English
The sutta in which the three bases of meritorious action are taught by the Blessed One, that sutta is the Vāsanābhāgiya. "Nibbedhabhāgiya" means: the piercing, the breaking through of the aggregates of greed and so on, is nibbedha. A part, a share of nibbedha is nibbedhabhāga. A sutta appointed as the speaker-part in the nibbedhabhāga is the Nibbedhabhāgiya. Which is that? The sutta in which the training and non-training states are taught by the Blessed One, that sutta is the Nibbedhabhāgiya. "The individuals who receive these suttas, by which paths do they succeed? How many are those paths?" Because it should be asked thus, "two paths" and so on is said. The path that exists in the merit-share consisting of generosity, morality, and cultivation is the merit-share path. The path that exists in the fruit-share is the fruit-share path. "Upon which moralities do the recipients stand and practice? How many are those moralities?" Because it should be asked thus, "two moralities" and so on is said. One restrains by this restraint, thus it is restraint. That restraint is fivefold: Pātimokkha restraint, mindfulness restraint, knowledge restraint, patience restraint, energy restraint. All restraint is restraint because it restrains from evil. It is called sīla (morality) because it is the foundation for worldly and supramundane accomplishments. One abandons by this that which should be abandoned, thus it is abandonment. Or, the act of abandoning is abandonment. And that abandonment is fivefold: abandonment by substitution of opposites, abandonment by suppression, abandonment by eradication, abandonment by tranquillization, abandonment by escape. There, excluding abandonment by escape, the fourfold abandonment, in the manner stated, is called sīla. Among those suttas and so on, the Blessed One... Or what discourse, by what practice, does he teach? In what virtue established, by what virtue does a person become a celibate practitioner? Because it must be asked thus, to show it divided in that way, "Therein, the Blessed One," and so on, is said. Therein, among those discourses like the 'portion of habituation,' the 'discourse of the portion of habituation,' therein, among those practices like the 'portion of merit,' by the practice of the 'portion of merit,' to whichever person the Blessed One teaches, that person, the recipient of the 'discourse of the portion of habituation,' therein, among virtues like 'restraint-virtue,' being established in 'restraint-virtue,' by that 'celibate practice' known as 'restraint-virtue,' by that 'supreme practice,' becomes a celibate practitioner, a fulfiller of supreme conduct. Therein, among those discourses like the 'portion of habituation,' the 'discourse of the portion of penetration,' therein, among those practices like the 'portion of merit,' by the practice of the 'portion of fruit,' to whichever person the Blessed One teaches, that person, the recipient of the 'discourse of the portion of penetration,' therein, among virtues like 'restraint-virtue,' being established in 'abandonment-virtue' by way of abandoning through eradication and tranquility, by that 'celibate practice' known as 'abandonment-virtue,' which is a special path, becomes a celibate practitioner. Thus, the connection should be made. "Among discourses like the 'portion of habituation,' which is the 'discourse of the portion of habituation'?" Because it must be asked thus, "Therein, which?" and so on, is said. Therein, "therein" means among those discourses like the 'portion of habituation.' "Talk on giving" means talk on the fruit of giving by good people and the fruit of giving by bad people. "Talk on virtue" means talk on the fruit of virtue like the five precepts. "Talk on heaven" means talk on the happiness of heavenly attainment and talk on the merit that brings about rebirth in heaven. "Danger" means a discourse showing danger. "Benefit" means a discourse showing benefit. This is called the 'discourse of the portion of habituation.' Thus, the connection. In "Therein, which?" and so on, the connected meaning is as stated before. That teaching which reveals the Four Noble Truths, that teaching is called the 'discourse of the portion of penetration.' Thus, the connection. And if this is so, even the 'discourse of the portion of habituation' would attain the state of a 'discourse of the portion of penetration' by revealing the Four Noble Truths. This objection is to be considered... having made it so, it was said, "in the Sutta on the Share of Latent Tendencies," and so on. In the Sutta on the Share of Latent Tendencies, there is no understanding, no insight leading to emergence, no wisdom that is the basis for the noble path, no path that is the noble path, no fruit that is the noble fruit. But in the Sutta on the Share of Penetration, there are understanding and so on; in the Sutta on the Share of Latent Tendencies, there are not. By "understanding" and