English
There is no opportunity for the fruit, therefore. If it is said, "Let it be here"? No, for even mundane absorption, in the absorption path, is of the same course as the supramundane. A bhikkhu who has attained jhana, wishing to sit for seven days for the sake of a pleasant abiding in this very life, having entered jhana, he absorbs in the fourth or fifth (jhana) and sits, not in the sixth or seventh. For there is absorption there. Beyond that, it does not become a basis for absorption. Because of being close to the life-continuum, it goes to the fourth or fifth, like a pot standing on the ground, being situated between the impulsion moments, so says the teacher. Not attending to various objects, but attending only to the jhana factors, this is called mastery in attending. Thereafter, the arising of four or five reviewing consciousnesses, that is called mastery in reviewing. Therefore it is said, "Mastery in reviewing is indeed spoken of as mastery in attending." Mastery in entering (jhana) means entering for as long as one wishes; that is, it is capable of establishing the desired time limit. Some also say, "This is the difference between mastery in determining and mastery in emerging: by the power of determination, impulsion occurs; but by the power of emerging, it occurs more than intended." Moreover, having attended to an object like the earth kasina, and having experienced impulsion, and having attended again, then the fifth jhana consciousness arises; this is said to be the highest limit. But for the Blessed One, jhana arises immediately after attending; all this is stated in the Anuganthipada. It is written: "Basis means the heart-basis. Door means the eye, etc. Object means form, etc." Consciousness sees an object of form as apprehended, or it sees otherwise. How? It is said, "Or as an object of form, basis, and door as apprehended." For whichever consciousness has the basis, door, and object among the forms as apprehended, that consciousness also sees that object of form, basis, and door as apprehended. Or, the omission of one "object" should be understood, and this is my reasoning after consideration. From then on, in the three tetrads, two by two phrases should be taken as one and reckoned. Here, the experience of joy should be understood as non-delusion through insight, from the object of calm. But what is said in "This is suffering, knowledge," and so on, as "non-delusion from the object," is here said in reverse order from that stated method. For there, by which delusion that suffering is covered, it does not appear; or because that delusion is destroyed, or because of the ability to review as one wishes at any desired time in the knowledge thus arisen, knowledge is said to be non-delusion in the three (suffering, etc.). In cessation, the experience of joy associated with it, as non-delusion from the object, is not possible due to the absence of delusion's abandonment, and due to contradiction with the Paṭisambhidā Pāḷi. There, "by way of long in-breath," and so on, is said to show it from the object. The meaning here is: "By that mindfulness, by that knowledge, that joy is experienced, because its object is experienced." "Reflecting," and so on, is said to show the experience of joy as non-delusion. Knowing, seeing, and reviewing by way of impermanence, etc. Establishing, resolving by way of that conviction, and likewise concentrating effort, etc., with momentary concentration. "To be fully known" is by way of knowledge-comprehension. "To be fully understood" is by way of investigation-comprehension. Indeed, all suffering is to be fully known and to be fully understood. And there, this joy is written. "To be fully known," and so on, is said with reference to the moment of the path. Because the function of insight, called non-delusion, is accomplished by the path, the path itself is spoken of as if making the object "to be fully known," etc. "For showing the ground of insight" is said because there is no bodily pleasure in calm. "In the two phrases about mental formations" refers to these: "experiencing mental formations... (etc.)... trains," and "calming mental formations... (etc.)... trains." "Rejoicing," and so on, are all synonyms for joy. "Contemplation of impermanence," and so on, refers to defilements, and the aggregates rooted in them. "Thus developed" is not by producing the fourth or fifth jhānas, but... cultivated. Thus, it was cultivated, made perfect in all aspects. Even during the time of reflecting on the path of insight, everything was shown through the breath that arose, by the Buddha, skilled in means. 