English
As it was said: "Immediately ceased mental states and mental factors are related to the arisen mental states and mental factors by way of disapperance condition." Presence condition phenomena should be understood as being absence condition phenomena, being helpful by way of non-absence. However, this pair was stated due to the elegance of the teaching or according to the trainees to be trained; like the pair of root-cause condition having been stated, so too the pair of associated with root-cause condition. Now, in these twenty-four conditions, for the purpose of non-confusion: Decision should be known, From nature and from time, And from various kinds of differences; And from conditioned phenomena. Therein, from nature: In these conditions, root-cause condition is only a part of mental phenomena in mental and material phenomena. Object condition, along with concepts and absence, are all mental and material phenomena. In the case of dominance condition, co-nascent dominance is a part of mental phenomena, as are also the conditions of karma, jhāna, and path. Object dominance is all object phenomena that should be taken seriously. Immediately preceding, contiguous, post-nascent, habituation, result, associated, absence, and disappearance conditions are only mental phenomena. Because Nibbāna is not included, a part of mental phenomena. It is fitting to speak of the divisions. The prenascent condition is a portion of form. The remainder, according to their availability, are name-and-form phenomena. Thus, in this matter, the decision should be known according to the Dhamma. As to time: These conditions are only present, Ten and five; Only five are past, One depends on both times; Three are tri-temporal, And also free from time. Here, indeed, the root condition, co-nascent, reciprocal, dependence, prenascent, postnascent, result, nutriment, faculty, absorption, path, associated, dissociated, presence, and absence conditions, these fifteen conditions are only present phenomena. The immediately contiguous condition, contiguity, repetition, absence, and departure conditions, these five are only past. But one, the kamma condition, that depends on both present and past times. The remaining, object condition, dominance condition, and decisive support condition, these three conditions are also tri-temporal, and also free from time, since the concept is included with Nibbāna. Thus, in this matter, the decision should also be known according to time. As to the variety of differences between condition and conditioned, the meaning of these two terms will become clear in the section on exposition. Explanation of the Enumeration of Conditions. Exposition of Conditions 1. Explanation of the Exposition of the Root Condition 1. Now, to indicate and show all those conditions in the order of enumeration, "The root condition: roots are a condition by way of the root condition for phenomena associated with roots and for forms produced by them," etc., is stated. There, "the root condition" is the extraction of the term to be divided first in the order in which it is placed among the twenty-four conditions. It should be understood that in the remaining conditions also, the term to be divided first is extracted and explained in this way. And this is the connection here: that which is enumerated as the root condition in the enumeration of conditions, that should be understood in the exposition as "roots are a condition by way of the root condition for phenomena associated with roots and for forms produced by them." In this way, the explanation of the term to be divided in all the conditions should be A connection with a cause should be understood. Now, why is it said, "causes for cause-associated things," instead of saying, "cause-associated things," in "causes and cause-associated things"? It is to distinguish the condition and the conditioned. For if it were said, "cause-associated things," it would mean, "things associated with a cause are conditioned by the cause condition." In that case, the determination of which condition is the condition would not be evident. Or, without grasping the meaning that "cause-associated things are things associated with a cause," it would mean that "causes are conditioned by the cause condition for any associated things whatsoever." In that case, even consciousness at the eye, etc., which are dissociated from a cause, are indeed associated, and so are wholesome things, etc., which are associated with a cause. There, the determination of which conditioned thing this cause is a condition for would not be evident. Therefore, distinguishing both the condition and the conditioned, he said, "causes for cause-associated things." Its meaning is: "The cause associated with the cause-associated wholesome things, etc., is a condition by way of the cause condition." Even there, the saying "by way of the cause condition" instead of saying "a condition" is to negate the conditionality of the cause in any other way. For this cause is a condition by way of the cause condition, and also by way of the co-nascence condition, etc. There, to negate its conditionality in any other way by way of the co-nascence condition, etc., it is said, "by way of the cause condition." Even so, why is it said "cause-associated things" instead of saying "things associated with it"? Because what should be specified is not evident. For if it were said, "things associated with it," then what they are associated with, by which they are called "things associated with it," would not be evident, and would need to be specified. Because of its lack of clarity, to show in its own form what they are associated with, by which they are called "things associated with it," it is said, "cause-associated things." However, in "co-arisen from it," because what should be specified is evident... That taking is done. Here is the meaning: those causes and mental states associated with causes, from which arising occurs, are "caused by that." Of those "caused by that," meaning produced by causes and mental states associated with causes. By this, it includes mind-produced matter. But does that arise from something other than mind? Yes, it arises. Indeed, all mental states together produce matter. However, in the teaching of worldly phenomena, such matter is called mind-produced because of the predominance of mind. Therefore, it is said that mental states are related to mind-produced matter by the condition of co-nascence. If so, why is it not said here "mind-produced" instead of "caused by that"? Because it includes what is not mind-produced. For in the question section, it comes, "At the moment of rebirth, the results of karmic action, which are indeterminate, are related to the associated aggregates and to materiality produced by action as cause condition." To include that, it is said here "caused by that" instead of "mind-produced." Its meaning is: even without generating mind-produced matter, those causes and mental states associated with causes, by way of the conditions of co-nascence, etc., from which arising occurs, are "caused by that." Of those "caused by that," in the course of existence, to mind-produced matter and to materiality produced by action at rebirth, the causes are related as cause condition. In this way, the meaning should be understood in other places where "caused by that" appears. Why is this cause a cause condition for materiality produced by action only at rebirth, not in the course of existence? Because at rebirth, the materiality produced by karma has its existence dependent on mind. For at rebirth, the existence of materiality produced by karma is dependent on mind; it arises and persists according to the mind. For at that moment, the mind is not able to generate mind-produced matter, and those (kammajarūpa) are not able to arise or persist without the mind. Therefore, it is said, "Conditioned by consciousness is name-and-form; when that is established, consciousness..." "For name-and-form descends" (SN 2.39). But in the course of existence, even when these exist in the mind, their arising is bound by karma, not by mind. And even when the mind is absent, as in those who have attained cessation, they still arise. But why is it that at the moment of rebirth, the mind cannot generate mind-produced matter? Because it is weak, being driven by the force of karma and lacking a firm basis. For at that time, it is driven by the force of karma, and because it lacks a pre-existent base, it is without a firm foundation and therefore weak. Therefore, just as a man who has fallen into an abyss cannot perform any craft, so too the mind cannot generate matter; but only karma-produced matter exists as the basis for mind-produced matter. And that exists as the seed for karma-produced matter. Karma is like a field, and defilements are like water. Therefore, even with the field and water present, the arising of the body of matter at the moment of rebirth is due to the power of the seed, just as the arising of a tree is due to the power of the seed at the first arising. But just as the continuation of the tree above is due to the power of earth and water even when the seed is gone, so too the continuation of karma-produced matter occurs from karma alone, without the mind. It has been said: "Karma is the field, consciousness is the seed, craving is the moisture" (AN 3.77). And this meaning should be understood only in terms of the scope of existence. For there are three scopes of existence: the scope of name, the scope of form, and the scope of name-and-form. There, the immaterial realm is called the scope of name. For there, even the heart-base alone arises as immaterial phenomena without matter as a condition. The non-percipient realm is called the scope of form. For there, even the rebirth-consciousness alone arises as material phenomena without immateriality as a condition.