English
in each specification of a citta, the four discriminations are divided in all of them. The same method applies to unwholesome cittas. In the sections on resultant and functional, since resultants and functionals are included by meaning, having discarded the discrimination of dharma, in each resultant citta and functional citta, only three discriminations are divided. But the text is concise, showing only the face. That should be understood by way of the detailed exposition that has come below. But why is it that, as in the sections on wholesome and unwholesome, it is said "knowledge of their result is the discrimination of meaning," why is it not said here "knowledge of those things of which these are the results is the discrimination of dharma"? Because it was said below. If so, since "knowledge of their result is the discrimination of meaning" was said below, this discrimination of meaning should not be stated here either. Does it go? No, it should not be said. Why? Because it was not said in terms of the arising of resultant-kiriya consciousness below. And in the kiriya section, the statement "to which dhammas these are kiriyas" is not appropriate, therefore in both these sections, the three analytical knowledges are distinguished. There, by whatever expression the designation of those dhammas occurs, by whatever expression their contact occurs, in the manner of "this is contact, this is feeling," thus the designation occurs for the dhammas stated. There, knowledge in the expression of dhamma-expression means knowledge in the expression of the nature-designation of that dhamma-expression, which is occurring in that meaning and dhamma. Here, too, only the knowledge that has arisen by making the object the expression-sound is spoken of. By what knowledge? By what knowledge of the knowledge of ready-wittedness. It knows those knowledges, meaning it knows the other three knowledges of analytical knowledge. Now, to show how that knowledge knows those knowledges, thus it is said that these knowledges are illuminators of this meaning. There, illuminators of this meaning means illuminators, revealers of this meaning; it means they illuminate, reveal, and define this meaning. Thus, knowledge in knowledge, in this manner, the knowledge occurring in the three knowledges is called the knowledge of ready-wittedness. There, although this knowledge of ready-wittedness knows the function of the other analytical knowledges, saying, "this is the function of this, this is the function of this," it is not able to perform their function itself, like a much-learned Dhamma-speaker to a little-learned Dhamma-speaker. It is said there were two monks. One was much-learned, one was little-learned. Together they learned one method of Dhamma-speaking. There, the little-learned one was rich in voice, the other was slow of voice. Among them, the little-learned one, at each place he went, stirred up the entire assembly with his richness of voice and spoke the Dhamma. Those listening to the Dhamma, being delighted and joyful, said, "As this one speaks the Dhamma, I think he will be a master of the three baskets." The much-learned one, That monk said, "You will know at the Dhamma hearing, whether he is a master of the Tipiṭaka or not." Although he said this, he did not have the ability to speak in such a way as to agitate the entire assembly and then preach the Dhamma. In this matter, although he has analytical knowledge, like one who is very learned, but is actually unlearned, he knows the duties of others, but he himself is unable to perform those duties. The rest is straightforward in meaning. 746. Having thus distinguished the kinds of analytical knowledge by way of the arising of wholesome thoughts, now, in order to show the field that is the place of their arising, he again said, beginning with "Again, the four kinds of analytical knowledge." Therein, "Three kinds of analytical knowledge from the wholesome of the desire realm in the four thought-moments associated with knowledge" – this is said with reference to those in training. For even in their case, at the time of reflection on the Dhamma, by taking as object the five kinds of Dhamma mentioned below, the analytical knowledge of the Dhamma arises in the four wholesome thought-moments associated with knowledge. Likewise, at the time of reflection on language, by taking sound as object, the analytical knowledge of language; at the time of reflection on knowledge, by taking all-pervading knowledge as object, the analytical knowledge of ready wit. "From the functional in the four" – this, however, is said with reference to those who are not in training. For in their case, at the time of reflection on the Dhamma, by taking as object the five kinds of Dhamma mentioned below, the analytical knowledge of the Dhamma arises in the four functional thought-moments associated with knowledge. Likewise, at the time of reflection on language, by taking sound as object, the