168. The intention is: "Why is this said by us?" Commentary on the Word-Division 172. "Ussukkavacana" is indeed a clear word-designation, it is said to be a synonymous word. Just as in "having heard, they eat," for one who intends to kill deliberately, the word "deliberately" is an "ussukka" for the word "killing," and it is said that the intention and the killing of life are of one and the same person. It is not merely by mental state, but the application is also desired, so these were said to show this, so says Elder Upatissa. Where it should be said, "knowing, fully knowing, intending, having offered," it is said, "knowing... ...transgression," and the killing is also shown, therefore, the meaning is shown without adherence to the letter. For the accomplishment of the meaning called transgression, the preceding intention is indeed the means of accomplishment. "All subtle existence" is said with reference to form, not to the formless. For the formless, which are called existences, grossness and subtlety are not intended here, as in the division of aggregates. "In the mother's womb" is a common expression; even for an spontaneously arisen human, it is a pārājika offense. If it is asked, "Why is that taken, since there is no attack on a formless body?" Because the life faculty of that very physical body is connected with the formless aggregate. Thereby, it is established that a human body is indeed a living being. Here, "in the mother's womb" means in a human mother's or an animal mother's. For it is said in the Parivāra: "If one slays a woman, a mother, and a man, a father; Having slain a mother and a father, one does not thereby incur an immediate result; This question was pondered by the skilled." "First" means the rebirth-linking consciousness itself. For the mind-continuum belonging to one existence, the rebirth-linking consciousness is called the first consciousness. The death consciousness is called the last. Otherwise, in beginningless saṃsāra, there is no such thing as a first consciousness, except for the immediately preceding, immediately contiguous, non-existent, and departed. Due to the absence of mind-arising without conditions. Or, if it exists, there is the fault of a new being appearing. Although this is the very first human body, it cannot be deprived of life. Taking that as the beginning, among the countless human bodies arising in the continuity until death, it is seen as "the very first." But when a human body, in terms of prior and subsequent, reaches continuity, then it can be deprived of life. Indeed, one who disrupts the continuity is said to deprive of life. And here, if the meaning of multiplicity is intended, the phrase "the very first" is appropriate, but not in the sense of unity, due to the unity of continuity. And if the sense of unity is intended here by the phrase "disrupts the continuity," then the phrase "the very first" is not appropriate, is it? No, because of the multiplicity of moments in continuity. But since continuity is called the prior and subsequent arising of many, therefore it is said, "this is the very first." Thus, both meanings are included here, otherwise, this phrase "disrupts the continuity" would not hold. Although here, by the phrase "disrupts the continuity," only the present moment of continuity is intended, and it does not seem like the present moment in time, nevertheless, since when the present moment of continuity is disrupted, the present moment in time is also disrupted, but when the present moment in time is disrupted, there is nothing to say that the present moment of continuity is disrupted. Therefore, in the commentary, it is said: "Both can be deprived of life, therefore, understanding that, it should be known that this was said: 'disrupts the continuity'." In the sense of "disrupts the continuity," if a being dies naturally, reaching the end of its lifespan, there is no offense due to the transgression, as the continuity is not disrupted. But if, due to a transgression, a being dies prematurely, not reaching the end of its lifespan, there is an offense due to the transgression, and it is bound by kamma – this is not our reasoning, says the teacher. "Or one might praise death, or incite to death, this too is a defeat..." "he becomes one with no communion" or at the very moment of volition the pārājika offense arises, because it is absolutely unwholesome, because it is painful feeling, because it is bodily action, because it is verbal action, and because it is an action, thus it should be understood. "Only seven or eight impulsion moments" is said in terms of a similar object. Therefore, "in terms of a similar continuum" and so on is said. Because it is endowed with its opposite, becoming a condition for the immediately preceding, so that it is not as strong as before, for the weak one. That is the destruction of the life faculty. "Īti" means they release seven kinds of scorpions, etc., to sting and kill in battle. "Pajjaraka" means burning of the body. "Sūcika" means sharp pain. "Visūcika" means dry dysentery. "Pakkhandiya" means bloody dysentery. The raising of a nāga that has created a great body of two or three hundred fathoms and stands there, or causing poison-death or burning in the bodies of others when looked at angrily, that is called "application." "Some" means the Mahāsaṅghikas.