English
desires and so on are called "expedients." Thus, the reason for the ineligibility of expedients for designation by explicit mention is stated. And speaking of the reason for the ineligibility of the heart-base for such designation, it is said: "subtle dependent... (etc.) ...of that." Even in its subtle state, the dependent forms, such as the nature of the faculties, become manifest through dominance and so on. It is not a subtle dependent form of that nature. Thus, the ineligibility of the heart-base for designation by explicit mention in the classification of the triad of wholesome things is stated. Indeed, because of its subtle nature, it is shown in the Great Treatise (Paṭṭhāna) through the aspect of dependent phenomena, as in "that form on which the mind-element and mind-consciousness-element operate" (Paṭṭhāna 1.1.8). Or, it should be understood that the heart-base is not shown by explicit mention due to the disposition of the trainees. However, the intention by which the heart-base was not mentioned in two ways in the section on form, in the summary of forms and so on, has already been explained in the commentary on the section on form. With the intention that the word "nikkhipitvā" means "pakkhipitvā" (to put in), it is said: "having included the detailed teaching." Indeed, the wholesome and other dhammas taught in terms of roots and so on are also taught in terms of their respective mind-arisings and so on, as their nature is not transgressed. By way of roots, means by way of establishing a well-established state. These terms like 'hetu' (cause) and so on: 'hetu' is that from which the result proceeds; 'paccayo' (condition) is that from which it comes dependently; 'janako' (producer) is that which produces; 'nibbattako' (generator) is that which generates. This is the meaning of the other terms. "Of the root-meaning... (etc.) ...stated" why is it said? Is not the root-nature the root-meaning, as in "the meaning of oppression" and so on? three wholesome... Are these roots, or an exposition from the root? No, the meaning of root is the root-meaning, that is the root-meaning because the specific function of the root-nature, such as non-greed and so on, which are well-established, is intended for wholesome states. Therefore it is said: “meaning is the function of a state.” Or, by way of meaning, it refers to the nature-meaning of those roots mentioned as “three wholesome roots,” not the meaning stated in the verse. Since that is indeed the root-meaning, it is said “non-greed and so on.” Just as non-greed and so on, the feeling aggregate and so on are also referred to by that word because they are included, thus it is said: “those wholesome roots are associated with that.” To show that the feeling aggregate and so on are also included by the word “and so on” in “by those non-greed and so on,” it is said: “those wholesome roots are associated with that.” Having asked “What states are wholesome?” and shown the four aggregates divided into contact and so on, it is said “these states are wholesome” (Dhs. 1), thus it is said that aggregates are wholesome: “it encompasses wholesome states by their nature through the aggregates.” The feeling aggregate is wholesome… the consciousness aggregate is wholesome. Of another’s own fruit. It shows the reason for the blamelessness of wholesome states by the roots. This is not said to establish the blamelessness of wholesome states by the roots, but rather to establish their well-established blamelessness. For if the blamelessness of wholesome states were made by the roots, then the form arising from them would also have it, or the roots would not be their condition, but they are. For it is said: “cause is cause… condition” (Paṭṭhāna 1.1.1). Furthermore, just as with wholesome states, the existence of unwholesome and indeterminate states would also be dependent on roots. In that case, the existence of rootless unwholesome and indeterminate states would not be. Therefore, the wholesome nature and so on of wholesome states and so on are dependent on wise attention and so on, not dependent on roots. But the roots are the means of establishing the well-established nature of wholesome states and so on. For things with causes, like trees with strong roots, are well-established and firm, not so are things without causes. That it is of blameless nature due to its association is also said because it is produced by that association of blameless nature, but it is said to specifically show the blameless nature. For from association with non-greed and so on, the blamelessness of wholesome aggregates and so on arises well-established, not like those without cause or indeterminate, which are not well-established. If so, would not the wholesome nature of those aggregates be shown? No, because the wholesome nature is understood from the context. Like the word 'kamma', which denotes the nature of result, not the root aggregate words, and it is used here without distinction, so