English
Nor a fruit of resultant consciousness, like that experienced in this very life, But rather it should be seen as having the fruit of the aforementioned benefits. Some, however, say: "The jhānas, being strengthened by repeated practice on the same plane, Produce resultant consciousness, because they are attainments. But supernormal knowledge, even though it is a jhānic state, Is weak because it is adventitious in each specific object, And therefore it does not produce resultant consciousness." This is not a valid reason, Because supernormal knowledge also attains mastery through repeated preparatory practice. As for what they say: "Supernormal knowledge arises when the foundational jhāna, Having attained complete mastery through repeated practice with volitional acts of the same nature, Becomes exceedingly excellent, endowed with the eight qualities such as purity. And since these are of the fourth jhāna, The resultant consciousness would arise from the plane of the fourth jhāna. And that is accomplished by the foundational jhāna, Which is strong with the aforementioned qualities and has created the opportunity. Therefore, supernormal knowledge does not produce resultant consciousness due to lack of opportunity." This too is not a valid reason, Because they are without resultant consciousness. For if they were capable of giving resultant consciousness, The objection of lack of opportunity for resultant consciousness would be appropriate. But their being without resultant consciousness is as stated. It does not exist, Meaning it is not a condition for consciousness. Agitation-consciousness Thinking that it is stated without distinction from the intention of higher knowledge, and that the word "in the result" is not merely indicative of deserving a result, but rather indicative of the existence of a result, he said, "It should be considered." And it was said, "For the word 'in the result' does not speak of deserving a result, like the word 'resultant phenomenon'." What should be considered there has already been stated below. This is the conclusion here: Because the intention of restlessness gives only the result of occurrence, not the result of rebirth-linking, therefore, in the analysis, the result is extracted in terms of its result of occurrence. But for an intention that gives both results, the condition of karma occurring at various moments is spoken of; since that is absent, it is not stated for it in the origination section. What is stated in the commentary, "It should be removed from being a condition for consciousness" (Vibh. Atth. 226, Saṅkhārapadaniddesa), is said with reference to rebirth-linking consciousness only. "Thus, the intention of restlessness also does not exist" is also said by taking only the absence of its conditionality for consciousness. Thus, here, the non-contradiction between the Pāli text and the commentary should be seen. Here, it means in the giving of results by the intention of restlessness. In the Amataggapatha, a treatise of that name. Because the meaning "Among ordinary people, the unwholesome are to be abandoned by seeing; among trainees, they are to be abandoned by development" is stated, "But for ordinary people," etc., is said. "Are not spoken of" shows the absence of the category "to be abandoned by development" for the external fetters, etc., that occur in ordinary people. By "If they were spoken of," etc., he explains that very meaning by reasoning and by tradition. There, "of some" refers to desire and attachment, etc., to one's own possessions. "Some" refers to self-view, etc. "Sometimes" refers to at some time in the past, etc. "Abandoned," etc., are synonymous terms. "By relying on" means making it a strong supporting condition. For the others, meaning those not to be abandoned by seeing. And the connection is, "they do not not exist." And having done so, by the inclusion of restlessness in the aforementioned Pāli text, the mind-moment accompanied by restlessness. when there is no agitation anywhere, when it is like this. That is a view. Why is it said, “not to be spoken of as past, etc.”? Are not only future things to be abandoned? No, those that are fit to arise are truly future, but those to be abandoned are not fit to arise, so their not being spoken of as past, etc., is stated. Having regarded insight, having considered the developed path of insight. Due to the absence of a companion, due to the absence of the co-operative cause, which is the abandonment by insight. Not generating results, the intention is that just as with the complete destruction of defilements, even with the destruction of some, that particular action, which is the cause of it, does not ripen. Result is stated in the Vibhaṅga, referring to both kinds of results, rebirth-linking and continuity. Of unwholesome things, of the unwholesome things of ordinary people, with the characteristics as stated. Of things not to be abandoned, of wholesome things, etc., whose nature is not to be abandoned. The nature of being blameworthy is the opposite of not to be abandoned. “Even so,” etc., shows another fault. Thereby, even if those unwholesome things are not included in the third category in this triad, their not being spoken of still applies, this is what it clarifies. That which is not included in the categories of triads and dyads in terms of all phenomena, is subject to not being spoken of, so it says, “does not apply.” Now, it explains that non-application of not being spoken of from the cause and from the example, by “in the section on the arising of consciousness,” etc. Where, in which triad. Necessarily, definitely, absolutely. Of those, of the phenomena included in the three terms. As in the stated terms, as in the first and other three terms. Just as the arisings of consciousness are to be divided, and others are to be divided and assigned into three groups as appropriate, and made from their respective parts, so too. Even there, even in the fourth part. To be assigned, to be assigned the state of not being spoken of. Due to its absence, due to the absence of that fourth part. Thus, in the state of not being spoken of. In the triad of arisen things, past things are not mentioned, the unwholesome things as stated here are not mentioned, even though they are fit to be regarded, they do not transcend that nature. To avoid the fault of not stating what is thus said, he first gives an example of it, saying, "Or just as with those who have a foundation." Its nature here is the absence of being seen and abandoned, distinguished by blameworthiness. By "And thus being so," he shows the quality gained in this case. Regarding those to be abandoned by development, he means those to be abandoned by development, both directly and indirectly. The intention is that for the former, because their nature is not primary, and for the latter, because they are not results, the conditionality of karma in different moments is not stated. And just as there is no conditionality of karma in different moments for those to be abandoned by development, so too, there is no obtaining of conditions for them in terms of those to be abandoned by insight. Showing this, he says, "Nor...pe...stated," and then gives the reason for it: "For those who...pe...occur." Here, "they do not occur beyond that" means that the defilements that are conditions for what is to be abandoned by insight are indeed on the side of what is to be abandoned by insight. Thus, there is no indirect abandonment of them by development. How then could it be said that those to be abandoned by insight are conditions for those to be abandoned by development by any condition? This is the meaning. Alternatively, those that are not to be abandoned by insight in the continuum of ordinary people are not truly to be abandoned by development. But those that are in the continuum of trainees, there are no conditions for them that are to be abandoned by insight. Thus, it should be understood that it is not stated that those to be abandoned by insight are conditions for those to be abandoned by development by any condition. If the defilements that are conditions for what is to be abandoned by insight are on the side of insight, then the agitation accompanied by those conditions should be abandoned by insight. How then is its exclusive abandonment by development stated? Referring to this objection, he says, "Of that which is conditioned by what is to be abandoned by insight," etc. Therefore, just as the nature of karma as having or not having results is established in the continuums of those with and without attachment, due to the lack of a companion, so too, the nature of agitation accompanied by results or without results is established in the continuums of ordinary people and trainees in the manner stated. Therefore. Of that. associated with restlessness. “Of such a kind” means of the same nature as that associated with restlessness. And here, what is said in the Amataggapatha, such as “there is also that which is associated with restlessness that is not to be abandoned by development,” that is without reason. Why? Because it is entirely to be abandoned by development. As it is said, “Which states are to be abandoned by development? The mind-state associated with restlessness” (Dhs. 1583). If indeed that which is associated with restlessness were also not to be abandoned by development, just as in the section on past objects, after saying “there are no objects that are exclusively future,” it is then divided and stated “ten mind-states from the result of wholesome sensuous realm karma,” similarly here, it should have been said, “Which states are to be abandoned by development? There are no states that are exclusively to be abandoned by development,” and then, “the mind-state associated with restlessness might be to be abandoned by development, it might be not to be spoken of as ‘to be abandoned by seeing’ or ‘to be abandoned by development’,” and so on.