English
Or, when entering into lesser counts like three, two, one, or into reciprocal conditions and so on, it means that a count less than three, and also one as obtained, is obtained according to them. By "non-resultants" is meant "untouched resultants," not "devoid of resultant causes." There, "all are co-nascent results" means that all co-nascent conditioned things mentioned there are results and co-nascent resultant forms. And "forms arisen from that" - here, even kamma-born forms at conception are included by the term "arisen from that," it should be understood. They also read: "forms arisen from that, and kamma-born forms are obtained." In the fourth, "only forms arisen from resultant consciousness" - here too, the same method applies. They also read: "and kamma-born forms." Thus also, beginning with "among these combinations, all the first ones..." Also in the way stated. But in combinations, whatever condition stands as the root nature, the combination is said to be by the sequence of obtaining completely, less, much less, and least of those conditioned phenomena, and in obtaining completely, by the sequence of obtaining completely of the arisen conditions. Similarly, this sequence should be understood in the case of less obtaining and so on. The section on Root-Conditions is finished. 445. (He) will speak of dependence by way of base, meaning that this is not a combination by way of the base, even if it is obtained, therefore he says, "or by way of object only." 446. But with co-arisen, object-dominance, and with object-dominance, co-arisen is not found; this is said because, just as co-arisen and pre-arisen are one support condition and one presence condition, so there is no single dominance condition for co-arisen and object-dominance. Indeed, the nature of support and the nature of presence and non-disappearance are the same for co-arisen, pre-arisen, support, etc., but the nature of co-arisen and object-dominance is not the same. For co-arisen, without becoming an object, it becomes dominant by way of occurring together with itself; the other, by becoming an object, causes inclination in oneself. And co-arisen is helpful only by its existing nature; the other, even if past or future, is helpful only by its nature as an object. Therefore, co-arisen and object-dominance have different natures, like co-arisen and object conditions, and they do not share the nature of a single dominance condition; for this reason, in the Pañhāvāra Vibhaṅga, it is not said, "Wholesome and indeterminate phenomena are conditions for wholesome phenomena by way of dominance condition," and so on. 447-452. Before the combinations with sustenance, by way of commonality of energy, consciousness, and investigation, the combinations with faculties, without sustenance, and with the highest desire, should be stated: "Dominance, co-arisen, support, faculty, presence, non-disappearance" - these are seven. "Dominance, co-arisen, mutuality, support, faculty, association, presence, non-disappearance" - these are three. "Dominance, co-arisen, support, faculty, dissociation, presence, non-disappearance" - these are three. "Dominance, co-arisen, support, result, faculty, presence, non-disappearance" - this is one. aṃ. One is: predominance, conascence, mutuality, reliance, result, faculty, association, non-disappearance. One is: predominance, conascence, reliance, result, faculty, dissociation, existence, non-disappearance. Why were these not stated? Because there is no other predominance that is a faculty through the paths of nutriment. For the predominance of consciousness is nutriment, and energy and investigation are the path, and there is no other predominance that is a faculty, by which non-nutriment and non-path with faculty-combinations could be spoken of. Therefore, without stating those, to show that the predominance of consciousness and so on are exclusively nutriment and path, only those with nutriment and path were stated. And among those with path, two causal phenomena are obtained, among those with nutriment, only one, so those with path should be stated first. But those with faculty, by which nutriment and path are to be distinguished, were stated later in order. In the commentary, however, "similar" means "equal in being with path," or "being immediately next in form." 457-460. "Wholesome and indeterminate to indeterminate" means four. Thus, to show the causality of the wholesome together with the indeterminate, even the two-rooted was brought in and stated within the wholesome-rooted ones. "And material form in the indeterminate" should be stated as "and kamma-born material form." The previous reading is: "In the second combination, in the indeterminate release, only the base is obtained in material forms." But also elemental form is obtained, so they read: "and the base and elemental form are obtained." It was stated: "In the fourth, only mind-born material form." But it should be stated: "mind-born