English
as is done when speaking of bodily actions and so on. If only those actions that have reached the path of action are considered as non-restraint and so on, then it would be impossible to speak of other non-restraints apart from evil deeds. And since those evil deeds are already described as specific actions, it would be incorrect to say: "Non-restraint arising through the door of inciting bodily non-restraint is only unwholesome bodily action." If this were said, there would be confusion, for verbal and mental actions also arise through the bodily door, and other actions through other doors. If, however, an action arising through another door were considered an action of that door, then statements like: "The three kinds of bodily misconduct are only unwholesome bodily action," and "Unwholesome bodily action arises through the door of inciting bodily non-restraint and through the door of verbal non-restraint," would be contradictory. For misconduct can occur through other doors, but an action arising through another door is not an action of that door. Therefore, since it was stated earlier that only those actions that have reached the path of action are bodily actions and so on, and since for the remaining wholesome and unwholesome actions arising through their respective doors, their belonging to those doors has been established in the comparison of doors, here, the "comparison of paths of action" means: illustrating that non-restraints and restraints which have not reached the path of action, and which are not actions due to the absence of volition, are like paths of action when they are made to resemble them; illustrating that the three kinds of bodily misconduct and so on, and the three kinds of bodily good conduct and so on, which have reached the path of action, do not lose their nature as bodily actions and so on, even when they occur through other doors; and explaining the arising of unwholesome bodily actions and so on, and wholesome bodily actions and so on, whether they have reached the state of a path of action or not, as revealed, through the sense doors and so on. Why? Because in this context, non-paths of action are compared to paths of action, and paths of action to non-paths of action, in terms of having similar names; and paths of action do not lose their general name among paths of action; and both are compared in terms of their arising through the doors. Therein, Because of the nature of actions arising through the three doors of action, as being known actions, the specific nature of those actions cannot be stated, and their arising in the doors of action has been mentioned. And because there is no mention of the arising of non-restraint and so on through the five sense-consciousness doors, the doors of action and the doors of consciousness are set aside, and it is said, “Indeed, it arises through the five doors of contact,” and so on. “Whatever pleasant feeling arises dependent on eye-contact,” and so on, and “There is a wholesome feeling aggregate dependent on eye-contact,” and so on, the arising of non-restraint and so on through the five doors of contact is stated, and there is no statement like “Whatever arises dependent on eye-consciousness,” and so on. This is also stated: “Indeed, contact co-arising with eye-consciousness is eye-contact,” and so on (Dhammasaṅgaṇī, 1, Action Discourse; Mahāniddesa Aṭṭhakathā, 86). Therefore, it is shown that non-restraints and restraints do not co-arise with eye-contact and so on, and those co-arising with mind-contact arise through the door of eye-contact and so on. “Indeed, when it reaches impulsion at the body-door, it becomes unwholesome bodily action,” and so on, and “When it arises through the door of impulsion-body-non-restraint, it is indeed unwholesome bodily action,” and so on— when verbal actions and so on, which have reached the path of action and are non-restraints, become bodily actions and so on, their cessation should be seen by way of refutation, as in “The fourfold verbal misconduct is indeed unwholesome verbal action,” and so on. And having done so, there is no contradiction in the non-restraint analyses and the second analyses shown previously. For indeed, impulsion-body-non-restraint, which is of the nature of verbal action and so on, is not bodily action and so on. But unwholesome mental action arises through the six doors of contact. When it reaches impulsion at the body and verbal doors, it becomes unwholesome bodily and verbal action. Here, what is that unwholesome mental action? And in the way shown below, the threefold mental misconduct arising at the body and verbal doors does not reach impulsion, and all unwholesome actions. If so, it has no nature of bodily and verbal action, so “having reached impulsion” "Is it not fitting that it is a bodily or verbal action?" No, it is not unfitting. From the establishment of the meaning, it is an unwholesome action that has reached the stage of instigation, by body and speech. But what kind of action is it when it occurs? It is a mental action. This is what is meant: The unwholesome action that has reached the stage of instigation, through the door of body and the door of speech, is a mental action. Alternatively, without connecting the word "that" with mental action, the connection should be made with what arises through the six sense doors, as defined by the mere arising as stated. But what is "that"? Since the discussion is about action, it is understood as action. And even though it arises through the door of mental contact, that action is threefold. To show how that is, it says, "that which has reached instigation through the doors of body and speech," and so on. Here, because no rule is made, the reaching of instigation is a characteristic that establishes the name of bodily and verbal action. But not all that reaches instigation is bodily or verbal action, nor is it the case that bodily and verbal action does not occur in the wholesome sphere if it has not reached instigation. This meaning is well established. Alternatively, "that" refers to the mental action that arises through the six sense doors. Taking all action performed mentally as mental action, it speaks according to the questioner's intention, not the mental action shown previously. For the intention of the other person is, "Since it is accomplished mentally, it must all be mental action, not bodily or verbal action." To refute this and show the rule of the three kinds of action, this was begun: "that which has reached instigation through the doors of body and speech," and so on. And here, the absence of confusion should be understood in the same way as before. Alternatively, connecting "action" with the mere word "action" without specification, it shows the manner in which the aforementioned division of action occurs. And the absence of confusion is as stated. But what some say, "When covetousness and the like, co-arising with bodily and verbal action, are on the side of volition, then those mental actions become bodily and verbal actions," that is not so, because those on the side of volition are not mental actions. Not to be spoken of. And in oneself, there is no mental action that is more excellent. This is also said: "or non-conventional." Therefore, mental action should not be called bodily or verbal action. Envy and the like, connected with volition that performs the action of envy and so on, are mental actions, not those that perform the bodily and verbal actions of killing and so on. This is further their mental action, and thus, these existing mental actions should not be called bodily or verbal actions. Thus, because actions are not fixed to doors, and doors are not fixed to actions, a door-binding was not made. Now, even though a door-binding was not made, to explain the arising of this consciousness through the doors by which it arises, and its arising through those respective door-action-paths, as stated in the Pāli text, it begins with "there, in the sense-sphere." That consciousness arises through the three kinds of action-doors is said by taking its arising in that nature, as being the door of mental action. Or, just as consciousness is called "master of consciousness" in the sense of being conjoined, so too should it be understood here. Furthermore, regarding the mental connection devoid of the two instigations, there is nothing to be said about its being a door of mental action. The exposition on the connection of action-paths is concluded. The exposition on doors is concluded. This is the connection: the meaning is that "or whatever" is connected with "or a visible object... or a mental object." What then is this connection? That by which words are connected to each other, that is the purpose, the connection, in the preceding and succeeding words. And here, the showing of all-object-ness and so on, the purpose of the phrase "or whatever" immediately after "or a visible object... or a mental object," should be seen as the connection. There, having shown the fault that arises from "or having taken a visible object... or a mental object" by itself, to show the purpose of "or whatever" in order to remove that fault, it begins with "below." In the second interpretation, by "or whatever," even minor visible objects and so on are drawn in. Indeed, the predominant mind does not have the state of being its own object. By the method stated below, that is, by the method of having all objects and so on. It is said, "Having said that what was taken below is taken, to show the purpose of that statement, this was said to speak of 'having taken form or... etc... this or that as object'." There, "this or that" should be understood as referring to having all objects and so on. Discourse on the Section of the Exposition of Dhamma Description of the Aggregate of Five, with Contact Of the teachers, that is, of the teacher Revata. But this should not be seen as essential.