English
as it reveals the division of wholesome and unwholesome. For the revelation of bad conduct and good conduct is also the revelation of specific conjunctions of greed and non-greed. 1435. Due to the absence of a self-referential internal aspect, being a natural phenomenon, not being self-referential internal in any way, it is called “exclusively external” due to its entirely external nature, not because it is not a natural phenomenon and not external, as in the case of a meditation object, where a purely self-referential internal aspect is impossible. For, due to not being a natural phenomenon, no state exists that is internal to a meditation object, and thus it is not stated in the internal triad— this is the intention. All that, like the sphere of nothingness, is stated as “not to be said as an object” in the triad of past objects— this is the connection. And here, “stated” means “due to permission to speak,” thus it is revealed by these reasons. Now, the text, having drawn the sphere of nothingness referred to by the word “that” in “for this is the sphere of nothingness,” speaks of the sphere of nothingness. But the meaning stated here, “even if one sphere of nothingness is mentioned here, it implies the single object together with it in the triad of past objects, because the not-to-be-said as an object of wholesome kammas in the sense-sphere and so on has been stated, it also indicates their not-to-be-said as an object here, and therefore, when it is stated, those are also considered stated, thus they are not stated separately”— others do not agree with this. For such an elliptical statement is not found in the commentary section. If it were, in the triad of limited objects, for those whose similar objects have been stated as limited objects and so on, and as not to be said. Then, in the triad of past objects, only one of them would be stated, and the others would not be stated. ...should be. Similarly, in the triad of feelings, for those feelings of the same kind, for which association with pleasant feeling is stated, among them, only one should be mentioned in the triad of joy, in the designation of 'accompanied by pleasure', and another should not be mentioned. In this way, it should be applied to designations like 'accompanied by equanimity', and so on. However, without a hint, because the extraction of meaning was done in the commentary section, just as for the sphere of nothingness, even for mundane wholesome states and so on, when there is no mention in the triad of internal objects, these too should be said not to be mentioned, but they are not mentioned. Therefore, even in the generality of non-existence, by which occurrence of the completion of non-existence, the sphere of nothingness, occurring, became unmentionable, due to the non-occurrence of that occurrence, those were not mentioned as unmentionable. Indeed, kasinas and so on, created by specific apprehension, are naturally non-existent. Therefore, for their objects, the state of being an external object is stated by way of external apprehension. But the sphere of nothingness does not occur as an external apprehension, nor does it occur as an internal apprehension, therefore it is said to be unmentionable. However, by the mode of apprehension by which the sphere of nothingness occurs, by that, even omniscience does not occur. If it were to occur, that too would be the sphere of nothingness itself. Just as omniscience, knowing all the range of defilements and their specific occurrences, does not apprehend them in the way they apprehend, for then it too would become a defilement, so too, knowing the mode of occurrence of the sphere of nothingness according to its true nature, it does not apprehend it as if it were the sphere of nothingness itself. How much less then, anything else? Therefore, the unmentionability of mundane wholesome states was not stated. This is the decision of those teachers who do not wish to say that "there is one meaning, namely, the cessation which is the object of the sphere of nothingness." But result (vipāka) is not an object for anyone. This means that the result, the sphere of infinite space, is not an object for anyone among the results and so on, or among the spheres of infinite consciousness. Similarly, the sphere of nothingness is not an object for the sphere of neither perception nor non-perception. Just as in the triad of results, for the states that are results, and for the states that are not results nor non-results... In questions rooted in resultant and non-resultant states, it is said: "The wholesome sphere of infinite space is a condition by way of object-condition for the wholesome sphere of infinite consciousness. The wholesome sphere of nothingness for the wholesome sphere of neither perception nor non-perception. And similarly for resultant and functional states. The functional sphere of infinite space for the functional sphere of infinite consciousness. The