English
Chapter Fifteen (145) 1. Discourse on Conditionality Is conditionality established? Yes. Is not investigation a root, and that an overlord? Yes. If investigation is a root, and that an overlord, then indeed it should be said: "It is conditioned by the root condition, it is conditioned by the overlord condition." Is not desire-overlord an overlord of co-arisen states? Yes. If desire-overlord is an overlord of co-arisen states, then indeed it should be said: "It is conditioned by the overlord condition, it is conditioned by the co-arisen condition." Is not energy-overlord an overlord of co-arisen states? Yes. If energy-overlord is an overlord of co-arisen states, then indeed it should be said: "It is conditioned by the overlord condition, it is conditioned by the co-arisen condition." Is not energy-overlord an overlord of co-arisen states, and that a faculty? Yes. If energy-overlord is an overlord of co-arisen states, and that a faculty, then indeed it should be said: "It is conditioned by the overlord condition, it is conditioned by the faculty condition." Is not energy-overlord an overlord of co-arisen states, and that a path-factor? Yes. If energy-overlord is an overlord of co-arisen states, and that a path-factor, then indeed it should be said: "It is conditioned by the overlord condition, it is conditioned by the path condition." Is not consciousness-overlord an overlord of co-arisen states? Yes. If consciousness-overlord is an overlord of co-arisen states, then indeed it should be said: "It is conditioned by the overlord condition, it is conditioned by the co-arisen condition." Is not consciousness-overlord an overlord of co-arisen states, and that a nutriment? Yes. If consciousness-overlord is an overlord of co-arisen states, and that a nutriment, then indeed it should be said: "It is conditioned by the overlord condition, it is conditioned by the nutriment condition." Is not consciousness-overlord an overlord of co-arisen states, and that a faculty? Yes. If consciousness-predominance is the predominance of co-arisen phenomena, and that is an faculty, then it should be said: "Conditioned by predominance, conditioned by faculty." Is not investigation-predominance the predominance of co-arisen phenomena? Yes. If investigation-predominance is the predominance of co-arisen phenomena, then it should be said: "Conditioned by predominance, conditioned by co-arising." Is not investigation-predominance the predominance of co-arisen phenomena, and that is an faculty? Yes. If investigation-predominance is the predominance of co-arisen phenomena, and that is an faculty, then it should be said: "Conditioned by predominance, conditioned by faculty." Is not investigation-predominance the predominance of co-arisen phenomena, and that is a path-factor? Yes. If investigation-predominance is the predominance of co-arisen phenomena, and that is a path-factor, then it should be said: "Conditioned by predominance, conditioned by path." Does not reflection arise making a noble phenomenon important, and that is an object? Yes. If reflection arises making a noble phenomenon important, and that is an object, then it should be said: "Conditioned by predominance, conditioned by object." Are not former former wholesome phenomena a condition by contiguity for later later wholesome phenomena, and that is repetition? Yes. If former former wholesome phenomena are a condition by contiguity for later later wholesome phenomena, and that is repetition, then it should be said: "Conditioned by contiguity, conditioned by repetition." Are not former former unwholesome phenomena a condition by contiguity for later later unwholesome phenomena, and that is repetition? Yes. If former former unwholesome phenomena are a condition by contiguity for later later unwholesome phenomena, of states, and that is repeated practice, then it should indeed be said: “It is a condition by immediate contiguity, it is a condition by repeated practice.” Are not former inoperative states a condition by immediate contiguity for later inoperative states, and that is repeated practice? Yes. If former inoperative states are a condition by immediate contiguity for later inoperative states, and that is repeated practice, then it should indeed be said: “It is a condition by immediate contiguity, it is a condition by repeated practice.” 717. Should it not be said: “Conditionality is fixed”? Yes. Is it a condition by root-cause, is it a condition by object, is it a condition by immediate contiguity, is it a condition by perfect immediate contiguity? It should not be said thus. Then conditionality is fixed. The discourse on conditionality is finished. 