English
Otherwise, if the conditions obtainable in “not-root condition” were shown, it would not be necessary to say, “by way of co-nascent condition.” Therefore, here too, since the enumeration of conditions is stated so as to include all obtainable conditions, it should be understood that twenty conditions are shown by three conditions. What is said, “Therein, this is the detailed explanation,” having given a detailed explanation of the varieties, showing the decline, he says, “But in that condition… and so on… we will explain them later.” Similarly, in the four questions concerning unwholesome and so on, it should be understood that the same conditions are shown by those respective conditions, referring to the absence of others among those shown in wholesome and so on. For it is not the case that in “an unwholesome phenomenon for a wholesome phenomenon,” three conditions are shown by two conditions, but rather only two, as an unwholesome phenomenon is not an object or decisive support condition for an indeterminate phenomenon. But co-nascent conditions do not exist because of being mixed with the base. This indicates that since the base is taken as a co-nascent condition by way of a non-co-nascent condition, co-nascent conditions do not exist with it, but it does not deny the co-nascent nature of pure ones. But showing that “co-nascent” is said to specify the very support and so on by which conditions exist with the base, he says, “Therefore, these…” He said, "and so on." But in this subsequent enumeration of conditions, why were all conditions not included by gathering them into the four conditions: object, decisive support, kamma, and presence? Because the division of the presence condition into mixed and unmixed is difficult to understand. For if it were said, "a condition by the presence condition without division," it would not be possible to understand "is it by the pure co-nascent presence condition, or by the pre-nascent, post-nascent, nutriment, faculty presence condition, or by a mixture of co-nascent and pre-nascent, or a mixture of post-nascent and nutriment, or a mixture of post-nascent and faculty?" But when the specific presence conditions, such as co-nascent and so on, are stated in their own nature, where there is the conditionality of pure co-nascent and so on, there it is understood as "a condition by the co-nascent condition" and so on, referring to the pure ones. And where there is the conditionality of mixed ones, there it is understood as "co-nascent, pre-nascent" and so on, referring to the mixed ones, thus making it easy to understand. Therefore, to show the specific presence conditions, co-nascent and so on, were taken, and thereby the inclusion of all conditions in the four conditions is shown. But why were support, or dissociated, not mentioned as specific presence conditions, without taking co-nascent and pre-nascent, or without taking pre-nascent and post-nascent? Because they are not to be stated. Support, first of all, is not to be stated because it is not distinct from the presence condition, as it needs to be distinguished due to the conditionality of support being both pure and mixed, co-nascent and pre-nascent. And the dissociated condition, being co-nascent, pre-nascent, and post-nascent, needs to be specified like the presence condition, so it is not to be stated like that. And there is the presence conditionality of mixed co-nascent and pre-nascent, but not dissociated conditionality. Similarly, there is the presence conditionality of mixed co-nascent and post-nascent. For it will be said, "the ungrasped and non-graspable phenomenon is a condition by the presence condition for the grasped and graspable phenomenon and for the ungrasped and non-graspable phenomenon, co-nascent, post-nascent" (Paṭṭhāna 1.4.84), but not dissociated conditionality. Therefore, the taking of dissociated since its being a condition of existence, when mixed with the non-existent, is not grasped, it is not proper to say that it is a specific condition of existence, so it should not be said again. But is it not the case that the co-nascent condition should be distinguished by causes and so on, and so it too, like the dissociated from dependence, should not be spoken of as a specific condition of existence? No, because it should not be distinguished by opposing conditions. For the dissociated from dependence, like the condition of existence, should be distinguished by conditions that are opposed in the time of arising, but not the co-nascent. For causes and so on are co-nascent, not opposed in the time of arising. The description of the opposing examples is finished. Description of the enumeration of the opposing Description of the non-causal root 532. In "the pure object condition is diminished," the word "pure" has no purpose. For when the object is in the position of the opposing, the object condition, which is the dominant condition and so on, is indeed