English
the teaching of Pāḷi, and the penetration of the meaning of Pāḷi – these three are subjects of Pāḷi. It is proper for the basis of the declaration of meanings and of penetration. But the Piṭakas are the Pāḷi texts themselves, so how can their being the basis of the Dhamma be proper? Because the Pāḷi collection is the basis of its constituent Pāḷi. For a collection is spoken of as the basis of its constituent parts, just as "branches are on a tree." And here, since the Dhamma and so forth are difficult to fathom, and the Vinaya and so forth are profound because of these Dhamma and so forth, the fourfold profundity of the Vinaya and so forth has been stated. Therefore, it should not be objected that only the Dhamma and so forth are profound due to being difficult to fathom, and not the Vinaya and so forth, because the profundity of the Vinaya and so forth has been stated both directly and through the subject-object relationship. For the Dhamma are the Vinaya and so forth, their subject is the meaning, and declaration and penetration are concerned with the Dhamma and its meaning. Therein, the difficulty of penetration makes the Dhamma and its meaning difficult to fathom, and the difficulty of the knowledge of declaration makes declaration difficult to fathom. But the difficulty of producing penetration, and the difficulty of the arising of knowledge concerning it, should be understood as its unfathomability. They are difficult to fathom because they are entered with difficulty. Even those who enter them in part, being dull-witted, cannot gain a footing, so it is said, "and are ungraspable as a footing." "In each one" means in each Piṭaka. "Herein" means in these Piṭakas. And this is a locative case of determination. Now, showing profundity also by way of cause, effect, and so forth, it is said, "another method," and so forth. "Cause" means condition. For it produces and brings forth its own fruit, thus it is called Dhamma. How is it understood here that the word Dhamma is a synonym for cause? It is said, "for it has been stated," and so forth. But how is the Dhamma's being a cause understood from the statement, "Knowledge in the cause is Dhamma-paṭisambhidā"? Because in explaining the meaning of the constituent parts of the compound word Dhamma-paṭisambhidā, it is said, "knowledge in the cause." For in "Dhamma-paṭisambhidā, penetration in the Dhamma," in explaining the meaning of "in the Dhamma," it is said, It is said 'in the cause'. By showing the meaning of 'paṭisambhidā' as 'knowledge', therefore, the words 'cause' and 'dhamma' are one in meaning with 'knowledge' and 'paṭisambhidā'. By stating this, the causal nature of dhamma is established. 'Knowledge of cause and effect is atthapaṭisambhidā' - by this statement, the causal and resultant nature of meaning is also to be understood in the same way. The result of a cause is cause-and-effect. And because it is reached, attained, achieved according to the cause, therefore it is called 'meaning'. In 'yathādhammaṃ', the word 'dhamma' encompasses all cause and effect. This word 'dhamma' speaks of nature, not of the causal state of the scriptures. Therefore, 'yathādhammaṃ' means 'in whatever dhamma, such as ignorance and formations'. Or, 'yathādhammaṃ' means 'in conformity with dhamma'. Indeed, teaching, like penetration, proceeds in conformity with dhamma due to the correct elucidation of its subject matter. And for that very reason, it is called 'unmistaken expression'. 'Dhammābhilāpa' is an unmistakable expression that reveals meaning. And here, 'abhilāpa' is the word for 'that which is expressed'. By this, it shows the 'dhammanirutti' mentioned in 'knowledge of the expression of dhamma and language is niruttipaṭisambhidā' (Vibh. 718), because teaching is of the nature of sound. Thus, the nature of having limited objects, and so on, for niruttipaṭisambhidā is stated in the Paṭisambhidāvibhaṅga Pāḷi (Vibh. 718 onwards). And in the Commentary (Vibh. Aṭṭha. 718), its nature as having sound as its object is shown by 'making that natural language, sound, the object,' and so on. Thus, having established that 'this word is the designator of this meaning' in the meaning of words and expressions, the sound that proceeds by way of elucidating those respective word-meanings is called 'teaching'. By 'intention', it shows the intention that the statement 'teaching is designation' refer to the expression of dhamma and language, and not to a designation separate from it. Indeed, 'desanā' (teaching) is that by which meaning is shown. Or, it is 'paññatti' (designation) because by it, something is made known in a particular way, or it makes known in a particular way. It is called the expression of the Dhamma's explanation. Thus, in this view, 'teaching is sound', this meaning is to be understood. Where it is said, 'Teaching is designation', the designators, however, speak thus: Although 'expression of Dhamma' here means 'that which expresses', and