English
Now, to make the declared statement, he says, starting with "Now, thus by me... etc. ...the opportunity for discourse has arrived." "From here onwards" means starting from the term "wholesome states." 1. "Named by all terms": because the word "vedanā" (feeling) exists in all three terms, it is named by them, thus "named by all terms." But are there not four terms: "states associated with pleasant feeling"? And similarly for the others, making twelve terms, not three? If "named by all terms" were said with reference to the word "vedanā" being a part of the three terms, it would not be appropriate. For "vedanāya" is a distinct term and is not a part of any other term, nor does it take on the nature of terms like "sukha" (pleasant). So how could it be named by all terms? The intended meaning: from a collection of words in a sentence, because it is a word. For it is said, "it is understood, it is comprehended by this," thus it is a word. And by this collection of words, "phenomena associated with pleasant feeling," the intended meaning is completely understood. Therefore, that collection of words is called "a word." In this way, the others should also be understood. Therefore, the name obtained by the parts of these three collections is rightly said to be a name obtained from all words. Here, in "both by text and by meaning," the mutual connection should be understood as being by text due to its connection with terms like "causal term" and "term with a cause," and by meaning due to its connection with meanings like "causal meaning" and "meaning with a cause." For the dyads "with cause" and "associated with cause" are connected to the "causal dyad" through causes, thus they are connected to the "causal dyad." The dyad "cause and with cause" is connected to the "causal dyad" and the "with cause dyad" by means of a single term for both. Similarly, the dyad "cause and associated with cause" is connected to the "causal dyad" and the "associated with cause dyad." The dyad "not cause and with cause" is connected to the "causal dyad" and the "with cause dyad" by means of one or two terms. "Like a garland" means like a garland made of flowers. "Like a bunch" means like a collection of flowers, etc., in flower-holders, etc. For in garlands and bunches, flowers, etc., are mutually connected by their stalks, etc. Thus, the connection of these dyads is stated. "By commonality of dyads" means by their similarity to other causal dyads, etc., in terms of being dyads. "To others" means to dyads like "with object." Those for whom there is an unincluded area are "with area." Those for whom there is none are "without area." "Are you well, sir?" Having made the meaning of this question clear, it is said, "Are you in good health, sir?" in order to ask it. Therefore, the word "kusala" (well-being) has the meaning of "anāmaya" (good health). In the Bāhitika Sutta (MN 2.361), the Dhamma-treasurer, describing the bodily conduct of the Blessed One, said, "Whatever bodily conduct, great king, is blameless," thus describing wholesome bodily conduct. For the Blessed One has no karma with pleasant results, so bodily conduct, etc., free from all blame, are called wholesome. And in "wholesome phenomena," the factors of enlightenment are called ' ‘Skillful’ it is said. And these, connected with the path and fruit of insight, are not exclusively of pleasant result, thus the word ‘skillful’ means blameless. Of limbs and minor limbs: by the connection with the word ‘skillful’, this is a genitive case in the sense of locative, or it means in the naming, purpose, etc., of limbs and minor limbs. And ‘of dance and song’ is a genitive case in the sense of locative, or it should be connected as ‘in the particulars of dance and song’. Because of the undertaking of skillful states, this merit thus increases; the karma producing the result of merit is called ‘skillful’. States exist: meaning, because they are empty states, they are mere existences. Thus, ‘observing states in states’ here too the word ‘state’ should be understood in the sense of emptiness. They move… and so on… they destroy: here, the latter word explains the former word. Or else, the three, moving etc., which elucidate the meaning of moving, should be connected with abandonment by their constituents etc. Unskillful states, moving in the continuum due to their unabandoned nature, move in a repulsive manner due to their connection with defilements like lust and their being causes of various kinds of suffering. Even for those disconnected from knowledge, knowledge is a proximate cause; thus all skillful states are to be brought about by knowledge, hence ‘skillful’. They cut off the defilement-side, which is included in both the arisen and unarisen parts, by abandonment and non-arising, like the two right efforts. States are not without their own nature when examined by wisdom, like beings etc. are the objects of minds that grasp beings