English
Explanation of the Discussion on Dhamma-craving Not Being the Origin of Suffering. Thirteenth Chapter. 14. Fourteenth Chapter 1. Explanation of the Discussion on the Rebirth-linking of Wholesome and Unwholesome 686-690. Now, there is the discussion on the rebirth-linking of wholesome and unwholesome. Here, whether the wholesome is the condition for the unwholesome, or the unwholesome is the condition for the wholesome, There is no arising in between, so their mutual connection is not fitting. But those who, because in one object only, are attached and detached, therefore that connects to that, having taken this view they stand, just like the Mahasanghikas; referring to them, the question is for the proponent, the affirmation is for the other. Turning and directing, both are names for attention itself. For it turns the life-continuum, therefore it is turning. From an object of the life-continuum, to another object, the mind directs, establishes, therefore it is directing. Not turning wholesome, that wholesome which arises, connecting immediately after unwholesome, it arises without turning, he asks. But the other, not seeing the arising of wholesome, without attention, rejects it. Unwholesome, he attends unwisely, this, if wholesome arises immediately after unwholesome, it would arise by attending unwisely, with the attention of unwholesome, this is said for the purpose of censure. The rest follows the text itself. But surely the statement, in which object only, indicates the arising of attachment and detachment in one object, not the immediacy of wholesome and unwholesome, therefore it is not probative. Explanation of the discussion on the connection of wholesome and unwholesome. 2. Explanation of the Discussion on the Arising of the Six Sense Bases 691-692. Now, there is the discussion on the arising of the six sense bases. There, for beings arising spontaneously, the six sense bases arise together with the rebirth consciousness. For those in the womb, only the mind base and the body base, among the internal sense bases, arise at the moment of rebirth. The remaining four, on the seventh day. And those, by which karma rebirth is taken, by that same or another, this is the doctrine, in one's own school. But for those whose view is that, because of arising from one karma, like a sprout of trees etc. with fully developed branches and twigs, the seed-like six sense bases, arise in the mother's womb, at the moment of rebirth itself, just like the Pubbaseliyas; referring to them, the question is, about the six sense bases, for the proponent, the affirmation is for the other. That all the limbs and parts are complete, and in such a state it would emerge, is said to question. "In the mother's womb" is the question for the opponent. "After being in the mother's womb, then hair?" is the question for one's own side. The rest here is of obvious meaning. Explanation of the Discourse on the Arising of the Six Sense Bases. 3. Explanation of the Discourse on the Proximity Condition 693-697. Now, the Discourse on the Proximity Condition begins. Therein, seeing the rapid changes in the sight of forms, and the hearing of sounds in dancing, singing, etc., "These consciousnesses arise in immediate succession to each other," is the view of some, like those of the Northern Path. Referring to them, "Is eye-consciousness..." is the question for one's own side, the affirmation for the other. "Is ear-consciousness the object of form?" If it were to arise immediately after eye-consciousness, like the resultant mind-element, it would have form as its object, is said to challenge. "Does ear-consciousness arise dependent on the eye and on forms?" Rejecting the question due to the absence of a sutta, considering the immediate arising, he affirms according to his view. "Is that same eye-consciousness that ear-consciousness?" Just as the second impulsion after the first impulsion is the same in the nature of mind-consciousness, "Is that dual thing also one and the same?" he asks. In this way, the meaning should be understood in all cases. The statement "He dances, he sings, etc." indicates the scattered nature due to rapid changes in the combination of objects, not the condition of proximity, therefore it is not valid. Explanation of the Discourse on the Proximity Condition. 