English
this is the meaning. This is another meaning: the word 'matta' means the cessation of a qualification. Indeed, phenomena with initial thought and sustained thought are "with sustained thought" by means of sustained thought qualified by initial thought. But these are "only sustained thought," devoid of the qualification called initial thought. Therefore, they are called "only sustained thought," meaning they possess only sustained thought. When the state of being without initial thought is established by the phrase "only sustained thought," the word "without initial thought" is used to indicate the existence of other things that are also without initial thought. Indeed, those without initial thought exist as "only sustained thought" and also as "without sustained thought," which need to be distinguished and understood. If these are not stated, then what is to be distinguished and understood would not be shown, and it would imply that "only sustained thought" *is* "without initial thought." However, the state of being a qualifier and being qualified can be as one wishes. Therefore, to show the qualifying nature of phenomena, along with the general state of being without initial thought and the state of being only sustained thought, the word order "without initial thought, only sustained thought" is made. Or else, those with sustained thought are of two kinds: with initial thought and without initial thought. Among these, to distinguish the 'without initial thought' ones, the first word is stated. And those without sustained thought are of two kinds: with initial thought and without initial thought. Among these, to distinguish the 'with initial thought' ones, the third word is stated. But those which are distinguished by both (pairs): without initial thought and with initial thought, and with sustained thought and without sustained thought— among these, either a single one should be shown, or both should be shown. If both are shown, and if "with initial thought and with sustained thought" were said, it would imply the meaning of the first word. If "without initial thought and without sustained thought" were said, it would imply the meaning of the last word. But if "without initial thought and with sustained thought, with initial thought and without sustained thought" were said, it would imply either no difference in meaning, like internal and external, or a fault of confusion, or a contradiction of one being both with and without initial thought, and both with and without sustained thought. Therefore, to make known the other by showing one, by the word "without initial thought," among the two kinds to be spoken of, excluding "with initial thought and without sustained thought," and showing "without initial thought and with sustained thought," it says "only without initial thought and with sustained thought." Or else, by the absence of initial thought, these are only sustained thought. to show that there is no other mental state apart from investigation, the word 'without investigation' specifies only investigation. 7. 'Is equanimous' means that even though it is felt, the neutral feeling is indifferent to the aspect of pleasure and the aspect of pain. Or, 'upekkhā' (equanimity) is 'upetā' (suitable), 'yuttā' (appropriate), 'ikkhā' (experience) that is not opposed to pleasure and pain. 'By way of seeing distinction' means by way of seeing difference. For if only that accompanied by joy were accompanied by pleasure, then 'accompanied by joy' would suffice, and 'accompanied by pleasure' would not need to be said. Or, if 'accompanied by pleasure' were said, 'accompanied by joy' would not need to be said. Then, to complete the triad, the term 'accompanied by pain' would have to be said. In that case, the statement "this is only a triad of feelings" would arise. Therefore, by saying 'accompanied by joy' and then 'accompanied by pleasure', the intention is to show that there is also pleasure unaccompanied by joy, distinguishing the pleasure associated with the third jhāna's body-consciousness from pleasure accompanied by joy. Or, this triad is stated to show the subtle difference between joy and pleasure. For in "accompanied by joy," a part of pleasure is included, but not joy. In "accompanied by pleasure," joy is included, but not pleasure. And pleasure unaccompanied by joy, not included by the former, is included by the latter, thus the distinction between joy and pleasure is established. 8. 'By seeing Nibbāna' refers to having Nibbāna as its object. Or, the 'dhammacakkhu' (eye of Dhamma), by repeatedly arising, is called 'seeing' when it has not yet reached the state of 'bhāvanā' (development). And the 'dhammacakkhu' is the seeing of the Four Noble Truths by performing the functions of full understanding, etc., and that is its excellence. Therefore, there is no attainment of the state of seeing for the 'gotrabhū' (change of lineage) here. 