English
It should not be said so (etc.). Does one, attending to the present as 'present', attend to the future as 'future'? It should not be said so (etc.). Does one, attending to the present as 'present', attend to the future as 'future'? Yes. Is there a conjunction of two contacts (etc.), a conjunction of two minds? It should not be said so (etc.). Does one, attending to the present as 'present', attend to the past as 'past', and attend to the future as 'future'? It should not be said so (etc.). Does one, attending to the present as 'present', attend to the past as 'past', and attend to the future as 'future'? Yes. Is there a conjunction of three contacts (etc.), a conjunction of three minds? Is it? It should not be said thus... 753. Should it not be said – "he comprehends and attends"? Yes. Was it not said by the Blessed One – "All formations are impermanent, when one sees with wisdom; Then one is disgusted with suffering, this is the path to purity. "All formations are suffering, when one sees with wisdom; Then one is disgusted with suffering, this is the path to purity. "All phenomena are non-self, when one sees with wisdom; Then one is disgusted with suffering, this is the path to purity." Is there such a Suttanta? Yes. Therefore, he comprehends and attends. The discourse on comprehending and attending is finished. 16. The Sixteenth Chapter (160) 5. Discourse on Form as a Cause 754. Is form a cause? Yes. Is non-greed a cause? It should not be said thus... Is non-hatred a cause... Is non-delusion a cause... Is greed a cause... Is hatred a cause... Is delusion a cause? It should not be said thus... Is form a cause? Yes. Is it with an object, does it have a turning towards... or an aspiration? It should not be said thus... Is it not without an object, does it not have a turning towards... or an aspiration? Yes. If it is without an object, does not have a turning towards... or an aspiration, then indeed it should not be said – "form is a cause." 755. Is non-greed a cause with an object, does it have a turning towards... or an aspiration? Yes. Is form a cause with an object, does it have a turning towards... or an aspiration? It should not be said thus... Is non-hatred a cause... non-delusion a cause... greed a cause... hatred a cause... delusion a cause with an object, does it have a turning towards... or an aspiration? Yes. Is form a cause with an object, does it have a turning towards... or an aspiration? It should not be said thus... Is form a cause without an object, does it not have a turning towards... or an aspiration? Yes. Is non-greed a cause without an object, does it not have a turning towards... or an aspiration? It should not be said thus... Is form a cause without an object, does it not have a turning towards... or an aspiration? Yes. Is non-hatred a cause... non-delusion a cause... greed a cause... hatred a cause... delusion a cause without an object, there is no turning back for it, nor aspiration? It should not be said thus. 756. Should it not be said – "Form is a cause"? Yes. Are not the great elements a dependent cause for derived form? Yes. If the great elements are a dependent cause for derived form, then indeed it should be said – "Form is a cause." The discussion on "Form is a cause" is finished. 16. The Sixteenth Chapter (161) 6. The discussion on "Is form with a cause?" 757. Is form with a cause? Yes. Is it with a cause of non-greed? It should not be said thus. Is it with a cause of non-hatred? It should not be said thus. Is it with a cause of non-delusion? It should not be said thus. Is it with a cause of greed? It should not be said thus. Is it with a cause of hatred? It should not be said thus. Is it with a cause of delusion? It should not be said thus. Is form with a cause? Yes. Is it with an object, is there a turning back for it, or aspiration? It should not be said thus. Is it not without an object, is there no turning back for it, nor aspiration? Yes. If it is without an object, there is no turning back for it, nor aspiration, then indeed it should not be said – "Form is with a cause." 758. Is non-greed with a cause, with an object, is there a turning back for it, or aspiration? Yes. Is form with a cause, with an object, is there a turning back for it, or aspiration? It should not be said thus. Is non-hatred with a cause, with an object, is there a turning back for it, or aspiration? It should not be said thus. Is non-delusion with a cause, with an object, is there a turning back for it, or aspiration? It should not be said thus. Is faith with a cause, with an object, is there a turning back for it, or aspiration? It should not be said thus. Is effort with a cause, with an object, is there a turning back for it, or aspiration? It should not be said thus. Is mindfulness with a cause, with an object, is there a turning back for it, or aspiration? It should not be said thus. Is concentration with a cause, with an object, is there a turning back for it, or