English
In this context, the genitive case is used in the sense of the agent (karaṇe sāmivacanam) for "abandoned" (jahitā), meaning "abandoned by the Tathāgata." "Root" (mūlam) means the root of existence. It is said that "tālāvatthukatā" is used by dropping the middle syllable and lengthening the 'a' vowel, as in "oṭṭhamukho" and so on, when it should be "tālavatthuvatthukatā." Thus, it says, "Their basis is made like the basis of a palm tree, hence 'tālāvatthukatā'." Here, "tālavatthu" is the basis of a palm tree. Just as a former site of a park is called "ārāmavatthu" (basis of a park) in the absence of the park, so too, when a palm tree is uprooted with its roots, the remaining mere ground, having been the former basis of the palm tree, is called "tālavatthu." "Their" (nesam) refers to the flavors of forms and so on. How is their basis made like the basis of a palm tree? It says, "Just as..." And so on. Because the pleasant feelings accompanied by craving, which arise from the enjoyment of forms and so on (i.e., the flavors of forms and so on), are the support for the mind-continuum, it is said, "Their basis, the mind-continuum, having been previously arisen, is made." Here, "previously" (pubbe) means formerly, in the time of defilement. "They are called tālāvatthukatā" means that the flavors of forms and so on are called "tālāvatthukatā" because their basis is made like the basis of a palm tree. This shows that for those whose defilements are abandoned, there is no re-arising. "Having the nature of not growing again" (aviruḷhidhammattā) means having the nature of not sprouting. A palm tree whose crown is cut off is not a basis for leaves, fruits, and so on, and is called "tālāvatthu." Thus, it says, "made like a palm tree whose crown is cut off." By this, "made like the basis of a palm tree, hence 'tālāvatthukatā'." Thus, this analysis is shown. Here, it should be said, “avatthutālākatā” meaning, “made like a non-existent palm tree.” But by placing the qualifying word after the noun, it is said, “tālāvatthukatā.” This should be understood. By this meaning, this is shown: By words like “form and taste,” the wholesome and unwholesome states that arose previously, having become states whose nature is vipāka, are taken. Even though they arose, they are unable to produce vipāka aggregates like palm leaves in the future, because they have been cut off by the sword of the path from craving and ignorance, which are like the crown. Therefore, they are like a non-existent palm tree, thus, “tālāvatthukatā” are form, taste, and so on. In this meaning, some say that “kusalasomanassa” (wholesome joy) is also included by the word “abhinandantānaṃ” (those who delight). In “anabhāvaṃkatā,” the word “anu” is synonymous with the word “pacchā” (after), so it says, “so that there is no after-existence for them,” and so on. “Anuabhāvaṃ gatā” means gone to non-existence, come to destruction, abandoned, in the sense of not arising afterwards. In “Imā anacchariyā gāthāyo paṭibhaṃsū” (These wonderful verses occurred to him), showing the word “anacchariya” by way of example, it says, “just as anuacchariyā is anacchariyā.” There, “anuacchariyā” means increasingly astonishing at the time of hearing. “Yañca kho tvaṃ vadesi, so pariyāyo na hotīti” (And what you say, that is not a reason). The reason you speak of, which is the absence of the essence of veneration and so on, as being without essence, that is not a reason, it does not exist. Now, the brahmin, referring to the reason of the absence of the essence of veneration and so on, said, “Venerable Gotama is without essence.” If it is said that this reason does not exist, then it would imply that the Blessed One performs veneration and so on. Showing this undesirable implication, it says, “kasmā pana bhagavā evamāhā” (Why then did the Blessed One say this?), and so on. 4. “Sabbapariyāyesūti” in all instances. “Sandhāya bhāsitamattaṃ” (merely spoken with reference to). That with reference to which the brahmin says, “Venerable Gotama is without enjoyment,” and so on, and that with reference to which the Blessed One acknowledges being without enjoyment, and so on, in himself, that is merely spoken with reference to. Ch "Enjoyment with desire" means enjoyment by way of desirous passion. "Another way" means another reason. 