English
it is said: “Where should its exposition be seen? In the combination of modes.” – It is said. The meaning of the verse is stated in the exposition-explanation. The verse “Sixteen…etc.…Sutta” which was spoken by the teacher in the exposition, where should the exposition of that verse be seen? Was it not divided by the teacher at the beginning of the mode-division? Or should it be seen as divided by referring to it in the mode-combination? Or should it be seen as divided by referring to it in the origination of methods? – thus it is asked. The answer is: it should be seen as divided by referring to it in the mode-combination. The teacher said that the exposition of that verse should be seen in the mode-combination. That mode-combination is sixteenfold, divided into the mode-combination of teaching. “Among these, which is the mode-combination of teaching..." because it is to be asked, "What is the meaning of 'anāhārasampāto'?" In this Sutta, the special explanation, which is a 'hārasampāta' (mode of exposition), divided by me due to the absence of an explanation, is called 'desanāhārasampāto' (mode of exposition of teaching). Thus, to divide it, it is said, "Among these, what is the 'desanāhārasampāto'?" "Among these" means among the sixteen kinds of 'hārasampāta', such as 'desanāhārasampāta'. It asks, "What is the special explanation, which is a 'hārasampāta', called 'desanāhārasampāto'?" "With an unguarded mind, and struck by wrong view; overcome by sloth and torpor, one goes under the sway of Māra." In the Sutta, having asked, "What does 'with an unguarded mind' teach?" it is said that the special explanation, "It teaches heedlessness," and so on, is called 'desanāhārasampāto'. The meaning of the verse is explained in the Commentary (Netti. Aṭṭha. 52). The interpretive meaning is: "With an unguarded mind" means a person endowed with an unguarded mind goes under the sway of Māra, of death. "Struck by wrong view" means a person endowed with perversion, by perversion, goes under the sway of Māra. "Overcome by sloth and torpor" means a person endowed with such a mind, with a mind that requires effort, with a lazy mind, goes under the sway of Māra, the Māra of defilements, and so on. Because it is to be asked, "To whom does that state of heedlessness, taught by the phrase 'with an unguarded mind', belong?" it is said, "That belongs to Death." The meaning taught by this Sutta passage, "with an unguarded mind," has been explained by the teacher, and is known by us. Because it is to be asked, "How is the meaning taught by the Sutta passage 'and struck by wrong view' explained?" it is said, "and struck by wrong view," and so on. When one sees permanence in the impermanent, by which perversion, that perversion that has arisen then is called "struck by wrong view." Because it is to be asked, "What is the characteristic of that perversion?" having asked thus, it is said, "Perversion is characterized by grasping wrongly." "Characterized by grasping wrongly" means characterized by grasping wrongly, such as beauty in the ugly, and so on. Perversion comes from "it perverts" due to its causative meaning. What is perversion? It is characterized by wrong grasping. That perversion perverts perception, it perverts consciousness, it perverts views. Thus, because it perverts these three things, and because there are three things to be perverted, perversions are also of three kinds. Among these, the perversion of perception is soft and weak, being merely the grasping of an appearance that presents itself as beautiful, etc. The perversion of consciousness is stronger than the perversion of perception, because it grasps by establishing the form aggregates, etc., which present themselves as beautiful, etc., as beautiful, etc. The perversion of views is stronger than the perversion of perception and consciousness, because whatever object presents itself in the aspect of beauty, etc., that object is grasped by clinging to it as permanent, etc. Therefore, the perversion of perception was mentioned first, then the perversion of consciousness, then the perversion of views was mentioned. However, in detail, each one being fourfold by grasping beauty, happiness, self, and permanence, they become twelve kinds. The perversions have been analyzed by the teacher, and understood by us. Because it must be asked, "What are the bases and objects for the occurrence of perversions?" to show that these bases of existence are the bases and objects for the occurrence of perversions, it was said, "Where does it pervert, in the four bases of existence?" In the four bases of existence, namely, body, feeling, consciousness, and phenomena, all that perversion perverts perception, consciousness, and views. Because it must be asked, "How does it pervert for one who contemplates?" it was said, "One contemplates form as self," and so on. Whatever person contemplates form as self, or contemplates the self as possessing form, or