English
any of the eighteen things can be an object-pre-nascent cause. Here, in “being its object,” due to the absence of a basis-pre-nascent cause for the resultant consciousness at rebirth, Because of the absence of the other, there is no apprehension. But for that which is of the nature of bhavaṅga, apprehension should or should not be made, just as for the indistinct object of rebirth-linking, because it is merely an object; and also for the mind-consciousness element which is of the nature of investigating, as in "and of the mind-elements". The explanation of the condition of pre-natally arisen is finished. 11. Explanation of the condition of post-natally arisen "Of that same" - this is said in the way of showing the pre-natally arisen completely shown for kāmāvacara and rūpāvacara results, but the rūpāvacara result is not of food-originated. The explanation of the condition of post-natally arisen is finished. 12. Explanation of the condition of repetition "Distinguished by being more practiced and more powerful" - by this, it is distinguished from result and indeterminate. The explanation of the condition of repetition is finished. 13. Explanation of the condition of kamma Kamma associated with volition, such as covetousness, is not a kamma condition, thus it is said, "volitional kamma alone". For even though it is of the nature of having results, it is not of such a nature without volition. "Capable of producing its own fruit" - by this, the capability of kamma is said to be its kamma condition. "Only in the five aggregates, not elsewhere" - by this, it is shown that kāmāvacara volition does not produce even rūpa in the one aggregate. The explanation of the condition of kamma is finished. 14. Explanation of the condition of result In the explanation of the result condition, the method is shown in terms of those for whom the result is absolutely a result condition. For in the immaterial realms, the result of the two planes is not a condition for rūpa. The explanation of the condition of result is finished. 15. Explanation of the condition of food "Having made it into a morsel and swallowed it" - this means having swallowed it together with things like eaten and drunk. For even things to be drunk and tasted are by nature morsels. "Having become merely a maintainer of that arisen from the remaining continuum" - here, the food condition of that arisen from mind should be understood after consideration. For food that is a morsel, arisen from mind, is not... not arisen from mind, and both are said to be the condition of food for the body arisen from mind. But all three are said to be for the body not arisen from mind. The description of the food condition is finished. 16. Description of the Faculty Condition 16. Even the formless life faculty is included, meaning that because of its mixed nature, the life faculty is not to be entirely excluded. In "of inseparable phenomena," this is the meaning: There is no term for the inseparability of form and formless phenomena from each other. Thus, the eye and other faculties, which are conditions for the formless faculties and depend on other conditions, even if they do not extend their faculty condition to the inseparable phenomena at the moment of their existence, they could still be faculty conditions. But the independent faculty condition that exists for inseparable phenomena does not fail to extend its faculty condition to them at the moment of its existence. And if the female and male faculties were faculty conditions for gender signs and so on, they would also be for those that are inseparable. For there is no faculty condition for form separate from form, or for formless separate from formless. And if this were so, gender signs and so on would exist at the time of the kalala (embryonic stage) due to their inseparability from the female and male faculties, for which they would extend their faculty condition, but they do not extend it. Therefore, they are not inseparable from them, and because of the absence of inseparability, they do not extend their faculty condition to them. But for others with which they are co-arisen, they do not extend it simply because they are not seeds. Therefore, because they do not extend their faculty condition to these gender signs and so on, which have become separated, and to other phenomena of the same kalapa (group), they are not faculty conditions. Some say that for those for which the female and male faculties are seeds, it is because of the ultimate non-existence of gender signs and so on. But they desire the existence of gender signs and so on, corresponding to them, even at the kalala stage. Among the distinctions stated by class and plane, only the wholesome of the form realm should be placed in the formless realm, thus "except for..." the wholesome of the sense-sphere, and the remaining wholesome and unwholesome.” The first supramundane, and that accompanied by displeasure, are not distinct as one class or plane, so even though they are not found in the formless realms, they are not excluded. In the case of causes and so on, this method should be applied to phrases like “similarly, wholesome causes not included therein, similarly, unwholesome causes” (Paṭṭhāna Commentary 1.1). At the static moment: this is said with reference to the life faculty of matter not being a co-nascent condition. However, at the moment of arising, its faculty conditionality cannot be denied. For it will be said: “Dependent on an indeterminate phenomenon… (etc.)