English
Or the meaning here is: "There is no such thing as a realm of transmigration, neither this world nor the other world, because transmigration does not exist, and one is cut off right there." Rebirth from a previous existence into a later existence is 'upapāta'; those for whom this is their nature are 'opapātikā'. And because they are beings who fall and are reborn, it is said: "He takes it that there are no beings who fall and are reborn." "Anuloma-paṭipadā" (favorable practice) means the practice of morality etc. conducive to Nibbāna. 1236. "Taken as having no part" by this, what was said about having parts in the group of defilements by the non-inclusion of lust and lust for views among the Brahmās in the wish-fulfilling trees etc., and in the group of hindrances by the non-showing of sensual desire as to be abandoned by the Anāgāmi path, that... is restrained. By the phrase "by the path of Arahantship," it should be understood that the abandonment by the four paths is stated. For the defilements like delusion, which were not made thin before, are not abandoned by the path of Arahantship. 1287. By "without delight" means without joy, or without strong craving. For they do not cling to painful feeling. By the word "ava," the meaning of "entering" and the meaning of "down" are stated in two ways. 1301. Delusion accompanied by doubt, which is a refuge, is a refuge with the defilement of lust connected with wrong view, due to the sameness of abandonment. That accompanied by agitation is called the defilement of form-lust and formless-lust. However, in the Araṇavibhaṅga Sutta, "Whatever attachment to happiness in sensual rebirth, which is low, vulgar, of the ordinary person, ignoble, and not connected with benefit, this dhamma is painful, with affliction, with distress, with fever, a wrong practice. Therefore, this dhamma is a refuge." From such statements, it is understood that the very nature of suffering, affliction, distress, and fever, which are the results, and the state of wrong practice, is "a refuge." Thus, the refuge-nature of all unwholesome things is established by these. Commentary on the Exposition of the Twofold Suttanta 1303. By "separated" means made distinct, made manifest. "It destroys without remainder" means a diamond, where it falls, destroys without remainder, by making it not return to its original state. 1311. "He burns" means he feels remorse, or he grieves. 1313. By the word "I," which is preceded by the particle "iti," and which is the cause, the meaning that is understood is conversed about, or uttered. Otherwise, if stated differently, all wholesome and other dhammas would be designations, etc., for the meaning of the word that is manifested by the speech of what is being said, in terms of number, etc. "State" means a synonym for "being," they say, or it is a designation for the root. "Given" means after showing the designation of a being to this extent, he then says "bed," etc., to show other designations of appropriation. And the designation "I," which is current, is understood by the speaker and the listener, who have previously grasped the perception, as a way of manifesting meaning. For without understanding that, the knowledge of its meaning is not possible. It is called a name in a special sense, as it is said, "It is known, therefore it is a designation." Or, in the sense of grasping a concept, it is known, it is designated, it becomes manifest, therefore it is a designation. It is made known, meaning, "This is its name," thus it is established. It is spoken of, it is said. That which is to be lifted up, that which is to be extracted. "Even with a thousand names," means with many thousands of names. A name that arises spontaneously is called "spontaneous name." That which is done is action; the name itself is action, a name-action. Similarly, a designation. Indeed, the words "making" and "establishing" also have the meaning of action. Or, if they are in the sense of making, the meaning is made and established by this, it is made known as "such and such a name," thus making and establishing are a name. Or, if they are in the sense of being, mere knowing is said to be making and establishing. "Name-etymology, name-expression" means it is just a name. For the name "earth" does not declare or express the mere manifestation of an object such as the earth itself. Therefore, to prevent etymology and expression from being without a name, it is said, "name-etymology, name-expression." The same method applies to "name-utterance." Here, however, designation is spoken of as that which is to be made known by four terms: concept, designation, appellation, and usage; by the others, it is made known. And concerning this, the teachers say: "The former designation of appropriation is free from the function of arising and ceasing, established by worldly convention. The latter is the name-designation, by which the former designation, and forms and so on, are made known by the mind-door consciousness continuum, which has grasped a previously acquired convention, arising immediately after the ear-door consciousness continuum." However, if this is the meaning of this Pāli text and its commentary, there would be a contradiction with what is said in the mātikā: "Those that arise by merely taking a word as their subject are called designations. Those that are spoken of with a cause are called expressions, etymologies. Those that are made known by a characteristic are called appellations." Indeed, if one takes the mere word of that which is devoid of the function of arising and ceasing as the basis for its occurrence, it is because occurrence exists only with that which arises and so on. And there is no determination and causal statement of a name that is free from word and meaning. Nor is there a knowing of a concept whose nature is undetermined, in this and that manner. And this two-fold designation, of the aforementioned kind, is not seen as a statement of the commentary. However, in the commentary, the existing designation and so on, are stated as six designations. Therein, "form, feeling," and so on, are existing designations. "Woman, man," and so on, are non-existing designations. "Possessor of the three knowledges, possessor of the six supernormal powers," and so on, are non-existing designations by means of an existing one. "The word 'woman', the word 'man'," and so on, are existing designations by means of a non-existing one. "Eye-consciousness, ear-consciousness," and so on, are existing designations by means of an existing one. "Khattiya prince, brahmin prince," and so on, are non-existing designations by means of a non-existing one. And here, it cannot be understood that the two-fold designation of the aforementioned kind is stated. For the designation of an existing thing, its enumeration... and so on... its expression, is an existing designation. And the designation of a non-existing thing, its enumeration and so on, is a non-existing designation. And the enumerations and so on, that occur as qualifier and qualified of these very things, are the others. If it is said that the dependent designation, which is to be designated by the term "non-existing designation," and the name-designation, which is the means of designating it, are stated, and that by the others, only the name-designation is stated as mentioned? No, because it is unproven. For if there is a straightforward meaning that follows the previous Pāli, then this meaning is stated by this commentary, which is unproven. And if dependent designations such as "being, chariot, pot," and so on, "direction, time, earth kammaṭṭhāna, space kammaṭṭhāna without a beginning, space kammaṭṭhāna with a beginning, sphere of nothingness, cessation of perception and feeling," and so on, are non-existing designations, then by this very statement, their non-existence is stated, and so it should be said that they do not exist. And just as the non-existence of beings and so on, which are non-existent because they are to be designated, is a non-existing designation, so too the existing forms and so on, are to be designated. Thus, the state of being an existing designation arises. Therefore, an explanation of designated phenomena, not distinguished from the paths of designation, should be given, saying, "All phenomena are designations." Even if the explanation of terms like 'saṅkhā' is for the purpose of showing the specific distinction of what is to be designated and the act of designating, nevertheless, since the state of being a path of designation for what is to be designated has been shown by statements like, "One phenomenon falls into all phenomena, all phenomena fall into one phenomenon," in the state of what is to be designated as designation, the paths of designation are expressed by the very word 'designation'. Thus, the term 'path of designation' should not be used. Nor is it possible to say that the explanation of terms like 'saṅkhā' is for the purpose of showing the specific distinction of what is to be designated and the act of designating, because words like 'saṅkhā' have the same meaning. For it has been said: "Even by death, that is abandoned which a person considers 'this is mine'." Here, 'person' is a designation, a common term... an expression. Similarly, "Māgaṇḍiya is the name of that brahmin, a designation, a common term," and so on. And apart from grasping a convention like "this one is so-and-so by name," and grasping words like "form is three," the ability to designate the meaning of another unestablished nature is not possible. And their inability (to do so). If indeed there were an inability for them to designate meaning without designation, and an inability in designating designation, then another designation for that would have to be stated. For that, and for that, there would be an endless regress. Therefore, there would be no understanding of meaning at all.