contemplates form in the self, or contemplates the self in form, thus, for that person who contemplates in this way, perversion perverts perception, consciousness, and views in the body. The same method applies to feelings, etc. Among these, body, etc., which one perverts which? the basis of perversion. Thus, to distinguish "this is the basis of this perversion" for the perversion that occurs in this way, it is said: "therein, form," and so on. Therein, among these four, form and so on, first, form is the basis of perversion. It is to be understood that it is the basis of the perversion that occurs as "beautiful in the ugly." This method applies to the rest as well. Thus, perversions are fourfold in the manner of "beautiful in the ugly," and so on. This was distinguished and shown by the teacher as "this is the basis of this," and understood by us. Since it is to be asked, "which are the root causal conditions of these perversions?" it is said: "two things," and so on. The defilements of the mind, craving and ignorance – these two things are the root causes of perversions. Since it is to be asked, "do these two things together form the root cause of perversions, or separately?" to distinguish them separately, it is said: "veiled by craving," and so on. Is there no craving without ignorance? Therefore, should it be said: "veiled by craving and ignorance"? No, because craving is a predominant condition. Indeed, due to predominant craving, they perceive "beautiful" in the ugly, and "pleasure" in suffering. Since it is said: "craving and ignorance," it should be said: "veiled by ignorance." Why is it said: "veiled by wrong view"? Because wrong view arises from ignorance, taking ignorance by way of wrong view, it is said: "veiled by wrong view." The meaning to be taken is: "veiled by ignorance." However, if it were said: "veiled by ignorance," ignorance without wrong view might also be included. Indeed, due to ignorance accompanied by wrong view, they perceive "permanent" in the impermanent, and "self" in the non-self. Since it is to be asked, "how does the perversion rooted in craving arise? how does the perversion rooted in ignorance accompanied by wrong view arise?" it is said: "therein, that perversion of wrong view," and so on. Therein, among those rooted in craving and rooted in ignorance accompanied by wrong view. Perversion of wrong view means the perversion rooted in ignorance accompanied by wrong view. Past form... "sees it as such" even though it is not substantial, it is spoken of as if it were substantial. "Perversion of craving" means a perversion rooted in craving accompanied by views, delighting in future forms by way of delighting in views. Thus, the specific mode of occurrence should be understood as divided into seeing the past and delighting in the future. "The defilements of the mind are craving and ignorance, these two states alone are not [all of them], but there are also ten defilements, why are only two mentioned?" Because it might be said thus, it is stated: "These two states are defilements of the mind," and so on. Craving and ignorance – these two states alone are the root cause of the most blameworthy perversion. The mind, being purified from these craving and ignorance, is purified from all defilements. Therefore, these two states are spoken of as being especially the defilements of the mind. For when craving and ignorance are abandoned by the path of arahantship, there is no defilement that remains unabandoned. "Are craving and ignorance, as described, the root cause only of the perversions as described, or are they also the root cause of the entire cycle of existence?" Because it might be said thus, to show that craving and ignorance, as described, are the root cause of the perversions as described, and also the root cause of the entire cycle of existence, "for them" and so on, is stated. There, for those individuals whose minds are unguarded, and struck by wrong view, for those individuals. For those individuals for whom the prior limit of the hindrances of ignorance and the fetters of craving is not discerned, for those individuals, running and wandering in saṃsāra due to those hindrances of ignorance and fetters of craving, sometimes there is running and wandering to hell, by going under the sway of Māra, sometimes there is running and wandering to the animal realm, sometimes there is running and wandering to the realm of hungry ghosts, sometimes there is running and wandering to the asura realm, sometimes there is running and wandering to the devas, sometimes there is running and wandering to humans – this is the meaning. And the meaning taught by the phrase "struck by wrong view" in the Sutta, by the teacher... It is not analyzed, but known by us, because it can be said, "How is the meaning taught by the scripture passage, 'overcome by sloth and torpor,' analyzed?" Therefore, "overcome by sloth and torpor" and so on is said. The unfitness, the unworkability,