English
as objects of designation is indicated, which is the cause of craving, views, and clinging. Indicating this meaning, he said: “Gender, etc.… (etc.)… ends.” “Whatever phenomena, monks, are unwholesome, partaking of the unwholesome, all these are mind-preceded” (A. I. 56-57), and “Mind is the forerunner of all states” (Dhp. 1, 2) and similar sayings indicate that kamma is mind-caused, so he said: “For kamma is produced from the mind.” “In due order” means gender from kamma, perception from gender. Not the former. As from action, so from sign, from sign, so from action, showing both arising from both. "They go to distinction, 'this is a woman' or 'this is a man'," since distinction is specified, the state of being called 'woman' and so on is here distinction, thus it is said, "they go to the usage of woman, man, etc." By way of two times, by way of past and present times. Fame is the manifestation of good qualities, thus he says, "widespread renown." Without the diversity of action, there is no diversity of action's result, thus it is said, "from actions... ...diversity." No opportunity for ripening, a non-place, or the time of destiny. Consciousness of volitional formations in the sense-sphere, having generated eye-consciousness, etc., in the fine-material sphere, not generating its object due to lack of opportunity, should be illustrated here. Since the intention is to make a single consciousness, the action-consciousness that does not generate eye-consciousness, etc., due to the lack of eye, etc., should be seen as unattached to other deficient conditions. That too is included by the word 'etc.' in the usage of 'gone to time,' etc. And here, "that which is deficient in co-operative causes absolutely obtains no opportunity for ripening, the other obtains an opportunity for a part of the ripening," they say, "this is their difference." That is said with the intention that when there is an opportunity for ripening, there is no deficiency in co-operative causes. Let it be, having been and gone, 'bhūtāpagata' (been and gone). But how about having experienced and gone? Thus he says, "anubhūtabhūtā," etc. The meaning expressed by the word 'anubhūta' (experienced), the word 'bhūta' (been) alone is its expresser, not the word 'anu' (after), but the word 'anu' indicates. For particles and prefixes are like breaking a branch. And the prefixes, being modifiers of verbs, and having many meanings, they delimit the specific meaning to be expressed by the root word by way of indicating it. Thus, whatever specific meanings are to be expressed by the root word, their generality, their non-specificity, its establishment in specificity is the indication of that specific meaning, thus he says, "generality... ...is specified." The word 'anubhūta' (experienced) mostly It is seen in the mother, so to show that the agentive meaning is here, it is said, "The word 'experienced' also..." Even though all thought-moments are experienced, and thus experience objects, the meaning here is that the way of experiencing objects by wholesome and unwholesome states is superior to that of indeterminate states, due to the arising of mental formations in a deluded continuum. To show this, it is said, "By way of the intention to speak." By way of the intention to state the meaning of "having been and gone," it speaks of the means of attracting wholesome and unwholesome states. "Uppatita" (arisen) is said because it is like something arisen, due to its accomplishing its function as it arises. "Has begun to arise" states the reason why the future is also spoken of as "arisen." Here, the experience of the flavor of objects, such as attachment, is superior, and both unwholesome and wholesome states are called "all conditioned things, having been and gone," due to their common characteristic of having arisen and ceased. In the Sammohavinodanī, however, it is said, "That object by way of experiencing its result. And karma is 'having been and gone' only by way of having been and gone, because the unripened result is in no way gone." Therefore, there it speaks only of result as "arisen due to opportunity." Here, however, it includes karma. "Here, the class of defilements arises by way of making an object" means the aggregates of clinging are called "ground." "Like fire placed" shows the means by which it can be said "has obtained ground." By this, karma. By this, result is said to be understood. "Avikkhambhitattā" means "because it is not suppressed," "because it is not removed." "Sabhūmiyaṃ" means "in its own ground." "Vicchinditvā" means "without allowing it to arise again." "Khaṇattayekadesagataṃ khaṇattayagataṃ" (gone to a part of three moments, gone to three moments) states the metaphorical nature of the example given. It shows that "the phenomena that have arisen are present phenomena" is a suitable example here. "Padhānenāti" means "by way of being primary." "The mind is foremost in teaching" shows that the teaching by the Buddha