English
But it is not said thus. And the reasoning put forth by one who supports that view, by saying “if it were to be said,” that too is not reasoning. Why? Because it is desired that only those objects to be abandoned by seeing, namely lust, wrong view, doubt, and restlessness, are to be abandoned by seeing. And what is said, that the non-inclusion of restlessness as a cause in the Adhipati-paccaya-niddesa is given as a reason to show that “restlessness arises” means the mind-state associated with restlessness, that too is without reason, as an incomplete reading is seen otherwise. Thus, in the analysis of “a past state is a condition for a present state, a future state is a condition for a present state by way of object condition” (Paṭṭhāna 2.18.2), the grasping of mind-penetrating knowledge is made, but in the analysis of “a present state is for a present state,” the grasping of mind-penetrating knowledge, though obtainable, is not made. And the companionship of those to be abandoned by seeing with that to be abandoned by development should be considered with respect to giving results. Is it like ignorance, etc., for giving, etc., arising? Are they, by their very ability to cause disturbance, to be abandoned by insight, a supporting cause for those to be abandoned by development? Or are they like defilements, when kamma gives rebirth? What then? If the former method, in the continuum of a trainee like a stream-enterer, that which is to be abandoned by development becomes inactive, due to the lack of support, and being rendered non-resultant, like giving and so on in the continuum of one whose craving and ignorance are destroyed. If the latter, even that which is intended to be abandoned by development becomes something to be abandoned by insight, because when rebirth is given, its nature of leading to lower realms is not overcome. What needs to be said here has already been said below. Therefore, the determination of meaning here, in a way that does not contradict the Pāli and the commentaries, should be understood in the manner stated. "Sā" means restlessness-volition. "As a condition for consciousness" means as a condition for fully ripened resultant consciousness. "Showing the reason" means showing this reason: that although restlessness-volition should be excluded from being a condition for consciousness in the context of producing an unimpaired result, it should be included as conditioned by ignorance. "All" means all twenty. Therefore it is said, "It should be said as twenty-one." "That" refers to the reason by which the volition of supernormal knowledge is not included in the term "formations." "And of the other word" means and of the word "restlessness-volition." What is that? It is simply the absence of being a condition for consciousness. "Absence of distinction" means due to the absence of division in terms of bodily and verbal formations. "Connection" means binding in terms of the three intermediate terms, and also inclusion. With the intention that the grasping of the perception of pleasure is enjoyment, it is said, "by the perception of pleasure... and so on... shows." And this "by the perception of pleasure" is an instrumental case word in the sense of an instrument. Indeed, perversion is the perception of pleasure in suffering. But what is said in the commentary as "by ignorance" is an instrumental case word in the sense of a cause, seeing that ignorance is the cause of perversion and enjoyment. In phrases like "a chariot with white equipment" (SN 5.4), the word "parikkhāra" (equipment) can also mean "accompaniment," it is said. “Surrounded by craving.” It is said that craving is a helper, referring to the auxiliary cause of formations in accomplishing the work of craving. Showing that the meaning of “requisite” is like the meaning of “formation” and the meaning of “adornment,” he said, “formed and adorned.” He forms, he prepares, so that they are capable of yielding fruit. “For immortality” means “for the deathless,” meaning for Nibbāna. “Difficult practice” means the difficult practices like the five-fire penance. “Tapas for divinity” means tapas for the state of a deva. “Kills” means “death,” by implying the causal meaning. They call even inauspicious things auspicious, they are called “auspicious people,” as it is said, “a word for the unseen in the seen,” just as “auspicious in the inauspicious.” It is said, “the suffering of the precipice of birth, etc.,” by making the precipice similar to the suffering of falling. The precipice of the peak of the mountain named Indadudda Brahmakūṭa is the precipice of the desert. “That is its purpose” means that merit-fruit is its purpose, its objective. By the young female wanderer. “Without power” means living without freedom. Disgusting to the wise due to the oozing of defilements and impurities. Suffering due to the burning of lust, etc., and due to its bitter result. “Begins” means “does.” The connection is like the reason for the