English
Therefore, without stating the reason, it is said, 'The meaning is that they are unstated in terms of being wholesome or unwholesome.' And if someone were to say: 'Because they are unstated in terms of being unwholesome results, wholesome states become undetermined; and because they are unstated in terms of being wholesome results, unwholesome states also become undetermined,' that person should be refuted by saying, 'The Buddha's word is not to be proven by inference,' and because that which is unstated in the sense of being referable by the current word is undetermined. For it is not the case that the term 'non-resultant' is spoken and the term 'wholesome' is not spoken, from which the term 'non-resultant' would be emphasized and the term 'wholesome' would be unstated in the sense of being referable by it. Therefore, wholesome states are not undetermined. In this way, the explanation should be made for unwholesome states also not being undetermined. Or alternatively, the prefix 'vi-' indicates opposition "Ano" and the sound "ā" express opposition. Therefore, by their own conditions, they are made mutually opposed, declared as "byākatā" (manifested) due to characteristic opposition, due to being destroyers and destroyable, these are wholesome and unwholesome. Those not "byākatā" are "abyākatā" (unmanifested). For these, in terms of characteristics, are not opposed like wholesome and unwholesome. Indeed, the unripened is not opposed to the painful ripened like the pleasant ripened, nor is the pleasant ripened opposed to the painful ripened like the painful and pleasant ripened. Nor do they abandon anything, nor are they to be abandoned by anything. This is the personal opinion here. Regarding "anavajjasukhavipākalakkhaṇā" (characterized by blameless pleasant results): "Anavajjā" means there is no fault in them, meaning they are free from blame, faultless. This shows their blamelessness, not merely the absence of blame. Seeing the fault of even the blameless "abyākatā" being considered wholesome by the mere word "anavajja," the word "sukhavipāka" (pleasant result) is used to avoid that. Or, "anavajjā" here means the opposite of fault, not merely the subsided fault or the absent fault, as in the Bāhitika Sutta. Therefore, by the word "anavajja," the nature of destroying fault is shown. However, to show a distinction from the "abyākatā," and a common characteristic of wholesome and unwholesome, which is the nature of having results, the word "sukhavipāka" was spoken to show a specific aspect within that characteristic. For the distinction of wholesome from unwholesome and abyākatā is already established. "Sukhavipākā" means their result is pleasant. This shows the nature of being opposed to pleasant results within the common characteristic of wholesome and unwholesome as result-producing phenomena, not merely their existence as pleasant results. They are blameless and pleasant in result, thus "anavajjasukhavipākā." That by which wholesome things are characterized is a "lakkhaṇa" (characteristic). Those whose characteristic is blameless and pleasant in result are "anavajjasukhavipākalakkhaṇā." But are not the wholesome things themselves blameless and pleasant in result? How can they themselves be their own characteristic? This is due to the nature of being a characteristic and what is characterized, based on understood and not-understood meanings of words. For, according to the meaning of the word "kusala," the un-understood... The skillful states are to be marked. It is proper that they are known as a mark by the meaning of "blameless and pleasant result." Or, that which is marked is a mark, a nature. And they are blameless and of pleasant result, and a mark, thus "marked by blameless and pleasant result." The meaning is that natures, being blameless and of pleasant result, and being marked, are called skillful. Or, by the word "blameless" it speaks of blamelessness. By the word "pleasant result" it speaks of having a pleasant result. Therefore, blamelessness and pleasant result are "blameless and pleasant result." That is their mark. And in the sense of instrument and object, the word "mark" is their nature, thus "marked by blameless and pleasant result." It is said that the skillful states are those which, being marked by the nature of blameless and pleasant result, possess that nature. Here, by the word "blameless" it shows the pleasantness of the skillful states' occurrence. By the word "pleasant result" it shows the pleasantness of their result. Indeed, the former refers to being a mark by way of its own nature of occurrence. The latter refers to its ability to produce a result in a future time. Similarly, by the former it shows the self-purity of the skillful states. By the latter, their pure result. And by the former it turns the skillful away from the nature of the unskillful. By the latter, from the nature of the indeterminate, because the latter indicates having a result. Or, by the former, seeing its nature as the opposite of blameworthy, it indicates, by the characteristic of function, the characteristic of destroying the unskillful. By the latter, by the characteristic of achievement, the characteristic of a desirable result. And by the former, by the manifestation in the mode of appearance, it shows the manifestation of purification. By the latter, by the characteristic of fruit, the manifestation of a pleasant result. And by the former it clarifies right attention as the proximate cause of the skillful states. For from that, they arise blameless. By the latter, it shows the skillful states as the proximate cause for others. For they are the cause of a pleasant result. And here, in the word "pleasant result," the word "pleasant" should be understood as a synonym for "desirable." For the skillful states have desirable results in all four aggregates, not merely results of pleasant feeling. The calming of the suffering of formations. and there is no arising at all because of a pleasant result. For it is not its result. But if the word 'result' is a synonym for 'fruit', then a pleasant result should be combined with a desirable form as a natural consequence. In "characterized by blameworthy and painful results," the meaning and combination should be understood as far as possible according to the method stated. The characteristic of being worthy of results is stated as a characteristic of wholesome and unwholesome actions. Actions not described as such, the indeterminate, are by nature not worthy of results. Thus it is said: "the indeterminate are characterized by not having results." Just as wholesome and unwholesome actions are said to be characterized by being worthy of pleasant and painful results, and thus are pleasant and painful results, so too here, the indeterminate are said to be characterized by not being worthy of results, and thus are without results. Therefore, for wholesome and unwholesome actions of the kind: "there was action, there was no action-result, there will be no action-result, there is no action-result; there is action, there is no action-result, there will be no action-result; there will be action, there will be no action-result" (Paṭisambhidāmagga 1.234), there is no failure to be wholesome or unwholesome, nor is there an attainment of indeterminate status. For they are not unworthy of pleasant and painful results, being of the nature to have results, nor are they unworthy of results, there being no absence of the nature to have results. "Wholesome" or "phenomena," and so on: there are two terms for wholesome phenomena, two terms for unwholesome phenomena, and two terms for indeterminate phenomena. "Same meaning, different meaning": this challenges the same meaning and different meaning of each pair separately, in relation to each other, not all six. Knowing that the questioner wants to state a fault here, the teacher says: "What is there in this?" Here, it means: "Your challenge regarding same meaning and different meaning is incomplete; state the rest first." If they have the same meaning, like the words 'Indra' and 'Sakka', where only the sound differs, then it is the same for the words 'wholesome phenomena', not in the meaning. Just as when "Indra, Sakka" is said, it is like saying "Indra, Indra," so this phrase "wholesome phenomena" is like saying "wholesome, wholesome." Thus, In the same way, for the others too, the similarity of what is said as "unwholesome, unwholesome" and the similarity of what is said as "indeterminate, indeterminate" should be applied. Then, there are different meanings. Just as there is a distinction in the words "Inda" and "Kuvera" both in sound and meaning, so too there is a distinction in the words for wholesome states, and similarly for the words for unwholesome states and so on. Thus, six or four meanings are distinguished by six or four terms respectively. This leads to the wholesome triad and so on becoming the wholesome hexad and so on, and the causal dyad and so on becoming the causal tetrad and so on. But surely, just as there is no difference in form among three words for "Inda," so there is no difference in meaning among three words for "Dhamma." Therefore, there will be no hexad. Thus, it might be said: "The triads and dyads become tetrad-triads." This should not be said. Because there is no purpose in using three words for "Dhamma" with a single meaning, like three words for "Inda." And for those words that are stated, like the words for "māsa," though their form is not different, a difference in meaning is possible. Even so, just as one word "māsa," whose form is not different, denotes time, a type of pulse, and a gold coin, so too one word "Dhamma" can denote different meanings. Thus, just as time and so on are the meanings of the word "māsa," so the different meanings to be expressed are the meanings of the word "Dhamma," and there is no difference. Therefore, it leads to a tetrad-triad.