5. "Action of family custom" means action called family custom; it is said to be family conduct. "Non-doing" means the state of not doing. "Badly conducted" is misconduct. Since it occurs predominantly through the door of the body, misconduct that arises from the body is "bodily misconduct." To show its nature, it is said, "Therein, and so on." In the statement "the intention of killing, stealing, and sexual misconduct should be understood," "Life" (pāṇa) means, in the ultimate sense, the life faculty; in conventional usage, it means a living being. The life faculty here should be understood in terms of both form and non-form. For when the life faculty of form is disturbed, the other (non-form) also perishes due to its connection with it. "Living being" (satta) should be taken as the continuum of aggregates. For therein is the designation of a living being. "Excessive falling" (atipāta) is an extreme falling in the midst of its very nature of falling by itself, meaning not allowing it to fall slowly but causing it to fall quickly. Or, "excessive falling" is falling by overcoming it with a weapon or the like. "Killing of life" (pāṇātipāta) is the killing of a living being, it is said to be the slaying of life. In terms of meaning, it is the volitional act of killing, arising from either the bodily or vocal door, which causes the destruction of another's life faculty, by one who perceives a living being as a living being. The volition by which, in the great elements that are the support of the existing life faculty, the great elements that arise due to the cause of causing harm to the great elements will not arise, such a volition that gives rise to such an application is killing. For the elements that have been harmed are not pure like other elements, and thus do not become causes for those of the same kind. Here it is said: In formations that are by nature perishing moment by moment, who is the killer, and who is killed? If it is the continuum of mind and mental factors, that, being formless, is not capable of being disturbed by cutting, breaking, etc., nor is it capable of being disturbed. If it is the continuum of form, that, being inanimate, is like a log or a piece of wood, so killing is not found there by cutting, etc., just as in a dead body. The application of killing is striking... Should it be in past formations, or in future, or in present ones? There, it is not possible in past or future ones, because of their non-existence. And in present formations, because formations are momentary, by nature ceasing by themselves, facing destruction, any effort would be useless. And destruction being without cause, death is not caused by striking or hitting, etc. And formations being without will, whose is that effort? Being momentary, shattering at the same time as the intention to kill, whose is the action? And not abiding until the end time, to whom is the karma of killing bound? It is said – The heap of formations, called a being, accompanied by the aforementioned intention to kill, is the killer. By that, due to the cause of the killing effort set in motion, the group of material and immaterial phenomena, worthy of arising, from which consciousness and life faculty have departed, which is the basis for the designation of "dead," is killed. Or merely the mind-and-mental-factors continuum. Even if not the direct object of the killing effort, in the five-constituent existence, due to its dependent existence on the material continuum, when the material continuum is destroyed by an effort applied by another to sever the life faculty, by the arising of impure forms that hinder its production, there is a cessation. Thus, the impossibility of killing is not true. Nor is killing uncaused. Nor is the effort useless. In present formations, by means of the applied effort, the subsequent group of formations, worthy of arising, does not arise in that way. Since the momentary death of momentary formations is not intended here as "death," and the death of the continuum is caused in the aforementioned manner, death is not uncaused. Nor is the killing effort without an agent, for even in formations without will, which merely by their presence are helpful, in causes determined to produce their respective results, the designation of "agent" is established, just as "a lamp illuminates, the moon shines." Nor should killing be accepted as merely the aggregate of mind and mental factors co-arising with the intention to kill, in terms of a continuum. From recognizing it as established. And the effective action of lamps, etc., occurring in a continuum, is seen. Therefore, one is bound by kamma through the destruction of life. And this consideration should be explained in cases of taking what is not given, etc., as far as possible. And that destruction of life (M.N. A. 1.89; Dhs. A. on unwholesome courses of action) among beings devoid of virtue, such as animals, is of slight offense for a small being, of great offense for a large one. Why? Because of the greatness of the effort, and even with equal effort, because of the greatness of the object. Among virtuous beings, such as humans, it is of slight offense for a being of little virtue, of great offense for one of great virtue. But even when bodily qualities are equal, it is of slight offense due to the mildness of defilements and undertakings, and of great offense due to their intensity, so it should be understood. That which is not given by body or speech is "not given." It is another's property. The taking of that is "taking what is not given." Taking another's property is called theft, or stealing. In essence, however,