English
In "abhikkamanti" and "abhikkantavaṇṇā," it is appropriate for the prefix "abhi," used before a verbal root, to indicate excess and distinction in action, because it is a prefix. But the word "Dhamma" is not a verbal root, so the prefix "abhi" should not be used before it. Even if it were used, prefixes modify verbs, and Dhamma is not an action, so indicating excess and distinction for Dhamma is not appropriate. No, it is not inappropriate. For it is seen that other prefixes, when used before non-verbal roots, also indicate excess and distinction even for non-actions. To clarify this point, showing examples like "atichatta" (super-umbrella), he says "yathā" (just as), etc. Just as, by reason of being extra umbrella and special umbrella, "atichatta" and similar words are formed, because the prefix "ati," even when used before a non-verbal root, indicates that quality for a non-action; in the same way, this Dhamma is called "Abhidhamma" by reason of being extra Dhamma and special Dhamma, because the prefix "abhi," even when used before a non-verbal root, indicates that quality for a non-action— this is the intention. It is divided in one way by the statement: "And what, monks, are the five aggregates? The aggregate of form... the aggregate of consciousness. And what, monks, is the aggregate of form? Whatever form, past... or near, this is called the aggregate of form." Thus, it is divided only by way of designation and explanation, not exhaustively, because there is no counter-explanation, no Abhidhamma analysis, and no questioner asking "What is past form?" But when it comes to the Abhidhamma... it is divided exhaustively. Therefore, this teaching too is called "Abhidhamma" in the sense of an additional teaching, a special teaching, because it is an additional text, a special text, for all three exhaustive methods. In the Suttanta, the twenty-two faculties are not mentioned together, so there is no Suttanta analysis in the Faculty Analysis. In Dependent Origination, the causal nature of each causal phenomenon and its resultant phenomena is stated, as in "Conditioned by ignorance, formations arise." And the good or bad nature of the stated phenomena should be asked about and answered, but here, there is no statement like "ignorance-formations," so there is no questioner. In the Suttanta, five precepts are stated, such as "abstinence from taking life." But if that abstinence were to be analyzed in terms of its nature or function, it would be an Abhidhamma analysis, as in "avoidance, abstention." And if it were to be analyzed in terms of states of consciousness, it would still be an Abhidhamma analysis. There is no other way to analyze abstinences in a manner that could be called a Suttanta analysis. Therefore, in the Precepts Analysis, there is no Suttanta analysis. To explain the Abhidhamma by way of division, having understood it by way of meaning, he says, "by way of division into sections," and so on. Only a few question-sections remain, not included in the Dhammahadaya Analysis, but included in the Mahādhammahadaya, remaining according to the wording of the Dhammahadaya Analysis. This means that there are only a few question-sections. It is said, "there is nothing new," meaning it is all included here. The meaning is that the teaching is very brief, and the rest, if the detailed explanation of earth and so on is in the Great Element Discourse, the Section on Form, the Analysis of Elements, etc., not having come in the Analysis of Elements, but in the Great Element Discourse, then the teaching that has come is very brief. As for what was said, "do not reject it because it was spoken by disciples," to refute that by showing its Buddha-spoken nature, he says, "for the Perfectly Enlightened One..." and so on. In the four questions: "Is it found or not found?" To grasp the refutation of the accepted proposition, "which is the ultimate reality" was said. The two pentads, based on and taking ultimate reality, are one question. "Everywhere" is one, based on the entire body or a part. "Always" is one, based on time. "In all" - if aggregates, sense bases, etc., are taken, it is based on those. But if "which is the ultimate reality everywhere, always" means that no ultimate reality, place, or time is ungrasped by these, and the inquiry was made in a general way, not in a specific way, then to inquire in a specific way, "in all" was said, and it is one, based on the ultimate reality, place, time, and region. In these four. Of the two pentads: "The person is found... wrong" is one. "The person is not found... wrong" is one. (Kathā. 18) "If you think... this is wrong for you" is one. (Kathā. 3) "If these are difficult to refute... this is wrong for you" is one. "They should not be refuted thus, therefore what you refute... the refutation is well-made" is one. (Kathā. 