… dependent on one great primary element in non-percipient beings… (etc.)… the faculty condition is similar to the kamma condition” (Paṭṭhāna 1.1.66). For there is no other faculty condition for the matter arising in non-percipient beings, apart from the life faculty of matter, and for kamma-born matter in the five-constituent existence. The Dependent Origination sections and so on, all proceed by taking only the moment of arising, and thus the post-nascent condition does not stand in these in the direct order. The explanation of the Faculty Condition section is concluded. 17. Explanation of the Jhāna Condition Section 17. “Comprising initial application, sustained application, rapture, pleasure, displeasure, equanimity, and one-pointedness of mind”: here, although pleasure and displeasure are not jhāna factors, the jhāna factors that are pleasure and pain are indeed mental pleasure and displeasure, not bodily pleasure and pain. This inclusion of pleasure and displeasure is made to show this. But surely, by the phrase “excluding the double fivefold consciousnesses,” bodily pleasure and pain are already excluded, so only the inclusion of pleasure and pain should be made? No, because of the specific nature of jhāna-factor pleasure and pain as jhāna factors. For if it were said, “excluding the double fivefold consciousnesses, comprising pleasure, pain, equanimity, and one-pointedness of mind,” only this much would be understood: that bodily pleasure and pain are excluded along with equanimity and one-pointedness of mind in the double fivefold consciousnesses, but not that the pleasure The state of suffering is also distinguished, therefore, to show that the state of pleasure and pain, distinguished by the state of joy and sorrow, is the factor of jhāna for pleasure and pain, the taking of joy and sorrow is done. By this, by the statement "except for the ten consciousnesses," it is shown that even for the pleasure and pain that are excluded, due to the absence of the state of joy and sorrow, there is an absence of the jhāna factor. But why are the excluded pleasure, pain, equanimity, and one-pointedness excluded? Because in the section on the arising of consciousness, where the jhāna factors are enumerated, they are not enumerated as jhāna factors. Why are they not enumerated? To show this, it begins with "for the five consciousness-bodies." By "merely falling upon," it shows the absence of thought-process even in mere adverting and receiving. The ancient reading is "even the equanimity, pleasure, and pain present in them." Here, it should be understood that the non-enumeration of equanimity, pleasure, and pain, and also of one-pointedness of mind, which has the same characteristic, is shown by the reason already stated. However, when previously showing seven factors, four factors were excluded. When showing the reason for their exclusion, it should not be shown in a way that has the same characteristic. For this is an Aṭṭhakathā (commentary). And if it were to be shown in that way, only one of the three mentioned would need to be stated. But by stating all three, it would imply that something else is a jhāna factor, or that there is a reason for non-enumeration other than the one already stated. Therefore, to avoid that fault, they read "equanimity, one-pointedness of mind, pleasure, and pain." But for those who say, "The reason for the non-enumeration as jhāna factors of pleasure and so on, which are similar to joy and so on, which are jhāna factors, in their non-manifestation as pleasure and pain, and in their being connected with the function of faculties, should be stated, not that of one-pointedness of mind; therefore, it is not included here," that is merely their preference. If the reason for the non-enumeration as jhāna factors of those similar to jhāna factors should be stated, and if one-pointedness of mind is here, which is a jhāna factor... In the highest mind-element of shadow, etc., due to one-pointedness of mind, it is equal; the reason for its not being uplifted should be stated. Even in the remaining rootless states, the jhāna factor is uplifted; the intention is that in the section on the arising of consciousness, it is uplifted. The exposition of the Jhāna Condition is concluded. 18. Exposition of the Path Condition 18.