aspiration? It should not be said thus. Is wisdom with a cause, with an object, is there a turning back for it, or aspiration? It should not be said thus. Is greed with a cause, with an object, is there a turning back for it, or aspiration? It should not be said thus. Is hatred with a cause, with an object, is there a turning back for it, or aspiration? It should not be said thus. Is delusion with a cause, with an object, is there a turning back for it, or aspiration? It should not be said thus. Is conceit with a cause, with an object, is there a turning back for it, or aspiration? It should not be said thus. Is wrong view with a cause, with an object, is there a turning back for it, or aspiration? It should not be said thus. Is doubt with a cause, with an object, is there a turning back for it, or aspiration? It should not be said thus. Is sloth with a cause, with an object, is there a turning back for it, or aspiration? It should not be said thus. Is restlessness with a cause, with an object, is there a turning back for it, or aspiration? It should not be said thus. Is shamelessness with a cause, with an object, is there a turning back for it, or aspiration? It should not be said thus. Is fearlessness of wrongdoing with a cause, with an object, is there a turning back for it, or aspiration? Yes. Is form with a cause, with an object, is there a turning back for it, or aspiration? It should not be said thus. Is form with a cause, without an object, is there no turning back for it, nor aspiration? Yes. Is non-greed with a cause, without an object, is there no turning back for it, nor aspiration? It should not be said thus. Is form with a cause, without an object, is there no turning back for it, nor aspiration? Yes. Is non-hatred with a cause, without an object, is there no turning back for it, nor aspiration? It should not be said thus. Is non-delusion with a cause, without an object, is there no turning back for it, nor aspiration? It should not be said thus. Is faith with a cause, without an object, is there no turning back for it, nor aspiration? It should not be said thus. Is effort with a cause, without an object, is there no turning back for it, nor aspiration? It should not be said thus. Is mindfulness with a cause, without an object, is there no turning back for it, nor aspiration? It should not be said thus. Is concentration with a cause, without an object, is there no turning back for it, nor aspiration? It should not be said thus. Is wisdom with a cause, without an object, is there no turning back for it, nor aspiration? It should not be said thus. Is greed with a cause, without an object, is there no turning back for it, nor aspiration? It should not be said thus. Is hatred with a cause, without an object, is there no turning back for it, nor aspiration? It should not be said thus. Is delusion with a cause, without an object, is there no turning back for it, nor aspiration? It should not be said thus. Is conceit with a cause, without an object, is there no turning back for it, nor aspiration? It should not be said thus. Is wrong view with a cause, without an object, is there no turning back for it, nor aspiration? It should not be said thus. Is doubt with a cause, without an object, is there no turning back for it, nor aspiration? It should not be said thus. Is sloth with a cause, without an object, is there no turning back for it, nor aspiration? It should not be said thus. Is restlessness with a cause, without an object, is there no turning back for it, nor aspiration? It should not be said thus. Is shamelessness with a cause, without an object, is there no turning back for it, nor aspiration? It should not be said thus. Is fearlessness of wrongdoing with a cause, without an object, is there no turning back for it, nor aspiration? Is it? It should not be said thus... 759. Should it not be said – "Form is with a cause"? Yes. Is not form with a condition? Yes. If form is with a condition, then indeed it should be said – "Form is with a cause." The discussion on "Form is with a cause" is concluded. 16. The Sixteenth Chapter (162) 7. The discussion on "Form is wholesome or unwholesome" 760. Is form wholesome? Yes. Is it with an object, is there a turning towards it... ...an aspiration for it? It should not be said thus... Is it not without an object, is there no turning towards it... ...no aspiration for it? Yes. If it is without an object, there is no turning towards it... ...no aspiration for it, then indeed it should not be said – "Form is wholesome." 761. Is non-greed wholesome, with an object, is there a turning towards it... ...an aspiration for it? Yes. Is form wholesome, with an object, is there a turning towards it... ...an aspiration for it? It should not be said thus... Is non-hatred wholesome... is non-delusion wholesome... is faith... energy... mindfulness... concentration... wisdom wholesome, with an object, is there a turning towards it... ...an aspiration for it? Yes.