English
No special distinction from the aforementioned pairs is shown here in the commentaries, it should be understood. And here, just as from the pair with causes, the pair associated with causes, and from the pair with causes and with causes, the pair associated with causes and with causes, there is a difference merely in the meaning of the terms, not in their essential nature. Even so, having spoken of the pair with causes and the pair with causes and with causes, the others are also mentioned. Thus, even if there is no difference in essential nature among the pair associated with causes, the pair associated with causes and with causes, and so on, because a difference in the meaning of the terms is possible, and even if there is no difference in the phenomena, another pair is spoken of by means of the difference in the meaning of the terms, it has been stated. "Phenomena accompanied by causes, phenomena not accompanied by causes, phenomena arisen with causes, phenomena not arisen with causes. Phenomena conjoined with causes, phenomena disjoined from causes. Phenomena originated from causes, phenomena not originated from causes. Phenomena co-existent with causes, phenomena not co-existent with causes," and so on, and similarly, "Phenomena are causes and accompanied by causes," and so on, and "Phenomena are indeed not causes, nor are they accompanied by causes, nor are they not accompanied by causes," and so on, the collection of many such possible pairs seems to be permitted. For thus it will be said, "By this way of showing the method," and so on. In the same way, this meaning should be stated as far as possible in the groups of defilements and so on. Or, by the Master of Dhamma, who truly knows the nature, function, and manner of being understood of phenomena, as many pairs as were stated, in those should one stand. Indeed, those pairs should not be spoken of, which were not stated by the Blessed One. This should be understood. The meaning is that the pair "causes and associated with causes" is not different in meaning from the sixth pair. "In them" refers to the first pair and the third pair. If, because of being synonymous with other pairs and other terms for pairs, these pairs and terms for pairs are not mentioned, then in that case, the first term in the sixth pair should also not be stated, because it is synonymous with the second term in the fourth pair. And thus, referring to the objection that the sixth pair itself would not exist, it is said, "the fourth..." haduke, etc. That it is for the completion of the pair is said with reference to its being of the same meaning, but there is indeed a special teaching. For this meaning has been shown: that even in the absence of a different meaning, it is the mention of another pair due to a difference in aspect. By this showing of the path: even in the absence of a special meaning, by the showing of the method called the completion of the sixth pair. In the first pair…etc.… shown by the fourth and fifth mentioned in the Pāḷi, by the former two shown in the commentary, and by the four shown here. Among them: in the second and third pairs. It should be understood that the first pair is shown by omission by the sixth pair in the Pāḷi, and by the other pairs elsewhere. 7-13. By the mere fact of being a condition…etc.… existing: by this it shows this meaning, that existence is not merely the intrinsic nature called non-acquisition, but rather, by contrast, non-cessation, non-abandonment, non-production of results, and the fitness for the production of results through the non-uprooting of causes. For thus, in "when this exists, that occurs," by the word "exists," that cause, even if past, without which something does not occur, is included. Therefore it is said: "not with a cause…etc.… of times only." Same…etc.… elucidates: that which is made by conditions, having come together, having arisen, is conditioned. This is their distinction: this difference between the first terms of the two pairs is the conditionality of those produced by conditions and their production by many conditions; for the others, it is the nature of being devoid of the phenomena included in the first term. Avini…etc.… placing: it is said because the phenomena are not mentioned in the Abhidhamma matrix in terms of their classification, delimitation, and determination as "so many." In the Suttanta matrix, however, ignorance, etc., are mentioned for the purpose of determining their meaning, as their specific nature and number are determined. In the interpretation of meaning "earth, etc., are form," just as the causal nature of causes is established in cittuppādas with many causes, so too is the form-nature of all earth, etc., established; therefore it says: "former…etc.