English
it says only "nāma conditioned by the sixth sense base," that is, the mind base. For that is the corresponding condition for a single unwholesome contact. Although that is also said in "saṅkhāras conditioned by viññāṇa," however, it is taken again here to show the distinction of cause and effect and for the completeness of the factor. There, saṅkhāro is specifically the cause, and nāma is generally the effect. Here, however, nāma is generally the cause, and specifically phassa is the effect. But since sorrows and the like do not all arise in a single moment of consciousness, and do not occur in every place where consciousness occurs and in every consciousness, therefore they are not taken. But birth, aging, and death, even though they are only moments without consciousness, being included in the moment of consciousness, are taken for the completeness of the factor. Thus, here, "whatever is said differently, and whatever is not said," that should be understood. Whatever here it... That which is said in each turn, its meaning should be understood in the manner already stated. However, in whichever turn, whatever distinction has arisen, that, right there, we will make clear. But in "What is the condition for what," ignorance is a condition for volitional formations in seven ways: through the six conditions of co-nascent, mutual condition, dependence condition, association condition, presence condition, and absence condition, common to associated states, and also through the root condition. Therein, since the three tetrads beginning with the four root conditions have been stated in terms of the absence, association, and mutual condition, therefore, here, having removed those, it should be understood that ignorance is a condition for volitional formations in four ways, in terms of the remaining conditions. Volitional formations are a condition for consciousness in eight ways: through the six conditions common to associated states, and also through the karma and nutriment conditions. But here, having removed those same three, in five ways. Consciousness is a condition for mentality-materiality in nine ways: through the six conditions common to associated states, and also through the faculty, nutriment, and dominance conditions. But here, having removed three, in six ways. Mentality-materiality is a condition for the six sense bases in six ways, common to associated states. Here, some are through the dominance condition, some through the nutriment condition and so on, in various ways. But here, having removed those same three, in three, four, or five ways. The six sense bases are a condition for contact, just as consciousness is for mentality-materiality. Thus, contact is a condition for feeling in seven ways: through the six conditions common to associated states, and also through the nutriment condition. But here, having removed those same three, in four ways. Feeling is a condition for craving in eight ways: through the six conditions common to associated states, and also through the absorption and faculty conditions. But here, having removed those same three, in five ways. Craving is a condition for clinging, just as ignorance is for volitional formations. Thus, clinging is a condition for becoming in seven ways: through the six conditions common to associated states, and also through the path condition. But here, having removed those same three, in four ways. Becoming is a condition for birth, since "birth" here is intended as the conditioned characteristic, therefore, by way of paraphrase, it is a condition only through the support condition. Likewise, birth is a condition for aging and death. But those who say thus: "In this tetrad, for all of the volitional formations and so on, ignorance and so on are conditions through the co-nascent condition. The co-nascent condition As with the rudder, the first turn is begun, they should be refuted, showing the absence of becoming and such, and the arising of conditions with remnants. For becoming is not a co-nascent condition for birth, nor is birth for aging and death. But those remaining conditions stated for these, such as the formations, they do indeed arise. Therefore, it is not possible to discard them. Thus, in the first turn, what is stated differently in each place, and also what is unstated in each place, and how each thing is a condition for another, that should be understood. The same method applies to the second turn and so on. But this is the difference: in the second turn, having said, "name is a condition for contact," nothing is said in the place of the six sense bases. What is the purpose of that? For the purpose of showing a specific condition and for including the Great Discourse on Origins. For not only is the sixth sense base a condition for contact, but the three aggregates, the feeling aggregate and so on, are also conditions. And in the Great Discourse on Origins it is said, "If asked, 'Is there contact dependent on something?' one should answer, 'Yes, Ānanda.' If he should say, 'Dependent on what is contact?' one should answer, 'Contact is dependent on name.'" Thus, having discarded the six sense bases, the twelve-factored dependent origination is stated. Therefore, for the purpose of showing this specific condition and for the purpose of including this teaching of the Great Discourse on Origins, in the second turn, having said, "name is a condition for contact," nothing is said in the place of the six sense bases. That is the difference in the second turn. But in the third turn, having said, "consciousness is a condition for name and form," the fourth factor, which comes in the text, is stated. If it is said that it is unsuitable here, because the mode of condition is of one mind-moment? That is not unsuitable. Why? Because of being a condition in its own moment. Even if there the form remains beyond the mind-moment, still that consciousness is a condition in its own moment. How? Through the prior-born mind-produced or other, by the subsequent condition. And this is said, "subsequently born mental phenomena..." The mother is a condition through being prenascent for this body which is postnascent. But for co-nascent mind-originated (matter), the dependence condition is a condition. As it was said, "Mental states and mental factors are a condition through the dependence condition for mind-originated material phenomena." If so, why was it not said thus in the previous turns? Because it was taught with reference to the realm of material phenomenon. For this mode of conditionality was taught with reference to the realm of material phenomenon, in the sense of beings in the womb in the desire realm, and of beings born spontaneously with incomplete sense bases, and of deities in the realm of form. Therefore, here it was said "six sense bases" instead of saying "name-and-form is a condition for the six sense bases." There, "name" is in the same way as said below. But "form" should be understood as heart-base matter. But that is a twofold condition for this sixth sense base, through the dependence condition and through the prenascent condition. This is the distinction in the third turn. But the fourth turn was spoken with reference to beings born spontaneously in terms of origin, with reference to beings with complete sense bases in terms of sense bases, with reference to beings in the desire realm in terms of existence. Therefore, here it was said "name-and-form is a condition for the six sense bases." There, "name" is for the sixth sense base through co-nascent etc., and for the eye sense base etc. through the postnascent condition. In "form," heart-base matter is through the dependence condition and prenascent condition for the sixth sense base, and the four great elements are through co-nascent dependence, presence, and non-disappearance for the eye sense base etc. But because this mode of conditionality is momentary, therefore here it was said "the six sense bases are a condition for contact" instead of saying "the six sense bases are a condition." This is the distinction in the fourth turn. Having known this differentiation thus, again, among all of those, the first two turns especially should be understood as having been spoken for the purpose of showing the mode of conditionality in the formless realm. For in the formless realm, the links of dependent origination occur unmixed with form. The third was spoken for the purpose of showing the mode of conditionality in the realm of form. For even with the mixture of form in the realm of form, the six sense bases do not occur. Satisfied, spoken to show the condition of becoming. For in the realm of becoming, all the six sense bases proceed. Or the third, in the realms of form and becoming, Refers to the moment of unwholesome arising of incomplete sense bases. Or the fourth, in the realm of becoming, of complete sense bases. Or the first, spoken to indicate universal destination. For it does not proceed in any place where consciousness arises. The second, spoken to indicate a specific condition. Here, the eleven factors and the conditionality of name to contact are specific conditions. The third, spoken to indicate the first two wombs. For it arises in the first two wombs, Since the six sense bases do not always arise there. The fourth, spoken to indicate the last two wombs. For it arises in the last two wombs, Since the six sense bases always arise there. And thus, with what has been said in the four instances – Whatever is said differently, wherever, And whatever is unsaid, wherever; Whatever is the condition of what, All that should be understood. The meaning of the verse has been explained. According to this same method, all this principle, From here, And whatever is the distinction, that should be known, In the other tetrads as well. 2. The Tetrad of Causes 244. There, the principle that has been spoken of here, is clear everywhere.