English
"Wholesome states and so on for mind-originated states." But at rebirth, "Aggregates for kamma-born matter, and the basis for the aggregates" this too is obtained. is. It is said, “In the eleventh, the base for rebirth consciousness and the aggregates.” This is said to show the base by which the connection is made, as the resultant condition is not taken. “The aggregates and the base” —this too is obtainable. The earlier reading is, “In the twelfth, the aggregates for kamma-born rūpa at rebirth.” But mind-originated rūpa should not be excluded, so they read, “In the twelfth, the aggregates for mind-originated rūpa in the course of existence, and for kamma-born rūpa at rebirth.” 515-518. In the first connection of the root condition of existence, it is said, “Conascent, prenascent, and postnascent conditions are obtained by way of formless objects, bases, great elements, faculties, and nutriment.” But it should also be said, “And nutriment and faculty conditions.” For conascent and others are not obtained by way of faculties and nutriment. It is said, “In the second, postnascent edible nutriment is not obtained.” But to show all that are not obtained, they read, “Postnascent edible nutriment, life-faculty rūpa, and other objects are not obtained.” The sixth is said by way of all faculties. In the seventh, only life-faculty rūpa is excluded from these. Thus their distinction should be stated. “Thence to the eleventh” —here “thence” means “from the ninth.” In the thirteenth, “base and object” —here by taking “base,” eye and other bases are also taken. Similarly in the fourteenth, “only the base.” The earlier reading is, “In the seventeenth, that same (base) by way of object and dominance; and in the eighteenth, that same (base) by way of object and proximate support.” But this “by way of object and proximate support” is not a distinction from the seventeenth. The distinction is the conditionality of the base itself for base and object in the seventeenth and eighteenth. So they read, “In the seventeenth, by way of object and dominance, and eye and other (bases); and in the eighteenth, only the base by way of object and proximate support.” 519. Because they are not restricted by any one conascent condition, like conascent ones, they are mixed. What are these that are spoken of? Here, pre-nascent, post-nascent, nutriment, faculties, and co-nascent, mutual, are spoken of as distinct, not common. In the root of object, "immediately contiguous, immediately, pre-nascent," here, conditioning support should also be read. To show those in which they appear clearly, it says "root conditions, etc." But if the condition-object-predominance- nutriment-faculty-jhana-path causal states were not to appear clearly by their names like non-greed, etc., then, showing them by way of definition, it says "there are indeed twelve conditions," etc. Thereby, having determined "these are indeed the causal states," it shows that even if not clearly apparent, they should be sought among these. There, by "six objects," the object predominance is included due to being an object like form, etc. Therefore, not taking that, it is said "four predominances." "Exclusively wholesome results" is found among the faculties by way of the faculty of knowledge. But "exclusively unwholesome results" cannot be found. For even among jhana factors, suffering is unwholesome, as a result is not a jhana factor. Mental stability is also an unwholesome resultant action. But if the meaning is taken as "results of unwholesome are unwholesome results," then among the faculties, it could be found by way of the faculty of pain. However, there is no specific application of causes by way of wholesome or unwholesome results. This is the intended meaning, so it can be said. In the arrangement of the question section, the direct enumeration is finished. Description of the Opposing Exemplification 527. By one characteristic, it means: "A wholesome state is a condition for a wholesome state by a non-root condition," meaning it is a condition by a condition other than the root condition. And other conditions apart from the root condition are eight by way of not being taken. Among these, wholesome is a condition for wholesome by three conditions, for unwholesome by two. Thus, when the opposing is established in each respective condition, other conditions should be applied appropriately among these eight conditions, such as object, etc. This is the characteristic to be understood here. And among these... In the eight conditions, those not included by the former ones are included by the latter ones, and the latter ones are stated. Thus, upanissaya (decisive support) is spoken of in terms of two others besides object. Purejāta (pre-arisen) is spoken of in terms of vatthupurejāta (pre-arisen base). Kamma (kamma) is spoken of in terms of another volition, besides sahajāta (co-arisen) and upanissaya. Āhāra (nutriment) is spoken of in terms of another physical