English
By this, it is said that 'paṭicca' means "having made it a co-arisen condition." Making it a co-arisen condition is 'paṭigamana' (counter-going) towards the arising, which is facing the arising. Having made that is the meaning of the word 'paṭicca'. 35-38. In these, only two are shown in the Pāḷi, meaning that two questions are shown in the 'hetārammaṇaduka' (pair of cause and object). And here, the nature of the questions as having one root, etc., is to be understood. But in terms of conditions, the first is the 'suddhikanaya' (pure method), because it is not mixed with other conditions. The second is the 'ekamūlakanaya' (one-root method), having made only the cause as the single root among the objects, etc. Thus, the root nature of the 'hetārammaṇaduka' and 'adhipati' (dominance), etc. The methods beginning with the two-rooted, and the three-rooted, should be understood. The twenty-three-rooted method, and beyond that, due to the absence of roots, is called "all-rooted" in the Pāḷi. There, by the neuter gender designation, one... ...the going of the all-rooted condition, the going of the Pāḷi, is understood, or the application is, one... ...the all-rooted method, by one who is not confused, and here, because "all-rooted" is said of the twenty-three-rooted, it will be said in the opposite: "Just as in the direct order, for each single term, there is a one-rooted... ...up to a twenty-three-rooted, so too in the reverse order, it should be elaborated." "By the condition of object, by the condition of root-cause," it is said, "up to this point, beginning with the condition of object, and ending with the condition of root-cause, the one-rooted method is shown." If this is so, the Pāḷi progression would be like a wheel-binding in the Vinaya, not by way of bottom-up purification. But here in the Abhidhamma, the Pāḷi proceeds by way of bottom-up purification. And having done so, in the explanation, "By the condition of object, three for the root-cause; by the condition of dominance, three; by the condition of dominance, nine for the root-cause; in the object, three," the Pāḷi proceeds after purifying the bottom. And what is called "one-rooted method" here, that is the pure method. And it is not found in the object-rooted and so on, due to the absence of distinction. For even if placed at the beginning in each of the object and so on, due to the absence of connection with other conditions, no distinct meaning is obtained from the pure method stated at the beginning. Therefore, in the explanation too, the pure method is not shown in the object-rooted and so on. Therefore, "By the condition of object, by the condition of root-cause; by the condition of object, by the condition of dominance... ...by the condition of object, by the condition of non-disappearance," this one-rooted method, stated by combining the root-cause and so on with a single condition of object by way of bottom-up purification, should be understood. Or, "By the condition of object... ...by the condition of non-disappearance," showing the object as the root of the immediately preceding condition among the one-rooted, and abbreviating the one-rooted and so on, at the end of the all-rooted, the non-disappearing condition. is to be understood as completed. The root of Adhipati, Anantara, Samanantara, Sahajāta, Aññamañña is to be understood as a summary of the single-root and so on, by showing only this root, not as a pure demonstration, nor as a demonstration of a few conditions in all roots. 41. Then, having summarized the roots such as Nissaya and so on, to show the method of the Avigata root, “Avigata conditions, Hetu conditions,” and so on, was begun. And in this, since the pure demonstration is not shown, it is made known that the pure method is not obtained separately in the Ārammaṇa root and so on. For “ādi” (and so on) is not included in any other summary. A summary is indeed the showing of the middle ones by the beginning and end, or the showing of the course by saying a few things from the beginning. Having stated the second tetrad, the word “vigata conditions” was extracted and placed. By that, it shows the final tetrad. Or, from the third tetrad onwards, having summarized the five-condition roots, it concludes with the end of all roots. And here, in the two-condition roots and so on, just as the remaining conditions are combined with the Hetu-Ārammaṇa dyad, and the remaining remaining ones with the Hetu-Ārammaṇa-Adhipati triad and so on, so too, the remaining remaining ones should be combined with the Hetu-Adhipati dyad and so on, and with the Hetu-Adhipati-Anantara triad and so on. And if, because all conditions are combined as roots, there is no difference between the Hetu-Adhipati dyad and so on in the Hetu root and the Adhipati-Hetu dyad and so on in the Adhipati root and so on. For indeed, those very conditions are stated in reverse order. Nevertheless, there is a difference in the combination of the