English
only the statement "This is defilement, the three roots of unwholesomeness," etc., should have been said by the teacher. But why was the statement "There, those who by the painful path," etc., said? True. But the explanation of the ground of the three-person method proceeds according to the three types of individuals, starting with the "unfolding-knower." Therefore, to explain these three types of individuals, starting with the "unfolding-knower," the statement "There, those who by the painful path," etc., was said. Even so, only the statement "There, he who by the pleasant path quickly attains knowledge, this is the 'unfolding-knower'," etc., should have been said. But why was the statement "There, those who by the painful path," etc., said? True. But the three types of individuals, starting with the "unfolding-knower," are derived from the "lion's play" method, which emerges from the three-person method. They are determined from the four individuals explained by the division of paths in the explanation of the ground of the "lion's play" method. To first explain these four individuals, which are explained by the division of paths in the explanation of the ground of the "lion's play" method, the statement "There, those who by the painful path," etc., was said. "There" means in that set of four paths which is determined in the explanation of the ground of the "lion's play" method. "Those who" means those who are slow and dull, individuals of speculative views, who in due order proceed by the pleasant path with slow knowledge, and by the pleasant path with quick knowledge. Thus, two proceeding individuals are also determined. Because it must be asked, "What is the defilement of these four individuals?" to answer, "This is the defilement of these four individuals," the statement "This is the defilement of these four individuals," etc., was said. The four nutriments are determined... ... (and so on) ... the four wrong courses of action are determined. Thus, this tenfold set, starting with the four nutriments and other fourfold sets, is the defilement of these four individuals. is. The defilement of these four individuals was defined by the teacher, and because it was to be asked, "What is the purification?" it was said, "This is the purification of these four individuals," and so on. Four paths were defined, four immeasurables were defined. Thus, this ten-fold collection of dhammas, consisting of the four paths and the four immeasurables, is the purification of these four individuals. 88. Because it was to be asked, "Among these four individuals, which individual is the one who understands quickly? Which individual is the one who understands after explanation? Which individual is the one who needs guidance?" it was said, "Among them, those who..." and so on. If one were to say, "Previously, the four individuals were defined by 'Among them, those who...' and so on. Why then are the four individuals defined again by 'Among them, those who...' and so on?" Previously, they were defined in terms of their ownership of defilement and purification. Later, however, they are defined in terms of their being a collection of parts, such as the one who understands quickly, and so on. This is the special meaning to be understood. The meaning of the phrase, "Among them... and so on... these two individuals," is similar to what was stated below. "Among them" means among those four individuals. "Who" means the one with a lofty view-character. "This one" means this determined one with a lofty view-character. Again, "who" means the one with a lofty craving-character, and the dull one with a view-character. "For the common" means for the path of suffering with quick comprehension, and for the path of ease with slow comprehension. Because it was to be asked, "The three individuals, the one who understands quickly and so on, were defined by the teacher. Among these three individuals, which one does the Blessed One teach what?" it was said, "Among them, the Blessed One..." and so on. Or, because it was to be said, "The distinction of individuals by the distinction of paths was explained by the teacher. How is the distinction of individuals by the distinction of teachings explained?" in order to explain the distinction of individuals even by the distinction of teachings, it was said, "Among them, the Blessed One..." and so on. "Among them" means among those three individuals, the one who understands quickly and so on. Because it was to be said, "The distinction of individuals is explained only by the distinction of the teaching of calm and the teaching of insight," the teaching of mild dhammas and the teaching of sharp dhammas... Even now, to explain the distinction of persons, "There, the Blessed One," and so on, was said. In the remaining cases too, the connected meaning should be stated in the same way. Being four, each by a distinction of paths, and being three, by a distinction of paths and a distinction of teachings, both separately and combined, to explain this, again saying "There, those," and so on, "Thus, indeed, being four, they become three," was said. There, "cattāri" and "tīṇi" is a designation with gender inversion, but "cattāro" and "tayo" should be the designation in the natural gender. Since it should be asked, "For these three persons, what is the defilement?" "For these three persons, this is the defilement," and so on, was said. There, "this is the defilement" means: "the three unwholesome roots... moral failure, wrong view, misconduct" - this collection of unwholesome states, thus determined, is the defilement. Since it should be said, "The defilement of these three persons has been determined by the teacher; how should the purification be determined?" "For these three persons, this is the purification," and so on, was said. There, "this is the purification" means: "the three wholesome roots... the three doors to liberation: emptiness, signlessness, desirelessness" - this collection of wholesome states, thus determined, is the purification. "In the manner stated, being four, they become three persons," has been explained by the teacher. Since it should be said, "Being three, how many persons do they become?" "Thus, indeed, being four, they become three; being three, they become two: the craving-natured and the view-natured," and so on, was said. "Thus" means, in the manner stated below, being four, they become three. Being three, they become two persons: the craving-natured and the view-natured. Since it should be said, "For these two persons, what is the defilement?" "For these two persons, this is the defilement," and so on, was said. There, "this is the defilement" means: "craving and ignorance... eternalism (wrong view of permanence) and the view of annihilation,” this collection of defilements is called defilement. “The defilement of these two individuals has been determined by the teacher, how is the purification?” Because it is to be said, “This is the purification of these two individuals,” and so on, is stated. This purification is “calm and insight… …and the Nibbāna element with substratum remaining, and the Nibbāna element without substratum remaining,” this collection of wholesome states is called purification. By “the three unwholesome roots,” and so on, the determination made in the defilement section through the explanation of defilement for the two sets of twelve triads, such as the triad of unwholesome roots, and for the three individuals such as the one who understands quickly; by “the three wholesome roots,” and so on, the determination made in the purification section through the explanation of purification for the two sets of twelve triads, such as the triad of wholesome roots, and for the three individuals such as the one who understands quickly— this kind of determination is the ground, the origin, the cause of the arising of the Tipukkhalanaya and the Aṅkusanaya. Thus, it should be connected. And by “craving and ignorance,” and so on, the determination made in the defilement section through the explanation of defilement for the fifteen dyads, such as the dyad of craving and ignorance, and for the two individuals characterized by craving and by views; by “calm and insight,” and so on, the determination made in the purification section through the explanation of purification for the nineteen dyads, such as the dyad of calm and insight, and for the two individuals characterized by craving and by views— this kind of determination should also be extracted and connected as the ground of the Nandiyāvaṭṭanaya. Indeed, from the Nandiyāvaṭṭanaya, the Sīhavikkīḷitanaya arises in terms of individuals; and from the Sīhavikkīḷitanaya, the Tipukkhalanaya arises. However, from the Sīhavikkīḷitanaya, the Tipukkhalanaya arises in terms of phenomena; and from the Tipukkhalanaya, the Nandiyāvaṭṭanaya arises. Therefore, the commentary says: “Previously, ‘craving and ignorance,’ and so on, the ground for the method of tranquility was shown. For by that, it is said, ‘four become three, three become two.’” Since it should be asked, “Why is it understood that this is the ground for the determination of the aforementioned kind, and for the method of the triple-pronged and the goad?” Therefore, “Thus he said,” and so on, was stated. By that, the meaning is that by the words the teacher spoke, “He who is unwholesome… and by the directional observation,” it is understood that it is the ground for the determination of the aforementioned kind, and for the triple-pronged… Since it should be said, “By this much, the origination of the method is complete, there is nothing else,” “the assigned origination of the method” was stated. The meaning to be taken is that whatever origination of the method has determined unwholesome states in the defilement aspect, or wholesome states in the purification aspect, that origination of the method is assigned to be appropriately determined and connected.