10) Thus, making the refutation, making the counter-argument, the wrapping of the counter-argument by establishing the proposition for one who wishes the refutation to be well-refuted, wishing the counter-argument to be difficult to counter. And by that demonstration, the refutation of the refutation, by showing the difficulty of refutation, or the breaking of it by imputing non-refutability, this is one pentad, which in the commentary, with the names of the fivefold sequence, the fourfold counter-action, the fourfold refutation, the fourfold introduction, and the fourfold conclusion, is called the "direct counter-pentad" in the proponent's initial position, and in the opponent's initial position, it is likewise called the "counter-direct pentad." Thus, two pentads are to be understood. Thus, in the remaining questions too, eight pentads, or eight modes of argument, are spoken of as "vādayutti" (argumentative strategy). "Yutti" means method, the method of argument is "vādayutti," meaning the method for conducting an argument. Having shown the initial refutation in the direct counter-pentad, and having shown the initial refutation in the counter-direct pentad, to illustrate the matrix, it states "that indeed..." and so on. "Puggala" means self, being, life. "Is found" means it is obtained by approaching with wisdom. "In a true and ultimate sense" means not in an unreal way, like illusions or mirages, nor in a non-ultimate sense, like what is grasped by traditionalists, but rather, "Is it found in a real and ultimate sense?" it asks. The other, wishing for such, affirms. Again, "That which is found in a true and ultimate sense, is it different from that true and ultimate sense, or is it its basis, or is it apart from them, or is it their basis, or is it not different from it, being found as having the nature of suffering and so on, or as having the nature of conditionality and so on?" Thus, it interrogates, "That which is true... and so on... in an ultimate sense." The other, not wishing for the person to be different or not different from form and so on, rejects it, saying, "Certainly not." Again, the proponent, considering that the other rejects what should not be rejected, being identical with the affirmation, imputing a refutation, says, "Understand the refutation!" When asked, "Is the person not found?" the proponent, refuting the view of a person, affirms, "Yes." Again, the other asks, "That person who is not found in a true sense, is he not found as different from the true and ultimate sense, or as not different from it?" "arises from the absence of another kind" thus he questions: "who is truly... (etc.) ...in the ultimate sense." But since a person is not found in any way at all, therefore, the inquiry into his being 'other' or 'not other' is not an inquiry. For one who refutes the 'person-view', it does not arise, thus he rejects it saying: "it is not so." The other, seeing only a trace of the arising of the admission, not understanding the true meaning, imposes a rebuke, saying: "Understand the rebuke!" "Thus" means, having seen this, the summary was established; the intention is that it was taught in this way. "How?" means, in what way the Buddha's teaching came to be, that is the illustration, is the meaning. "From what cause?" means, from what reason, from the cause of the six internal and external sense bases, is the meaning. "The proliferation of perceptions" means, the portions of perception connected with the proliferation of craving, conceit, and views. "They occur" means, they pervade. "And here" means, if there is nothing to be delighted in, to be spoken of, or to be clung to in these sense bases etc., by craving, conceit, and views. "But there is nothing, so why is 'if there is nothing' said?" Truly there is nothing, but for ordinary people whose delight, speaking, and clinging are not abandoned, the sense bases etc. are of the kind to be delighted in, etc., so it is not possible to say "there is nothing" for them. But for those whose delight etc. are abandoned, there is absolutely nothing, so "if there is nothing" is said. "This is the end" means, the path that makes delight etc. non-existent, or the fruit that is its calming, is the end, the cessation of latent defilements like lust, etc.; it means non-occurrence. "Knowing, he knows" means, he knows what is to be known with omniscience. For one with partial knowledge does not know all that is to be known. "Seeing, he sees" means, he sees what is to be seen with the five eyes, namely the divine eye, the eye of wisdom, the eye of Dhamma, the eye of the Buddha, and the all-seeing eye. Or, "knowing, he knows" means, just as others, deluded, who speak of the full understanding of sensual and fine-material realms, even while knowing, know through delusion, the Blessed One is not like that. But the Blessed One, having abandoned delusion, truly knows when he knows. seeing by view... And because of its absence, seeing, one sees indeed, is the meaning. "Eye-become" means, because he is made of the eye of wisdom, and because he produces it in beings, he is the eye of the world.