functional sphere of nothingness for the functional sphere of neither perception nor non-perception is a condition by way of object-condition." (Paṭṭhāna 1.1.406, 410) But it is not said similarly in those rooted in resultant states, [for example, that] "the resultant spheres of infinite space and nothingness are a condition by way of object-condition for the wholesome and functional resultant spheres of infinite consciousness and neither perception nor non-perception." Because it is not possible for the mind to emerge from a resultant state, it means it is not possible to make an exertion by taking a resultant state as an object. For indeed, there is no exertion by taking a resultant state as an object. "One's own aggregates, etc." – taking the immaterial aggregates as "aggregates," the word "etc." refers to matter. Or, when taken internally, the word "etc." refers to the designation "I." This method also applies to taking the aggregates, etc., of others. Furthermore, by taking "designation," it refers to designations not bound by faculties, such as kasina-meditation and so on. Or, by the word "etc.," in the taking of "I" and "other" designations, it refers to all dependent designations. Among "kamma, etc.," kamma is internal, kamma-sign is both, and destiny-sign is external – this should be understood. For one reborn as a worm within one's own body, the destiny-sign could also be internal. The Blessed One revealed a smile, based on Mallikā attaining the position of the king's chief queen by giving a handful of gruel; Santati Mahāmatta attaining arahantship while on an elephant's back; and the flower garland maker realizing solitary enlightenment by offering a handful of flowers. In this triad, they find a place. It was said that the "not-to-be-spoken-of" do not find a place in the triads of limited objects and past objects. But here, the "not-to-be-spoken-of" are not present. This means they find a single object among internal, etc. For these five... and because the fourth jhānas of earth, water, fire, air, space, and light kasiṇas have kasiṇa as their object, the fourth jhāna of the brahmavihāras has a concept as its object, and the fourth jhāna of mindfulness of breathing has a sign as its object, these are external objects. “Of one’s own body and mind” means of one’s own body and mind. There is no purpose in that, therefore it is not an internal object, this is the meaning. Or in “of a form not bound to an faculty,” this “or of three concepts” should also be brought in by the word “or,” or this should be seen as a display of method. At such a time, it is indeed an external object. The explanation of the meaning of the Triads is finished. The explanation of the meaning of the Dyads 1473. “Conceit…etc…in one way” this is said to show an unstated type, otherwise, if conceit arises together with sensual lust, ignorance, and fetters, it should be said to be in two ways. This method applies to lust for existence, etc. Similarly, in “doubt,” “similarly” means “in one way.” 1511. “In the saṅkhārika states” this should be seen merely as a display of the place where the hindrance of sensual desire arises together with three hindrances, not as a definite display of its arising there with them, due to the indeterminacy of sloth and torpor. “By the lower limit” means that since restlessness arises in all unwholesome states, two arise accompanied by restlessness, and in others, in the absence of sloth, torpor, and remorse, three arise from the lower limit, thus “two or three” is said, this is the meaning. But where the arising of as many as possible together, this meaning of “hindrances and those associated with hindrances” is possible, “two” is said to show them by the lower limit. “Three” is said to show that this meaning is possible even in further occurrences. And “two or three” is an indefinite statement meaning “two or three,” so it is also understood as “four or five.” Or this is a display of the characteristic that where there is co-arising, there are hindrances and those associated with hindrances. And where four or five arise, this meaning is established. Having done so, the sphere of defilements in six, it is said, "two or three." For the defilements and those associated with defilements are described by way of their characteristics, not by way of showing the nature of all possible occurrences. If restlessness arises in all unwholesome states, why is it said, "the hindrance of restlessness arises in thought-moments accompanied by restlessness"? This is to show the specific domain of restlessness, which is free from other hindrances, among the five hindrances mentioned in the Suttas. But the sixth hindrance in the Abhidhamma is accompanied by the others, so there is no specific domain for it when it is free from other hindrances. Since there is no place for it to arise without being accompanied by itself, and there is no thought-moment characterized by it, there is no specific domain.