English
as "concentration dominated by energy is energy-concentration"; the second is an indication of the factor of endowment. Indeed, there are only two factors of endowment everywhere: concentration and volitional formations of exertion. Desire etc. are qualifiers for concentration. But volitional formations of exertion are qualified only by the word 'exertion', not by desire etc. Therefore, the dominance of energy for volitional formations of exertion is not stated here. And energy, having qualified concentration and standing as such, is stated by the word 'volitional formations of exertion' as a factor of endowment. Thus, endowment by two energies is not stated. But since concentration is distinguished by desire etc., and similarly, volitional formations of exertion and other states are conjoined with that distinguished (concentration), therefore, the four power-bases are stated by way of the qualifiers of concentration. And the qualifying nature of desire etc. is by way of their respective reliance. Thus, in "desire-concentration... and so on... power-base," even when the word 'pāda' means 'basis', the state of desire etc. as power-bases is stated by the meaning of 'means'. For this very reason, in the subsequent Cūḷabhājanīya, by "the four power-bases: the power-base of desire," etc., the state of desire etc. themselves as power-bases is stated. And in the question-and-answer section, even after making an enumeration with "Here, monks, the four power-bases are desire-concentration," etc. (Vibh. 462), again, the state of desire etc. as wholesome etc. is analyzed. Indeed, it is for the purpose of showing the power-base as a means that the power-base as a basis is shown. done, otherwise, there would not be a fourfold nature; thus, this is the determination of the meaning to be understood according to the Pāli. 433. 'Rathadhura' means in front of the chariot. It is said that a low-caste Caṇḍāla, even if endowed with qualities like service, does not obtain positions like that of a general, as in 'having purified one's birth... etc.... relies on birth.' 'Amantanīya' means not worthy of counsel regarding what is beneficial or harmful. How could the Elder Raṭṭhapāla, having the will, not be permitted? Having not eaten for seven meals, and having made his parents permit him, he went forth; and relying solely on his will, he brought about the supramundane Dhamma; thus it is said, 'like the Elder Raṭṭhapāla.' The Elder Mogharāja relied on investigation. To him, the Blessed One spoke the discourse on emptiness, saying, 'Look upon the world as empty' (Sutta Nipāta 1125). And to suppress his conceit rooted in wisdom, when asked the question twice, he did not answer. There, repeatedly generating will is like pleasing; thus, the similarity of will to service is stated. Due to its strength, the similarity of energy to heroism. And due to the mind's leading role, its similarity to a noble birth, as in 'the king, lord of the six doors' (Dhammapada Commentary, 2.181, Erakapattanāgarāja story). 'Abhedato' means by not distinguishing, or by not separating. The meaning is to combine the three qualities like will, etc., or to speak without mixing them with power and the bases of power. There, will, energy, etc., are called 'iddhi' (power) because they are specially accomplished by it. And 'iddhi' (power) also refers to concentration, exertion, and formations without distinction, because they are accomplished. The bases of power like will-power and concentration-power are specific. The 'base' (pāda) is not specific because it is common to all powers. Therefore, to show that it is proper to speak of entry into the non-specific as well, without speaking of entry only into the specific, it is said everywhere, 'It is also proper to say "it is established in the base".' 'Tattheva' (therein) means in the bases of power of will, concentration, exertion, and formations; the meaning is in those four, beginning with will. 'What concentration will not be accomplished by one who has will?' Thus, 'concentration-developed' means developed through the means of developing concentration. But here, it is new from the non-distinguishing statement in the distinguishing statement. The meaning is: there is not. For the three qualities that are spoken of as power and the basis of power in the undifferentiated explanation, they themselves are both power and the bases of power in the differentiated explanation, while the rest are only bases of power. Thus, showing that there is no newness, he says, "desire, concentration," and so on. For these three… without them, therefore, the remaining four associated aggregates would be called power by the success of these three, not by their own nature. Thus, they are only bases of power, not power. This should be understood as stated as the cause of the former. Or, the power and basis of power of the three are stated, and only the basis of power of the rest. To establish all that, he says, "for