English
this is the meaning. Since it should be asked, "What kind of distinction — common and uncommon — would there be?" having asked, "Like what would it be?" "Like a sprout" and so on was stated. Just as there is a common and uncommon distinction, so what is that common and uncommon distinction like? This is the meaning. Just as the seed is uncommon for the production of a sprout, so the cause would be uncommon for the production of a result. Just as earth and water are common for the production of a sprout, so the condition would be common for the production of a result. A condition is for all results. The seed of a sprout is an uncommon producer, a cause. Since it should be asked, "How should it be believed that earth and water are common producers?" "For a sprout" and so on was stated. It is its nature to produce an equal, similar result. What is that? It is the seed, the cause itself. Since it should be said, "Should the distinction of cause and condition be shown only by the simile of seed and sprout, or should it also be shown by other similes?" by other similes... And to show a distinction even in the simile, "Or just as..." etc. was said. Even by this simile, the distinction of causes and conditions is to be understood, is the intention. The distinction of causes and conditions, being external requisites like seeds and sprouts, was explained by the teacher, and understood by us. Because it was to be asked, "How is it explained in internal things?" "Indeed, this samsara..." etc. was said. Or, because it was to be said, "Let the cause and condition, being an external requisite, be suitable; how is it suitable in internal things?" "Indeed, this samsara..." etc. was said. In the commentary, however, it is said: "Having thus shown the external division of causes and conditions, now to show the internal, 'Indeed, this samsara...' etc. was said." Samsara exists together with causes and conditions, thus it is with causes and conditions. Indeed, since this samsara arises being with causes and conditions, therefore, it is to be seen that the cause and condition, being an internal requisite, is also suitable, is the intention. So, if this samsara's being with causes and conditions was said by the Blessed One, then it is to be believed by us. Because it was to be asked, "How is it to be believed?" "Thus indeed..." etc. was said. Thus, by this cause and condition beginning with ignorance, the entire dependent origination, which is samsara, arises – thus the Blessed One said that samsara is with causes and conditions, therefore it is to be believed. Let ignorance and so on be the condition for formations and so on. Because it was to be asked, "What is the cause of ignorance?" "Thus, ignorance is the cause of ignorance" was said. Because it was to be asked, "What is the condition for ignorance?" "Unwise attention is the condition" was said. Because it was to be asked, "Which ignorance is the cause of which ignorance?" "Previous ignorance is the cause of later ignorance" was said. Because it was to be asked, "Which is previous ignorance, which is later ignorance?" "Therein..." etc. was said. "Is the previous latent tendency of ignorance, which is the cause of the arising of ignorance, immediate, or is it also a remote cause?" because it is to be asked, it is said, "like a seed and a sprout," and so on. A seed and a sprout: the sprout of seeds is a seed-sprout, just as a sprout arises as an immediate cause of seeds. Where a certain fruit arises in a tree, etc., that seed, however, is the cause of that fruit arising in that tree, etc., as a remote cause. Because it is to be said, "A seed is only one, how can it be spoken of as twofold?" it is said, "for it is twofold," and so on. The meaning is that the cause is also twofold, distinguished by immediate time and remote time. Just as the seed-like cause is twofold, so too the latent tendency of ignorance, which is the cause of ignorance, is twofold by distinction of time: an immediate cause and a remote cause. The immediate latent tendency of ignorance is the immediate cause of the immediate manifestation of ignorance. The earlier latent tendency of ignorance is the remote cause of the later manifestation of ignorance. Thus, just as the distinction is clear between the seed-like unique cause and the common condition like earth and water, so too the distinction should be seen between the latent tendency of ignorance as a unique cause and unwise attention as a common condition. Because it is to be said, "The distinction between cause and condition should be stated with this much," it is said, "or just as a lamp-stand," and so on. In the commentary, however, it is said: "Or just as, and so on, also shows the division of cause and condition." There, the lamp-stand, wick, and oil, which are conditions for the lamp, are not the intrinsic cause, the similar cause, of the lamp—this is the connection. Because it is to be asked, "Why should it be