English
The second elder, not wishing for a mixture of saṅkhārika and asaṅkhārika results, said, "twelve," and so on. For the former, the saṅkhārika and asaṅkhārika nature is due to condition, for the others, it is due to kamma. The third, not wishing for duhetuka from tihetuka, said, "ten," and so on. In this section on the analysis of results, they took up the Sāketā question to establish the determination of kamma and rebirth. They took up the mention of excess to show that the result, according to kamma, is a sign of the excess of certain qualities and faults. The mention of roots here is said according to the intention of the first elder. I will explain the special features in the views of the second elder and others in their respective places. Since knowledge is the opposite of the conditions for misfortunes like being born blind, even a very weak tihetuka, drawing rebirth, would draw duhetuka, so he said, "it is not ahetuka." But what is said in the Paṭisambhidāmagga, showing sahetuka rebirth in a good destiny by avoiding ahetuka rebirth with misfortunes like being born blind and deaf, "By the condition of which eight roots does rebirth occur in a good destiny, accompanied by knowledge?" (Paṭi. Ma. 1.232). By this, it is indicated that rebirth accompanied by knowledge does not occur through kamma dissociated from knowledge. Otherwise, it would also be said, "rebirth occurs by the condition of seven roots." Thus, "By the condition of which eight roots does rebirth occur in a good destiny, accompanied by knowledge? At the moment of impulsion of wholesome kamma, three wholesome roots are co-existent conditions for the consciousness arisen at that moment. Therefore, it is said that formations are also conditioned by wholesome roots. At the moment of craving, two unwholesome roots are co-existent conditions for the consciousness arisen at that moment. Therefore, it is said that formations are also conditioned by unwholesome roots. At the moment of rebirth, three indeterminate roots are co-existent conditions for the consciousness arisen at that moment." i. Therefore it is said: "Consciousness arises dependent on name-and-form, and name-and-form arises dependent on consciousness." This is explained in the context of rebirth associated with knowledge. Thus, when there is rebirth dissociated from knowledge and rebirth associated with knowledge, it is asked: "In rebirth associated with knowledge, due to which of the seven roots does rebirth occur in a fortunate destination?" And it is answered: "At the impulsion moment of wholesome kamma, two roots are wholesome." And elsewhere, it can be explained in the same way as stated before. However, just as because it is not said: "In rebirth associated with knowledge, due to seven roots," rebirth associated with knowledge does not arise from rebirth dissociated from knowledge, similarly, by saying: "In rebirth dissociated from knowledge, in a fortunate destination, rebirth occurs due to six roots" (Paṭisambhidāmagga 1.233), and because it is not said: "due to seven roots," it follows that rebirth dissociated from knowledge does not arise from rebirth associated with knowledge. Even here, it is not impossible to combine three and two roots at the moments of kamma-cutting, and to combine two at the moment of rebirth. But this Elder's intention might be: "Here, the passage is stated incompletely with a view to showing the result similar to the kamma." If it is asked: "In the case of 'due to eight roots in rebirth associated with knowledge,' does the passage also become incomplete?" No, because a weak two-rooted kamma is incapable of giving a result associated with knowledge. But for a three-rooted kamma, just as in producing a rootless result, so too in producing a two-rooted result, there is no impediment to its capacity. It is said that feeling is to be varied by the object, referring to investigating consciousness and resultant apperception. For, due to the absence of capacity to grasp distinctions, eye-consciousness and so on are always accompanied by equanimity regarding pleasant, unpleasant, and neutral objects, and body-consciousness is always accompanied by pleasure due to the specific nature of impact. To show the occurrence of results with specific times, and with resultant apperception and all impulsion processes, it is said: "in restraint and non-restraint... etc. ... having attained," because at other times, there is no full occurrence of results such as the five consciousnesses. Crab... etc. ... descent into the life-continuum. by this it shows this: just as, having filled the fields, without entering the main channel which is the path for the river to enter, the river descends by an improper path such as a crab's path; so too, the mind, having run swiftly, without the path, which is the path for entering bhavaṅga, when the object of that is not arisen, it descends into bhavaṅga. Among these three futile cases, the second should be examined