English
But when not-dependence is in operation, by the rejection of existence, object, and dependence, seven conditions are rejected, so by way of the remaining kamma, there are only two. The explanation of the enumeration of the contraries is finished. Explanation of the direct and contrary. 550. "Similar turns" means "corresponding turns." Indeed, among the eleven obtained in "not-mutuality," "the wholesome to the wholesome, the unwholesome to the unwholesome" – these, among the seven obtained by way of root, are similar to these two. But due to the absence of meaning, they are not corresponding. Or alternatively, referring to similarity in all respects – by expression, by meaning, by designation, and by appropriate exposition – he says "similar turns." 551. "Referring to rebirth-linking name-and-form" means referring to the root-name condition and the base-form as the conditioned in rebirth-linking. Here, in "the three, wholesome and so on, to mind-originated form," "and the indeterminate to kamma-originated form" – this also should be said. 56. In the root of predominance, "ten by non-cause" is said in terms of both predominances. "Seven by non-object" is for co-nascence predominance. "Seven by non-co-nascence" is for object predominance. Thus, everywhere, when that particular condition is rejected, and in the combinations, when that particular condition is combined and stands as the root, the phenomena that diminish and those that remain should be well observed. The enumeration should be extracted based on those phenomena that remain and whose conditions they are. Indeed, in the direct order, when the mentioned combinations are set aside as the root, the remaining combined conditions are applied from the reverse order. Thereby, it is possible to understand those that are equal or less in terms of the conditions remaining from the reverse order. The explanation of the direct-reverse order is finished. Explanation of the reverse-direct order 631. "Having omitted the enumeration of even the excess count along with the lesser count" - here, the meaning is: having omitted the enumeration of even the excess count that stands in the reverse order, along with the condition applied in the direct order. And the equality of the omission count with the lesser count is not absolute. Indeed, the enumeration of the "non-cause, non-object" pair, even when diminished along with the lesser count applied by the predominance condition, is not equal to the enumeration obtained in the predominance condition; rather, it is even less than that. Therefore, it is said: "This does not apply to all comparisons." In dependence, when standing in the reverse order, and in co-nascence, the non-standing of causes etc. and of co-nascence, which do not stand in the direct order, is evident. Showing what is not evident, it says: "Material pre-nascence does not stand in the direct order." By "in nutriment" etc., this is shown: those associated with jhānas and paths, which do not stand in the direct order when co-nascence stands in the reverse order, do stand when nutriment or faculty stands in the reverse order. Thus, causes etc. also stand. But by all jhānas and paths, it shows the standing in the direct order of all those that are parts of the four aggregates and those that are the four aggregates associated with them. should be established; in other cases, there is nothing to be said. "Adhipati-upanissaya" indicates the position of mixed objects in the direct order. It is said, "in the faculty, exclusively by way of the life faculty of matter," but it should be said, "by way of the eye faculty and so on, and the life faculty of matter." "Going in order, three in the dissociated" – this, for clarity, is cited in some books as "three in the dissociated in the nine roots and so on." "And these two by way of the post-natal faculty" – this should also be said as "and these two by way of the post-natal food faculty." The commentary on the "not-root" section is finished. 636. "Three in 'not-mutually dependent' by way of root" – here, in "wholesome and so on, mind-originated," it should also be said, "and for the kamma-born material qualities at rebirth." "By the three mentioned in 'root'" – this refers only to the commonality of the turn, and similarly, "three in 'kamma'" means those mentioned in 'root'." However, a distinction should be noted in all the conditions. "Three in 'adhipati'" – these are the same as those mentioned below in 'root' for "three in 'not-mutually dependent, not-root, not-object' by way of 'adhipati'." 644. "And as below" means that just as in the "not-root" section, up to "not-result," only one of each was taken in "not-food-faculties," similarly here, in "not-object-root" and so on, only one of each is taken – this is the intention. 