is called 'expression', which is sound, not designation; yet when sound is spoken, taking the corresponding usage, and knowing the meaning revealed by that usage, when sound is spoken, the corresponding designation is also spoken by way of cause and effect. Or else, not saying 'expression of Dhamma is meaning', but because it is said 'expression of Dhamma is intention', it is indeed shown that teaching is not sound. Now, explaining penetration, he says: 'Penetration is comprehension.' That which penetrates is called knowledge, is called penetration. Or that by which they penetrate is penetration. That which comprehends is comprehension. Or that by which they comprehend is comprehension. Now, to make it clear by way of types of comprehension, by way of kinds of comprehension, by way of object, and by way of nature, he says, 'And that is mundane and supramundane,' and so on. Understanding by way of object and by way of non-delusion is the connection. Therein, understanding by way of object, corresponding to meaning and so on, in phenomena and so on, is called mundane understanding, having ignorance and so on as its object (phenomena), having formations and so on as its object (meaning), having the designation of both as its object. But understanding by way of non-delusion, corresponding to meaning and so on, in phenomena and so on, is supramundane comprehension, having Nibbāna as its object, endowed with the path, destroying delusion regarding the phenomena, meaning, and designations as stated. For thus, 'This is the cause, this is its result, this is the corresponding usage of both' – in this way, mundane knowledge penetrates by way of object, by making them its object. But supramundane knowledge penetrates by way of non-delusion, because delusion regarding causes, results, and so on, has been uprooted by path-knowledge. 'Corresponding to meaning in phenomena' means: ignorance is the cause, formations are arisen from a cause, ignorance produces formations – thus, the meaning is 'corresponding to effect in causes'. Or else, meritorious formations, demeritorious formations... In the three formations, meritorious, demeritorious, imperturbable, for the demeritorious formation, associated ignorance is the cause. For the others, according to their nature, understanding causes from effects, this is the meaning of penetration. "According to Dhamma in meanings" means: "Ignorance causes formations" and so on, understanding effects from causes, this is the meaning. "According to designation path in designations" means: understanding in designations according to Dhamma spoken by designation, this is the meaning. By the Dhamma and so on as stated, to show the profundity of the Pitakas, he said, "Now, since in these Pitakas..." and so on. "Nature of Dhamma" means the division of causes, or just the cause. "Nature of meaning" means the division of effects, or just the effect. "And this teaching" is the connection. "And what is here" means the penetration in those Dhamma-meaning teachings found in each respective Pitaka. "Hard to fathom" means here the hard-to-fathom nature due to the difficulty of penetrating the Dhamma-meanings like ignorance and formations. Due to the difficulty of explaining them, and the impossibility of producing and making them objects of the penetration called teaching-penetration, their hard-to-fathom nature should be understood. "Even so" - the word 'pi' (also) summarizes the other types mentioned before. "Here" means in these three Pitakas. "Vuttattha" (explained meaning) means that which has its meaning spoken and elucidated. "In the three Pitakas" - here, "in each one" should be understood from context or subject. "The division of Pariyatti" - Pariyatti is learning by heart. Here, the word 'pariyatti' denotes learning by heart, not the Pāli text itself. Therefore, the meaning here should be understood thus: "In each of the three Pitakas, the method of learning by heart should be seen and known." And for that very reason, "Pariyattis are methods of learning by heart" is stated in the glossaries of all three. Or, the Pāli texts themselves, which are to be learned by heart in three ways, are called Pariyatti. And for that very reason, "Pariyattis are sequences of Pāli texts" is stated in the Sinhala glossary written in the Abhidhamma commentary. Thus, indeed, due to the method of learning by heart likened to a snake, the Pariyatti likened to a snake, the Pāli text also... It is possible to say, and having done so, the later descriptive statement "misapprehended, learned for the sake of blame and so on, like a snake" becomes appropriate. There, indeed, it is proper to say "the Pāli itself is misapprehended, learned." "Like a snake" means: a snake, the grasping of a snake is its simile, thus "like a snake." Here, the grasping of the snake is to be understood as expressed by the word "snake." In "one who has cakes," just as the eating of cakes is meant by the word "cakes,"