English
as in "non-root conditions, non-dominance conditions, three in object." 39. In the question section, by "displeasure arises," he shows those associated with it. In the Dependent Condition Analysis, "in the fivefold faith, one mutters conceit, grasps wrong view" should be done, "in the rest it should not be done"; this is said to show the textual progression, not because conceit and wrong view do not arise from greed, etc. For even in the wholesome triad, greed, etc. The Pāli does not say, "He mutters conceit, he grasps views." But it is said: "Greed, hatred, delusion, conceit, views, aspiration are conditions for greed, hatred, delusion, conceit, views, aspiration by way of proximate cause condition" (Paṭṭhāna 1.2.53). Thus, the state of greed and so on being proximate causes for conceit and views is stated. Similarly, it should be seen here. "With a mind associated with pleasant feeling, he commits village-slaughter, town-slaughter" This is said with reference to the destruction of villages and towns by a mind accompanied by joy and associated with greed. 62. "Of the pure" shows the non-difference of the cause and the resultant terms. Pre-arisen and post-arisen are not found here. For indeed, neither pre-arisen nor post-arisen formless phenomena are conditions for formless phenomena. Here, the meaning is that the terms "pre-arisen" mentioned in this triad, which are relevant, such as "associated with pleasant feeling," etc., do not become conditions for formless phenomena by being pre-arisen, due to the absence of pre-arisenness. Similarly, due to the absence of post-arisenness, they do not become conditions by being post-arisen. 63-64. "By way of non-delusion with dominance" means by way of non-delusion accompanied by the state of dominance. 83-87. "Not by root condition... and so on... not by proximate cause, eight" This is summarized and extracted as "not by root condition, not by object condition, not by proximate cause, eight." "It should be understood by way of diverse-moment kamma condition." This is said with reference to the possibility of diverse-moment kamma condition in all eight remaining cases, excluding "associated with painful feeling for that associated with pleasant feeling." For indeed, co-arisen condition is not found in all eight, but only in three. The commentary on the Triad of Feeling is finished. 3. Commentary on the Triad of Resultant States 1-23. In the Triad of Resultant States, "depending on a resultant state" means "depending on a resultant state." For indeed, the same meaning is stated even in a compound, thus it is written as a compound in the Pāli. 24-52. In the analysis of "depending on a neither-resultant-nor-resultant-state state, a neither-resultant-nor-resultant-state state arises by way of no-resultant condition," "m..." Regarding mind-originated form, dependent on the great elements, it is derivative form. Only this much is stated. It is not stated: "kamma-originated form." That it is not stated is because it is to show the arising of what arises dependent on the aggregates, as dependent on the great elements. For here, there is no arising of kamma-originated form dependent on the aggregates, of which an arising dependent on the great elements could be spoken. But in the course of existence, kamma-originated form is shown by this: "For the non-percipient beings... ...dependent on the great elements, kamma-originated form is derivative form." And having done so, because of the similarity in the movement of form for the non-percipient beings, and in the food condition, kamma-originated form is not extracted in the course of existence. For that too, at the moment of arising, arises without the food condition, so it should be extracted. The explanation of the Vipāka Triad is finished. 4. Explanation of the Upādinna Triad 15. In the Upādinna Triad, the ungrasped, non-graspable phenomenon, dependent on the ungrasped, non-graspable phenomenon, arises, not by way of the dominance condition. By this, it shows that because it is itself dominant, it should not be said that even among the unseparated-object dominants, the dominant arises by both kinds of dominance condition. This is its nature. 72. "Grasped, graspable edible food is a condition by way of the food condition for the grasped, graspable body." Here, the meaning stated in the commentary is: the nutritive essence within the kamma-born forms is a condition for that very kamma-born body by way of maintaining and supporting the kamma-originated forms, like the life faculty of form, not by way of generating. But if this meaning is accepted, then where it says: "Grasped, graspable phenomena and ungrasped, non-graspable phenomena are a condition by way of the existence condition for grasped, graspable phenomena, the post-natal faculty," it should also say "food." And if kamma-born nutritive essence is a food condition for all other forms, then it should not be said: "Grasped, graspable edible food is a