'By way of rejecting both' means by way of rejecting the mental states mentioned by the two terms, not by way of rejecting the eradicating factor. For if that were the case, there would be an eradicating factor other than seeing and development, by way of cutting off. Then the meaning would arise that what is to be abandoned by that is not to be abandoned by seeing nor by development, and that is not There is another abandonee, because there is a possibility of re-arising even for those suppressed by others. Nor are they included in the third category of things to be abandoned, but rather as things not to be abandoned. Therefore, by connecting the word 'to be abandoned' individually, it should be understood that those other than those to be abandoned by seeing and by developing are meant by "neither to be abandoned by seeing nor by developing." 9. "Not grasping the meaning thus" shows that it should not be grasped due to inappropriateness of meaning and inappropriateness of grammar. For if only the causes not to be abandoned by seeing and developing are taken, the causeless are not included, which is an inappropriateness of meaning due to the incompleteness of the intended meaning. And when the word 'to be abandoned' is always relative, a compound with the word 'cause' is not appropriate for one that expects a negation other than the related word 'abandonee'; this is an inappropriateness of grammar. "The meaning should be grasped thus" means that by not connecting the word 'to be abandoned' with a negation, but by connecting the qualifier of the compound in the sense of 'other' with a negation, the meaning "these do not have a cause to be abandoned by seeing and developing" is to be grasped. And in this way, all the intended meaning is included. Let there be no inappropriateness of meaning, but the grammar here is also not appropriate. For a compound of the two words 'cause to be abandoned' is appropriate for those who are absolutely connected and expect only the word 'is', not for those who expect a negation. Therefore, this is only a showing of the meaning to be grasped, but the grammar should be connected as it is appropriate. It is appropriate thus: "These have a cause to be abandoned" means 'having a cause to be abandoned'. "By what is it to be abandoned?" By seeing and by developing. And this word 'having a cause to be abandoned' is connected individually with the words 'seeing' and 'developing', and by connecting the negation individually with those connected, "those who are not causes to be abandoned by seeing, and are not causes to be abandoned by developing" are called "neither causes to be abandoned by seeing nor by developing." For just like the phrase "neither result nor having the nature of a result," the first two words This is a showing of other dhammas by the rejection of dhammas that are included in the term "not". It is not like the word "causeless" which reveals the absence of a cause. And having done so, two rejections are appropriate. For indeed, there is no cause for them that would be abandoned by seeing and developing. In the former meaning, the abandonability of causes by seeing and developing is rejected. And rejection occurs when there is a suspicion of abandonability. And a suspicion of abandonability would exist if there were a cause. But for those that are causeless, there is no cause at all that would be abandoned by seeing and developing. Since that is absent, there is no suspicion of abandonability. Therefore, a rejection to prevent that is not possible. Thus, the meaning is that the inclusion of the causeless as "these have no cause to be abandoned by seeing or by developing" would not occur. Or alternatively, since the meaning is clear that otherwise the causeless would not be included, this is not to be established by a reason. So, stating the reason for what is to be understood, he says, "For indeed, there is no cause for them," and so on. For those that are to be described by the term "having no cause to be abandoned by seeing or by developing," there is no such cause that would be abandoned by seeing and developing. For these are of many kinds, with causes and without causes. Therefore, the meaning to be understood is this: "These have no cause to be abandoned by seeing or by developing." 10. "Making that an object" is to be understood as said with reference to making an object in the sense of accomplishing the four functions. Otherwise, even the review of lineage-fruit and fruit would fall into the category of decline. Or alternatively, those that go to Nibbāna, which is decline, by way of being a cause, are "decline-goers." For even though Nibbāna is not to be produced, the cause-and-effect relationship between the path and Nibbāna is appropriate because of the attainment and the attainable nature of the abandonment of origination and the cessation of origination. As it is said: "Knowledge of the cessation of suffering is the analytical knowledge of meaning; knowledge of the path leading to the cessation of suffering