English
The commentary on the One Intention is finished. 3-7. Commentary on the Exercise of Power and Free Will. 910-914. The doing of what is intended by power is the exercise of power and free will. "Should go" means should go to enter the womb. Here, in "difficult deeds are done by wrong view due to the exercise of power and free will," the meaning should be understood as: difficult deeds, when done due to the exercise of power and free will, are done by wrong view. Or, there is no doing due to the exercise of power and free will without wrong view. Is The explanation of the discourse on 'acting as one wishes' is finished. 8. Explanation of the discourse on 'resemblance' Referring to loving-kindness and so on, they say: "Just as there is no desire that is a resemblance of desire, like loving-kindness and so on, so one takes desire itself. Likewise with hatred." The explanation of the discourse on 'resemblance' is finished. 9. Explanation of the discourse on 'unfulfilled' Here, by "not impermanent and so on state," "the state of impermanence and so on belongs to this" is said to be form. By saying "not only is the first truth suffering," it is shown that the question "only suffering is fulfilled" was asked referring to the truth of suffering. If this is so, then "the eye-base is unfulfilled" and so on should not be said by him. For the eye-base and so on are not ungrasped, nor are they supramundane. Therefore, the meaning is: "Only suffering is fulfilled, not form" - this, because form is also suffering, should not, indeed, be said. The explanation of the discourse on 'unfulfilled' is finished. The explanation of the twenty-third section is finished. The Root Commentary on the Kathāvatthu is concluded. Homage to that Blessed One, the Worthy One, the Perfectly Self-Enlightened One. Root Commentary on the Yamaka Explanation of the Commencement of the Text Having prevented wrong apprehension of doctrines by the Kathāvatthu, taught concisely, and with those very doctrines elucidated in the Dhammasaṅgaha and so on, the Yamaka treatise was commenced for the purpose of various kinds of skill by way of resolving doubts concerning the supports of doctrines, persons, spaces, and so on. And having shown that, by way of time, place, and speaker, and the turn for its commentary has arrived, acknowledging its commentary with "the burden that has come must surely be borne," he says "concisely indeed" and so on. Here, "gone beyond the realm of Yama" (or "the pair"). Birth, meaning "when there is birth, there is death," or the five aggregates of clinging, are the realm of Yama. The meaning is: gone beyond that by abandoning its origin. Or, gone beyond the realm of Yama, the king, which is death, or the place where his command prevails. "Six impossible things to do" (Khp. 6.11; Sn. 234) and so on. He points out the six impossible states, the expounder of the six states. Each one, being spiraled, dark, and pure, are his body hairs; thus he has spiraled, dark, and pure body hairs. The description of the book's commencement is finished. 1. The Root Pair. Description of the Summary Section. 1. By 'because it is taught by means of pairs,' it shows that the designation 'by means of pairs' is obtained for each group of pairs among the ten, and for that group, and for the entire treatise. The meaning-pair, by means of two meanings, namely wholesome and unwholesome roots, if by this, 'whatever states are wholesome, all those are wholesome roots,' becomes a pair, you say? It does not become so. Because it is said that the meaning-pair is by means of the specific wholesome and unwholesome roots mentioned in the second and first questions, which are desired to be known; or by means of the specific wholesome roots and wholesome states mentioned in the first and second questions, which are desired to be known, and which are included in the concluding terms. For the specific things desired to be known, which depend on the possessors of those specific things, or for the states possessing those specific things, which depend on the specific things, the primary status is here. Thus, for each question, only one meaning is included. And here, the word 'attha' (meaning) is not a word for 'state' (dhamma) or 'cause and effect,' but rather a word for the meaning of the Pāli text. Therefore, it is said, 'of those very meanings,' and so on. 'Having made even three terms into one' this is said with reference only to the noun term's inclusion of wholesome states and so on, not its inclusion of everything without remainder. And because the noun term is mentioned for the purpose of including all wholesome states and so on, it is said, 'in the four terms of the wholesome triad matrix.' The description of the Summary Section is finished. Description of the Elaboration Section. 