condition by way of the food condition for the ungrasped, non-graspable body." But this is stated, and that too, being within one's own continuum, not ingested. It is said regarding the nutriment condition for the body that is not clung to but is capable of being clung to, which is produced by clinging. And this being so, the question: "Clung-to and capable-of-being-clung-to phenomena, and not-clung-to and not-capable-of-being-clung-to phenomena, are a condition by way of presence for not-clung-to and capable-of-being-clung-to phenomena" (Paṭṭhāna 1.4.85) this question too should be understood in terms of subsequently arisen nutriment. Therefore, because ingested clung-to nutriment is absent in the supramundane moment, "nutriment" is not stated in the first question of the two-rooted sections. And the second question is not raised, because it is not that other clung-to nutriment is impossible in the sense-sphere existence. Thus, the argument of those who say: "Clung-to and capable-of-being-clung-to physical nutriment is a condition by way of nutriment for the body that is clung-to and capable-of-being-clung-to, and for the body that is not-clung-to and capable-of-being-clung-to" (Paṭṭhāna 1.4.74) referring to ingested clung-to nutriment present in the bodies of frogs and so on, is stronger. For it is not that merely ingested food does not cause frogs and so on to expand their bellies, nor does it not generate strength, nor is a special form not perceived. It is understood that from the answers to questions ending in the one-rooted dyads and triads stated here, such as: "Not-clung-to and not-capable-of-being-clung-to phenomena are a condition by way of presence for clung-to and capable-of-being-clung-to phenomena, and for not-clung-to and capable-of-being-clung-to phenomena, by way of conascence and post-ascence" (Paṭṭhāna 1.4.83), an answer like: "Wholesome phenomena are a condition by way of presence for wholesome phenomena and for indeterminate phenomena, by way of conascence" is obtained, as at the end of the second dyad here. However, for ease of understanding, the answer there is given only by way of conascence. But in the negative, because it is obtained when conascence is not rejected, and not obtained when it is rejected, the one-rooted dyad endings there are raised only by way of the conascence condition. Here, however, with these answers, it is shown that one phenomenon can be a single presence condition for many phenomena, through many specific presence conditions such as conascence. For one phenomenon is a presence condition for one phenomenon by only one specific presence condition. one to many, one to many, many to one, many to many, in the sameness of conditions for co-arisen phenomena. But in the specific conditions of existence, co-arisen with pre-arisen, is the condition of existence, in the non-difference of phenomena, and with post-arisen, not in the difference of phenomena. If it were said, "appropriated and appropriable, and unappropriated and unappropriable phenomena, are a condition by the condition of existence, for appropriated and appropriable phenomena, the post-arisen faculty," here "co-arisen" should also be said. For among karmically-produced beings, co-arisen and post-arisen, and among supramundane beings, even if obtained in one moment, there is no single condition of existence, for co-arisen and post-arisen phenomena, due to their contradictory natures. Therefore, it should be understood that it was not said. And having done so, in the negative, it is said, "not twenty-two in the faculty." Otherwise, even in the rejection of the faculty, due to the obtainment of that question, by way of co-arisen and post-arisen, it should be said "twenty-three." Pre-arisen is a condition of existence, only with co-arisen, not with others. That too is a base, only pre-arisen accompanied by that, not other. In the wholesome triad, in the question chapter, it is said, "nine dissociated conditions in existence, five" (Paṭṭhāna 1.1.649). But in the with-illustration triad, "twenty-two in dissociated." That which is extracted there, in the analysis of existence, and in the extraction of conditions, ending in one root, that is the conditionality of object pre-arisen, accompanied by a base, with co-arisen. Therefore, post-arisen, only with nutriment and faculties, and in the non-difference of phenomena, and with co-arisen. Nutriment, only with post-arisen faculties. Faculty, with post-arisen nutriment. Thus, having carefully considered this analysis of the condition of existence, the questions obtainable in the affirmative and negative, etc., should be extracted. The commentary on the Appropriated Triad is finished. 6. Commentary on the Vitakka Triad 22. In the Vitakka Triad, in the affirmative of the dependent origination chapter, twenty-three in predominance. In the seven roots respectively, seven, five, three, one, three, three, one, thus twenty-three. Other Others: twenty-eight, seven,