etc.; rather, they bear their own nature, thus they are ‘states’. And there is no other state that is a nature being borne. For there are no other states like forms etc. apart from being oppressed etc., and no other states like earth etc. apart from being hard etc. Otherwise, it is not possible to understand; thus, making the known and unknown inherent states, which are understood by name, as if they were others, it is said, ‘they bear their own nature’. Showing a distinction in conditioned states, he says, ‘or they are borne by conditions’. They are borne: they are sustained, they are marked, is the meaning. Unskillful It is not merely a negation of the wholesome, or merely a statement of the absence of the wholesome, or merely a statement of something other than that. Rather, to show that it is a statement of its opposite, it is said, "Enemies are like opponents," and so on. And its being a statement of its opposite is understood by the statement of the third category, the indeterminate. For if the word "unwholesome" were merely a statement of the absence of the wholesome, then no phenomenon would be described by it, and the third category would not be described by the word "indeterminate." And then it would become a duality: "wholesome phenomena and indeterminate phenomena," not a triad. And in that case, the word "unwholesome" would have no meaning. And if it were so, then "un-indeterminate" would also have to be said, just as the absence of the wholesome is possible, so is the absence of the indeterminate. Therefore, if it were merely a statement of absence, just as the mere absence of the indeterminate, the mere absence of the wholesome would be "unwholesome," and there would be no category, so "indeterminate" would not be a third category. And because the indeterminate is spoken of as a third category, it is understood that the unwholesome is also a category. Therefore, it is not a statement of absence. And because the word "unwholesome" is in apposition with the word "phenomenon" in the sense of "holding its own nature," and so on, it is not merely a statement of the absence of the wholesome. Nor is it merely a statement of something other than that, precisely because of the statement of the third category. For if the unwholesome were other than the wholesome, like non-mental states are other than mental states, and since all phenomena are encompassed by the words "wholesome" and "unwholesome," there would be no un-encompassed third category. Then this would have to be called a duality, like the duality of mental states: "wholesome phenomena, unwholesome phenomena," and a third category, "indeterminate," would not be spoken of. But it is spoken of. Therefore, the word "unwholesome" is not merely a statement of something other than that. By elimination, since the use of "a-" is seen in the world to indicate opposites, as in "enemies," and in the teaching, as in "non-greed," here too, the word "unwholesome" is established as a statement of its opposite. And because it is established in that sense, it is not a statement of the other. And the state of being an opposite should be understood as having a contradictory nature and as being something to be abandoned, not as destroying the wholesome. For the wholesome is not to be abandoned by the unwholesome, because of its great strength. Not only by wholesome volitional actions are the ever-latent unwholesome states abandoned by way of temporary suppression and complete eradication. As 'undetermined', they are unstated. But how are these unstated? Are they not, by terms like "associated with pleasant feeling," by terms of triads and dyads, by expressions like 'eye-consciousness,' and by expressions like 'contact,' stated? No, they are not unstated; but those expressions are not intended here, because they are not spoken of and do not follow. For it is not the case that after saying 'phenomena associated with pleasant feeling' etc., it is said 'undetermined.' Therefore, those (expressions) do not follow here. So, their being unstated in the sense of being referable by those terms does not hold. But the terms 'wholesome' and 'unwholesome' are spoken of here and do follow. Therefore, their being unstated in the sense of being referable by these terms is understood. Thus, it is said, 'The meaning is that they are unstated in terms of being wholesome or unwholesome.' Or, 'undetermined' means 'non-resultant.' And by the very term 'undetermined,' the meaning of 'non-resultant' is understood. For the Buddha's word is not something to be proven by inference. By the Buddha, skilled in dispositions, latent tendencies, and conduct, for whose understanding the teachings were spoken, for them, the meaning was penetrated immediately after the words. But for later generations, how the Buddha spoke those various words for their understanding, and how they penetrated that meaning, all that must be known by approaching and listening to teachers.