Ārammaṇa-Adhipati dyad and so on with the remaining remaining ones in the Ārammaṇa root and so on, and with the Hetu-Adhipati-Anantara triad and so on with the remaining remaining ones in the Hetu root. However, since even when combined in this way, it is not easy to grasp, and not all that combination can be understood by the wise through the aforementioned combination, therefore, it should be understood that the combination was made progressively, without combining in that way. For in the method of teaching the Dhamma, the Buddha himself is the standard. Some of the enumeration verses in the initial text are contradictory. , therefore they should be well understood and grasped. "Having combined each triad with a hundred dyads in the twenty-two triads" was stated, and this was said according to some books in the Dyad-Triad section. But in some, each dyad is combined with twenty-two triads, and that method is appropriate. For there is no combining of the triad there, but rather of the dyad with each term of the triads. There, by correlating each of the sixty-six triad terms, there are sixty-six root-dyads, and similarly root-cause-dyads and so on, making six thousand six hundred dyads. In each of these, the seven methods such as the Dependent Origination method, and all the questions, are similar to the root-dyad in the Dyad section. "Having combined each dyad in a hundred dyads with twenty-two triads" was also stated, and this was also said according to some books in the Triad-Dyad section. However, according to the appropriate method mentioned, each triad is combined with a hundred dyads. There, by inserting the term 'root', one wholesome triad is stated, and similarly by inserting the term 'non-root'... and the term 'non-defilement', there are two hundred wholesome triads, and similarly for feeling-triads and so on, making a total of four thousand four hundred. In each of these, the method and questions are similar to the wholesome triad in the Triad section. And by the statement "the six methods are very profound in the Anuloma," this is shown: "in the Anuloma" and "the six methods such as the triads" being stated without distinction, it means that all seven kinds of Anuloma, such as the Dependent Origination method, are included together as "the six in the Anuloma"; and the four kinds of Triad section, such as the Anuloma, are included together as "the excellent Triad section"; and similarly, the four kinds of Dyad section and so on are included together as "the supreme Dyad," and then it is said "the six methods are very profound." Taking this meaning, in this Anuloma of Conditions, these six sections, the methods of the sections, and the four kinds of questions, should be extracted in seven categories. Thus, in the entire Paṭṭhāna, All conformable conditions are shown. In the opposing verses and so on, the same method applies. Here, in the *dukatikapaṭṭhāna* and so forth, the *paṭṭhāna* of the *tika* (triads) which are to be specified by *tika* is *tikapaṭṭhāna*. The *tikapaṭṭhāna* of the *duka* (dyads) is *dukatikapaṭṭhāna*. Or, the *tika* specified by *duka* are *dukatika*. The *paṭṭhāna* of *dukatika* is *dukatikapaṭṭhāna*. The meaning of the word should be understood in this way. Here, the *tika* and other terms specified by *duka* and others should be seen as having the nature of *duka* and others. Indeed, the *duka-paṭṭhāna* itself, proceeding by way of combination with *tika* terms and by way of combination with *duka* terms, becomes *dukatikapaṭṭhāna* and *dukadukapaṭṭhāna*. Similarly, the *tika-paṭṭhāna* itself, proceeding by way of combination with *duka* terms and by way of combination with *tika* terms, becomes *tikadukapaṭṭhāna* and *tikatikapaṭṭhāna*. The explanation of the conformable conditions is finished. 2. Explanation of the Opposing Conditions. 42-44. "Twenty-three roots" This is said here, referring only to the *duka* root. In the *duka* root, twenty-three *dukas* (dyads) which are the basis of the questions, are possible. Having named it "twenty-three roots," as many distinctions as there are, so many "twenty-three roots" are elaborated according to the conformable method. Thus, it should be elaborated in the opposing method too. This might have been said with the intention that the *duka* root shows the method in the *tika* root and so on. But if the meaning intended is: "up to the twenty-third root, as elaborated," then the reading should have been "up to the twenty-third root." For the expression "twenty-three roots" cannot possibly have the meaning "the twenty-third root." However, just as in the conformable method, starting with "of each term," the elaboration of each term is shown by way of demonstrating the method from the single root up to the conclusion of all roots, so here, "twenty-three roots" should be understood as referring to all roots. For it is the root of the remaining condition among the twenty-three conditions, hence "twenty-three roots."