English
of the designation of a person. The word "aṅga" also means "cause." Thus, "bojjhaṅgā" are those that conduce to the understanding of the Four Noble Truths. They understand, hence "bodhiyo." The "bodhiyo" are themselves "aṅga," hence it is said "they understand thoroughly, thus bojjhaṅgā." In accordance with the causes like insight, and the truths to be understood, they understand directly, face-to-face, without perversion, and rightly. Thus, with prefixes indicating specific meanings, "anubujjhantī" and so on are stated. Indeed, the word "bodhi" generally encompasses understanding endowed with all distinctions. 299. "Of the three" means of lust and so on. What does it do? It causes evil deeds to continue. 301. Constant practice, regular indulgence, of conditions produced by killing and so on. "Having its own function" means having a distinct function of its own. "It is not" rejects the state of being different. The three bases of deception, born of evil desires, are: indulgence in conditions, nearby thoughts, and the practice of postures. 343. Insight leading to emergence, equanimity regarding formations, together with conformity. It, seeing as empty, is called "emptiness," suffering... seeing it as without longing because of the drying up of the longing-aspiration. Having stood in the place of the path-attainment for the sake of attaining the path in the place of the coming-practice, it gives the name of emptiness-without-longing. When the name is obtained from the coming, the name is established by its quality and by its object. But it is not that in every case when names are obtained from qualities and objects, the name is established from the coming. Because it is the cause of the complete establishment of names, the application of all three names is due to qualities and objects, not to the coming. And because it makes a distinction, in the direct teaching, the name here is obtained from the coming, not from the others, so it is said. Animitta-vipassanā is the contemplation of impermanence. In the sign-phenomena, that is, in the aggregates which are grasped, by way of their mass and density, and by way of the demarcation of their function. Animitta-vimokkha refers to the contemplation of impermanence. "This is similar to that" - how is the comparison made here? For there is no absence of the signless state for the signless liberation of one whose faith-faculty is dominant, just as there is no absence of the dominant state called the path for desire and consciousness. Nor can it be said that there is no giving of the name "signless" to the signless, just as there is no giving of the name "path-dominant" to what is not path-dominant, because there is no absence of the signless state for the signless liberation. "The path is dominant for these," and "path-dominant" is appropriate there for desire and consciousness which are conjoined with it, because of the absence of their path-dominant state. But here, "the path is signless for this," this meaning of "path-signless" is not possible. So it is not that the signless state of the path is not fitting with that which is not the path. Or what commonality is intended here? The absence of the name "path-factor of the non-path." Just as, even though there is a dominant state, desire and consciousness are not called "path-dominant," and the path is not called by them, because they are not path-factors; so too, even though there is a coming state for faith, it is not called "signless" as a path-name, and the path is not called by it, because it is not a path-factor. Thus, it is shown that the signless state does not directly exist even for signless insight. But here, jhāna is emptiness, etc. If it is said that it is stated by the āma (yes) and not by the path? No, because of the path's association, the jhānas are named emptiness and so on. According to the Suttanta method, they said that even in the Abhidhamma, names are obtained from objects with qualities. Therefore, it is rejected, "but they do not obtain them." For what reason? The intention is that in the Abhidhamma, names are obtained from the opposite, without touching the inherent nature. For a name obtained from objects with qualities, it is primarily due to its inherent nature. And if names were obtained only from the inherent nature, there would be no determination that all paths are emptiness and so on. Therefore, even though there are two ways of obtaining names in the Abhidhamma, the determination of names from the opposite is taken. Thus, it says that paths of emptiness and non-hankering do not obtain names from objects with qualities. Alternatively, "but they do not obtain them" means they do not obtain them from objects with qualities that are independent of others. For what reason? The meaning is that in the Abhidhamma, names are obtained from the inherent nature accompanied by its opposite. For without considering the opposite as the determining factor, the inherent nature alone