analytical knowledge of language; at the time of reflection on knowledge, by taking all-pervading knowledge as object, the analytical knowledge of ready wit. "The analytical knowledge of meaning also arises in these" – this, however, is said with reference to both those in training and those not in training. For thus, in the case of those in training, at the time of reflection on meaning, by taking as object the kinds of meaning mentioned below, this arises in the four wholesome thought-moments associated with knowledge, and at the time of the path and fruition, in the paths and fruitions. But in the case of one not in training, at the time of reflection on meaning, by taking as object the kinds of meaning mentioned below, Only this is taken as the object, arising in the four functional cittas associated with knowledge, and at the fruition moment, it is the higher common fruit. Thus, these arise in those still in training and those no longer in training, arising in these planes. This method is shown to indicate the planes. Explanation of the Abhidhamma Treatise. 3. Explanation of the Questioning 747. In the questioning, the wholesome nature of the four kinds of discrimination, should be understood according to the text. However, in the triads of objects, the discrimination of language takes only sound as its object, thus having a limited object. The discrimination of meaning, for one contemplating the meaning consisting of the sense-sphere results and functions, and that which is dependently arisen, has a limited object; for one contemplating the form-sphere and formless-sphere meaning, as previously described, it has a magnified object; for one contemplating the supramundane result and the ultimate meaning, Nibbāna, it has an immeasurable object. The discrimination of dharma, for one contemplating sense-sphere wholesome dharma, unwholesome dharma, and dependent dharma, has a limited object; for one contemplating form-sphere and formless-sphere wholesome dharma, and dependent dharma, it has a magnified object; for one contemplating supramundane wholesome dharma, and dependent dharma, it has an immeasurable object. The discrimination of ready wit, for one contemplating sense-sphere wholesome, result, and functional knowledges, has a limited object; for one contemplating form-sphere and formless-sphere wholesome, result, and functional knowledges, knowing their objects, it has a magnified object; for one contemplating supramundane wholesome and result knowledges, it has an immeasurable object. The discrimination of meaning, may be a path-condition by way of co-nascent cause, may be a path-dominant condition, through the development of the path with energy as the chief; it should not be stated in the case of desire or mind as the chief, nor should it be stated even at the fruition moment. The discrimination of dharma, at the time of contemplating the path, has the path as its object, for one contemplating the path, making it important, it is a path-dominant condition by way of object-dominant condition. The discrimination of ready wit, The knowledge of the path, at the time of reviewing, has the path as its object. For one reviewing, esteeming the path, the path is the dominant object. The remaining knowledge, at the time of reviewing, has a non-definable object. Nirutti-paṭisambhidā, having only the present sound as its object, has the present as its object. Attha-paṭisambhidā, for one reviewing the past, the result-meaning, the action-meaning, and the dependently arisen, has the past as its object. For one reviewing the future, it has the future as its object. For one reviewing the present, it has the present as its object. For one reviewing the supramundane, the ultimate meaning, it has a non-definable object. Dhamma-paṭisambhidā, for one reviewing the past, the wholesome, the unwholesome, and the causal dhamma, has the past as its object. For one reviewing the future, it has the future as its object. For one reviewing the present, it has the present as its object. Paṭibhāna-paṭisambhidā, for one reviewing the past, wholesome knowledge, resultant knowledge, and functional knowledge, has the past as its object. For one reviewing the future, it has the future as its object. For one reviewing the present, it has the present as its object. Nirutti-paṭisambhidā, because its object is sound, has an external object. Among the other three, Attha-paṭisambhidā, for one reviewing internally, the result-meaning, the action-meaning, and the dependently arisen, has an internal object. For one reviewing externally, it has an external object. For one reviewing internally and externally, it has an internal and external object. For one reviewing the ultimate meaning, it has only an external object. Dhamma-paṭisambhidā, at the time of reviewing internally, wholesome and unwholesome, the causal dhamma, has an internal object. At the time of reviewing externally, wholesome and unwholesome, the causal dhamma,