English
Not reciprocity, two: wholesome for indeterminate, and likewise indeterminate. Beyond that also, in the two, the same method applies. In this way, the calculation should be understood in terms of what is obtained in all the groupings. All these, in this direct-order counter-condition, by way of co-nascence and by way of miscellaneousness, one hundred and fifteen groupings are stated. In those, in that particular grouping, the conditions that stand in the direct order, not even one of them is obtained from the counter-condition. Here, in the root-cause-based first grouping, because five conditions stand in the direct order, nineteen conditions come from the counter-condition. Likewise, in the remaining cases also, the remainders that stand in the direct order come from the counter-condition. Here, even though many stand in the direct order, it should be understood that only one comes from the counter-condition. And just as with the root of cause, so too with the roots of object, etc., all this arrangement should be understood according to what is fitting. Explanation of Anuloma-Paccanīya. Explanation of Paccanīya-Anuloma. 631. In Paccanīya-Anuloma too, "seven by way of cause, nine by way of object" thus in Anuloma, and "fifteen by way of non-cause, fifteen by way of non-object" thus in Paccanīya, among the conditions obtained in the group counts, the counts should be understood by way of those instances where what stands in Paccanīya, the instances obtained from Paccanīya, are similar to the instances obtained from Anuloma for what stands in Anuloma. For in the non-cause condition in Paccanīya, fifteen instances are obtained as "fifteen by way of non-cause," while in the object condition in Anuloma, nine instances are obtained as "nine by way of object." There, among the fifteen instances stated as non-cause, the count should be understood by way of those instances that are similar to the nine stated as object. There, among the nine instances stated as object, those that are similar to these nine in the fifteen instances stated as non-cause: "wholesome to wholesome, unwholesome, and indeterminate; unwholesome to unwholesome, wholesome, and indeterminate; indeterminate to indeterminate, wholesome, and unwholesome," it is with reference to these that "nine by way of non-cause to object" is stated. The same method applies also to "ten by way of dominance," etc. For it should be understood that all the instances stated in the Anuloma count of object, etc., are obtained even when comparing them with the non-cause condition. The text of these should be extracted by this method: "A wholesome state is a condition for a wholesome state by way of the non-cause condition, by way of the object condition; having given a gift, having undertaken morality, having performed the observance day act, one reflects upon that; one reflects upon deeds well done in the past." Here, in "ten by way of non-cause to dominance," having set aside dominance by way of investigation, the instances that occur in the Anuloma analysis by way of the remaining dominances should be extracted. Thus here there are six divisions of counting: nine, ten, seven, three, thirteen, and one. By way of these, having eliminated the count of excess even along with the deficient count, the method of non-cause root, etc. The calculation should be understood in all the triads beginning with the root-triad, in all the combinations. This is the general characteristic. But this does not apply to all combinations. However, in the combination of factors, those instances that are contradictory should be removed, and the calculation should be understood based on the remaining ones. For example, in "neither-root condition, nor-object condition, seven in dominance," here, the wholesome for the unwholesome; the indeterminate for the wholesome, for the unwholesome— these three instances obtainable through the object and dominance conditions are contradictory. Why? Because it is stated "nor-object condition." Therefore, removing them, only by way of co-nascent dominance, "the wholesome for the wholesome, for the indeterminate, for the wholesome-indeterminate; the unwholesome for the unwholesome, for the indeterminate, for the unwholesome-indeterminate; the indeterminate for the indeterminate"— these seven instances should be understood. Even those, because of the statement "neither-root condition," setting aside the dominance of investigation, by way of the remaining dominances. Thus, everywhere, the calculation should be understood by way of the condition of reduced calculation and by way of the calculation that is not contradictory. And in which conditions, when the opposites are established, those that do not stand in the direct order should also be understood. For example, when the opposite is established in contiguity, the immediately contiguous, repetition, absence, and separation do not stand in the direct order. When