English
But the distinction should be understood thus: In the tetrad of causes, ignorance is the cause, meaning it has ignorance as its cause. Because ignorance coexists with it, It is said to be the cause of its proceeding until dissolution. And by "conditioned by ignorance," Having shown that ignorance is the condition of formations in general by way of co-nascent and other conditions, Again, by "having ignorance as its cause," Its continuous conditionality is specifically shown. The same principle applies to "conditioned by formations, consciousness has formations as its cause," and so on. But why was the mention of "cause" not made in becoming and so on? Because of the absence of a fixed condition, And because of the absence of a continuous condition. "There, what is becoming conditioned by clinging? Leaving aside clinging, the aggregate of feeling, the aggregate of perception, the aggregate of formations, the aggregate of consciousness." Form aggregate, consciousness aggregate – this is called existence conditioned by clinging. From the statement "existence is the name for the four aggregates conditioned by clinging," here, the four aggregates have the name existence. And in the formations aggregate, birth, old age, and death are included, from statements such as "birth is included in two aggregates." Here, since birth, old age, and death are not found until clinging, clinging is not invariably an inseparable condition for existence. From statements such as "the birth of those various things," in the conditioned characteristics, since existence, defined as birth, old age, and death, is absent at the moment of birth, the state of being an inseparable condition is not possible. Similarly, since birth is absent at the moment of old age and death, existence is a condition for birth only through dependence. Since birth is a condition for old age and death, in every way, due to the absence of an invariable condition, and due to the absence of an inseparable condition, it should be understood that the root-taking of existence and so on as a cause was not done. But some say: "Existence is twofold," existence mixed with rebirth, and clinging is not an inseparable condition for rebirth-existence. Therefore, instead of saying "existence is conditioned by clinging, caused by clinging," it is said "existence is conditioned by clinging." Here, because it is cut off, it is not said further on. That is inappropriate because existence mixed with rebirth is not intended here. For the immaterial aggregates have come here as existence. And in "birth is conditioned by existence," except for birth, old age, and death, the remaining existence should be understood as a condition for birth. Why? Because birth and so on are not conditions for birth. If so, should it be said that except for birth, old age, and death, existence is a condition for birth? Yes, it should be said, but it was not said because there is no place to say it. In the analysis of the ten factors, existence arisen conditioned by clinging should be said. In the analysis of the eleven factors, birth should be said. But there is no place to say that existence is a condition for birth, therefore, it was not said because there is no place to say it. Even though it is not said, it should be understood from reasoning. Name and form are conditioned by consciousness. And because of the possibility of the unseparated conditionality of consciousness, etc., in the beginning, the statement "caused by consciousness," etc., was made; this is the distinction in the fourfold cause. 3. The Fourfold Association 245. In the fourfold association too, by "conditioned by ignorance," the conditionality of formations by ignorance is shown through the conditions of co-nascence, etc., and then by "associated with ignorance," the conditionality of association is shown. The same method applies in the remaining terms. But since there is no association of immaterial phenomena with material phenomena, therefore, in "conditioned by consciousness, name-and-form," etc., in the third and fourth turns, what is obtained by the method "name associated with consciousness," etc., is taken; this is the distinction in the fourfold association. 4. The Fourfold Mutuality 246. In the fourfold mutuality too, by "conditioned by ignorance," the conditionality of formations by ignorance is shown through the conditions of co-nascence, etc., and by "ignorance also conditioned by formations," the conditionality of mutuality is shown. The same method applies in the remaining terms. But since existence is without location and grasping is with location, and a phenomenon with location is a condition for a phenomenon without location, but a phenomenon without location is not a condition for a phenomenon with location, therefore, here "grasping also conditioned by existence" is not stated; or it is not stated thus because the teaching below is interrupted. And since name-and-form is a condition for the six sense bases, and the six sense bases are not a condition for name-and-form in a single moment of consciousness, for which the six sense bases would be a mutual condition, therefore, in the fourth turn, what is obtained by "name-and-form also conditioned by the six sense bases" is taken; this is the distinction in the fourfold mutuality. The Matrix of the Rooted-in-Ignorance Method. The Matrix of the Rooted-in-Formations Method 247. Now, "formations conditioned by ignorance" is the beginning of the method rooted in formations. There too, just as in the rooted-in-ignorance method, four sets of four, and sixteen turns, should be understood. But in the first set of four, the teaching is abbreviated by showing only the first turn. As here, so also in the rooted-in-consciousness, etc. In all of those rooted in formations, etc., In the eight methods, showing how ignorance is a condition for formations, etc., by way of co-nascent condition, etc., according to the method beginning with "due to formations as condition, ignorance," again, showing the occurrence of the causal nexus even in a single moment of consciousness, according to the method beginning with "due to ignorance as condition, formations." But why were methods rooted in existence, or rooted in birth, aging, and death, not stated? Is it that existence is not a condition for ignorance? No, it is not that it is not. But in saying "due to formations as condition, ignorance," and so on, no state included in existence was not stated as a condition for ignorance. Therefore, since there is no other unstated condition for ignorance that needs to be stated, the method rooted in existence was not stated. And by the inclusion of existence, ignorance is also included. Therefore, if it were said, "due to existence as condition, ignorance," it would be as if "due to ignorance as condition, ignorance" was also said. But in a single moment of consciousness, ignorance is not a condition for ignorance. Therefore, because they are excluded there, methods rooted in birth, aging, and death were also not included. Moreover, birth, aging, and death are included within existence. Since these are not conditions for ignorance in a single moment of consciousness, methods rooted in existence, or rooted in birth, aging, and death, were not stated. Explanation of the Matrix. Explanation of the Designation of Unwholesome States. 248-249. Now, just as below, in the section on consciousness-moments, having made the wholesome triad the beginning, the wholesome was first analyzed according to the order of the matrix that was set forth, so here, since the wholesome was not set forth in the matrix, without first touching on the wholesome, because it was set forth in the matrix in terms of unwholesome states, with "due to ignorance as condition, formations," in accordance with the order of setting forth, in order to analyze and show the factors of dependent origination, beginning with ignorance, he said, "Which states are unwholesome?" and so on. Its meaning should be understood in the same way as stated below in the section on consciousness-moments. But since the arising of craving and clinging to sense pleasures is not possible in a single moment of consciousness, therefore, in order to show only that which is obtained here, that clinging is conditioned by craving, "view, adherence to views," and so on, were stated. And in the designation of existence, since up Grasping is included in the aggregate of formations, therefore it is said, "Except for grasping, the aggregate of feeling, the aggregate of perception, the aggregate of formations, the aggregate of consciousness." For if it were said thus, grasping would become a condition for itself. But the same thing is not a condition for itself. In the descriptions of birth and so on, since these are birth and so on for immaterial phenomena, therefore "decay, disintegration, becoming wrinkled, death, deceasing" are not mentioned. 250. Thus, having completed the first round, then in the second round, at the same time that the mode of conditionality was shown in the first round, at that very time, to show the mode of conditionality by another method as well, without stating a separate round for the determination of time, the teaching was given in the same way, beginning with "due to ignorance as condition, formations..." There, "except for contact," this is said to bring out contact by name, since contact is also included in name. 252. In the third round, since the increase of the eye-base and so on is evident in the arising of the mind-originated materiality for which consciousness is a condition, therefore it is said, "increase of the eye-base" and so on. And since consciousness is a condition by way of the subsequent-arising condition for the karma-originated materiality also occurring at that time, therefore it is said thus.