English
and the pair "causes and disjoined from causes" is synonymous with "causes," and the pair "causes and conjoined with causes" is synonymous with "causes and conjoined with causes," and the pair "non-causes and conjoined with causes" should not be stated like that. But in the last two of these, the phrase "phenomena are causes and are conjoined with causes" should not be stated, because it is different from the first phrase in the fourth pair. The phrase "phenomena are causes and are non-causal" should not be stated, because it is different from "phenomena are causes and are non-causal." But in the remaining single pair, the phrase "phenomena are non-causal and are not causes" should not be stated, because it is synonymous with the second phrase in the sixth pair. Now, only this one phrase "phenomena are causes and are non-causal" remains, and a pair does not consist of a single phrase, so that too is not stated. However, the statement of the first phrase in the sixth pair, which is synonymous with the second phrase in the fourth pair, is for the purpose of completing the pair. Or, by this method of showing the progression, it should be understood that all possibilities are included. Thus, all possible pairs are shown by the inclusion of the second and third pairs in the first pair, and among these, by the inclusion of the first pair. 7-13. The word "with condition" is used to show the existence of those conditions by the mere fact of their being conditions, which are produced by conditions that are simultaneous, non-simultaneous, and free from time, and which are dependent on conditions. It is not like the word "with cause," which refers only to simultaneous ones, nor like "with example," which refers to that which is not different from its own nature. But the word "conditioned" shows the state of being produced by these assembled things. This is the distinction among these, which is the reason for the statement of other pairs. Here, the plural designation "unconditioned are unconditioned" is for an undetermined meaning. It should be understood as made by way of showing non-disjunction, from the setting forth of the matrix. Indeed, by way of exposition, only the existence is stated of phenomena whose nature is wholesome, etc., not their full definition. Thus, the exposition is stated with the plural, without full delimitation. 'Rūpa' means the visible object, or earth, etc. In the former interpretation of meaning, the non-inclusion of the visible object would arise. Therefore, 'rūpa' means that which has the characteristic of being afflicted. This method of meaning is stated. There, 'rūpa' means the nature of being afflicted. That which is grasped as 'does not decay, does not perish' is not so. That is the world. For those free from such grasping, the transcendent ones, there is no 'world-ness'. Or the world is the truth of suffering. There, by that very nature of the world, they are known as worldly. This being so, due to the difference of the visible object to be known by eye-consciousness, and of the sound object, etc., not to be known by that (eye-consciousness), due to the difference in meaning of both terms, a pair (duka) arises. But if a pair is stated thus, a multitude of pairs would arise. As many as there are consciousnesses, so many pairs would be stated, excluding all consciousnesses whose object is all phenomena. And in those, a division of the pair would arise. And that being so, the word "by something" would not encompass all consciousnesses. And this statement would be contrary to the exposition. And that refutation made there: "Those phenomena which are knowable by eye-consciousness, are not knowable by ear-consciousness, this is not a pair" — how would that be appropriate? For commentaries are not able to refute the Pāli text. And the meaning 'by that very one' is not possible for the word 'kenaci' (by something). For the first word 'kenaci', the meaning is 'any one unspecified thing'. And when that is said, for the second word 'kenaci', the meaning is 'any other unspecified thing' — this is established in common usage. And the exposition proceeds in the same way. And here, a complete division of pairs does not arise based on the division of knowable phenomena, (meaning) 'as many as are knowable, so many are the pairs'. Therefore, there is no multitude of pairs. For indeed, one and the same knowable thing is not knowable by something and not knowable by something (else). But another (thing). even another, thus the pair is complete in the collection of all knowables. And so, it is established that the word "by anything" collects all consciousnesses without restriction. And this pair is spoken of by distinguishing the knowable through the diversity of consciousness, not by the difference in the nature of knowables. The exposition of the summary of this pair occurs by showing the application of the two terms of the pair in some of the states included in the pair. The exposition of the meaning extraction is to be understood as occurring by showing all the states included in the pair without remainder. 