English
But the Pāli should be understood as coming by way of showing the method through the sense-consciousnesses. And having done so, in the explanation of its meaning, the word "by some" is proven to generally include all consciousnesses, and there is no contradiction with the exposition. The occurrence of the two pairs of terms is shown by the states of 'cognizable by eye, not cognizable by ear', not by the states of 'cognizable by eye, not cognizable by eye', due to the absence of a specific reason. Furthermore, even from combining the other term "or again", it is understood that the occurrence of the two pairs of terms is shown by this much: "those phenomena cognizable by eye... ...those phenomena not cognizable by eye" (Dhs. 1101). Indeed, the word "yevāpana" (or again) is for showing the presence of another term, just as in examples like: "Whatever wholesome phenomena there are, all of them are rooted in wholesome. Or again, whatever are rooted in wholesome, all of them are wholesome phenomena" (Yama. 1. Mūlayamaka.1). Otherwise, the Pāli would have been: "Those phenomena cognizable by eye, are not cognizable by ear. Those phenomena cognizable by ear, are not cognizable by eye." But what they say: "By 'those phenomena cognizable by eye... ...those phenomena not cognizable by eye', two pairs are meant in meaning," that too is stated with reference to 'cognizable by eye and not cognizable by eye', and 'cognizable by ear and not cognizable by ear'. But it should not be understood as 'cognizable by eye and not cognizable by ear', and 'cognizable by ear and not cognizable by eye'. By this, the refutation of the Pāli should also be understood as prevented, due to the very absence of refutation. Similarly, the meaning which is stated by the knowing of an object, and is called "by some" to show indefiniteness, that very same meaning, when stated by the not-knowing of another from that, and again called "by some" to show indefiniteness, in showing that meaning, the meaning of the word "by that very one" is not possible, and cannot be said. Thus here, as the commentary is established, so too the self... it should be understood as fitting. 14-19. Because of making the continuum impure and defiled, and because of the cause of the ripening of dark deeds, being impure, it is said, "they flow with impurity." There, it is in the wound. By the word "flowing…etc…sound," it should be understood that this meaning is also shown: "like an outflow, it is an outflow." By "gotrabhu…etc…stated," it shows that the mention of gotrabhu is a metaphorical indication, just as "butter should be protected from crows." However, if the meaning were "gotrabhu are like gotrabhu," then, because things that are primary and secondary in quality cannot be expressed by a single word, only vodāna and the like would have been stated. Alternatively, it should be understood that this designation is either by ekasesa or by commonality, as "gotrabhu." The ablative case should be interpreted as indicating the scope of the abhividhi (inclusive limit). "Accompanied by outflows" means being together with those outflows with which it is conjoined. This is what is meant: just as things with a cause are "with a cause" due to the causes conjoined with them, it is not in this way that things called "sāsava" (with outflows) are "sāsava" due to outflows conjoined with them, but rather due to those disjoined from them. The absence of an unstated term between the two pairs is here the appropriate way to connect the pairs. If so, how is it in the hetu-gocchaka (group of causes)? He says, "but in the hetu-gocchaka," etc. By adding the second to the first pair, it is one; he states the fourth pair. By adding the third to the first pair, it is two; he states the fifth pair along with this: "phenomena that are both outflows and disjoined from outflows, and phenomena that are disjoined from outflows but are not outflows." By adding the first to the second pair, it is one; this is one: "phenomena that are not outflows are both with outflows and without outflows." By adding the first to the third pair, it is two; these are two: "phenomena that are outflows are both conjoined with outflows and disjoined from outflows, and phenomena that are not outflows are both conjoined with outflows and disjoined from outflows." By adding the second to the third pair, it is one; this is one: "phenomena that are with outflows are both conjoined with outflows and disjoined from outflows." By adding the third to the second pair, it is one; he states the sixth pair. "By three" refers to the fourth, fifth, and sixth. "The others" are the remaining five. These are in the first, third In the second term of the first pair, one; in the second, in the second term of the first pair, one; in the third, in each term of the first, two; in the third, in the first term of the second pair, one; thus it should be understood. For these, "Defiled phenomena are defilements and not