English
that arises from harsh bodily and verbal actions, of one with a wicked mind, who does not intend to kill. But if there is an intention to kill, then, depending on the success or failure of the act, it becomes either killing or ill-will. The harsh speech that is used against someone comes back to their own head. They say, "Harsh speech can also occur when one is not present." If, because the path of action is not always present in volition, and is therefore indeterminate, it is not included in the category of paths of action, then would it not follow that covetousness and the like, which have an indeterminate path of action because they have not reached the path of action, would also not be included in the category of paths of action? No, it would not follow, because they are mentioned there due to their being part of the path of action. If so, should volition also be mentioned there? That is true, but its nature as a path of action is evident because it is killing and so on, so it might not have been mentioned. For volition, its nature as action is shown by such statements as: "Volition, monks, I call action," "Monks, bodily volition is of three kinds, unwholesome bodily action." And action itself, when it proceeds as the path to good and bad destinations and the happiness and suffering that arise from them, is called the path of action. So its nature as a path of action is evident. But for covetousness and the like, their nature as good and bad conduct is due to their being volitional intentions, and their nature as the path to good and bad destinations and the happiness and suffering that arise from them is due to their being generated by volition. So their nature as a path of action is not so evident, and therefore they are mentioned as paths of action. Or, volition might not have been mentioned with them because it is not of the same kind. This should be understood after reflection. It is objected that the statement that the five precepts have limited objects, because the objects of killing and so on are the same as the objects of abstention from them, contradicts the statement that taking what is not given and so on have sentient beings as their objects. Thus it will be said: "What is to be transgressed..." Only indeed is it called restraint. He will avoid it himself, it is said, referring to the description of the questioner in the Analysis of Precepts. For there it is said: “Because it makes objects of only those formations that have reached the number seven, therefore they are called having limited objects.” By “states of woe, etc.,” are included such things as: “failure to obtain, loss of what was obtained, difficult acquisition of desired possessions, common ownership with kings, etc., dwelling in suffering, dwelling in fear.” But some say that “loss of possessions, etc., are consequential results in this very life.” Description of the discourse on wholesome courses of action. And because those abstinences are conjoined with volition, it is appropriate that they become the path to good and bad destinations, and to the happiness and suffering arising from them, through the door of volition – this is the meaning. Description of the discourse on the correlation of courses of action. Thus, for those who have attained the courses of action. By “some,” he refers to Dhammasiri Thera. For he says that the demonstration of the non-difference in meaning of bad conduct, etc., and good conduct, etc., for those who have attained the courses of action, from the courses of action themselves, or the elucidation of their non-contradiction through the doors of contact, etc., is the correlation of courses of action. By “there is no course of action,” he shows that the aforementioned non-restraint and restraint are not included in the correlation of courses of action according to their view. But to show the lack of purpose in including those that are included, it is said “by showing the threefold... etc.” Thus, having briefly stated the fault in the former position, he then says “and not of evil deeds, etc.” to speak of the second position. Thereby he shows that those evil deeds, good deeds, non-restraint, and restraint that are practiced are prescribed as bodily action, etc. For it is said by “non-restraint arising through the five sense-doors is only unwholesome mental action, etc.” By “and if, etc.,” he states the absence of exhaustive enumeration. The meaning is that “arising should not be said” means that those who speak of courses of action... etc., should not say “mental action arises through the six sense-doors.” Or else, if those who have attained the courses of action... Neither misconducts etc. Are stated in the commentaries By names like bodily action etc. By the commentary teachers Who speak thus, The arising of mental action Through the six sense-doors Is not to be spoken of, This is the meaning. Because the nature of those actions Is stated. Referring to "Three kinds of bodily misconduct Are unwholesome bodily action itself" (Vibh. 913) And so on, he says. Even other actions May be actions through those doors. He suspects the nature Of killing etc. As verbal action etc. Therefore, Because for some Unrestrained and restrained ones, There is no path of action. And by showing no difference Between bodily misconducts etc. And paths of action, There is no purpose. Nor is the arising Of misconducts etc. Through sense-doors Explained. Nor is this method All-inclusive. And a mixture of actions Arises. And in the commentary, There is contradiction Between earlier and later parts. Therefore, this is the meaning. Having the same name Is being bodily action etc. Not abandoning the common name Is not abandoning the state of bodily action etc. Of both, Paths of action And non-paths of action. Because there is no statement Of the mode of arising. By this, he shows That even if there is no difference in meaning Between sense-doors, Unrestrained doors etc., And actions through those doors, They are investigated According to the teaching Of their respective occurrences. The second determination Begins with: "Unwholesome bodily action Does not arise Through the five sense-doors." "By body and speech... ...perfection." By this, To show the unwholesome mental action That has reached instigation, Distinguishing it from that Which has not reached instigation, "Bodily and verbal action" Is stated. He shows that It is not The state of bodily and verbal action. Therefore, the mention of body and speech Should be understood As clarifying That which has reached instigation As stated. Therefore, he says: "Unwholesome mental action That has reached instigation Occurs through the body door And the speech door." When the word "that" is used, The word "which" Is understood as stated Due to an inseparable connection. Therefore, "which arises" Is stated. "Limited to mere arising" Means action through the six sense-doors. By the word "mere," In the sense of excluding a specific quality, He excludes A specific quality of mental action. Because the word "only" was not used for the rule, it was not said, "only bodily and verbal action occurs." Now, showing the quality gained by not making a rule, he says, "but not all," and so on. "Because the rule was not made," and so on, is intended in the former way. The occurrence of words follows the speaker's intention, so even a part of a compound word is drawn in by way of authority, with this intention, it was said, "having made a connection with just the word 'action'." That which they say, and so on, shows the impropriety of mere word-making here. There, "of those belonging to volition" means of those volitions that are bodily and verbal action. "Being" means being similar. "And those action-paths of those respective doors" this is said with reference to the time when this mind occurs as an action-path, not always, because it occurs only as an action-path. Or, by the word "ca" (and), the inclusion of non-action-paths should be understood. Alternatively, "those respective doors and those action-paths of those respective doors" means "those action-paths of those respective doors," and by the word "those respective doors," the inclusion of non-action-paths, i.e., restraints, should be understood. "By that nature" means by the nature of mental action as a door, not by its own nature, is the intention. "Even here" means the state of being a door for action that is born of mind and associated with mind is metaphorically applied to mind itself. It is not even necessary to say, because there is no mind without mind as an immediate condition. The description of the door is finished. "In the absence of sequence and the absence of rule, all objects," by the word "ādi" (and so on), he includes. "For it is not... and so on... there is" shows that the secondary is made the subject because it is impossible in the primary. The description of the section on the exposition of phenomena. The description of the group of five, with contact. By the Pāli text, "At that time, contact occurs," and so on, in showing the sensuous sphere nature of contact and so on, it is not its effect; but in showing its own nature, it is its effect. This is shown by "for contact and so on are not," and so on. "By the absence of mental action" means by the absence of mental activity. "The accomplishment of contact is its arising." "It is a condition for occurrence when converged" by this, the convergence of mind and object. Contact is said to be the coming together of consciousness and its object. Indeed, contact, arising as the touching of consciousness with its object, is also called the condition for its coming together with the object. And this arising as a touching is evident in such instances as: the trembling of the legs of a weak man on the ground when he sees someone standing on a branch; the production of saliva in the mouth when one sees someone eating a sour mango or other fruit;