English
" Regarding that, if any pre-arising object is spoken of as an object, then the conditionality of disjoined (phenomena) of an object-being base is found, so it should not be said that it is not found. But if "pre-arising object" is spoken of as an object devoid of the nature of a base, distinct from a pre-arising base, then its support conditionality is not found, so it should be said, "the conditionality of disjoined faculty as support is not found." "Beyond this" means "beyond the pre-arising," or it means "beyond the disjoined faculty, beyond the support-disjoined faculty, conditions like object-dominance, etc., whether found or not found, should be understood." This meaning should be added. But regarding kamma and so on, it will not speak of what is found and not found, so the former meaning is intended here. "Nutriment in the form of a morsel is a nutriment condition" is the earlier reading, but it is also an existent and non-disappearance condition. Therefore, they read, "Nutriment in the form of a morsel, without abandoning its nature as a nutriment condition, also attains the state of manifold conditionality by two other modes, namely, as existent and non-disappearance." "In accordance with the ten root-dominances mentioned in the jhana condition, by means of these" is the earlier reading, "in accordance with what is said in the jhana condition, excluding the path..." of the nine, and of the conditions, dominants, and jhānas, by means of these, is the latter reading. Having considered among them, what is suitable should be taken. By being immediately ceased, and by being an object, similar conditionality is similarity of condition. Opposite conditionality is dissimilarity of condition. By the saying "by this method," of the co-arisen conditions (hetu, etc.), similarity by way of co-arising; of the co-arisen and non-co-arisen, of conditions, objects, etc., dissimilarity from one another— by this and similar methods, similarity and dissimilarity should be understood. Only generators, not non-generators— conditions are primarily generators, not primarily supporters; this meaning should be understood. For which conditions (hetu, etc.) are conditions, those do not arise without them, nor do they continue to exist— their dual primary nature is stated. For they do not cause continuity merely by generating, like immediate conditions (anantara, etc.). The state of being a cause for all phenomena is the universal basis; since that exists for these, they are universal conditions. By distinguishing the strong dependence, all three strong dependencies should be stated, or without distinguishing, only the general term "strong dependence" should be used. There, the distinction is to show that natural strong dependence is not a condition for material phenomena. But as object-strong dependence and immediate-strong dependence were previously included by the terms object-dominant and immediate, it should be understood that by immediate-strong dependence, the others are also shown in part. Pre-arisen and post-arisen are also non-universal conditions, because they are conditions only for immaterial and material phenomena respectively. Here, the pre-arisen condition should be stated among the immediate conditions (anantara, etc.), because its movement is similar to them. And the pair-nature with the post-arisen is not the reason for stating it, because only the showing of its non-universal nature is intended. Having read that there, they read: "The post-arisen is also a non-universal condition, because it is a condition only for material phenomena." The commentary on the miscellaneous determinations of the exposition of conditions is finished. Section on Questions 1. Description of Conditions in Forward Order "Each triad-duad" means "each triad and each duad," not "a triad-duad." And the meaning is that those wholesome and other states, which are said to arise dependently, extending in the sense of dependence, are indeed wholesome and other conditions. Therefore it is said: “And indeed they are co-arisen.” But by which causal conditions the arising is stated, those are both co-arisen and not co-arisen. Here, by the sections on 'dependent' and 'co-arisen', which have the same meaning, and by the terms 'dependent' and 'co-arisen' which convey the same meaning, the Blessed One, making the meaning clear, it should be understood that the earlier section is clarified by the later section, and the later section by the earlier section. This is the method in the sections on 'condition-support' and 'intermingled-associated', and thus linguistic skill is generated. But having extracted those questions, it is written again: “A wholesome root for states associated with roots.” “Wholesome roots for associated aggregates” (Paṭṭhāna 1.1.401) is the text of the question section; this is a careless writing, so they recite only the text found in the Pāli. In the previous sections, having defined