English
Having thus shown that the Mahāaṭṭhakathā view should be refuted, standing on the intention of the compiler, now, standing on his own intention, to reconcile it, he says, "But in the Mahāaṭṭhakathā," etc. Sound arises simultaneously with collision, because it is the basis of elements that arise in the manner of collision. "Its condition" means the condition of the impact of what is grasped. There is a particular mode of the mind-arisen great elements that is capable of being a condition for the impact of what is grasped by the mind-arisen earth element. For, because of that mode, the earth element impacts what is grasped. This meaning, because it is to be understood according to what has been said, is stated as "to be understood by the method stated." And he elaborates that very method stated with "of their modifications," etc. Here, "its condition" means the condition of mutual causality. o. And all other arrangements, saying, "by this, 'not arisen from mind,' its non-existence in the ultimate sense is shown," is the arrangement stated by oneself. But the arrangement stated in the commentary is "to be understood in the manner stated below," and thus it is what is stated in the commentary. The successive production in another region of what has arisen from its own respective causes, is the succession of production in another region. By acquired practice: by previously acquired preparation. By mind alone: by the first mind alone. "Seven impulsions produce seven letters" —rejecting this view— "the minds belonging to one impulsion-turn produce one letter," they say. Although friction is produced even by the first mind, yet by the repeated occurrence of one, there is some distinction, so it cannot be said that there is no support for the view that the friction arisen from the seventh impulsion, by the acquired practice from the friction arisen from the earlier impulsions, produces a distinct letter. But it might be said in the commentary that "there is no need for support" because the friction is strong even with the first mind by acquired preparation; all this should be examined and understood. The explanation of the discourse on the door of verbal action is finished. The explanation of the discourse on the door of mental action Just as the door-state of body and speech is possible for all bodily and verbal intimation, so too the door-state of mind-door is possible for all mind. To show this, in the commentary, having said, "it should not be said that this or that mind is not a mind-door," and to show the phenomena pertaining to that door, "this or that volition" and so on was stated. Thus he says, "what was stated was to show that whose door is mind." But just as the doors of bodily action and verbal action were stated due to their being the doors of the three-fold and four-fold bodily and verbal actions, so too it should be seen that the worldly wholesome and unwholesome mind associated with the causes of the cycle of existence, which is the door for covetousness and so on, which are called mental actions, is determined to be the mind-door of mental action. The function of volition itself even though they are associated with the mind that has begun, they begin their respective tasks. Thus, it is said that it sets them in motion for their tasks, and by setting them in motion in this way, it makes them undivided and engaged in a single object with their associates. To show the difference between 'gathering' and 'intending' - which are the undivided action, collection, exertion, engagement, and intention of the associates as described - it says, "by way of contact and other phenomena," and so on. "Doing in that way" means doing in such a way that contact and other phenomena are engaged in their respective tasks. Therefore, it should be understood that "setting in motion" means causing the associates to act in the aforementioned undivided and engaged manner. "Because it destroys kamma" means that the mind that destroys kamma is not suitable to be a kamma-door. This is because they say, "the discourse on kamma-paths is only worldly." The explanation of the discourse on the mind-kamma-door is finished. The explanation of the discourse on kamma Even though they are simultaneous, the actions of cause and effect are suitable to be spoken of as if they were prior and posterior. Just as in dependent origination, to show "dependent on the eye and forms, eye-consciousness arises," it says, "or else," and so on. "The action of stirring" refers to the two kinds of intimation. Since it must be set in motion by the bodily and vocal intimations, which are the bodily and vocal sounds arising from the mind, it is said, "he performs the action of stirring with body and speech," because the modified elements behave in that way. Or else, "with body and speech" means with bodily and vocal intimations. "The action of stirring" means the action of stiffening and moving the physical body, and the action of striking what is appropriated. This action is said to be "capable of being a condition for stiffening and moving the physical body" and "a condition for striking what is appropriated," and thus it is accomplished by bodily and vocal intimations. And having done so, the statements "body and speech are the basis for the action of stirring" and "they perform the action of stirring, covetousness, etc., with body and so on as instruments, just as one performs cutting, etc., with an axe and so on" are also supported. Not only existing It is not its nature, but rather, showing that it is not eradicated by the path, he said "not ceased." And non-eradication should be understood as the non-eradication of the defilements that are the proximate cause of the body, etc. By "doing the actions of covetousness, etc., with the body, etc., as instruments," it is said that the arising of volitional action (cetanā) is meant, through the door of the arising of the actions of covetousness, etc. With this intention, he said "and thus... (etc.)... are connected." And having done thus, the statement "when there is body, when there is speech," etc., becomes consistent. However, the instrumental designation "by which volition" was stated to show that the actions of covetousness, etc., of the body, etc., are caused by volition. When the path exists as a natural helper, and the factors of enlightenment are included in the path by their nature, he said "and it is not impossible," etc. They say that even for those who have not reached the path of action, they are connected to their respective doors, just as those who have reached the path of action, even if they arise through another door, are named by their respective doors. If this is so, there is a contradiction with the commentary. And there would be an absence of a second meaning. Therefore, "they are connected to their respective doors" means that in whichever door the unwholesome volitions, etc., that have not reached the path of action, occur, they are named by that very door. And that is said to be their confinement there, due to their being made to belong to that particular door. For just as volitions, such as bodily actions, that have reached the path of action, even if they arise through another door, receive the name of bodily action, etc., it is not so for those that have not reached the path of action. But they, wherever they arise, receive the name of bodily misconduct, verbal misconduct, etc., by that very door. Indeed, this naming is said to be their being made to belong to their respective doors. Therefore, in the commentary, it is said: "Although the path of action has reached the door of speech, because it has not reached [the body], it is not a bodily action, but merely a verbal misconduct." Even when the volition of taking life, etc., occurs through the door of speech, etc., as stated. The establishment of bodily actions, etc., as occurring frequently and abundantly, and the establishment of the body, etc., as their respective doors, is the non-differentiation of the doors of action. For this is the establishment of the doors of action in an unmixed state. Referring to this, it will be said in the commentary: "in those arisen from command." Some, however, say: "Even the showing of the occurrence of many actions in each single door is the conjoining of the doors." Just as an arisen intention becomes a path of action, to show this, the intention "May these beings be harmed" is shown as an intention of harm. Due to the co-operative causal nature of the volition at the bodily door, it gains the designation of bodily action; due to not arising as "May these beings be harmed," etc., by way of appropriating another's property through covetousness, etc., it lacks the designation of mental action; or, due to its non-volitional nature, it is not designated as killing, etc., meaning it is not to be spoken of as killing, etc. "Here" refers to the state of being un-designated. The ten kinds of psychic power... etc. The intention is that it should be explained in detail. "By this is intended" means what is intended by saying: "Unwholesome verbal action arises at the mind-door." "Why is it said: 'not stated in the Uposatha Khandhaka,' when he did indeed quote a Sutta from the Uposatha Khandhaka?" Although it was quoted, it was not stated there, but was taken as stated by him; showing this, he says: "even though not stated there," etc. "Some say that 'the arising in good and bad destinations does not come from good and bad actions, but from the aggregates, etc.' Taking this, it is said: 'wrong view... etc. makes disparagements, etc.' in the sense of one who holds 'there is no giving,' etc." "Due to the predominance of covetousness, etc." By this, even when ill-will, etc., are present, when volition is strong at the bodily and verbal doors, and the others are not so strong, then, due to its predominance, volition gains the designation of bodily action and verbal action.