English
one root of the indeterminate, by way of co-arisen dominance. But co-arisen and object-dominance together, or object-dominance and co-arisen together, are not found. "Three in mutual dependence" is only by way of co-arisen dominance. In dependence, eight: Three roots of good, three roots of evil, two roots of the indeterminate. For the indeterminate dominance is a dependence for the indeterminate from both the co-arisen and the object, and for the evil only from the object. But for the good, it is not in either way, so there are only two roots of the indeterminate, thus eight. In strong support, seven, just like those for object. In prenascence, one: indeterminate dominance, by way of object, for the evil. In result, one: the indeterminate by the indeterminate, the supramundane. In nutriment and so on, seven, just as found below in the single-root section. In dissociation, four: good with indeterminate, likewise evil with indeterminate, indeterminate with both indeterminate and good. In presence and absence, eight, just like those for dependence. 447-452. Here, the connections are first made with presence and absence, without applying them in order with object and so on. Why? Because of the mixture of both dominances. There, in the first connection, the object-base is found by way of object-dominance; in the second, only the object, for one who esteems and savors it, by way of dependence; in the third, good and so on for forms, by way of co-arisen dominance, and the object-base for evil, by way of object-dominance. The three connections after that are stated by way of object-dominance. There, in the first, seven, just as stated below. In the second, one: prenascent object-bases for evil. In the third, only the object-base for evil. The three connections after that are common to result and non-result, and are stated by way of co-arisen dominance. There, in the first, form... In the first, both form and formless are obtained, In the second, only the formless, In the third, only the form. The next three are stated as dominant due to result. Among them, in the first, both form and formless are obtained, In the second, the formless, In the third, only the form. The next six combinations are stated as dominant due to mind, connected with nutriment and faculty. Among them, three are without result, Three are with result. The enumeration among them is indeed clear. The next six combinations are stated in the same way as dominant due to effort. But why were they not stated first as dominant due to effort, according to the order of dominance? Because of similarity to the combinations stated later due to cause. For the combinations stated later due to cause, because of non-delusion being dominant in investigation, and because of investigation being right view, are connected with the path. And since effort is right effort and volitional effort, it is the path, therefore, the combinations similar to the combinations stated later due to cause, together with it, are stated by transposition. The enumeration among them is indeed clear. 453-456. In root conditions of contiguity and immediate contiguity, seven: Wholesome is for wholesome and indeterminate, Likewise, unwholesome, Indeterminate is for all three, thus seven. In karma, one: Wholesome path-consciousness is for its result, indeterminate. But among these, the combinations are only three each. They are stated in the order of abundance. 457-460. In root conditions of co-nascence, reciprocity, and dependence, those conditions stated in the dual-root are similar to those initially established. Therefore, knowing the enumeration in the dual-root, the enumeration in all combinations should be understood based on the lesser enumeration in the conditions combined above. Therein, in the co-nascence root, ten combinations. Among them, five are without result, Five are with result. Therein, among those without result, in the first, wholesome is for wholesome and indeterminate, wholesome for indeterminate, wholesome and indeterminate for indeterminate, thus four, likewise, unwholesome, indeterminate for indeterminate only, thus nine. Therein, in the eight distinctions of wholesome, unwholesome, etc., the formless and mind-produced form are obtained. Even the object-form is indeterminate. In the second combination, in the indeterminate rejection, only the object is obtained among forms; in the third, only the formless in all three; in the fourth, only the mind-produced form; in the fifth, at rebirth, formless states along with the object. In those with result, in the first, both result and the mind-produced form of the result-mind; in the second, both result and the object-form; in the third, only result; in the fourth, only the mind-produced result; in the fifth, only the object-form is obtained. Six combinations are rooted in reciprocity. Among them, the first three are without result, the last three are with result. Among them, the calculation is indeed clear. 461. In those rooted in dependence, three in dependence-condition and object: these should be understood as wholesome, etc., occurring by making the object a basis. In strong support, one: unwholesome arisen by making the object a strong support. The rest, with two roots, should be understood in the same way as stated below. 462-464. But in this dependence-condition, there are twenty combinations. Among them, the first six combinations are stated as prenascent and co-nascent; then four only as prenascent; then ten only as co-nascent. There, in the first combination, thirteen are stated in the analysis of dependence-condition. In the second, eight: seven as co-nascent dominance, and the eighth is unwholesome by making the object weighty. In the third, seven are obtained in the faculty-condition. In the fourth, five are obtained in dissociation. In the fifth, four: wholesome states, etc., for mind-produced states, and the object for the unwholesome. In the sixth, three: wholesome states, etc., for the mind-produced. In the four as prenascent, in the first, three: the object for wholesome states, etc., and the sense-bases for the indeterminate. In the second, only the object for wholesome states, etc. In the third, one: the object for the unwholesome. In the fourth, the sense-bases for the five consciousnesses. In the ten as co-nascent, having divided them into two as with-result and without-result, they should be understood in the same way as stated in those rooted in co-nascent. 465. In those rooted in strong support, seven in object: these are obtained in object-strong support. These same are seven by way of proximity. In immediately proximate conditions, they are obtained as immediately proximate support. In support, one is the base for the unwholesome. In prenascent, one is either its base or object. In repetition, three are by way of immediately proximate support. In kamma, two are by way of habitual support. But supramundane wholesome volition is also immediately proximate support. In dissociation, one is by way of object support, and likewise in presence and absence. In absence, seven are just like proximity. 466. But there are seven connections rooted in support. Therein, the first three are stated by way of object support. Therein, in the first, seven are wholesome for the wholesome and so on, likewise the indeterminate, unwholesome for the unwholesome alone, thus seven. In the second, one is the indeterminate eye and so on for the unwholesome. In the third, the base is for the unwholesome. The two following are stated by way of immediately proximate support. In them, the enumeration is indeed evident. The two following are stated by way of immediately proximate habitual support. Therein, in the first, mundane wholesome and unwholesome volition should be taken as conditionality, in the second, only the supramundane wholesome. 467-468. In the prenascent root, in object, three are the indeterminate for the wholesome and so on. In dominance, one is the indeterminate for the unwholesome. The same method applies in the rest. Here, however, are seven connections. Therein, the first is stated by way of base and object, the second by way of base alone, the third by way of object, the fourth by way of the time of the base's object, the fifth by way of object dominance, the sixth by way of the time of the base's object dominance, the seventh by way of the eye and so on. 469-472. In the postnascent root, twenty conditions are not applicable, only three attain connection. Here there is only one connection, it should be understood as the body's wholesome and so on. In the repetition root also, there is only one connection. 473-477. In the kamma root, in proximity, one is stated by way of the path volition. In mutuality, three are, here, the base should also be taken at rebirth. In support, two are by way of immediately proximate habitual support. These are the instances already stated. Thus, the remaining ones should be understood in the manner already stated below. Here, however, there are eleven instances. Of these, the first two are stated in terms of the distinction between natural support and immediately proximate support, due to karma occurring at different moments. The four following are stated in terms of result and non-result, due to karma occurring at a single moment. Of these, in the first, form produced by mind is obtained together with the immaterial. In the second, the base is obtained together with the immaterial. In the third, only the immaterial. In the fourth, only form produced by mind. At rebirth, however, form produced by karma is also obtained. The five following are with result; these are in the manner already stated below. The five instances rooted in result are clear in meaning. 478-483. The seven beginning with "rooted in nutriment" are in the manner already stated. Here there are thirty-four instances.