wholesome and other states by their co-arisen, support, and associated condition-aspects, and having asked about the arising of wholesome and other states by causal conditions etc. within that definition, and having answered, it is not understood there “these are those states that are causal conditions.” Therefore, there, in the mode of extending the sense of dependence, as encompassed by phrases like: “A wholesome state might arise dependently on a wholesome state by way of a root condition” (Paṭṭhāna 1.1.25), due to the lack of certainty about the causal conditions among the states arisen from causal conditions, the questions were not analyzed by making them 'unentangled' and 'unobstructed'. Here, however, the wholesome and other states that are causal conditions, and the states arisen from conditions, encompassed by phrases like: “A wholesome state might be a condition for a wholesome state by way of a root condition,” are ascertained. And since there is no meaning encompassed by the question that is unascertained, it is said: “All those questions are analyzed by making them unentangled and unobstructed.” But the extraction and answering of questions is the same everywhere, so it should be understood that 'unentangled' is not said with reference to that. “Because it is made known by arising”—a question. by being established, by being revealed, by being made known in various ways. 25-34. An inquiry into supposition is an inquiry into method. "What might be?" This method means, "What exists?" "What might be, or what might not be?" This is called an inquiry into supposition, or a consultation. What is this consultation? It is an inquiry made together, "Should one master the Suttanta, or the Abhidhamma?" It means deliberating with another. If it were to mean, "The wholesome phenomenon that might arise due to a root condition, might it be dependent on a wholesome phenomenon?" Then, since all inquiries would apply to post-natal and resultant conditions as well, the meaning, "The wholesome phenomenon that might arise due to a post-natal condition, or a resultant condition, might it be dependent on a wholesome phenomenon?" would be understood. And if that were the case, by specifying that which arises due to post-natal and resultant conditions, and by inquiring into its being dependent on a wholesome phenomenon, it would imply that the arising of wholesome phenomena through these conditions is permitted. But here, it is not the existence of wholesome phenomena dependent on wholesome phenomena that is inquired into for those arising due to those conditions, but rather their arising. And having done so, in the answer, "A wholesome phenomenon arises dependent on a wholesome phenomenon," it is the arising itself that is answered. Therefore, this meaning is flawed. Thus, the alternative meaning is stated as "or alternatively." Therein, "A wholesome phenomenon might arise," to permit the arising, and then to inquire into its being due to a root condition, "Might it be due to a root condition?" Or, "It might arise due to a root condition," to permit the arising due to a root condition, and then to inquire into its being, "Might it be?" This is not appropriate. For what is permitted is already determined. Therefore, without permitting, it should be understood that it asks, "What might be the case for such an arising as stated, 'A wholesome phenomenon might arise dependent on a wholesome phenomenon due to a root condition'?" Or, "Might arise?" This too is a consultation. "Might a wholesome phenomenon arise dependent on a wholesome phenomenon?" is the meaning of 'condition by cause'. 'Siyā' asks about the possibility of something arising as questioned, "Would such an arising be possible?" This is the method of placing 'siyā' at the end. But 'siyā' standing in its own place is a general question. Since "what is asked" is not understood by that question, to specify that question, it asks, "Would a wholesome dhamma arise, conditioned by a wholesome dhamma, by way of cause?" Thus, the two questions, as the specified and the specifier, are to be seen as one question. 'Gamanussukkavacana' means a word expecting a past participle with the same agent as 'gamana' (going). Even though there is no prior or later time for 'paṭigamana' (counter-going) and 'uppatti' (arising), the apprehension of cause and effect, even when co-arisen, occurs as if there were a prior and later state. Thus, in terms of the mode of apprehension, the actions of 'paṭigamana' and 'uppatti', which are defined as dependence on the cause and self-acquisition, are also spoken of as having prior and later times. Or 'gamana' is just 'uppatti'. 'Paṭigamana' for one who is going, 'paṭiuppajjana' for one who is arising, are similar actions. For the meaning of the word 'paṭi' is 'counter'. Therefore, the meaning here is: "having gone counter to the cause, indicated by 'kusalaṃ dhammaṃ', which is arising, by way of its dependent arising."