English
the root condition enters into co-nascence. In each of those instances, the pure object condition diminishes, those instances obtain release by way of the remaining conditions. And as in non-object, so in the remaining ones. The root condition enters into co-nascence. And in each of those instances, non-support, non-contiguity, thus, conditions standing in the negative diminish, those instances obtain release by way of the remaining conditions. But in non-co-nascence, "A wholesome state for a wholesome and unwholesome state, an unwholesome state for an unwholesome and unwholesome state, a wholesome and unwholesome state for a wholesome state, an unwholesome and unwholesome state for an unwholesome state," these four instances diminish. For in the first two of these four, by the co-nascence condition, as a condition, only one collection of conditions is stated by way of eleven conditions. When that is rejected, they do not obtain release in another way. In the latter two, referring to the dependence, presence, and non-departure conditions, "co-nascence, pre-nascence" is stated. When those are rejected in co-nascence, they do not obtain release by way of the remaining roots etc., and the pre-nascent, and the dependence, presence, and non-departure conditions, therefore these four instances also diminish. "Eleven" is stated by way of the remaining ones. There, it may be asked: Just as when root is rejected, those instances are obtained by way of the remaining dominance etc., why are they not obtained by way of the remaining roots etc. when co-nascence is rejected? Because of the lack of a separate place. For root etc. are contiguous to only a part of the co-nascent, therefore, when those are rejected, those instances are obtained by way of the others. i. But the co-arisen is without remainder, it includes all, such as root-condition etc., therefore, when that is rejected, all of those are rejected. For there are no such things as non-co-arisen root-conditions etc. Thus, because the co-arisen is without remainder, when that is rejected, both of those turns are not obtained. However, in the cases where "co-arisen and pre-arisen" are dismissed, even though there is only the co-arisen condition, because here only the immaterial aggregates are conditions by way of dependence, presence, and absence, and when the co-arisen is rejected, the co-arisen dependence, presence, and absence are entirely rejected, therefore, because of its rejection, those turns are not obtained, thus, in every way, here, these four turns are lost. It is said that there are eleven only by way of the remainder. In non-reciprocity, non-dependence, and non-association, those same turns are lost. Why? Because of the nature of the co-arisen. Just as the co-arisen condition, being an immaterial phenomenon, includes the four immaterial aggregates without remainder, so also do reciprocity, dependence, and association, therefore, because of the nature of the co-arisen, when these are rejected, those turns are not obtained, this should be understood. Therefore, it is said that there are eleven in non-reciprocity, eleven in non-dependence, eleven in non-association. Here, it may be asked: Even though these are of the nature of the co-arisen, since they comprehensively include the four aggregates of the divisions of wholesome etc., wholesome, however, excluding the wholesome-indeterminate, there is no other condition than the co-arisen condition, therefore, when that is rejected, let that turn be lost. But wholesome is not a reciprocity condition for the wholesome-indeterminate, when that is rejected, why is that turn lost? Because of the possibility of occurrence by way of the nature of reciprocity condition phenomena. Just as the wholesome-indeterminate are not co-arisen conditions for the wholesome. However, because of the possibility of occurrence by way of dependence condition etc. in accordance with the nature of co-arisen phenomena, when that is rejected, that turn is lost, so also here, because of the possibility of occurrence by way of the nature of reciprocity condition phenomena in accordance with the co-arisen etc., that When this is rejected, that turn is diminished. For the meaning of the word "condition by way of reciprocity" is this: those phenomena that have entered into the collection of reciprocity are not conditions by way of it. And a wholesome thing, being a condition for wholesome and indeterminate things by way of co-nascence, etc., becomes a condition only by way of phenomena of reciprocity; therefore, when that is rejected, that turn is diminished. And just as that turn, so too the remaining three or four turns are diminished. In "not by way of dependence, eleven," here also, since for those turns only co-nascent phenomena are entirely the basis of dependence, therefore, when dependence is rejected, they are