the opposite is established in co-nascence, root, mutual, resultant, absorption, path, and associated do not stand in the direct order. When the opposite is established in dependence, the base and pre-nascence of object do not stand in the direct order. When the opposite is established in nutriment or faculty, root, mutual, resultant, absorption, path, and associated do not stand in the direct order. However, when the opposite is established in object, dominance and support do not stand in the direct order; but object-dominance and object-support are not obtainable. By this method, everywhere, what is obtainable and what is not obtainable should be known, and instances should be extracted by way of what is obtainable. There, in all the triads beginning with the root-triad, "seven in contiguity," etc., the instances obtained are as they are. However, in the heptads beginning with the root-heptad, there is no co-nascence. Through root-condition, dependence-condition, three: as prenascent, in dependence on the base, three. Through kamma, two: only by momentary occasion. Through nutriment, one: through physical nutriment. Through faculty, one: through the faculty of eye. Having gone by sequence, in dissociation, three: from wholesome, etc., to indeterminate states, as postnascent. In presence and absence, five: those three, wholesome-indeterminate to the indeterminate, unwholesome-indeterminate to the indeterminate, these two, through postnascent nutriment and faculty. But, beginning from the opposite of the postnascent condition, in presence and absence, one: indeterminate to the indeterminate, through nutriment and faculty. If nutriment is taken, the faculty condition is not: it should not be taken. Likewise, if faculty is taken, the nutriment condition is not. Why? Because when one of the two is taken, there is no occasion for counting. Even in jhāna, path, etc., when standing in opposition, without making one agreeable from nutriment or faculty, at the end, in faculty, one; in presence, one; in absence, one; in nutriment, one; in presence, one; in absence, one, is said. The rest here is clear in meaning. Not-root-conditioned. 636. In not-object-root, etc., not-reciprocity-root, in not-reciprocity-condition, through root-condition, three: wholesome, etc., to mind-produced things. Through dominance, eight: of the ten said in dominance, having removed the two, "wholesome to wholesome-indeterminate, unwholesome to unwholesome-indeterminate," the remaining eight. In co-nascence, five: together with the three said in root-condition, "wholesome and indeterminate to the indeterminate, unwholesome and indeterminate to the indeterminate," these two. In dependence, seven: together with those five, "indeterminate to the wholesome, indeterminate to the unwholesome," these two, through the base. In kamma, three: just those said in root-condition. In the remaining triads, this is the method. Through dominance, three: just those said below. 644. In not-nutriment-root, in reciprocity, three: having set aside nutriment, they should be understood in relation to the remaining mental factors. And as below, so here too, only one of nutriment and faculty is taken, not two together. 648. Not-association-less. Due to cause-condition, three, as said below, not mutually. Due to dominance-condition, eight, as said. In the root unassociated with the nine, in action, five: Volition of wholesome etc., co-arisen wholesome etc., Wholesome and unwholesome volition at different moments, And action-produced materiality, thus five. In nutriment-conditions and faculty-conditions, three, co-arisen similar. In absorption, paths, etc., three, cause-similar. 650. In the root of non-existence, since cause is non-existent, It is not called non-existent, it certainly exists, Therefore, not taking that, in non-object, nine are said. And as with cause, so others, Endowed with the characteristic of existence-condition, Do not stand here by way of direct order. In action, two, this is said in terms of action at different moments. From the negative, all are obtained. But what, though obtainable by way of direct order, Not taking that, earlier conditions are taken from the negative, That obtains a later connection. Therefore, here, "From non-existence-condition, non-cause-condition... ...from non-separation-condition, in action, two" is said. Why then was this not taken in its own place? Because, even when the remainder stand in the negative, only one is obtained by way of direct order. For this is the characteristic in this condition-direct order: That which, when all stand in the negative, only one is obtained by way of direct order, That is said later. From non-existence-condition, non-cause-condition... ...from non-separation-condition, in decisive support, nine, here too, this is the method. This, however, is said in terms of natural decisive support. By this means, what is obtainable, what is unobtainable,