648. "Wholesome and unwholesome volitions occurring at different moments for kamma-originated material qualities" – here, it should also be said, "for results." "Three in 'food-faculties'" are like co-existent ones, being conditions for material qualities too; "three in 'jhāna, path' and so on" are like root-conditions, being conditions only for immaterial qualities – this intention should be understood. And by the word "and so on," it includes "three in 'not-dissociated, not-root, not-object' by way of 'adhipati'" and so on. 650. "Whatever" – the meaning is that whatever condition, even though it obtains in its own place in direct order, is not taken, but rather the subsequent ones are taken in reverse order, that condition later obtains its application only in direct order. However, just as in the "not-root" section and so on, when it is included in "not-food" by way of faculty, and when the faculties are connected, there is a gain of questions by way of nutriment, thus one of them is not applied as an opposite, but applied as an accordant. Similarly, when the decisive supports are connected in the roots that are not non-existent, by way of kamma, and when kamma is connected by way of decisive support, there is a gain of questions, thus one of them is not applied as an opposite, but applied as an accordant, this should be understood. Thus, in this accordant-opposite, all roots are divided into two, reaching nutriment, faculties, decisive support, and kamma. The explanation of the Accordant-Opposite is finished. The explanation of the Triad of Wholesome is finished. 2. Explanation of the Triad of Feeling 1. However, feelings, material form, and Nibbāna, being outside the triads, do not obtain the rule of dependent origination and the statement of conditioned phenomena. But in the six sections beginning with the Dependent Origination section, where the arising of triad-phenomena is stated from the root-condition and so on, there, they should be understood as obtainable in accordance with their nature, by way of object-condition and so on. 10. However, the conditions like co-nascence, which encompass all formless phenomena, by this, even in the wholesome triad, co-nascence, which is diminished, is placed at the beginning due to its encompassing both form and formless phenomena, and by the word "etc." and the statement of encompassing all formless phenomena, it should be seen as showing the diminution of object-conditions etc., which encompass all formless phenomena, by way of conditioned phenomena. Thus, the diminution of the four all-pervading conditions, which are diminished in the wholesome triad, is shown in all triads etc. And by "arising without the post-nascence condition," this shows the diminution of the post-nascence condition in the accordant, and its gain in the opposite. Or, "co-nascence etc." means that the conditions, being rooted in co-nascence and bound by co-nascence, do not exist without the co-nascent phenomena that fulfill dependent origination etc. But why do only those that are bound by co-nascence and encompass all formless phenomena diminish, and not the post-nascence condition, which is not bound by co-nascence and does not encompass all formless phenomena? Stating the reason for that, (it is said) "because of non-arising without co-nascence etc., and the post-nascence condition..." He says, "arising without." There, "without co-arising, etc." means "without co-arising connections and all formless phenomena comprehended." Or, speaking of the reason here, that "there is a decline only of co-arising connections, not of those that arise later and are not co-arising connections," he says, "not arising without co-arising, etc., and arising only without the post-natant condition." And it is shown that co-arising connections themselves, which comprehend all formless phenomena, decline. 17. Even in the non-resultant, this is the method; it only shows the method, not the general presentation of condition and conditioned. For here, the method is: dependent on phenomena associated with pleasant and neither-pleasant-nor-unpleasant feeling, there are uncaused functional phenomena, doubt, restlessness, and co-arising delusion associated with those feelings. In the non-dissociated, "one" is said in the sense of advertence in the formless realm; this should be understood as said in the sense of advertence, uncaused, and delusion. 25-37. In the direct-reverse, just as the wholesome triad, so it should be counted; this is said with reference to the general way of taking the methods of root-based, etc., by combining them as one-rooted, two-rooted, etc., not with reference to the general counting. In others of this kind from here on, the same method applies. And "of the uncaused mind-arising, etc." is said with reference to the non-root-based; here it should be said, "of the uncaused mind-arising and delusion." For even of uncaused delusion, there is no dominance; therefore, in the non-root-based of dominance, there is no place in the direct order. "Even by reversing" means combining the object, etc., which stands first, with what comes after,