these three… without them." Therefore, because they succeed, they are power. And because they succeed together with their associates, not without them, therefore, the associates are bases of power. But because those three qualities are included within them, he shows that they are also bases of power. To show that there is also a way for the associated aggregates to be power, he says, "but the associated," and so on. The power of a part of the four aggregates, the basis of power of all four aggregates in the sense of "a foot of power is a basis of power," and again, the basis of power of the four aggregates in the sense of "power itself is a foot, a basis of power," are shown, not of anything else. Having said this, he says, "not a designation of anyone else." By this, he refutes the statement, "power is that which is not yet produced." Considering that the statement of power and basis of power for acquisition, its preliminaries, and acquisition itself is not new, he asks, "in what sense is it power, in what sense is it a basis?" The rest of the phrase is: acquisition and its preliminary. And the means, by its very nature as a means, is the foundation of its own result. Thus, he says, "it is a basis in the sense of a foundation." Desire itself… investigation itself is called the basis of the power of investigation. Therefore, the four aggregates are not bases of power simultaneous with power or at different moments, but the primary ones, desire and so on, are always the bases of power. This indeed is the intention of the Aṭṭhakathā teachers. For, to make clear the power-bases, which are means, shown in the Suttanta-division and the Abhidhamma-division by way of specifying concentration, the later Cūḷabhājanīya was stated. "Some" refers to the elders of Uttaravihāra. The commentary on the Suttanta-division is finished. 2. Commentary on the Abhidhamma-division 444. In the Abhidhamma-division, "Power-base means the contact of such a one... ...exertion, non-distraction" (Vibh. 447) exertion and non-distraction are stated to show the meaning of power and power-base, and consciousness and wisdom are summarized. "Four thousand methods are divided" - this should be considered due to the absence of complete predominance-sections. For there are no predominants of predominants; but in each description of a power-base, one predominance-section is obtained, thus sixteen hundred methods are obtained. The commentary on the Abhidhamma-division is finished. 3. Commentary on the Questioner But are not all four predominants obtained at one moment? However, they are not predominants of each other, as it is stated: "The four power-bases are not path-predominants." The simile of the king's son also illustrates this meaning, does it not? No, precisely because there is no second predominant at one moment. The statement "not path-predominants" and the simile of the king's son illustrate this very meaning, that they do not make a predominant, not the co-existence of predominants. How is that to be known? Because it is refuted. For in the Aṭṭhakathā on the description of the Predominance Condition (Paṭṭh. Aṭṭha. 1.3) it is stated: "Why, in the description of the Root Condition, was it said 'roots for things associated with roots,' but here, instead of saying 'predominants for things associated with predominants,' was the teaching given in the manner of 'predominance of desire for things associated with desire,' and so on? Because of their non-existence at one moment." If there were co-existence of the four predominants, the qualification "for one endowed with the noble path, whose investigation-predominance is developing the path" would not need to be made, if there were no investigation-predominance. due to the absence of a single path. And if desire etc. were to make each other dominant, then the statement that desire etc. are dominant over investigation, as in "excluding investigation, associated with it," would not be said. Similarly, from statements like "the four noble paths may be dominant paths, or they may not be said to be dominant paths" (Dhs. 1429), the co-existence of dominants is indeed rejected. The explanation of the questioner is finished. The explanation of the analysis of the bases of power is finished. 10. Analysis of the Factors of Awakening 1. Division according to the Suttantas Explanation of the First Method 466. In the explanation of the Sutta on Establishing and Striving, and Crossing the Flood (Samyutta Nikaya Commentary 1.1.1) – "By way of defilements, there is establishing; by way of volitional formations, there is striving. Similarly, by craving and views, there is establishing; by remaining defilements and volitional formations, there is striving. By way of craving, there is establishing; by way of views, there is striving. By eternalism, there is establishing; by annihilationism, there is striving. By way of sluggishness, there is establishing; by way of restlessness, there is striving.