it says, "it shows the pleasant result through kammas." The meaning is, "it shows the initial goodness of wholesome things." The perfections of blameless causal nature, pleasant resultant nature, and origin and so on should be seen. The perfections of origin and so on should also be connected by way of wise attention, blameless opposition, and desirable result. For from wise attention, wholesome things have non-greed and so on as roots, and from association with non-greed and so on, they arise as pleasant results, opposed to greed and so on. 986. Having asked, "Why is it said?", the questioner clarifies his intention with "Is it not...?" and so on. The other, agreeing that the aforementioned delusion is not spoken of here by the word 'associated' with "That is true," gives the explanation with "Therefore..." and so on. Its meaning is: "Although by the word 'associated with that' the aforementioned delusion is not taken as primary, it is taken as secondary by not being immediate." "Absence elsewhere" means absence elsewhere than the aforementioned associated. For delusion accompanied by doubt and restlessness does not exist without doubt and restlessness and so on. 987. "Impermanence, suffering, non-self" is said to exclude the conditioned characteristics of arising and so on. But arising and so on are already included by taking those specific things, as they are modifications of the things in that state. Thus it is said, "Aging and death are included in two aggregates." (verb root 71), “accumulation of form,” and so on. All names like hair-jar are name-designations. Designations of beings, like form and feeling, which are objects of the divine abodes, are designations of grasping. The special object of jhāna, which is taken based on the sign of that particular being and the special development, is the kasiṇa-designation. By “being spoken of without abandoning the ultimate sense,” it shows the similarity of designations like monastery and couch to designations of beings, because they are included by the grasping of designations of beings. The characteristics, which are special aspects of conditioned phenomena, like consciousness and so on, could be said to be the aspects of conditioned phenomena, due to their nature of being oppressed by non-existence and subject to change. But these are not mentioned because they are not obtained without a basis, and thus are of the nature of designations, being designations of their kind. However, in the commentaries, they are mentioned separately to show their distinction from beings and jars. For it is not proper to say… because the triad of wholesome states is indivisible. 988. That in which it exists is a ground (bhūmi). Due to being a basis and condition, the ground of happiness is the sukhabhūmi. Consciousness accompanied by pleasant feeling. To determine it by the division of grounds, the associated phenomena, which are its basis, are called “sensual realm.” Or, considering it as a community that is a part of it, and as a support, its co-existent ground is called “sensual realm.” Here, “in the ground of happiness, in the sensual realm,” both locative cases are said in the commentary to have different referents. To show the connection of meaning with both having the same referent, it is said, “the sensual realm and so on are also appropriate as the ground of happiness.” For just as consciousness, so all phenomena associated with limited happiness are the ground, the sensual realm, due to being its basis. Or, this meaning is also stated in the commentary, it should be understood. For “consciousness” also means a thought-moment. Therefore it is said, “when it is said ‘consciousness has arisen,’ here, consciousness itself is not taken, but consciousness is taken together with the fifty-odd wholesome phenomena.” i. And having done thus, because the arising of thought is understood as being on the ground of happiness. Showing the divisions, showing the distinctions. What is to be spoken is spoken, that alone is the meaning, thus "spoken meaning". The meaning to be expressed. By making that meaning known, by illuminating the meaning of the three and two, the despicable, such as shaking. 994. What then is to be said of the object of the aggregates? The clinging that arises by taking as an object the aggregates of an Arahant, existing in a prior-posterior sequence, in the sense of oneness, by way of continuity, saying "our maternal uncle elder" and so on, that clinging is taken as being in those clinging aggregates themselves. Even if the supramundane aggregates are included in that continuity, because it is unable to arise there, what then is to be said of what arises concerning the aggregates? By this it is shown that wrong views and the like, such as "there is no path to purity," "there is no Nibbāna," which arise in this way, are not concerned with the path and so on, but are concerned with those respective designations. 998. Thus un… (abbreviated)… defiled: