English
Explanation of the term “formations” “Again” means it purifies from the unwholesome fruit, from the defilement of suffering. One performs merit with an intention for welfare and happiness, thus, by accomplishing it, it fulfills the intention of the doer, thus it is merit. It is to be understood as “merit” by the characteristic of etymology, as that which fills and produces veneration. It means it does not waver, does not tremble, due to the extreme distance of the adversaries of concentration. “Of the body” means the designation is made by way of ownership of the door. “Leading to merit” means leading to the attainment of existence. There, in the Vibhaṅga. in the Asutta Sutta (Saṃyutta Nikāya 2.2). For it is taken as primary. But in the Sammādiṭṭhi Sutta (Majjhima Nikāya 1.102) it is said: "These three, friends, are formations." But this is spoken by the All-Knowing Conqueror, not by a Paccekabuddha. To clarify this meaning, they are taken in the manner of these suttas. How then is this meaning clarified by this taking? To show that, it is said: "For in the Abhidhamma and in the Suttas, the tradition is declared to be the same." "Spoken by the All-Knowing One" means that because it is similar to the well-known suttantas, it is understood that this too is spoken by the All-Knowing One. It is said "even thirteen." There, the meditative development of those disconnected from knowledge is not evident, so it is said "just as..." and so on. And the meditation "earth, earth" and so on, the preliminary work of the kasiṇa, and the making of the circle, all contribute to meditation. Mental and mental concomitant phenomena occurring by way of giving are giving. There, the volitional intention, which is the active agent, is said to arise concerning giving, with giving as its object, and so it is with the others. "With a mind accompanied by joy" should be seen as merely an example of the occurrence of rejoicing. For one recollects even with equanimity. Even the dissimilar (kamma-born matter) is kamma-born matter in the Vehapphala and other realms, even in the non-percipient beings, by means of the similar fourth jhana result. Form itself is called "agitated" (saiñjana) because of its trembling nature, due to the non-suppression of hindrances that cause agitation, or because it is the cause of agitation, which is called craving for form. Therefore, all fourth jhanas that have form as their object and sign as their object are not directly called "unagitated" (aniñjana). One who weighs with a large scale or measures with a bushel measures and weighs the whole aggregate, not each single berry or each single grain of rice. In the same way, the Blessed One, taking countless first wholesome volitions collectively, and making them one because they are of one type, shows them. And so it is with the second and so on. Without saying "occurring at the body-door," it is also suitable to say "arising, bringing about the agitation of grasping and clinging," this is a special expression. It shows only the samatta. Indeed, the activity at the door of the body is the taking and leading forth. By the former, the door's characteristic of being a mark is stated; by the latter, the volition's causing of the cognizable form to arise. Therein, drawing and taking is ādāna (taking); taking what is connected is gahaṇa (grasping); and agitation is copana (stirring). Here, it refers to the grasping of bodily and verbal formations, or the grasping of bodily and verbal volitions. In the commentary, the volition of supernormal knowledge is not included because it is not a condition for consciousness. Why is it not? Is it not also wholesome and a condition for results? True, but in a continuum where craving and ignorance are not cut off, its wholesomeness and its nature as a condition for results are stated in terms of its active operation, not in terms of producing results. But if it were to produce results, it would produce only rūpāvacara (fine-material sphere) results. For a kamma of one plane does not produce results of another plane. It would produce a result similar to itself in its object and its basis, as it is stated in the section on the arising of consciousness that the rūpāvacara result is similar to the kamma in its object. And there is no rūpāvacara result that has a limited (paritta) object, etc. But the volition of supernormal knowledge has only a limited object, etc. Therefore, it is understood that it does not produce results. And supernormal knowledge is a benefit of the fourth jhāna concentration produced through kasiṇas. As it is said, "When his mind is thus concentrated," etc. (Dī. Ni. 1.244-245; Ma. Ni. 1.384-386). Therefore, it is similar to the fruit of concentration, and it does not give fruit. Just as the benefit of giving and morality does not produce results in that existence, like the attainment of conditions, so too it does not produce results. And just as the volition of supernormal knowledge, so too the volition of restlessness is not. This should be considered because it is stated separately in the section on phenomena accompanied by restlessness, "Knowledge of their results is the analytical knowledge of meaning" (Vibh. 725). This is the decision here, following the path to the deathless: Even in the absence of seeing and development, for those ordinary people and trainees for whom seeing and development are to occur, at the time of their arising, the unwholesome states that can be abandoned by them, "to be abandoned by seeing, to be abandoned by development," are called "abbā." But for ordinary people, since there is no development, there is no thought of "to be abandoned by development." Therefore, those that arise for them, even if they cannot be abandoned by insight, are not called "to be abandoned by development." If they were called so, then some of those to be abandoned by insight would sometimes be a condition for some of those to be abandoned by development by way of object, object-dominance, and decisive support. But it is not stated in the Paṭṭhāna: "Those to be abandoned by insight are a condition for some of those to be abandoned by development by some condition." However, for trainees, those that exist and can be abandoned by development are "to be abandoned by development." Therefore, for trainees, those to be abandoned by insight, being cast off, vomited, freed, abandoned, relinquished, uprooted, completely uprooted, are not to be savored or delighted in. Because they are abandoned, they are not causes of joy or causes of non-distraction, nor do they produce sorrow or restlessness. Thus, they do not become objects, object-dominance, or natural decisive support for them. For a noble one does not produce defilements like lust by relying on what has been abandoned. And it is said: "The defilements that have been abandoned by the path of stream-entry, one does not return to, does not come back to, does not come again to those defilements... ...by the path of arahantship... ...does not come again to." And it cannot be said that those that ordinary people can abandon by insight are not a condition for others by any condition, because it is stated that "one savors and delights in wrong view, lust arises concerning it; wrong view, doubt, restlessness arise. Concerning doubt, doubt, wrong view, restlessness arise." Thus, wrong view and doubt are stated to be object conditions for restlessness. Here, "restlessness" refers to a mind-moment accompanied by restlessness. And having done so, in the exposition of the dominance condition: "Having made wrong view important, one savors and delights in it. Having made it important, lust arises, wrong view..." arises.” Only this much is said, not “restlessness arises.” Therefore, for those to be abandoned by seeing and developing, even if they are not said to be past, etc., whatever kind of non-attainment by them is to be brought about, among ordinary people, those existing, looking to seeing, can be abandoned by it, are to be abandoned by seeing. Among trainees, those existing, looking to developing, can be abandoned by it, are to be abandoned by developing. Among these, those to be abandoned by developing, being without companions, do not produce result. Thus, the condition of karma of different moments for the volition to be abandoned by developing is not stated. But for those without the seeing and developing to be looked for, arising in ordinary people, the mind-states accompanied by restlessness, such as desire and attachment to one’s own possessions, and the defilements identical with the three fetters, since they are not cut off, and their companions are not exhausted, the production of result cannot be denied. Thus, the result of phenomena accompanied by restlessness is stated in the Vibhaṅga. If so, for unwholesome states lacking the seeing and developing to be looked for, does it follow that they are to be abandoned neither by seeing nor by developing? It does not follow, because it is said of those not to be abandoned, “neither to be abandoned by seeing nor by developing,” and because unwholesome states are of a nature contrary to those not to be abandoned. Even so, does it follow that they are not to be mentioned in this triad? It does not follow, because the twelve unwholesome mind-states shown in the section on mind-states are encompassed by two terms. Just as, in terms of phenomena, all conditioned phenomena are encompassed, so in the triad of arising, even those not encompassed in terms of time, such as the past, are not said to be unmentionable, because there is no unmentionable among those taken as mind-states and material forms. Similarly here, because there is no unmentionable among those taken as mind-states, unmentionability is not stated, so it should be understood. Where there is some mind-state that is necessarily unmentionable, there a fourth category exists for them, and there too, like in the aforementioned passages,