nutriment, besides sahajāta. Indriya (faculty) is spoken of in terms of another life faculty of matter, besides sahajāta and purejāta. It should be understood thus. And having done so, it is stated: "Wholesome phenomena are a condition for wholesome phenomena by way of object condition, by way of co-arisen decisive support condition." Because there is no other, it is not stated: "by way of kamma, nutriment, or faculty condition." Therefore, it should be said: "Object-dominant is included in object condition." However, in the question section of the limited triad, where it says: "Immeasurable phenomena are a condition for immeasurable phenomena by way of co-arisen decisive support condition," the omission of object is because those stated as not included by former ones are not excluded from being included, and because there is no other object besides decisive support, and not because object-decisive support is not included in object. Although atthi (presence) and avigata (non-disappearance) conditions are fivefold by way of co-arisen, pre-arisen, post-arisen, nutriment, and faculty, the co-arisen and pre-arisen, and the post-arisen nutriment and post-arisen faculty also have the nature of atthi and avigata conditions together. They are not separate, like the disjunction of the three. Thus, it is stated, including each one in the characteristics of atthi and avigata conditions, that "they stand in six ways by way of each one in atthi and avigata." It is stated that "the faculty condition of matter is twofold by way of internal and external division." This should be stated as "by way of internal and external division." By all twenty-four, means not just by sixteen, nor just by eight, but by all twenty-four. The decisive support of object-dominant and decisive support conditions, which are objects, In the case of those that are pre-arisen, dissociated, existent, and non-departed, and those that are included in the pre-arisen, having established the object condition as being only the object condition, desiring to speak of the inclusion of a part of it and of them in the proximate support and so on, he said: "In the object condition, only the object condition is included, not the other twenty-three." In the fourth, regarding the pre-arisen condition, just as it was said: "The object condition, being a dominant condition, is in the proximate support condition," so also it should be said: "The object condition, being a pre-arisen condition." But it might not have been said, thinking that it can be understood in the way mentioned there. If, however, it was not said that "something other than the object is grasped by the grasping of the pre-arisen," then in that case, since something other than the object would be grasped by the grasping of the proximate support, it should not be said that "the object condition, being a dominant condition, is included in the proximate support." In "in which questions... and so on... only one condition has come," the word "only" (eva) should be brought in and joined thus: "has come only." Thereby it is shown that in the twelfth and fourteenth questions, in the co-arisen and pre-arisen, not one single condition has not come, but rather it has come; and that if any one of them were rejected, those questions would be impaired. In "in which question," in the second and sixth questions, it is indicated by the singular number, taking each one individually. "Thus" means in the manner of object and proximate support. Thereby it excludes the twelfth and fourteenth. For in those too, two conditions have come, but not in the manner of object and proximate support. "In the manner of the remaining ones" should be understood as in the manner of the remaining available ones. For in the thirteenth and fifteenth, even if the post-arisen is rejected, those questions are not obtained in the manner of nutriment and faculties, but rather only in the manner of the co-arisen. And this is the characteristic here: the inclusion of all conditions by the eight conditions, the division of questions in the highest sense, the division of conditions shown by including those conditions, and the impairment of that question when that condition is rejected. that it should be understood that all this, namely, decline and non-decline, is stated with reference to this. Therefore, it is said, “by this characteristic.” There, it refers to the varieties of decline. It is stated that nineteen conditions are shown by three conditions, referring to the conditions obtainable in “not-root condition.” This enumeration of conditions, however, is stated in terms of the common characteristic of all opposites, not merely in terms of the conditions obtainable in “not-root condition.” And having done so, in the opposite of the root-pair question-section, it is said, “A root phenomenon is a condition for a root phenomenon by way of object condition, by way of co-nascent condition, by way of decisive support condition” (Paṭṭhāna 3.1.43).