English
It is proper that the triads are included in the dyads. But how are the dyads included in the triads? Because, even though spoken of later, the dyads are connected in each respective triad by way of the one who expects and the one to be expected. It is said that the functional mind-element is obtained by way of adverting. But adverting is not conditioned by eye-contact. For in the same cognitive process, a later phenomenon is not a condition for an earlier one. And those who say, "adverting-feeling itself, having arisen through eye-impingement, is thus spoken of," that is not proper. For it is not said anywhere, in a Sutta or commentary, that "eye-contact is the impingement of eye and form." If that were eye-contact, then feeling co-arisen with eye-consciousness would also be conditioned by eye-contact, and it should not be excluded here in the commentary. And since in the Pāli, "feeling conditioned by eye-contact is indeterminate" is included here, it should not be said again, "feeling born of eye-contact." But this is the intention here: without adverting-feeling, there is no arising of eye-contact. Therefore, that which produces it, being its purpose, is properly said to be indirectly conditioned by eye-contact. But directly, feelings are obtained only after eye-contact. Here, by way of the thirty-four mind-arisings, the non-inclusion of the rūpa and arūpa spheres is because they themselves are the mind-door. All b- The mind that goes to becoming is indeed the mind-door. And death and rebirth (consciousness) are not different from it. But in this twenty-fourfold classification, the wholesome states, etc., arising from eye-contact, etc., are found in the same thought-process, as stated in the commentary. However, in the Pāli (text), the nineteen and twenty-four (classifications) are given in brief, as in, 'dependent on eye-contact, there is the aggregate of feeling, ungrasped, not conducive to grasping, undefiled, not conducive to defilement, without initial application, without sustained application,' and so on. Because it is stated that they are found in various thought-processes, the wholesome triad also should be understood as being found in various thought-processes. But in the commentary, having made it definitive that those arising from eye-contact, etc., are in the same thought-process, their being found here is shown. But their being found in different thought-processes is not rejected. Therefore, it is said: 'It is proper to speak of them, standing in any of the sevenfold classifications, etc.' Indeed, it is not only in the same thought-process that they are found by means of the development of transcending the limit of strong dependence. And referring to their being found in all three ways, it is said: 'It is proper to speak of them, standing anywhere.' 'These' refers to the wholesome states, etc., as shown. And even in the exposition of feeling, it is easy to speak of it by way of the preceding consciousness. Thus, a connection to consciousness is made. But therefore, the consciousnesses in the sevenfold classification are explained by way of the triad and planes; in the twenty-fourfold classification, by way of the doors and triad; in the thirtyfold classification, by way of the doors and planes; and in the manifold classification, by way of the doors, triad, and planes. Thus it is said: 'It is proper to speak of them, standing in any of these.' The exposition of wholesome states, etc., should be done by way of the planes of the sense-sphere, etc. And these planes are naturally included in the thirtyfold classification. And the door is not untouched, as in the sevenfold classification. And their being found in both similar and dissimilar thought-processes is very clear here. Thus, it is said: 'In the thirtyfold classification... they are easy expositions.' But why did they explain, standing only in the thirtyfold classification? Surely, because the doors, triads, and planes are touched upon, they should be explained, standing in the manifold classification? No. Due to exceeding the place to be explained. Indeed, the sevenfold division, because the door is not touched, is not a place for explanation. In the twenty-fourfold division, the touched-door triads are not established considering the planes. In the thirty-fold division, the touched-door planes are stated. And those that are established here, without needing to consider triads, are to be explained only together with the planes. Therefore, this is a place for explanation, but by exceeding it, there is an exceeding of the place. Here, regarding "the apex of strong dependence," it is said that in various thought-processes, the natural strong dependence is stated, as in "one gives a gift relying on faith" (Paṭṭhāna 1.1.423). In a single thought-process, eye-contact and so on for wholesome states, etc., due to their absence in the absence of the former, might be considered a condition by way of a trace of strong dependence, like