15. The Fifteenth Chapter (146) 2. Discourse on Reciprocal Condition 718. Only ignorance is a condition for volitional formations, should it not be said: “Volitional formations are also a condition for ignorance”? Yes. Is not ignorance co-arisen with volitional formations? Yes. If ignorance is co-arisen with volitional formations, then it should indeed be said: “Ignorance is also a condition for volitional formations, volitional formations are also a condition for ignorance.” Only craving is a condition for clinging, should it not be said: “Clinging is also a condition for craving”? Yes. Is not craving co-arisen with clinging? Yes. If craving is co-arisen with clinging, then it should indeed be said: “Craving is also a condition for clinging, clinging is also a condition for craving.” 719. “From birth, bhikkhus, comes aging and death; from becoming, bhikkhus, comes birth”— is there such a Suttanta? No. Then only ignorance is a condition for volitional formations, it should not be said: “Volitional formations are also a condition for ignorance.” Only craving is a condition for clinging, it should not be said: “Clinging is also a condition for craving.” “From consciousness, bhikkhus, comes name-and-form; from name-and-form, bhikkhus, comes Even consciousness, thus— Is there such a Sutta? Yes. Therefore, from ignorance, volitional formations; and from volitional formations, ignorance; from craving, clinging; and from clinging, craving. The Discourse on Reciprocal Conditionality is concluded. 15. The Fifteenth Chapter (147) 3. The Discourse on Time 720. Is time fully accomplished? Yes. Is it form? It should not be said so. Is it feeling? It should not be said so. Is it perception? It should not be said so. Is it volitional formations? It should not be said so. Is it consciousness? It should not be said so. Is past time fully accomplished? Yes. Is it form? It should not be said so. Is it feeling? It should not be said so. Is it perception? It should not be said so. Is it volitional formations? It should not be said so. Is it consciousness? It should not be said so. Is future time fully accomplished? Yes. Is it form? It should not be said so. Is it feeling? It should not be said so. Is it perception? It should not be said so. Is it volitional formations? It should not be said so. Is it consciousness? It should not be said so. Is present time fully accomplished? Yes. Is it form? It should not be said so. Is it feeling? It should not be said so. Is it perception? It should not be said so. Is it volitional formations? It should not be said so. Is it consciousness? It should not be said so. Are past form, feeling, perception, volitional formations, consciousness past time? Yes. Are there five past times? It should not be said so. Are future form, feeling, perception, volitional formations, consciousness future time? Yes. Are there five future times? It should not be said so. Are present form, feeling, perception, volitional formations, consciousness present time? Yes. Are there five present times? It should not be said so. Are the past five aggregates past time, the future five aggregates future time, and the present five aggregates present time? Yes. Are there fifteen times? It should not be said so. Are the past twelve sense bases past time, the future twelve sense bases future time, and the present twelve sense bases present time? Yes. Are there thirty-six times? It should not be said so. Are the past eighteen elements past time, the future eighteen elements future time, Oh, are the eighteen present elements the present time? Yes. Is it fifty-four times? It should not be said so (and so on). Are the twenty-two past faculties the past time, the twenty-two future faculties the future time, and the twenty-two present faculties the present time? Yes. Is it sixty-six times? It should not be said so (and so on). 721. It should not be said: "Is time fully accomplished?" Yes. Has it not been said by the Blessed One: "Monks, there are these three topics of conversation! Which three? Monks, one might speak a talk concerning the past time – 'Thus it was in the past time'; or, monks, one might speak a talk concerning the future time – 'Thus it will be in the future time'; or, monks, one might speak a talk concerning the present time – 'Thus it is in the present time'. These, monks, are the three topics of conversation." Is there such a Sutta? Yes. Therefore, time is fully accomplished. The discourse on Time is finished. 15. The Fifteenth Chapter (148) 4. Discourse on Moment, Instant, and Muhutta 722. Is a moment fully accomplished, an instant fully accomplished, a muhutta fully accomplished? Yes. Is it form? It should not be said so (and so on). ...feeling... perception... formations... consciousness? It should not be said so (and so on). 723. It should not be said: "Is a muhutta fully accomplished?" Yes. Has it not been said by the Blessed One: "Monks, there are these three topics of conversation! Which three? Monks, one might speak a talk concerning the past time – 'Thus it was in the past time'; or, monks, one might speak a talk concerning the future time – 'Thus it will be in the future time'; or, monks, one might speak a talk concerning the present time – 'Thus it is in the present time'.