English
its inclusion is made. Or else, if there were no second word "root", it might be understood as "a condition by way of root-condition for those conjoined with roots, but not for roots themselves," to prevent that, it is stated. By that, it is shown that those who attain the state of being conjoined with roots, all their roots, and others too, are conditions by way of root-condition. But because roots, jhānas, and paths are independent in the sense of being mere foundations, etc., and not dependent like nutriment-faculties, therefore, in these very cases, the second mention of "root" etc. is made. But nutriment-faculties are dependent on what is to be nourished and what is to be sought, therefore, even without a second mention of "nutriment-faculty", they themselves define other conjoined phenomena as nutriment-faculties in what is to be nourished and what is to be sought, so that is not done there. And here, by the second mention of "root", because the roots that have arisen as conditions, and other conjoined phenomena, are defined by the root itself as the condition, there is no need for further specification. Therefore, it should be understood that in the question section, in phrases like "wholesome roots for the conjoined aggregates" (Paṭṭhāna 1.1.401), the second mention of "root" is not made. Regarding "because what is to be indicated is not clear": the word "that" refers to the preceding statement, it is an indication of what has been stated, and it occurs only when what is to be indicated by the preceding statement is clear, as in "the visible object for the eye-consciousness element and those conjoined with it" (Paṭṭhāna 1.1.2). And here, the root-word specifically indicated, which is active in "is a condition by way of root-condition", is not to be referred to by the word "that" as it is by the word "conjoined", and there is no other indicator of what is to be indicated. not stated. Therefore, the meaning is that "those associated with them" was also not stated. However, by the word "associated with causes," which is an incomplete word for the resultant, and which expects another word for the resultant, that which is to be indicated by the previously mentioned word "them" is made clear. Therefore, the word "them" is used in "those arisen from them." What, then, is made clear by the word "them" in that word "associated with causes" that is to be indicated? The causes with which "those associated with causes" are associated, those causes themselves, and those associated with causes that are qualified by them, serving as qualifications. Therefore, it says, "those causes themselves," and so on. Otherwise, if it were connected with the word "cause" directly indicated by "those causes themselves," just as what is to be indicated by the word "them" is clear here, so too it should have been clear previously. Then, "because what is to be indicated was not clear, 'those associated with them' was not stated" would not be appropriate. Or, it raises and refutes the objection of "them"-word-ness by removing both types of cause-grasping. And "those arisen from them" is appropriate for "those arisen from causes." For causes are conditions. Even not generating mind-born form, the word "even" means even generating. If, by the statement "of those arisen from mind," because the kamma-born form at the moment of rebirth is not grasped, it was not stated, then in the analysis of the conascent condition, the conditionality of mind and mental factors for that kamma-born form would not have been stated. And if there, the conditionality of kamma-born forms, which have similar characteristics to those arisen from mind, was indicated by the conditionality of those arisen from mind, then it should be so here too. However, the statement "of those arisen from them" instead of "of those arisen from mind" is to show that those arisen from mind are arisen from all mind and mental factors. In this way, the statement "arisen from them" qualifies the statement "arisen from" mentioned in various places. Is it not that by the statement "mind and mental factors are of those arisen from mind," of those arisen from mind, Is it said that they arise from mind and mental factors? It is not said. For only the conditionality of mind and mental factors is stated there. By "having its existence bound to mind," it also shows its being bound to causes and so on. "And whatever, monks, one intends, whatever one plans, whatever one inclines to, that is an object for the standing of consciousness. When there is an object, there is a foundation for consciousness. When that consciousness is founded and grown, there is the descent of name-and-form. From name-and-form as condition, there are the six sense bases" (Saṃ. Ni. 2.39). In this Sutta too, the conditionality of consciousness for rebirth name-and-form is stated, so it says "when that is founded," and so on. Just as a seed is founded on already existing earth, so too the consciousness-seed, produced by already existing kamma, is founded on it. It is said that kamma is the arising. Therefore, it says: "Kamma is the field, consciousness is the seed." And whose field and seed is that? Of the sprout of name-and-form. And this meaning is the existence of kamma-born formations in rebirth, bound to mind. By "in the sense of space," it means in the sense of the space of name-and-form. For that is the space for that meaning. By saying "even merely the base-material form," it shows the conditionality of formless phenomena for the other forms that support the base-material form, by way of their supporting it, or merely co-existence. Since the aggregates of body-existence and so on are absent in some places and not absent in others, it says "even without merely the base-material form." "With an owner" is said as a specific qualification for this, meaning "with a king." "Repelling the conditionality of kamma-born forms and so on in the course of existence." Why is this said? Is there not even a possibility of their conditionality, by the statement "causes of co-arisen things" (Paṭṭhāna Aṭṭhakathā 1.1)? For those for which causes are not a co-arisen condition are not called causal co-arisen things. If they were, then "a wholesome phenomenon, co-arisen, an indeterminate phenomenon arises not by way of cause-condition," and so on, would be obtainable, but it is not obtainable. Therefore, Are they not arisen with a cause? This is true. But if someone, taking mere simultaneous arising with causes, should think that they are arisen with a cause, then this implication exists, and this is what is meant. The Blessed One, however, does not consider the lightness or heaviness of words, but in accordance with the disposition of those to be enlightened, without distorting the nature of the Dhamma, he regulates the teaching in various ways. Therefore, the abundance or scarcity of letters should not be questioned anywhere. The description of the Condition of Cause is concluded. 2. Description of the Condition of Object 2. “At the moment of arising” by this, it should be understood that the entire present moment is taken by a part of the present moment. For not only at the moment of arising are forms, etc., an object condition for eye-consciousness, etc., but throughout the entire present moment. By this, it shows that even for forms, etc., which are being apprehended, and which exist before and after the present moment of eye-consciousness, etc., there is no object conditionality. What then to say of those not being apprehended? “They do not occur together” means that blue, etc., all forms do not occur together, and similarly sounds, etc. For the word “whatever, whatever” distinguishes forms, etc. Here, by the former meaning, it shows that by the word “arise,” “whatever, whatever dhamma,” etc., is stated to illustrate the characteristic of object conditionality. By the latter, by the word “whatever, whatever,” it is to illustrate the distinction of forms, etc. “Or whatever, whatever is apprehended” the meaning here should also be taken in the sense of all objects, etc., shown in its description. “Thus it is said” just as the flowing and standing of rivers and mountains is continuous and uninterrupted, so the present tense word “flow, stand” is used. Similarly, by “whatever, whatever dhammas,” because all past, future, and present are taken collectively, their arising and occurring is uninterrupted, so the present tense word “arise” is used. This is the intention. However, these conditions, such as cause, are not all for the past and future. For the past and And there is the future, for which these conditions might exist. And having done so, in the past triad, no condition was stated for past and future (things). Therefore, here too, by the word "arising," those for whom material forms etc. are object-phenomena and are object-conditions, they are to be understood as shown as present. For when past and future (things) are shown, the meaning that their respective conditions existed and will exist is shown, but not their being possessed of respective conditions. For those possessed of conditions are only present. And here, having made a singular designation "referring to whatever phenomenon," then the plural designation "those phenomena" is for showing that the object-phenomenon spoken of as "whatever" can also be manifold. For the four aggregates are simultaneously object-conditions. Even if all of them arise referring to (an object), it is not that (a mental state) does not arise referring to each one of them. Therefore, "whatever" is said to show that each one of feelings etc. and contacts etc. can be an object-condition, and "those" is said to show that all included in a single mind-moment can be object-conditions. Therein, whatever individual material form etc. is spoken of by the word "whatever," and whatever manifold contacts etc. are spoken of individually by the word "whatever,"