defilements. Phenomena associated with defilements are defilements and not defilements. Phenomena dissociated from defilements are defilements and not defilements," and for "phenomena accompanied by defilements, phenomena not accompanied by defilements," and so on, the reason for not taking them and the method of taking them should be understood in the way stated previously. "This method" means that the device of placing the second pair in the first pair, and so on, which is stated here in the defilement cluster, that method is for determining the internal pairs in the fetter cluster and so on. There, in the Pāli, the future pairs in the fetter cluster are five: "Phenomena that are fetters and dissociated from fetters, phenomena that are dissociated from fetters and not fetters, fetters are phenomena associated with fetters and dissociated from fetters, not fetters are phenomena associated with fetters and dissociated from fetters, not fetters are phenomena that can be fettered and cannot be fettered, phenomena that can be fettered are associated with fetters and dissociated from fetters." Similarly, in the clusters of ties, floods, yokes, and clingings, there are five each. But in the hindrance cluster, because hindrances cannot be dissociated from hindrances, there are three: "Not hindrances are phenomena that can be hindered and cannot be hindered, not hindrances are phenomena associated with hindrances and dissociated from hindrances, phenomena that can be hindered are associated with hindrances and dissociated from hindrances." Similarly, in the perversion cluster: "Not perversions are phenomena that are perverted and not perverted, not perversions are phenomena associated with perversions and dissociated from perversions, perverted phenomena are associated with perversions and dissociated from perversions." In the defilement cluster: "Not defilements are phenomena that are defiling and not defiling, not defilements are phenomena that are defiled and not defiled, not defilements are phenomena" are conjoined with defilements, and free from defilements. Defiling phenomena are defiled, and undefiled. Defiling phenomena are conjoined with defilements, and free from defilements. Undefiled phenomena are defiling, and non-defiling.” Thus, these six pairs should be understood. The rest is as stated. By way of condition, it shows the meaning of fetter. For the conditionality of each is indeed the fetter of the round of existence, such as sensual lust. If so, how is it that only sensual lust and the like are fetters? He says, “even if there are others.” “Of others” refers to defilements, formations, and the like, other than the fetters. “By way of their conditionality” means by way of being conditions for those defilements, karma, and results of karma. “Fettered by the lower part and the upper part” are encompassed, delimited, by the lower… and so on… encompassed, by those sensual lusts and the like, which are special conditions. Regarding the production of karma, existence, and the like, such as rebirth in the sensual realm, he states, “that particular… and so on… becomes,” making it a rule. Having shown the existence of the aforementioned karmic existences due to the existence of the fetters, and then showing their non-existence in the absence of the fetters, he says, “and not.” “Binding” means making unfree, like tying with a rope. “Making a knot” means making it undivided. “Cakkalaka” is a foot-wiping mat or a circular rope. “It should not be questioned” means that because the aforementioned distinction cannot be seen by most people with the eye of wisdom, it should be believed. There are three kinds of meaning: one is directly perceived, which is personally experienced by phenomena such as form, an indescribable state, and is said to be the inherent characteristic of all phenomena. One is inferred, which is the impermanence and other states of pots, cloths, and sounds, due to their well-known dependence on conditions, as seen in pots and cloths. One is based on assumption, which is a matter of faith, such as heaven and Nibbāna, which are completely unseen by most people. In this regard, the word of a teacher whose statements do not contradict directly perceived and inferred meanings, by their unperverted occurrence, leads to the attainment of believable meanings. Such a one… And the Blessed One said: "The nature of phenomena... ...should not be censured." This method applies to others of this kind as well. Just as a mountain range to be overcome by sarabhas is sarabhaniya, so too "oghaniya" is a linguistic derivation, thus he said "therefore" and so on. "Clinging to perversion" is "grasping," and here, by "from another," it is not intended that "other" means merely different from the nature of phenomena, but rather its opposite, thus he said: "By 'from another' is meant from permanence, etc." If it does not exist by nature, how can it be an object? He said: "It is conceived by varied perception,"