him there, but it is not that the latent tendency of lust for existence does not lie latent for him there. For that same person, in three feelings in the sense-sphere element and in the unincluded, the latent tendency of sensual lust does not lie latent for him there, and the latent tendency of lust for existence does not lie latent. For the Arahant, everywhere, the latent tendency of sensual lust does not lie latent, and the latent tendency of lust for existence does not lie latent.
Or rather, for whomever, wherever, the latent tendency of lust for existence does not lie latent, does the latent tendency of sensual lust not lie latent for that person there?
For three persons, in two feelings in the sense-sphere element, the latent tendency of lust for existence does not lie latent for them there, but it is not that the latent tendency of sensual lust does not lie latent for them there. For those same persons, in painful feeling and in the unincluded, the latent tendency of lust for existence does not lie latent for them there, and the latent tendency of sensual lust does not lie latent. For the Arahant, everywhere, the latent tendency of lust for existence does not lie latent, and the latent tendency of sensual lust does not lie latent.
For whomever, wherever, the latent tendency of sensual lust does not lie latent, does the latent tendency of ignorance (avijjānusaya) not lie latent for that person there?
For three persons, in painful feeling, in the form element, and in the formless element, the latent tendency of sensual lust does not lie latent for them there, but it is not that the latent tendency of ignorance does not lie latent for them there. For those same persons, in the unincluded, the latent tendency of sensual lust does not lie latent for them there, and the latent tendency of ignorance does not lie latent. For the non-returner, in three feelings in the sense-sphere element, in the form element, and in the formless element, the latent tendency of sensual lust does not lie latent for him there, but it is not that the latent tendency of ignorance does not lie latent for him there. For that same person, in the unincluded, the latent tendency of sensual lust does not lie latent for him there, and the latent tendency of ignorance does not lie latent. For the Arahant, everywhere, the latent tendency of sensual lust does not lie latent, and the latent tendency of ignorance does not lie latent.
Or rather, for whomever, wherever, the latent tendency of ignorance does not lie latent, does the latent tendency of sensual lust not lie latent for that person there?
Yes.
English translation from the Pali (Siam Raṭṭha edition) — under review, not for citation.