English
but also in the conditions like root condition, this is the method. There, after showing the distinct pervading conditionality of all aggregates, then "the aggregates conditioned by the base" shows that of the base, and "three aggregates conditioned by one aggregate and the base" and so on, shows that of the aggregates and the base. This should be understood. Why is it not said here: "A wholesome phenomenon arises conditioned by an unwholesome phenomenon by mutual condition, the mind-born great elements conditioned by wholesome aggregates," and so on? Is it not that whatever pervades as a condition, it should not be by that same mutual condition, just as with root condition and so on? For what is said as "conditioned by one, three, and two aggregates," those are only root conditions. This method applies to object condition and so on as well. And in the section on conditions, it is said: "A wholesome phenomenon arises conditioned by an unwholesome phenomenon by mutual condition" (Paṭṭhāna 1.1.256). The base is not a mutual condition for wholesome things, yet their arising as mutual conditions for the aggregates is stated. Even if wholesome aggregates are not a mutual condition for the great elements, are, yet should their arising be said to be dependent on them? It should not be said, because the great elements co-arisen with the aggregates are not a condition for the aggregates. For the word ‘mutuality’ is not independent like the word ‘cause’, nor dependent on one like the word ‘co-arisen’, but rather dependent on each other as stated. And the aggregates and great elements, as condition and conditioned, would be as stated here, and among them, the great elements are not any condition for the aggregates. And that which arises from its own condition by that mutual condition, or by that which is dependent on it, is worthy of being called arising by mutual condition, just as aggregates dependent on aggregates, aggregates dependent on the base. Therefore, because its own condition is not a condition, and because the word ‘mutuality’ is dependent on that, the arising of the great elements as a mutual condition dependent on the aggregates is not stated, nor is it stated as not a mutual condition. But the aggregates, arising dependent on the base, are a post-natal condition for the base, and arise by a mutual condition dependent on it. Therefore, the arising of wholesome, etc., aggregates as a mutual condition dependent on the base is stated. 59. “Not taken” means that it is not stated that the eye-base, etc., are taken as supporting conditions. But it means that the eye-base, etc., are not taken as supporting conditions, just as the visible-base, etc., are not taken as object conditions. 60. In the two strong conditions, there is nothing to be said. But to show that it is similar to an object condition for those who obtain an object-strong condition, it is said, “There, although…” There, the previous reading is, “Not all unwholesome and indeterminate states obtain an object-strong condition.” But since wholesome states, especially the exalted ones, always, and the sense-sphere ones sometimes, do not obtain it, they read, “Not all wholesome, unwholesome, and indeterminate states.” 61. In the pre-natal condition, just as the teaching is given elsewhere without specifying the condition, why is it not done so, but “the base p is said to be due to the condition of pre-arising? Because of the presence of a rule. For in the conditions of cause and so on, there is no rule. For there is no rule that for those arising from them, in non-greed and so on, in wholesome and so on, and in form and so on, this very condition applies. But here, to show this meaning, that the base, for the phenomena arising from the base-states, is invariably a pre-arising condition in six ways, this is stated. Even object pre-arising, if base pre-arising is absent, is not obtained. And having done so, the arising of rebirth-result is said to be only by non-pre-arising conditions. And for that which has a present object, the pre-arising condition is not extracted. Because of the non-obtainment of "A result-state arises from a non-result and non-result-state-state by pre-arising condition," it is said there, "three in pre-arising." 63. Similarly, at the moment of rebirth, for the great elements, it should be understood that he speaks of the dependent forms of those, by means of the condition of kamma, which is momentary and non-momentary. By "kamma-born forms," it means kamma-born forms in the course of existence. 64. By "as obtained," it means according to whatever sense-faculty form is obtained at rebirth. 