English
I will teach you, monks, the ultimate goal and the path leading to the ultimate goal. And by such suttas as these, and by Abhidhamma passages such as "phenomena without conditions, unconditioned phenomena," and "all form and unconditioned elements," it is taught as an ultimate reality. For it is not proper for a mere non-existence, devoid of intrinsic nature, to have the character of profound, unconditioned, etc., or the character of indeterminate phenomena, etc., and yet it is spoken of as such. Therefore, Nibbāna is not a mere non-existence. Moreover, this proponent of non-existence should be asked thus: If Nibbāna is the non-existence of defilements, is this non-existence one or many? If it is one, then it is accomplished and realized by one path, which would render the higher paths meaningless. For it is not seen that one thing is to be achieved by many different actions. But if it were said that this non-existence of defilements is one, but not to be made by paths, but rather to be realized. In that case, the meaninglessness of the path becomes even more pronounced, due to the non-abandonment of defilements. And if the path does not create the non-existence of defilements, what purpose would it serve for its realization? But if there is a distinction in the non-existence of defilements due to the specific function of the paths, such as the abandonment of the three fetters, by way of being an abandoner, then in that case, without a distinction in intrinsic nature, there is no multiplicity, and thus by the designation of multiplicity, its intrinsic nature is established. Or if it were said, "the multiplicity of that whose non-existence is spoken of as multiplicity." If this is so, for those whose non-existence (is asserted), due to their intrinsic nature, the designation of having an intrinsic nature would also be possible for them. Similarly, due to their being defilements, conditioned things, etc., they would have the state of being defilements, conditioned things, etc. And this is not proper, therefore, the designation of their multiplicity is not proper. If it is said that even its oneness cannot be spoken of as non-existent? No, due to the commonality of non-existence, by the commonality of non-existence, oneness is designated by the commonality of non-distinction. And if there is oneness, the previously mentioned faults are not overcome. And in multiplicity, intrinsic nature is established. If it were that just as multiplicity implies intrinsic nature, so too, by commonality, intrinsic nature would not deviate from multiplicity, then even in the case of intrinsic nature, Nibbāna would fall into multiplicity? That is not so. Why? Because of the commonality of non-distinction. Indeed, it cannot be said that just as hardness does not deviate from intrinsic nature, so too, intrinsic nature would not deviate from hardness. For if this were so, there would be the consequence of the non-existence of all other phenomena. Therefore, multiplicity depends on intrinsic nature, but intrinsic nature does not depend on multiplicity. Thus, Nibbāna, having intrinsic nature, does not fall into multiplicity. As stated in sayings like: "Indeed, there is one truth, there is no second," "There is one ultimate goal, not many ultimate goals." Moreover, here, the non-existence of defilements is the eradication of lust, etc., the complete abandonment, the cessation of non-arising. And if it were one, it would have to be accomplished by one path only, due to the absence of distinct functions, and thus there would be no division of paths like 'seeing' etc. And this is desired, because defilements are to be abandoned in stages. And this division of paths occurs due to the varying degrees of faculties like faith, etc. (being not too sharp, sharp, sharper, sharpest), even though the state of being fit for complete eradication and abandonment is one. It occurs through a distinction in realization. Thus, it is proper only due to Nibbāna's intrinsic nature. However, the non-existence of defilements would have to be *done* by the path (so that the path would not be meaningless), not *realized*. For what intrinsic nature does it have that could be realized by it? And that non-existence of defilements would have to be accomplished by one path only, not by four, (lest there be a four-fold Nibbāna). there was attainment, and attainment of the distinction of Nibbāna.” Then the division of the path of insight and so on would not exist, everything would revert. And if non-existence were the existence of being, and its nature of being were desired, then just as for a conditioned phenomenon, its conditioned nature, like aging and death, is attained, so too the implication of many defilements for that phenomenon, its multiplicity of being, would be unavoidable. Therefore, Nibbāna, which is not of that nature, unconditioned, one, and of its own nature, should be understood as having existence. If so, why is it said: “the destruction of lust, the destruction of hatred, the destruction of delusion”? Because it is to be attained by destruction. For destruction is the Noble Path. As it is said: “knowledge of destruction, knowledge of non-arising.” Therefore, Nibbāna, which is profound, subtle, difficult to see, difficult to comprehend, is called “the destruction of lust and so on,” by way of the destruction of lust and so on, by which it is attained through the Noble Path. Or it is to be attained in that way through the abandonment of lust and so on, just as it is said elsewhere: “the crushing of intoxication, the subduing of thirst,” and so on. Furthermore, just as escape, which is opposed to and far removed from the nature of higher sensual pleasures and forms that are to be fully understood, is discerned, so too there must be an escape that is opposed to and far removed from the nature of all conditioned phenomena that have their own nature. And that escape is the unconditioned element. What more? The insight knowledge whose object is conditioned phenomena, even the adaptation knowledge, abandons defilements by way of temporary suppression, but cannot abandon them by way of eradication. Similarly, the knowledge in the first jhāna and so on, whose object is conventional truth, abandons defilements by way of suppression, not by way of eradication. Thus, because the knowledge whose object is conditioned phenomena and whose object is conventional truth is incapable of eradicating defilements, the knowledge of the Noble Path, which eradicates them, must have an object whose nature is contrary to both of these. That is the unconditioned. element. Thus, “There is, monks, the unborn, the unbecome, the unmade, the unconditioned” (Ud. 73; Itv. 43) this statement, revealing the ultimate existence of Nibbāna, is of unperverted meaning, having been spoken by the Blessed One. For what is spoken by the Blessed One is of unperverted meaning, just as “All conditioned things are impermanent, all conditioned things are suffering, all phenomena are non-self” (Dhp. 277-279; Thag. 676-678; Nett. 5). Similarly, the word Nibbāna in some contexts is a designation for ultimate reality as it is, due to the existence of metaphorical usage, just like the word lion. Or alternatively, there is indeed an unconditioned element in the ultimate sense, because its nature is freedom from the opposite of that, just as “the earth element and feeling,” and so on, by these methods, the ultimate existence of the unconditioned element should be understood from reasoning. The Abhidhamma Analysis Commentary is finished. 3. Commentary on the Question-Asking Section 168. Kiñci: any object. Ālambanato: by making it an object. The Commentary on the Question-Asking Section is finished. The Commentary on the Āyatana Vibhaṅga is finished. 3. Dhātu Vibhaṅga 1. Suttanta Analysis Commentary 172. And those that appear in the Abhidhamma: In this Dhātu Vibhaṅga, in the Abhidhamma analysis and question-asking sections, and in the Nikkhepa Kaṇḍa, Dhammahadaya Vibhaṅga, etc., the teaching is established. Just as the aggregates (khandhas), etc., which appear in the Suttanta and Abhidhamma, are analyzed in the Suttanta analysis sections of the Khandha Vibhaṅga, etc., according to the method taught in the Suttanta, similarly here, the eye element, etc., should be analyzed according to the Suttanta analysis. Among these, there is no other way of teaching specific to the Abhidhamma exposition that encompasses all aggregates, etc., and appears in the Suttanta. Therefore, they are taught in the Suttanta analysis simply as the form aggregate, etc. However, for the elements, such a way exists. Therefore, showing that they are taught here by way of the three sets of elements, he says, “It should be understood that in the Suttantas themselves… …are analyzed.” Therefore, in the commentary, he says, “All elements are summarized by six elements each.” thus. But how are the eighteen elements encompassed within the six elements? By way of nature, support, door, object, association, and generality. In the first set of six, the earth, water, fire, and air elements are by nature the tangible element. The water and space elements are a part of the dhamma element. The consciousness element is the seven consciousness elements. By the inclusion of the four elements, the remaining material elements are encompassed by way of being dependent on them as support, or by the consciousness element being the door and object. By the inclusion of the consciousness element, a part of the dhamma element is encompassed by its association. Thus, the encompassing of all elements should be understood. In the second set, all six elements are by nature a part of the sense-base of dhammas. The seven consciousness elements are encompassed by their association. The remaining elements are encompassed by being their respective supports, doors, and objects. The same method applies to the third set of six.