52. In the reciprocal pair, here, regarding 'without asking "whatever states are wholesome"', just as in the second pair, without asking 'whatever states are wholesome roots,' the question 'whatever states are wholesome' was asked, so here too, the question 'whatever states are wholesome' should be asked. The meaning is that by taking the unique characteristic of the former pair, the latter pair does not arise. Some say: because it is in accordance with the reverse question. But the latter question, made according to the meaning of the former question, should be in accordance with it, since doubt arises in the reverse for one whose doubt is dispelled in the direct. Therefore, the former meaning is appropriate here: that the former question should not be in accordance with the latter question. Even with this expression, since the same meaning is possible, it cannot be said thus. For the meaning of the expression "wholesome" is not the same as the meaning of the expression "having one root with the wholesome root," and therefore the answer is also different. For when a question is asked with the expression "wholesome," in this place "the remaining" it must be said "the remaining wholesome states," otherwise "the remaining states co-arising with the wholesome root," and those words do not have the same meaning in explaining wholesome, unwholesome, and indeterminate. This might be the meaning here: that even with the expression "whatever are wholesome," since the meaning of the expression "whatever have one root with the wholesome root" is possible, the question was asked "whatever have one root with the wholesome root" without asking it as in the second pair. For there are no other wholesome states that have one root with the wholesome root, as there are with wholesome roots, but there are others that are wholesome. In the explanation of the reverse question, it was said that when the question "having one root with the wholesome root" is asked, the answer should be given in the manner stated below: "the roots that arise together." But that too cannot be said thus. And when asked: "And whatever states are mutually rooted with the wholesome root, are all those states having one root with the wholesome root?" the answer should be "Yes." For there is nothing among those mutually rooted with the wholesome root that is not of one root, so that a division would have to be made as in the direct question. Where three wholesome roots arise, there they are mutually rooted and of one root, because each pair of two is mutually of one root. But where two arise, there they are only mutually rooted, not of one root. To prevent the understanding of "what roots?" Should the answer be given, "roots which arise together," etc.? No. Because that understanding is prevented by the answer "yes" alone. And by the answer to the direct question. The mutual single-rootedness of two or three roots arising together is established. For mutual roots, only their common rootedness is asked by the word "single-rooted." Not their mutually common rootedness. And there is common rootedness for two roots. For among them, each one is commonly rooted with the other root, and with other roots from those roots. But when mutual rootedness is established, there is no doubt about single-rootedness. Therefore, it should be understood that the question "Are all these phenomena single-rooted with a wholesome root?" is not asked. "These have roots of one another" means "mutually rooted." "These have one root in the sense of commonality" means "single-rooted." Both expressions speak of being connected to roots. And for that reason, in both cases, "with a wholesome root" is stated. There, when common rootedness, single-rootedness, is established, its specific characteristic, mutual rootedness, is not established. Therefore, the direct question arises. But when the specific characteristic of root connection, mutual rootedness, is established, mutual rootedness cannot exist without single-rootedness. Therefore, the common rootedness, single-rootedness, is already established. Therefore, without asking "single-rooted," just as the expression "wholesome root" and "single-rooted" do not indicate wholesomeness, and because there is doubt about wholesomeness, in the first and second pairs, the reverse question "Are all these phenomena wholesome?" is asked. Similarly, the expression "mutually rooted" does not indicate wholesomeness, and because there is doubt about wholesomeness, and because the context of wholesomeness continues, the reverse question "Are all these phenomena wholesome?" is asked. In the sense stated in the root method (53-61), by qualifying the root as having a wholesome root nature, by a common root, and by a mutual root, and by indicating root connection, to make it clear by this alternative method, the root-root method is stated. Other. By the letter 'ka' at the end of a non-meaningful compound, to show only the root connection in all three Yamakas, the root method is stated. The explanation of the statement of the root-root method is just as stated. 74-85.