69. For some phenomena arising by disjoined condition, the base is invariably a disjoined condition; for some, the aggregates. And it is not that those arising from wholesome and so on arise only by similar disjoined conditions, but also by different disjoined conditions. Therefore, to show that distinction, it is stated in various places, "the base by disjoined condition, the aggregates by disjoined condition." There, the instrumental case should be understood in the sense of "the conditioned makes the condition a condition" due to its dependence on it. The meaning here is "the base makes the aggregates a disjoined condition." In the commentary, however, the meaning is stated as "by disjoined condition from the base, by establishing disjoined conditionality by the base." There, for the wholesome aggregates... that there is no arising dependent on a thing, it cannot be said, "dependent on a thing." But this, without connecting it with the word "dependent," is to be understood as having been said, "things arise dependently, as disjoined conditions," and its meaning, "by establishing the state of being a disjoined condition from a thing." What then is "dependent"? That which is said in the Pāli, "dependent on one aggregate," and so on. Making that meaning clear, they recite, "disjoined conditions from a thing, aggregates dependent on aggregates, by establishing the state of being a disjoined condition from a thing." So that the immediate, and only the arising of unconditioned consciousness, may not be taken, it is said, "the arising of unconditioned consciousness, and also the arising of wholesome and unwholesome consciousness." It means that all, both near and far, is said. 71-72. "These twenty conditions," it is said, "this is stated based on what has been shown in brief." There, if the teaching is brief even by one, it is brief. But at the beginning, the three conditions, the disjoined condition, are expanded without omitting any word. So, excluding those four, and the post-nascents, it should be said, "these nineteen conditions." For only so many have been shown in brief. But those who say that all, both expanded and unexpanded in the Pāli, is included, for them, the reading should be, "these twenty-three conditions." But at the beginning, excluding the three expanded conditions, from where the abbreviation began, from the fourth onwards, taking both the abbreviated and the expanded together, it should be understood as having been said, "these twenty-three conditions." The description of the Division Section is finished. (2) The Number Section 73. "Similarly, pre-nascent condition," means that just as there is a distinction in the mutual condition in the division, so too there is in the pre-nascent condition. For there, the distinction is, "dependent on a thing as a pre-nascent condition," and the absence of rebirth-linking. By this, "resultant and process-consciousness are not obtained," it means, "dependent on one aggregate, which is functional and unconditioned." And so on, in the Vibhaṅga (Paṭṭhāna 1.1.53), it shows the distinction of the absence of resultant-undeclared, and the complete unavailability of non-impulsion in functional-undeclared. 74. In the one-root, taking only the number obtained by the teaching shown, this is said in this direct order, referring to the absence of another in other methods thereafter, from the number shown in the pure method. And its equal number, for that endowed with a small number, should be seen only in this direct order. But in the reverse order, it will speak of "not-root condition, not-object, one" and so on (Paṭṭhāna 1.1.104). 76-79. But those, having summarized, are shown here as having twenty-three roots. Here, due to the absence of post-arisen resultants, it should be said "having twenty-two roots" in terms of resultants with repeated practice. But both kinds of twenty-two roots, having been taken together and included therein, it should be understood that it is said "having twenty-three roots" due to the presence of both. Or, if there is no contradiction regarding resultants of repeated practice, it should be twenty-three roots according to the method shown in the question. And its name, having been superimposed on the twenty-two roots, is said as "having twenty-three roots." This is the convention here. And in the object term, by this, other terms in the one-root are excluded. For the meaning is not that there are three in the roots and so on in the one-root. But the pure method is not found in the object-root and so on. Therefore, to show the absence of a higher number like "nine" in the object-root, it is said "there are only three questions everywhere, based on the object." "To be done there" is the remaining part of the statement. And "only three" prevents counting upwards from that, it does not reject downwards. Therefore, it should be understood that the counting "one in resultant" is not prevented. And because one is included in the three, it is said "only three." By "thus" and so on, with the statement "only three everywhere," he strengthens his own statement. 80-85. "Those... and so on... show that." Here is the meaning: Even though immediately after "non-disappearance," it is said "three in root by object condition," along with a smaller number.