so on, it shows that the exposition of the Four Noble Truths, the discourse on giving, and so on, are included in the Sutta on the Share of Penetration, and the other is indeed called the Sutta on the Share of Latent Tendencies. If they were to ask, "The Suttas in which the bases of the Dhamma-paths are expounded, are not just two; why then are 'only two Suttas determined'?" Because the bases of the Dhamma-paths mentioned in the Suttas, which are to be distinguished, are easily understood without confusion. If they were to ask, "If so, the Suttas on the Share of Defilement and the Share of the Asekha (Learned) are also determined, because there is no confusion," They are not determined. When the Sutta on the Share of Latent Tendencies is determined, the Sutta on the Share of Defilement is also determined, because the Dhamma free from defilement is indeed the Dhamma of the Share of Latent Tendencies. And when the Sutta on the Share of Penetration is determined, the Sutta on the Share of the Asekha is also determined, because they are not different. Because it is to be asked, "The Suttas in which the bases of the Dhamma-paths are expounded by way of distinction, with what fruit are these Suttas to be connected?" it was said, "these four Suttas," and so on. There, these four Suttas are the Suttas on the Share of Latent Tendencies and the Share of Penetration as determined, and the Suttas on the Share of Defilement and the Share of the Asekha, determined by that determination. These four Suttas are to be connected with the holy life, which is the fruit brought about by the method of teaching these four Suttas, in every way, in every aspect, with the virtue of restraint and the virtue of abandonment. And by one who connects, in every way, in every aspect, by the method of analyzing words and so on, having investigated the fruit such as the virtue of restraint, and having sought the appropriate fruit by the method of reason, "this fruit is the fruit for this person." This is the fruit, the fruit of this discourse. Thus, discourses should be connected each to its own fruit. This meaning should be understood. Because it should be asked: "With how much fruit, with how much holy life, should they be connected?" It is said: "As far as the grounds of knowledge." As far as the meritorious practices and so on, established by the discourse on the part of purification, taught by the Blessed One, can be the objects, the grounds for analytical knowledge, with that many grounds the discourse on the part of purification should be connected. As far as the fruit-bearing practices and so on, established by the discourse on the part of penetration, can be the objects, the grounds for analytical knowledge, with that many grounds the discourse on the part of penetration should be connected. The other two discourses should also be connected as is appropriate. By this, it shows the manifold nature of the grounds of knowledge and the meanings of the discourses. 34. The phenomena mentioned in the discourse on the part of purification and so on, divided by the teacher into the states of purification-part and penetration-part, and known by us; because it should be asked: "How should they be divided into states of defilement-part and non-learner-part, into common and uncommon states?" Therefore, "Among these, which phenomena are common?" and so on, is begun. However, in the Commentary: "Having thus divided the phenomena in part into states of purification-part and penetration-part, now, to divide them into states of defilement-part and non-learner-part, into common and uncommon states, 'Among these, which phenomena are common?' and so on, is begun." (Netti. Aṭṭha. 34) It is said. "Among these" means: Among those phenomena that are mentioned in the discourse and should be divided by way of analysis, it asks: "Which phenomena are common?" It answers: "Two phenomena are common." To show these two phenomena in their essence, it is said: "Common by name, and common by object." Therein, "common by name" means: Common and similar by name, by name-designation. By the name "wholesome," twenty-one states of consciousness are similar. By the name "unwholesome" and so on, twelve states of consciousness are similar. By the name "wholesome" and so on... It was said that the meanings to be expressed by the term are common to wholesome and other names. Therefore, in the commentary: “Name is a designation, through it, by sound, the meaning is understood. By sound, a general form of the meaning is grasped, not a specific form. Therefore, the meanings to be expressed by sound are called common by name, due to their graspability dependent on a common form-name,” it was said. Common by basis means common by the basis that serves as a foundation. It means that the phenomena that arise in that foundational continuum, or in a mind-moment, etc., are common to that continuum or basis, or to that mind-moment, etc.