and understood. For if, in the direct order, in the feeling triad, in the dependent origination sections and so on, it were said: "by repetition condition, not two in the path" and "by path condition, not two in repetition", then that too would be a futile case. But if determining (voṭṭhabbana) were also a repetition condition, it would also be for wholesome and unwholesome. For there is no dharma that is a repetition condition that is not said to be a repetition condition for what is fit to receive repetition condition. But the repetition condition of determining for wholesome and unwholesome is not stated. It is rejected by the statement: "A wholesome dharma arises dependent on a wholesome dharma, not by repetition condition. An unwholesome dharma... (and so on) ... not by repetition condition." Even if it were said: "this is stated in terms of dissimilar feelings", even so, just as it is said: "adverting is a condition by contiguity condition for wholesome aggregates, for unwholesome aggregates", so too it should be said: "is a condition by repetition condition". If it is said that it is not stated due to difference in kind? Just as there is repetition condition for different planes, such as sense-sphere and fine-material sphere, so too it should be said that there would be for different kinds. And in terms of the same kind, just as it is said: "adverting is a condition by contiguity condition for aggregates with roots", so too it should be said: "is a condition by repetition condition", but it is not stated. Therefore, even in the feeling triad, when determining by a concise enumeration: "by repetition condition, not one in the path, by path condition, not one in repetition", because of the absence of determining as repetition condition, the second futile case, as stated, should be investigated. Vo As for determining, it is adverting, because it turns the stream of resultants in the thought-process. And it is attention, because it makes a dissimilar impulsion. And so, in the Paṭṭhāna, it is not said, “Determining is a condition for wholesome aggregates by way of immediate condition,” and so on, but only “adverting” is said. Therefore, determining, being unable to be a pre-arisen object for four or five impulsions, cannot be a condition for adverting to forms, and so on. This is its nature. The second futile turn, due to the non-completion of impulsions, should be shown. This too, not being present in the commentaries, should be thoroughly investigated. Because the life-continuum is connected to impulsions, it is said, “that resultant is the life-continuum.” And in the Paṭṭhāna (Paṭṭhāna 3.1.102) it is said, “Wholesome life-continuum is a condition for unwholesome life-continuum by way of immediate condition,” and “unwholesome life-continuum is a condition for wholesome life-continuum by way of immediate condition.” The resultant, being merely the resultant of pleasant and unpleasant, does not make a distinction between desirable and undesirable. But impulsion, by way of being attached or detached, and so on, makes the distinction between desirable and undesirable. Thus it is said, “Only impulsion experiences the taste of the object.” To show how, when there is no agent, there is occurrence by way of adverting and so on, they took up five kinds of fixed order. And fixed order is merely the specific nature of phenomena as function and condition. “Giving similar results” means giving its own appropriate result. And “giving similar result” means giving an appropriate resultant. “This is the basis” is a singular designation made by way of being the basis of a single verse. “Region of the world” means another region of the world other than what has been stated. For evil would not ripen if it were hindered by time, destiny, rebirth, or effort, not if it were hindered by region. The fixed order of phenomena such as omniscience, the basis of knowledge, and re-linking, which is the condition for the ten-thousandfold world system to tremble, is the fixed order of phenomena. This is what is intended here. By this, the state of adverting and so on is by way of fixed order, not by "by way of protection" this meaning is shown. "In this place" means in the place of the discourse on the sixteen results. The simile of the water-clock, to be understood by twelve, is not stated as twelve consciousnesses performing their function together at one door with one object, but rather as twelve performing their own function at one door. Showing the rootless resultant consciousness immediately after a javana similar to that which generates rootless rebirth, he said: "Of the four two-rooted wholesome consciousnesses, after any javana... it becomes established." However, for one with rootless rebirth, when a three-rooted javana has occurred, the arising of a rootless resultant consciousness by the kamma that gave rebirth is not denied. Similarly, for one with two-rooted rebirth, a two-rooted resultant consciousness