illusion of happiness in a city of ogres, even if it is fearful, due to its abundance of sense pleasures. “Of different kinds” means unmixed, continuous. “Alteration” means change due to old age and death. From the saying, “I will not attain final Nibbāna yet, O Evil One,” even though the word “tāva” (yet, for a while) is seen in phrases like, “Come, dear, take up this kingship for a while,” and in contexts of quantity, limitation, and mere filling of a word, etc., here, it is intended to refer to what is to be said later, thus it is said, “’Tāva’ is a particle expecting something else to be said.” “But dependent on ignorance…etc…shows” means that the commentary does not contradict what was said earlier with what was said later. “At the times of enjoying lust, etc.” means at the times of enjoying lust, etc. In “accompanied by lust and wrong view,” let the connection be with ignorance accompanied by lust, since lust is a source of enjoyment. But how with ignorance accompanied by wrong view? He says, “that” and views are disjoined… should be understood. Regarding the formations conjoined with that: formations conjoined with greed and so on. Regarding ignorance as the object and so on: ignorance as the object and so on. By the word "and so on," it includes the conditions of object, object-dominant, object-proximate support, natural proximate support, and immediately preceding conditions. Regarding what is not an object of ignorance: what is not an object of ignorance, what occurs without taking ignorance as an object. In the statements of object, dominant, and immediately preceding conditions and so on: it should be connected thus: "what is not an object of ignorance, which is unmentioned in the statements of object, dominant, and proximate support conditions; the first impulsion, which is unmentioned in the statements of immediately preceding conditions and so on; and the second and subsequent impulsions, which are objects of ignorance and mentioned in both." This meaning, that ignorance is a condition for formations which obtain immediately preceding conditions by way of immediate and so on, which are co-arisen by way of root and so on, and which are not co-arisen by way of proximate support and so on, is shown by "whatever…" and so on. It should be understood. By way of desiring to transcend existence: meaning, in the manner stated regarding meritorious volitional formations, in accordance with the stated method, for one who generates formless attainments for the purpose of transcending ignorance, or for one who generates those same absorptions having desired the attainments of formless existence due to being deluded by ignorance. The doctrine of a single cause would arise, like the doctrines of nature, god, Prajāpati, person, time, and so on. If there were only one cause for the world, then all occurrences would have to proceed from it without remainder, and always, because there would be no other cause to be expected. But this is not so, as occurrences are seen to proceed gradually. However, the doctrine of a single cause would be refuted by the expectation of other causes, and by the non-existence of a single entity having multiple natures. Whatever arises from it, all of them must be of the same nature, not dissimilar, otherwise its single nature would not exist. This meaning is stated in "of all… …and from attainment." By elimination: when these three types— one from one, many from one, and one from many— are absent, are not found, then by the logic of elimination, many from many. In the fourth way, when it exists, that which is "conditioned by ignorance are formations, conditioned by contact is feeling," and so on, a single cause-and-effect exposition, that here, by the manner of teaching, or by the disposition of the trainees, is for the purpose of revealing the prominent, manifest, and unique nature of phenomena. Thus, the single cause-and-effect exposition is not inappropriate, it is indeed appropriate, as shown by "since..." and so on. "According to contact" means corresponding to that particular contact, such as eye-contact that is productive of pleasant feeling, and so on, as stated. To show this, after saying "productive of pleasant feeling" and so on, to explain the meaning of the phrase "the determination of feeling," "when similar" and so on is said. There, "when similar" means undifferentiated. "By way of contact" means by way of contact productive of pleasant feeling, and so on. "Due to the absence of reversal" means due to the absence of contradiction. For never does a painful feeling arise conditioned by a contact productive of pleasant feeling, nor a pleasant feeling conditioned by a contact productive of painful feeling, and so on. "Of feelings born of pleasant eye-contact and so on" means of pleasant and so on, and of feelings born of eye-contact and so on. "Gross, subtle, and so on" means the word "and so on" should be understood to include inferior, superior, and so on. There,