diminished. In "not by way of pre-nascence, thirteen," having removed two from the two-rooted in the explanation "co-nascent is pre-nascent." For just as when those co-nascent things are rejected, they do not obtain an explanation by way of the dependence, presence, and non-disappearance of only pre-nascent things, so too when pre-nascent things are rejected, they do not obtain an explanation by way of the dependence, presence, and non-disappearance of only co-nascent things; therefore, it should be understood that having removed those, there are thirteen. In "not by way of post-nascence, fifteen," here, having placed post-nascence in the places where it comes, either "condition by way of post-nascence" or "co-nascent is post-nascence, nutriment, faculty," those questions can be obtained even by way of the remaining aspects of post-nascence; therefore, only fifteen are stated. In "not by way of kamma," etc., since kamma, result of kamma, nutriment, faculty, jhāna, and path are also only a part of the four aggregates of the wholesome, etc., therefore, having placed those phenomena, by way of the remaining phenomena, co-nascent phenomena become conditions, so not even one question and answer is diminished. In "not associated, eleven," since in those four turns, associated phenomena are conditions by way of co-nascence, etc., therefore, it should be understood that by the rejection of the condition of association, those very turns are diminished. In "not dissociated, nine," the four turns ending in one two-rooted, and the two ending in one one-rooted pair, these six turns are entirely connected with dissociated phenomena. By those, they are conditions by way of co-nascence, etc. When not dissociated, when not rejected, all of them decline, only nine are obtained. Therefore, it is said, "Nine not dissociated." The same should be understood even in the absence of "no" meaning. For these turns are entirely associated with conditions of existence and non-absence, therefore they decline when these are rejected. And in those that are obtained, discernments should be made based on object, or based on contiguity, etc. But not based on the distinction of co-nascent, pre-nascent, post-nascent, nutriment, and faculty, or based on the dissociated states of the five existences and non-absences. 533. Having shown the calculation in the obtained turn of the opposite, now, to show the condition calculation based on dual roots, etc., "Not by root condition, fifteen not by object," etc., is begun. There, in the dual roots of "not by root," the excess calculation is combined with the deficient calculation, and becomes the deficient calculation itself. In the triple root, thirteen not by dependence, two turns decline: wholesome for unwholesome, unwholesome for wholesome. Why? Because "not by dependence" is combined with "not by object." For the occurrence of these is based on object and based on dependence. And both of these are rejected. And object-dominance is indeed included by the inclusion of object-dependence. In the six roots, thirteen not by dependence, those thirteen are the same. But in the seven roots, seven not by dependence, because it is combined with "not co-nascent," eight decline there, with the four that have declined, "wholesome for wholesome, wholesome for unwholesome, unwholesome for unwholesome, unwholesome for wholesome," these four occurring by way of contiguity-dependence and habitual-dependence. Therefore, it is said "seven" based on the remainder. Eleven not pre-nascent, because it is combined with "not co-nascent," eleven. Nine not post-nascent, having removed from those eleven the two turns in the dual root of indeterminate, in the obtained discernments of co-nascent, post-nascent, nutriment, and faculty. For even when co-nascent is rejected, they do not decline in terms of post-nascent. But when combined with co-nascent, Because of the remaining, "declining after arising, rejected," thus nine is said. In the eight-root, without dependence, eleven, all is just like what was said below. In the nine-root, without support, five, that is, the wholesome, etc., and the unwholesome, three dual-rooted, and two unwholesome-ended, thus five. In these, the distribution should be understood by way of momentary karma, nutriment, material life faculty, and postnascence. In the ten-root, not prenascent, in the "five," etc., also, those same. Not postnascent, three, that is, excluding the two unwholesome-ended dual-rooted states obtainable by way of postnascence, the remainder. Also, not disjoined, those same three. Without existence, two, that is, the wholesome and the unwholesome by way of momentary karma and materiality. Here, the result is not obtainable because of combination with non-support. In the eleven-root, the calculation is just like what was said below. In the twelve-root, not karma, one,