4. Explanation of the Discourse on Noble Form 698-699. Now, the Discourse on Noble Form begins. Therein, right speech and action are form, and that "all form is the four great elements and the form derived from the four great elements," according to the statement, "is derived form," is the view of some, like those of the Northern Path. Referring to them, "Is noble form derived from the great elements?" is the question for one's own side. Therein, the form of the noble ones, or form that is noble, is noble form. "Yes," is the answer. Standing firm in the assertion, to the opponent. When asked, "Is it skillful?" he affirms as if he has gained his object. The same method applies to questions about the absence of influxes, and so on. Setting aside the sutta "Whatever is form," it indicates the non-existence of grasping for the remaining form, not for right speech and action. For even the mere form of these is not established, how could it be grasping-form? Therefore, it is not valid. Explanation of the Discourse on Noble Form. 5. Explanation of the Discourse on "Different is the Underlying Tendency" 700-701. Now, there is the discourse called "Different is the Underlying Tendency." Therein, since a worldling, when a wholesome or indeterminate thought is present, should be said to have an underlying tendency, not to be beset, therefore, "Different is the underlying tendency, different is the besetting," is the view of some, like the blind. Referring to them, the question "Is the underlying tendency to sensual desire different?" is the question of the proponent, the assertion to the opponent. The rest should be understood in the same way as stated in the discourse on underlying tendencies below. However, "having an underlying tendency," etc., indicates that at that time, because the underlying tendency has not been abandoned, it should be said to have an underlying tendency, and because it has not arisen, it should not be said to be beset, not that the underlying tendency and the besetting are different; therefore, it is not valid. Explanation of the Discourse on "Different is the Underlying Tendency." 6. Explanation of the Discourse on "Besetting is Disconnected from the Mind" 702. Now, there is the discourse called "Besetting is Disconnected from the Mind." Therein, since even when one attends to impermanence, etc., lust and the like arise. And it was said, "At times, Bharadvaja, thinking 'I will attend to the unattractive,' he attends to the attractive" (SN 4.127). Therefore, "Besetting is disconnected from the mind," is the view of some, just like the blind; referring to them, the question is from the proponent, the assertion to the opponent. The rest here is of obvious meaning. Explanation of the Discourse on "Besetting is Disconnected from the Mind." 7. Explanation of the Discourse on "Included" 703-705. Now, there is the discourse called "Included." Therein, since sensual desire underlies the sense-sphere, and is said to be included in the sense-sphere, therefore, desire for form and desire for the formless also underlie the form-sphere and the formless-sphere. And those who hold the view that they are indeed included in the realm of form and the formless realm, such as the Andhakas and the Sammitiyas; referring to them, the question about lust for form is for one's own side, the affirmation for the other. There, "does it underlie" means: just as lust for sensual pleasures underlies the realm of sensual pleasures, which is reckoned as sensual thought, by way of being co-arisen, do you ask whether lust for form is thus the realm of form? "Included" means: just as that is included in the threefold realm of sensual pleasures by way of defilement-lust, is it thus that lust for form is also included in the realm of form? But the other, not considering his intention, affirms only according to his view. Then, in order to make him consider that meaning, having compared it with attainments and so on, reckoned as wholesome, resultant, and functional, he said, beginning with "attainments and so on." The rest here is to be understood just as in the Pāli. Surely, the statement beginning with "lust for sensual pleasures" also indicates the underlying nature and includedness of lust for sensual pleasures in the realm of sensual pleasures, not of others in other realms. Explanation of the Discourse on Includedness. 8. Explanation of the Discourse on the Unexplained 706-708. Now, there is the discourse on the unexplained. There, the fourfold unexplained, reckoned as resultant, functional, form, and Nibbāna, is called unexplained because it is not resultant. The view, "the world is eternal, Vaccha, this is unexplained" (SN 4.416, slightly different), because it is not spoken of in terms of eternality and so on. But those who, not grasping this distinction, hold the view that even the view is unexplained, like the former unexplained, such as the Andhakas and the Uttarāpathakas; to show them that distinction, the question about the view being unexplained is for one's own side, the affirmation for the other. The rest here is to be understood just as in the Pāli. Explanation of the Discourse on the Unexplained. 9. Explanation of the Discourse on Non-Includedness 709-710. Now, there is the discourse on non-includedness. There, since a worldling who has attained jhāna should be spoken of as being without lust for sensual pleasures, but not as being without views, therefore, the view is non-in Whose doctrine is that the conditioned is not pervasive, like the Pubbaseliyas; regarding them, the question is for the proponent, the affirmation for the opponent.