14-19. From the eye… and so on… from the mind: Although in the eye-consciousness and other such processes, and in the mind-consciousness processes that follow them, there is also the occurrence of wholesome states and so on, it is only the defilements of sensual desire and so on that flow forth like juice from a wound, as an impure exudation. Therefore, they alone are called "defilements" (āsavā). For the word āsava is established in the sense of an impure exudation. "As far as the lineage-stage" (gotrabhū) is said because they do not occur beyond that, in the paths and fruits. For these, by making objects, go into states, but do not go beyond that. If it is asked, "Do not the life-continuum and so on also go beyond that?" No, because they too are included in the defiled nature of the worldly states previously taken as objects, and thus there is no going beyond that. And here, by the word gotrabhū, it should be understood that the preliminary preparations for gotrabhū, purification, and fruit-attainment are spoken of. Or, the preliminary preparation for the first path alone, the gotrabhū, is taken as the boundary indicator. But it should be understood that the occurrence of defilements is prevented beyond that, in other paths, in the path-process, in the fruit-attainment process, and in the fruits that occur immediately after cessation, and in Nibbāna, due to their similarity to the path and fruit. "They flow" means "they go." There are two kinds of boundaries: inclusive and exclusive. An inclusive boundary occurs by encompassing the action, as in "The fame of the Blessed One reached up to the highest existence." The other excludes it, as in "The god rained up to Pāṭaliputta." And this particle "ā" is taken here in the sense of inclusion. Thus it is said. Long-dwelling nature, long-abiding, is ancientness. By the word "beginning," this Sutta is included: "Monks, the prior end of craving for existence is not discerned." (AN 10.62) And by showing the long-abiding nature of the influxes of ignorance and the influxes of existence, the long-abiding nature of the influxes of sensuality and the influxes of views, which arise from their presence, is also shown. Even in other states as described, when pride and so on exist, making opportunity and object, their pervasion by way of grasping "self" and "mine" and so on, and their similarity to influxes by way of causing intoxication, belong to these alone, not to others. Therefore, the word "āsava" should be understood as firmly established only for these. Or they flow forth and bear fruit in the future; thus they are influxes. Indeed, no suffering of cyclic existence arises without influxes. Those states which, by way of being an object, flow forth into influxes like a wound, even if not conjoined and not of their nature, are "with influxes" (sāsava) because they are with influxes. The meaning is: "possessing influxes." In the final pair, instead of saying "indeed, not influxes," the saying "indeed, disjoined from influxes" is for showing that there is no conjunction with them by way of concomitance, like for those with causes among those with influxes. Thus, in the remaining groups too, as appropriate, the purpose of taking "disjoined" should be understood. Moreover, this phrase, "indeed, states that are not influxes are with influxes," is not consistent with the second term in the fourth pair. And a pair is not formed by one term. Therefore, by taking only the term "disjoined from influxes," the formation of the final pair is made according to reason. But in the group of causes, because there is no "with cause" nature for those disjoined from causes, and it is not possible to form a pair by taking them, the formation of the final pair is made by taking the term "no cause." Or indeed, in the first pair, one is added to the second, two to the third; one to the second of the first, two to the third; one to the third of the second, and one to the second of the third. Thus, eight pairs are obtained. Among these, three and the others are shown by method; thus it should be understood. This method applies to the remaining groups too. 20-25. By way of being a condition for the cycles of defilements, kamma, and results, there, the fetter... Even though others are conditions for them, without fetters, their being conditions does not exist. And by those included in the lower and higher parts, the rule of kamma producing this or that existence, and the rule of existence, occur. And for one whose fetters are cut off, even kamma that has been done does not produce existence. "To be fettered" or "fetters." Or "engaged in fettering." Fettering is a bond by which even one who has gone far away is pulled back, unable to escape. Binding is like making a knot, or making a connection like chains and rings. Joining is making things cling together.