diminished. Or "pure" shows that among the eight conditions, only the object condition is diminished, not the others. "Of the eleven" means in the sense of the eleven, excluding the mutual, resultant, associated, and dissociated, among the fifteen that are included in the co-nascent. "They" shows that those included in the co-nascent, when that is rejected, do not obtain an explanation in another way, but those not included, such as the object, dominant, pre-nascent, and dependence, obtain it in the way of the object and so on. Although these turns would not be obtained if the co-nascent condition itself did not exist, the intention is that they should be obtained in the sense of dependence, existence, and non-disappearance. "Since" and so on shows that even if the co-nascent condition does not exist, since these, being in the co-nascent condition, are not dependence and so on, and since those that are rejected when the co-nascent is rejected are here rejected by the rejection of the co-nascent, therefore those turns are also not obtained. "Except for the co-nascent condition" should be understood to mean "except for the co-nascent condition which is also dependence and so on." In the wholesome things that arise from wholesome That which is skillful among the made, is a mutual condition for the skillful. This meaning is intended when it is said: “because there is an existence of occurrence by way of mutually conditioning phenomena.” Those phenomena that have entered into the collection of mutual conditions, means that those phenomena, which are spoken of as conditions for their respective conditioned phenomena, have entered into the collection of mutual conditions for those phenomena that are spoken of as being mutually conditioned by them. And since the skillful is a mutual condition for the skillful, it is a condition for the skillful and the indeterminate only through those phenomena that have entered into the collection of mutual conditions. This is the intention here: that which is a collection is a condition for that which is a part. But if the skillful is a mutual condition for the skillful and the indeterminate only through co-arisen conditions and so on, and not otherwise, then when mutual conditions are rejected, that section is said to fail. “A part of the four aggregates” is said with reference to co-arisen conditions. For non-co-arisen nutriment and faculties are indeed a part of the aggregate of form. These are those dissociated conditioning phenomena. 533. It is written: “to show the counting of conditions by way of root-pairs and so on,” but it should be said: “to show the counting of the adversative.” For the counting of the adversative sections is shown. It is said: “Here, result is not obtained with the support-condition, because it is not connected with it.” But it is shown in the section on result that action is a condition for result, even without being a support for it. The commentary on the non-root section is finished. 534. “Seven, five, three, two, one” are definite counts. He says that the answers with definite counts by way of the definite counts of seven and so on are shown in the root section. 538. The root section “non-support conditions, non-proximate-support conditions, non-posterior-arisen conditions, three” is summarized, and the count “non-posterior-arisen conditions, three” is extracted in the ten-root section. It is said: “Among these, kamma-born form and nutriment-originated form are conditioned.” But in the two, result, and in the third, nutriment-originated body, are indeed conditioned. 545. And the indeterminate is for the co-arisen indeterminate, meaning “the formless indeterminate.” "to the formless indeterminate, and the form-indeterminate to the form-indeterminate" – this pair is spoken with reference to. But the form-indeterminate to the formless indeterminate, and the formless indeterminate to the form-indeterminate, being a conascence condition, is indeed a dissociated condition. But it should be said, "the indeterminate to the indeterminate by way of conascence, nutriment, and faculty" – thus five. 546. Here, in "not-existence condition, not-root, nine," it is said that "those with a single root and a single ending are obtained by way of contiguity and natural dependence." But when the existence condition is rejected, among the eight conditions, conascence, pre-ascence, post-ascence, nutriment, and faculty are rejected. Object, dependence, and kamma remain. It should be said that they are obtained by way of these three remaining ones. Indeed, everywhere, among the eight conditions, whichever are rejected, removing them, and by way of whichever remain, those respective turns are obtained; this is the characteristic here. "Even up to dependence" means not merely standing on the object, but also standing up to dependence, two should be made in not-dependence. Indeed, from not-dependence, nine are obtained in the previous ones.