cannot be the cause of a name in the Abhidhamma, as it would lead to a lack of determination. Therefore, even though there is an inherent nature, paths that are in conformity with insight, which are opposed to self-infatuation and hankering, obtain their names from the inherent nature accompanied by its opposite. However, for the signless path, insight is not opposed to signs, as it itself apprehends signs and does not prevent the apprehension of signs. Therefore, the path in conformity with it is also not opposed to signs. If it were, insight related to signs would also be opposed. Therefore, even though there is an inherent nature, because there is no opposite that serves as a determining factor, it is not taken as the giver of the name "signless" in the Abhidhamma. However, the path in conformity with the contemplation of impermanence is to be understood as included only in the method of pure practice. Therefore, that method was stated. Thus, what will be said, "for one who emerges from impermanence, the path is signless" (Dhammasaṅgaṇī Aṭṭhakathā 350), by thus bringing it forth, the Aṭṭhakathā teachers explained that signless path. Emergence... and so on... What is its object? When one emerges from impermanence and so on, and the path leading to emergence has the characteristic as its object. There would be no rising from formations, and thinking that the discernment of characteristics is in the object of formations, he asks. He says, "having characteristics as their object," because the characteristics are discerned by the knowledge occurring in formations, such as "impermanent," by grasping formations in that manner. To show that "having characteristics as their object" means having formations as their object, in the sense explained above, he says, "What is a characteristic?" For impermanence, suffering, and non-self, when grasped separately as characteristics, are conceptual and do not exist in ultimate reality, and because they do not exist, they are not to be spoken of as limited, etc. Therefore, since there is no characteristic to be grasped separately in ultimate reality, he says, "Whoever discerns the three characteristics, impermanence, suffering, and non-self," discerns the characteristics by discerning formations as they are, as impermanent, suffering, and non-self. And since formations alone are seen as impermanent, etc., they are to be relinquished like a corpse tied around the neck. Supramundane wholesome Miscellaneous discourse explanation Therein, in the supramundane jhānas. And internally, by the latter half of the verse, he specifies the vipassanā ground from which one should enter and rise, in five ways. The words "seven, eight, etc." are to be understood as an elision of the initial word, meaning "having seven or eight constituents." The sign is that from which one rises; he specifies them by the word "sign-occurrences." Only the knowledge of equanimity regarding formations determines the specific factors of enlightenment, etc., of the noble path. Why? Because the knowledge of equanimity regarding formations, arising from the second and subsequent jhānas, lacks the cultivation of dispassion and the desire not to attain the constituents that have transcended the foundational jhānas, and because the other is not so. And in the discourses concerning these, too... it should be understood that vipassanā alone determines. Why? For it is by the determination of vipassanā that even in the discourse of the first elder, the paths with the first jhāna as their foundation, but without a foundational jhāna, are considered to be of the first jhāna, and the others are of their respective jhānas by the determination of the foundational jhāna and vipassanā. Thus, in the remaining discourses, too, vipa The rule of insight should be applied as appropriate. By "miscellaneous formations" are meant formations other than the foundational jhāna. This shows that there is nothing to say when the formations of the foundational jhāna are contemplated. Even there, even in the second elder's view, being of a particular jhāna comes from the rules of insight for the formations contemplated in each case. For even there, insight, being a cultivation of detachment or non-detachment in each case, accompanied by joy and accompanied by equanimity, makes the path determine the jhāna factors and so on. Thus, the rule of insight should be understood in the manner stated. "That" means being similar to that jhāna. This meaning should be illuminated by the Nandaka Sutta (M.N. 3.398 ff.), which shows that without the foundational jhāna and the jhāna contemplated as a support, it does not succeed by mere intention; and without a support, it does not succeed by mere resolve for the fruits of once-returning and so on. For there, the Blessed One, speaking of the completeness of resolve even for a stream-enterer, illuminates this meaning: that for whomever there is a support, for that person alone is the intention determinative,