… arises." For there is no fixed master-servant relationship among them anywhere. Aniccānupassa It is to be understood as "this does not perish, is not cut off, does not cease." The world is that which is grasped. For those who are free from such grasping, for the supramundane, there is no world-ness. Therefore, it means by the nature of the truth of suffering, by the nature of being fully understood. Why is it said, "many pairs arise"? Are not twenty pairs distinguished? And it will be said, "even if not stated, it should be understood according to what is obtainable." So, many pairs are indeed desired. This is true, but he says this not desiring that very multiplicity of pairs. Moreover, many pairs arise, and that follows the distinctions of consciousness. Even there, from wholesome kamavacara, those conjoined with knowledge, and similarly from great functional consciousness, and mind-door adverting consciousness, in this way, it shows that it is not pervasive by not touching the consciousnesses that have all phenomena as their object, by "many pairs." And showing the fault in its non-pervasiveness, he says, "and thus... etc. ... it might be." And it is contradicted by the exposition. "Those phenomena that are cognizable by the eye, those phenomena are not cognizable by the ear." By this, showing that some are cognizable by eye-consciousness, etc., and some are not cognizable by ear-consciousness, etc., the statement "a pair arises due to the difference in meaning of both terms" is contradicted by the exposition of the summary section. Similarly, it does not agree in meaning with the exposition of the meaning extraction. There, in that commentary on the summary section, the intention is that the negation made shows a pair due to the difference in meaning. For it is not the same... etc. ... negates. By this, it shows that the occurrence of the pair of terms in such expository passages as "those phenomena that are cognizable by the eye, those phenomena are not cognizable by the ear" is understood from the Pali itself. Similarly, by showing that there is indeed a phenomenon whose nature is distinct, such as eye-consciousness, ear-consciousness, etc., due to the undetermined nature of both "some" words, by the usage based on eye, ear, etc. For only the visual object is said to be "cognizable by some, not cognizable by some" due to its state of being cognizable and not cognizable by eye-consciousness and ear-consciousness. If so, in this case too, many pairs arise. Having considered the objection, he said, "Not here," and so on. By the division of what is knowable, that is, by a specific knowable, by a part of what is knowable, is the meaning. The division of the pair means a specific pair, a pair knowable by some, or just its division. Completed, finished, perfected, is the meaning. As many as are knowable, so many are pairs — this shows the way the pair-division arises. And when this is so, and so on, it shows the quality gained by this commentary. Since it is said, "Those phenomena that are knowable by eye-consciousness, those phenomena are not knowable by ear-consciousness," referring only to the visible object, and there is no difference in meaning, how does this become a pair? He says, "By the diversity of consciousness," and so on. But if the pair is complete in the collection of all knowables, how is the enumeration of the heap of deposits carried out? He says, "Of this, however," and so on. Here, however, even when the knowable is divided by the diversity of consciousness and spoken of as a pair, even with the multitude of knowables, it is not that "as many as are knowable, so many are pairs," because there is no multitude of pairs, due to the showing of the occurrence of the two terms of the pair in parts of the phenomena collected in the pair. Thus, even when the two terms are spoken of as a pair with a diversity of meaning, it is not that "as many as are consciousnesses, so many are pairs," there is no multitude of pairs, due to the very nature of being collected in the pair... For it is not just one consciousness that is called "by some, by some," but also another, thus the pair is complete in the collection of all consciousnesses, and there is no break in the pair anywhere, just as with sense-consciousnesses, because the object of mind-consciousness is also distinct. For consciousness with a past object is not consciousness with a future or other object, nor is consciousness with a future object consciousness with a past or other object. Therefore, in the specific divisions of mind-consciousness, according to the distinctions obtained, the occurrence of the two terms of the pair in terms of being an object and not an object for each respective object cannot be prevented. And for this reason, in the commentary, it will show the gain according to the division of planes, saying, "By mind-consciousness, however, there is this meaning: 'knowable by some and also unknowable,' therefore, even if it is not stated, it should be understood according to what is gained." 'Due to the absence of specific determination' this too is stated taking the general mind-consciousness without specific distinction.