was appropriate, making the mind foremost when worldly phenomena were to be taught. Or, referring to the nature of phenomena, worldly. This is the nature of phenomena, that they arise with mind as chief, with mind as forerunner. Thus it shows. Therefore, it states the reason for such a teaching: all unwholesome phenomena are without mind, is the meaning. Some are commentators. Even feelings and so on: by the word 'pi' (even), lust and so on are included. Even if there is no difference in time, a phenomenon expected as a condition is spoken of as if it arose first, thus it says, "as if arisen first." To show its direct forerunner nature, "immediate condition" and so on is said. From the saying "the net of becoming is destroyed" and so on, it says that the mind endowed with craving, which is the net, is the leader, "or accompanied by craving." "Whatever mental factor is pleasant at that time" is stated, so pleasant feeling is of the nature of pleasantness, thus it says, "spoken of in terms of its nature." Literally, the word 'madhura' (sweet) is a term for a specific taste; here it is used metaphorically in the general sense of desirability, thus it says, "as if sweet." In ultimate reality, there is no delight-lust or state of delight-lust free from craving, thus "there is no co-existence here in the sense of association," and it is said, "accompanied by delight-lust." Thereby it is understood that "the word 'sahagata' (accompanied) illuminates the state of delight-lust of craving." Or the word 'saha' (with) is a term for a specific state, as in "with manifestation" and so on; craving is called "accompanied by delight-lust" in the sense of having attained the state of delight-lust, by way of indicating that it does not abandon the nature of delight-lust in all states. Or, since the word 'gata' (gone) has no other meaning, as in "gone to wrong view" and so on, craving of the nature of delight-lust is called "accompanied by delight-lust," meaning it is of the nature of delight-lust. Here too: in this commentary. In this word too: in this word "accompanied by joy." This very meaning: that which is associated. The word 'saṃsaṭṭha' (associated) as shown: the word 'saṃsaṭṭha' that came from the Pāli into the commentary in the context of extracting meaning. Co-arisen: in the sense of co-arisen. Independent of specific times, the agent of action. "Unspoken, unuttered" he said, showing that "the word 'spoken' is a way of speaking." In the Pāli, in this Pāli of the first thought-moment. Because it is unspoken, because its unconditioned nature is not stated. Because the word 'basis' is a way of speaking about cause, and because of the general nature of cause, even the door-like phenomena could be a way of speaking about basis, so he said: "The door is called the basis." Thereby he shows that it is like the basis. The phenomena that are the mind-door mostly arise with the heart-basis, so by 'door'... ...the heart-basis is meant, he said, just as "the spears are moving." By its own function, by its own functional nature, or by being accompanied by its function. "Not common to others" he explains the meaning of the word 'sa'. For its own taste is 'saraso'. The singleness of origin of consciousness is stated because it is caused by the immediately preceding consciousness; the two-fold origin of mental factors is stated because they are caused by consciousness and contact arising together. For it is said: "Phenomena originating from consciousness, having been contacted, bhikkhus, one feels; having been contacted, one perceives; having been contacted, one wills." "Subtle dust-like form" he means atomic and similar forms. But regarding ultimate atomic form, there is nothing to be said. By "scarcity of basis" he shows that many sense-objects of sight, consisting of numerous kalāpas, acting collectively, like carrying a palanquin, are the object-condition for eye-consciousness, not one or a few. But if so, does eye-consciousness then become an object of a collection? It does not become so, because there is no collection itself. For in ultimate reality, there is no such thing as a collection. Only as much of the color-object as is situated in a suitable place, when other conditions are present, becomes the object-condition for eye-consciousness in the manner stated, because it is non-conceptual. But the mind-consciousness, directed towards that, arising many times, operates in the form of a group and in the form of a shape, etc., based on previously established concepts. So whether one color-object is the object of eye-consciousness, or many, is not... This should be given. Indeed, it is not proper to seek reasons in what is directly perceived. Moreover, even though the mind changes rapidly, with countless thought-moments arising in the time it takes to snap one's fingers, and even though the colors of a pot and a bowl, etc., are in their proper places, first one is distinguished by a single mental consciousness continuum,