believed that the lamp-stand, etc., which are conditions for the lamp, are not the intrinsic cause?" it is said, "for it is not possible," and so on. Because it is not possible to light or ignite the lamp-stand, wick, and oil, which are conditions for the lamp, without fire, therefore, just as the former lamp is the intrinsic cause of the latter lamp, so too the lamp-stand, etc., are not the intrinsic cause. Thus, such a nature is similar. Just as a lamp is a cause, and a non-similar accessory like a pot is a condition, so too, an internal nature is a cause, an external non-similar thing is a condition. The generating latent defilement of ignorance is the cause for the arising of ignorance, the grasping, supporting thing is the condition. It is a cause not common to other results, it is a condition common to all results— thus, by combining these, the distinct difference between cause and condition is to be seen through the simile of the lamp— this is the intention. The teacher stated that the specific division of cause and condition is "kāraṇaṃ parikkhāro" (cause is an accessory). The state of being a cause is dependent on the result. Therefore, since it must be asked: "What is that state of being a cause, and in what manner does it exist, and what is that manner?" and since it must be asked: "What is that result, and by what specific characteristic does it exist, and what is that characteristic?" and since it must be asked: "What is that connection between cause and result?" —to clarify all of this, "avupacchedattho" (the meaning of non-interruption) and so on was stated. This contextual meaning is stated in the commentary as "Now, since 'cause' is called 'accessory,' and the state of being a cause is dependent on the result, therefore, to clarify what the state of being a cause is, how it exists, what the result is, what its specific characteristic is, and what the connection between cause and result is, 'avupacchedattho' and so on was stated" (Netti. Aṭṭha. 49). This should be understood. Therein, the meaning of non-interruption that exists for the cause, called cause and condition, that meaning of non-interruption is the meaning of continuity, due to its connection with the result. And that cause, having generated and supported its own result, then ceases, is indeed called non-interrupted. And that result, having become a cause for another, then ceases, in that non-interrupted state, it also has the meaning of continuity. But that result which ceases without becoming a cause for another result, that is interrupted, just like the death-consciousness of an Arahant. From a cause, for a result that arises, the meaning of arising that exists, that meaning of arising is the meaning of result. For the aggregates of rebirth-linking, the meaning of rebirth-linking, the meaning of re-connection, that exists, that meaning of rebirth-linking is the meaning of renewed existence, the meaning of re-becoming. For defilements, the meaning of hindrance, the meaning of arising in the continuum, that exists, that meaning of hindrance is the meaning of obsession. For defilements, by the path, the meaning of non-eradication that exists, that meaning of non-eradication is the meaning of latent tendency. For ignorance, for the four truths, the meaning of non-penetration that exists, that meaning of non-penetration is the meaning of ignorance. By the path of Arahantship, the meaning of non-full-understanding that exists, that meaning of non-full-understanding is the meaning of seed for consciousness, for rebirth-linking consciousness. Thus far, the state of cause, and the mode of cause, and the result, and the specific result, have been distinguished by the teacher, and understood by us. Because it is to be asked, "What is the meaning of successive causal condition? And what is the meaning of connection?" Therefore, "where there is no break," and so on, was said. Where, in which material and immaterial process, for a cause of unbroken causal condition, the non-cessation that exists, that non-cessation, in that same material and immaterial process, is continuity. Where, in which material and immaterial process, the continuity that exists, that continuity, in that same material and immaterial process, is arising. Thus, by connecting these, the successive cause and so on should be understood. The aggregate of morality means the aggregate of purified morality. The aggregate of concentration means the aggregate of exalted states, for exalted states are founded on concentration. The aggregate of wisdom means the aggregate predominated by path and fruit wisdom. For it is a condition for the aggregate of knowledge of reviewing, which is called knowledge and vision of liberation. The meaning of "knowledge of other teachers" and so on is already stated in the commentary on the modes of analysis of the terms. "Nature is the cause" was said by the teacher. Because it is to be asked, "What kind of nature is that cause?"