birth is for old age and death. But here, it will be said: "Feelings of preliminary practice, etc., arising due to the sight of a kasiṇa object, are conditioned by eye-contact." Therefore, these consciousnesses, occurring in various thought-processes and obtained through eye-contact, mean that a trace of strong dependence is not the apex of strong dependence. Rather, the primary strong dependence, which is the origin of all strong and weak strong dependences like preliminary practices, is the apex of strong dependence. Indeed, "koṭi" (apex) means origin or a part, as in "the tip of a hair is not perceived." And since the strong dependence for feelings of sense-sphere wholesome states, etc., begins from the sight of the kasiṇa object, that sight is the apex of strong dependence. Or, since the sight is not a strong strong dependence like preliminary practices, its being the end of strong dependence is called the apex of strong dependence. By stating the absence of obtaining the apex of strong dependence in the three doors of nose, etc., it is shown that a similar thought-process is not taken here. Indeed, smelling, etc., are not strong dependences for kasiṇa preliminary practices, etc., like seeing and hearing are, thus their non-obtainment is shown. Although the air kasiṇa is to be grasped by touching, yet without prior hearing, that touching itself is generally not the root strong dependence, therefore its being the apex of strong dependence is not stated. One who has attained by way of intention is endowed with intention, endowed with intention. is said to be. Duties and counter-duties are minor and major duties, a duty done previously, a counter-duty done subsequently. Thus, “eye-consciousness” refers to that which arises at the beginning, and also to those that arise afterwards, such as seeing a meditation object, seeing a good friend, seeing a cause for spiritual urgency, these are indeed supporting conditions. Therefore, it should be understood that it shows eye-consciousness as having that as its support. Not seeing the true nature of things is non-reflection. Of one bound to forms and so on, thinking “I am.” Of one grasped by way of touching another nature, meaning, of one who is grasped. Of one whose defilement of stability has become strong, due to the nature of arising again and again by way of grasping the object, or of one whose sensual desire and so on are not abandoned. “Standing in comprehension” means standing in investigation. And here, by “non-reflection” and so on, an investigation by way of the arising of delusion and so on, made evident by their function, should be seen. It says “born conditioned by eye-contact” because it arises by way of overcoming defilements that arose from seeing form, and is thus caused by seeing form. And here, the supporting nature of eye-contact for feeling in the four realms is explained in another way, and similarly in “by way of development.” Having applied the three characteristics by way of comprehension in groups, and having comprehended the form object at the beginning of the vipassanā practice, such as the contemplation of rise and fall, or having comprehended everything rooted in that, it says “having comprehended the form object” because it occurs in the initial form object. And here, all comprehension, such as the comprehension of mind and matter, should be understood as development. And by “having comprehended the form object,” the form object that is the object of the aforementioned eye-consciousness is meant, not just any form object. For it shows eye-contact by means of the object. Similarly, it should be understood in “the defilement arisen in the form object.” This tangible object, what does it depend on? By way of connection, as in the eye-door, the water element, of one another, as far as possible. and the dependence on the great elements should be connected. Birth…etc.…is a strong condition, thus it shows the strong conditionality of birth and so on, which are seen as fearful as stated, and of the mind-contact born together with the seeing of their fear, or of the bhavanga-mind-contact which is the door to that seeing. "Mental object" means not only the birth and so on mentioned before, but all mental objects that are objects of lust and so on. "Dependent on the object" here shows the comprehension of mental objects by way of comprehending a part of the mental object, such as feeling and so on. "Mind-contact" means that consciousness is taken as the cause of contact, and it is not proper to speak of it as its own fruit, as it would cause confusion for listeners due to the mixing of cause and effect. Therefore, it says, "It is not possible to designate consciousness as born of mind-contact," not because consciousness is not co-existent with mind-contact. Or, just as consciousness is a special condition for contact, like the sense organs and their objects, according to the saying "The coming together of three is contact" (M.N. 1.