English
And because there is no other root beyond that, it is "all roots." is also said. The description of the Opposing Conditions is finished. 3. Description of the Favorable Opposites 45-48. In the Favorable, among all those stated, such as the One-Rooted, by omitting one term from each—in the One-Rooted, there are twenty-four condition-terms, here in the One-Rooted, there are twenty-three, for one condition, being in the nature of a root, is not counted due to its non-novelty. In the Two-Rooted, there are twenty-three condition-terms that are counted, here in the Two-Rooted, there are twenty-two—this is the meaning of "by omitting." Referring to the non-obtainability of pure conditions that are not obtained from the opposite, which stands in the favorable, it is said, "of the obtainable terms." For otherwise, by way of questioning, there is no condition that is unobtainable. Or, referring to the teaching of the favorable opposites, which occurs by way of answering, it is said, "of the obtainable terms." The description of the Favorable Opposites is finished. The description of the Question Section is finished. 1. The Triad of Wholesome States 1. The Description of the Dependent Section 1. Favorable Conditions (1) The Analysis Section 53. What is obtained in the triad of wholesome states is not obtained in the triad of feelings and so on—this is said as "not the same" with reference to the similarity in terms of the root-ending, apart from the mere difference in the terms of the triads. And not only between triads, but also within the triad of wholesome states, what is obtained in the dependent section is not obtained in the condition section and so on—all collections of questions must be made here. And in the favorable opposite of phenomena, in the answer to the triads of vitakka and pīti, it is said that all these answers are obtained; here, the inclusion of the triad of pīti should not be made. For there, forty-nine questions do not obtain an answer. "With that faith"—the meaning should be understood as "with that faith which is a co-arising condition." By the statements "it burns upwards until it reaches cessation" and "or it reaches arising and so on," it seems to be acknowledged that what is endowed with the three moments is said to arise, but it should be understood that only what is endowed with the moment of arising is thus spoken of. Since one aggregate is of one This (and so on) here, is said referring to the aggregates taken by the word "wholesome." But in the feeling-triad and so on, the arising of two (aggregates) dependent on one aggregate, and of one (aggregate) dependent on two, and in the root-dyad and so on, the arising of a part of the volitional formations aggregate dependent on a part of the volitional formations aggregate, is stated. Thus, being a condition for all phenomena arising together, it is indeed a condition for each of the dyads, triads, and so on, and similarly for the divisions of dyads and so on. It is said, "Form-less results should not be taken, due to not arising with form." But that should not be taken in every instance of this statement; rather, it is only in "and mind-originated form." And not only form-less results, but also supramundane results and functional indeterminates arising in the form-less realms are not to be taken here. However, in "resultant indeterminates and functional indeterminates, three aggregates dependent on one aggregate," there is nothing called un-taken, among the rooted resultant and functional indeterminates arising with or without form. But there, to show the specific conditioned arising of that which arises with form, it is said, "and mind-originated form." When it should be said, "Aggregates dependent on the base," to prevent the base, which is the condition, from being un-taken as a conditioned phenomenon in the general statement "and kamma-originated form," it is said, "Base dependent on the aggregates." "Base dependent on the aggregates," or "Aggregates dependent on the base" – these two mutually dependent statements are made to show the specific conditional nature of the base and aggregates, which are mutually conditioned; even though generally taken, they are separately extracted. "To show arising also dependent on the great elements" – The meaning is: that mind-originated form and kamma-originated form, which are derivative form, are said to arise "dependent on the aggregates" without taking derivative form (separately), is to show their arising also dependent on the great elements. But in this showing, all (form) with or without the aggregate condition... The derived material form is included in co-arising and other conditions among these others. This meaning is intended by the word "pi" (also) in "kamma-born form also at rebirth," so it should be understood. "Dependent on the great elements, derived material form," as stated. This means that "dependent on the great elements, mind-born form, kamma-born form, derived material form" is stated here in meaning, so it is intended. 54. "Excluding those mixed with form" means in those questions where the conditioned cannot be obtained without form, but only mixed with form, those are excluded. This is the intention. 57. "From the coming together of three, there is the descent of the embryo," by this statement, it is established that all five-constituent rebirths are called "descent" (okkantī), being characterized similarly to the five aggregates in embryonic rebirth. "Full explanations" means there are full explanations here. And here, "dependent on one great element, three... ...dependent on the great elements, mind-born form, kamma-born form, derived material form" (Paṭṭhāna 1.1.53) up to this point, all mind-born and kamma-born forms in the five-constituent realms are shown. To show the rest, "external" and so on is stated. There, "external" shows form not bound to faculties. Again, "food-born" and "temperature-born" show all faculty-bound food-born and temperature-born forms. There, "one temperature-born" and so on means that temperature-born form is also stated for non-percipient beings, it should be understood. For there is no reason to exclude it there. In the beginning, "dependent on one great element" and so on is a general statement, including both co-arising and non-material conditions, and many other conditions like root conditions, it includes both mind-born and kamma-born forms and is stated. And having done so, at its conclusion, "dependent on the great elements, mind-born form, kamma-born form, derived material form" is stated. Therefore, there, kamma-born form is related to mind-born form, moving along with it, occurring in the five-constituent realms. Thus, to show the ungrasped kamma-born matter, "Dependent on one great element for non-percipient beings," etc., was said. Therefore, here too, as in the kamma-condition analysis, "Dependent on the great elements, kamma-born matter is derivative matter" (Paṭṭhāna 1.1.63), derivative matter specified as kamma-born matter, is to be understood as taken. For there is no purpose in repeating what was said about temperature-born matter. But why, just as in external things, "dependent on the great elements, derivative matter" was said without specification of derivative matter, why, instead of saying it like that, were mind-born and kamma-born derivative matters specified as "mind-born matter, kamma-born matter, derivative matter" together in the root-condition etc., and "mind-born matter, derivative matter, for non-percipient beings... kamma-born matter, derivative matter" separately in the dominance-condition etc., by their nature as mind-born matter and kamma-born matter? There, just as with the inclusion of external things, here the great elements are not specified by anything. Moreover, for the desirable and undesirable external sense objects etc., produced by psychic power-mind and kamma-conditions, mind and kamma are not any condition in the root-condition etc. But for food-born and temperature-born matters, mind is merely a supporter by being post-natal, not a generator. The great elements alone are their generators by being co-nascent etc. Therefore, even though they do not exist without mind and kamma, to show this distinction that only mind-born matter and kamma-born matter, arising from non-material things that are root-conditions etc., are derivative matter, and not others, the specification is made only for mind-born and kamma-born derivative matters. Or, others, being generated by matter of the same kind, are clearly specified and thus do not deserve specification. But these, being generated by non-material things of a different kind, deserve specification, and thus they are specified, it should be understood. Or, just as mind and kamma are conditions for mind-born and kamma-born matters in a specific way, by being co-nascent conditions etc., and by being fundamental causes, not so... the seasons and food are their origin, only those born of mind-action deserve a distinct specification. The others, however, are specified by the specific great elements, just as here the great elements are specified by the specific derived materiality. For it is not that one specification is not a dual specification. 58. In the mutual condition, by showing the mutual conditionality of aggregates and the base, that is, "the base conditioned by the aggregates, the aggregates conditioned by the base," the single conditionality of the aggregates, which were previously shown as distinct conditions, is now shown. With this intention, it is said: "It is stated to show the mutual conditionality of all four aggregates with the base as one." And "the base conditioned by the aggregates" is to show the pervading conditionality of all four aggregates as one, while "the aggregates conditioned by the base" is for the base. And not only here for the aggregates,