material form and kamma-born material form at the moment of re-linking." In the resultants, in the first, results and mind-born material form of results, here, in the fourth, only mind-born material form of results, and here, kamma-born material form is also understood by the apprehension of mind-born material form of results. But they also read: "and kamma-born material form." Here, however, in the combinations rooted in conascence, mutuality, reliance, result, association, dissociation, existence, non-disappearance, by root, kamma, jhāna, path, Connections are not made in the cases of the stated roots of existence and non-existence by nutriment, nor in the cases of existence and non-existence disconnected from support, by dominant faculties. Why so? For when connections are made in these, causes and so on, parts of those respective mind-arisings, are obtained as conditions, being only formless phenomena. Thus, those connections, being similar to what is stated in the root conditions of cause and so on, are easily understood due to the absence of admixture with form, and so are not stated. However, nutriment, when connected with existence and non-existence, and dominant faculties, with support and so on, become mixed with form. Thus, even connections similar to those stated in the root conditions of dominance, nutriment, and faculties, are to be understood as having been made in the root conditions of existence and non-existence, and in the root conditions of support and so on, by nutriment and dominant faculties, for the sake of greater clarity. 462-464. In the root condition of support, "three in the sixth, namely wholesome and so on, for mind-originated things" is the earlier reading. But eye and so on are obtained for eye-consciousness and so on, so they read: "and eye-base and so on for the indeterminate." 466. In the root condition of strong reliance, in the first of the two stated by way of natural strong reliance, it is said: "mundane wholesome and unwholesome volitions are to be taken as conditions." But supramundane ones are also to be taken. 473-477. In the root condition of kamma, regarding "also the base at rebirth," the meaning is: not just the aggregates, as in the course of life, are to be taken as condition-arisen. In the first of the four, stated by way of common to result and non-result, it is said: "mind-originated form is obtained along with the formless." But kamma-born form is also obtained. But in this root condition of kamma, why is it not said: "two in the object due to kamma condition"? And in the root condition of object, "two in kamma due to object condition"? Is it not that wholesome and unwholesome volition is both a kamma condition and an object condition for kamma-objects, rebirth, and so on? And just as a base, being an object, is spoken of as an object-support condition, should kamma also be spoken of as an object condition? No. Because the two condition-states mutually exclude each other. Indeed, the present basis, not abandoning its state of support, being apprehended in that same way by that which depends on it, is rightly called a support condition by its nature as a support. But kamma, for those that arise when it has been done, is a kamma condition by its nature of being accumulated; not in the manner of an object. And it is an object condition merely by being an object; not in the manner of a kamma condition, which is defined as producing results by creating a special continuum. Therefore, the state of kamma condition excludes the state of object condition, and the state of object condition excludes the state of kamma condition. Thus, it is not said, nor can it be said, "Being a kamma condition, it becomes an object condition," or "Being an object condition, it becomes a kamma condition." And this is the nature of present and pre-arisen objects like the basis and the eye, that they are said to be support conditions and so on together with being object conditions. But this is the nature of past kamma, that it is not said to be a kamma condition together with being an object condition. Just as it is the nature of co-arisen, pre-arisen supports to be spoken of together with being support conditions, but it is not the nature of co-arisen objects and dominants to be spoken of together with being dominant conditions, so it is here too. "By way of non-dominant consciousness-food" means by way of consciousness-food whose dominant state is not touched. "The basis declines" shows the decline of all kamma-born matter by way of the basis which receives mutual support. In the third, it is said, "Formless faculties for forms." And the eye and so on are obtained for eye-consciousness and so on. Then, "Six associated with the path by way of energy." Although investigation (vīmaṃsā) is obtained here, it is said "by way of energy" because investigation, which has a similar course, is also included by way of energy. In the root of dissociation, in the tenth, it is said,