English
states that there is no distinction between the undefiled and the undefilable. 1006. And that form of perversion, such as permanence, which does not exist, thus "non-… (abbreviated)… form" is the word division. Even though it is grasped by wrong view as a non-existent form, such as permanence, it is not non-existent in the ultimate sense like that form, but rather, the existing body is "sakkāya" (existing body), thus it is a distinction from the non-existent perverted forms such as permanence, and therefore supramundane states do not deserve this distinction, saying "the existing, present body is sakkāya." "The object is not distinguished" – this is said with the intention that the word "kāya" in "satī kāye" (mindfulness in the body) refers to the five aggregates, which are an undifferentiated collection, because it means a group. However, if the meaning is that it is called "kāya" because it is the place of origin for despicable things like passion, like a body of delight, then the object of wrong view is indeed distinguished, and thus supramundane states are also excluded. For supramundane aggregates are not called "kāya" because they are a place of origin. By that which is not a cause for purity, such as the practice of cows, or by mundane virtue, as not being the proximate cause for supramundane virtue. "Or virtue is by non-transgression and constant practice, ascetic practice." the vow is by the non-existence of what is undertaken. Morality is the determination of one's own state as a cow or other animal. A vow is the performance of actions like eating as a cow or other animal while going along. Or morality is abstaining from what is considered not to be done. A vow is the specific practice of performing actions like eating for a Vesakha festival, having undertaken that. Thus they speak of the distinction between morality and vows. 1007. "From the arising of this, this arises" - here, "arising" does not mean mere generation, but also non-cessation. Thus it says, "the word 'jana' speaks of non-obstruction." Here is the meaning of the word 'jana': 'janitā' means 'janā', meaning 'unobstructed'. 'Puthujjanā' means 'many people', meaning 'beings who respect many teachers'. Or the word 'jana' has the meaning of 'forming', etc., as roots have many meanings. The word "unheard" indicates blindness, showing the absence of hearing regarding the aggregates, sense bases, etc., as the attainment of the eye of wisdom depends on hearing about them. They know what is done: they know truly the wholesome and unwholesome done by themselves and by others, and the happiness and suffering produced by them. They make manifest, in the manner described, the help done by others to themselves, and by themselves to others. They do what should be done, such as attending to one afflicted by illness, etc., or what should be done, in the manner described, for one afflicted by the suffering of transmigration. "Ariya-karadhammā" means "Ariya-saccāni" (Noble Truths). "Impermanent, etc., when seen with insight" is said with reference to the first two truths. Or, if the meaning is "seen with special understanding, etc.," then with the word "etc." (ādī) even the permanent Nibbāna is included, and it should be connected with reference to the four truths. Or, it should be understood that "impermanent, etc." refers to impermanence and so on. The remaining defilements are the stream of defilements. Knowledge is knowing truly. For by true understanding, those defilements are made to be of a nature that does not arise, and are therefore not fit to enter the mental continuum, and are called "restrained" and "closed." "Tathā" means in the manner of enduring the change of all formations. "Paññā khantī" (wisdom-patience) means that these unperverted phenomena endure by this investigation. Patience thus arises from the absence of ill-will. Blindness is the predominance of non-aversion. The aggregates are said to be "non-aversion itself," thus the third alternative is stated. Due to being the opposite of mindfulness, greed and ill-will are called "forgetfulness." Impatience is ill-will. The stability of phenomena is free from the extremes of eternalism and annihilationism, thus the grasping of eternalism and annihilationism is stated as its opposite. The doctrine of Nibbāna in this very life is the opposite of Nibbāna. The defilement is said to be craving, etc., which are to be abandoned by the final knowledge of conformity. Just as the knowledge of the path and the knowledge of insight, the knowledge of lineage functions to prevent the arising of defilements, but it also functions to transcend the sphere of defilements, therefore it is said "formations... and so on... abandonment." The co-operative cause for the disturbance of action is the nature of the arising of views, etc. Or the function of seeing, etc., and the function of seeing, etc., of oneself belonging to the eye, etc. Thus one grasps oneself as form, as one has reasoned. "As seen" means as understood by reasoning and perception. For one who holds to views does not grasp only the form-ayatana as self. "By this arising" means by the general arising that grasps form as self, which encompasses all. "In form... and so on... conceit" means the grasping of self that arises in the eye, etc., as "that nature is self." "Grasping of non-difference, etc." means the grasping of non-difference, of what belongs to self, of what is inherent in self, of what is based on self. "Of colors, etc." means of colors, trees, flowers, jewels. But are trees, flowers, and jewels not ultimately non-existent? It is true they are non-existent, but their substratum exists. Therefore, that which is aggregated, etc., is here spoken of by way of trees, etc. Thus there is no fault in the illustration of trees, etc., just as in the case of shadows and trees, etc., only the relationship of owner and owned, etc., of form and self is intended. 1008. The nature of birth, etc., means the nature of birth and becoming, etc., of producing and being produced. The ability to produce is the condition. 1009. Although it is generally stated "the defilements are of one essence with it" (Dhs. 1010), and later "the remaining greed" (Dhs. 1011), and it is obtainable by inference or by implication, it is also stated. either by nature or by division, because they are future, greed and so on are called "future," he says "here... (ellipsis) ...will explain." It is understood from the meaning that having arisen together with greed and so on, they are defilements mentioned in the Pāli text itself, concerning views. This meaning is also suitable because they are worthy of being designated as fettering defilements and because they arise concomitantly. "By those without fetters" means by sloth, restlessness, shamelessness, and fearlessness of wrongdoing, which are devoid of the nature of fetters, or by sloth, shamelessness, and fearlessness of wrongdoing. 1013. (ellipsis) says that even by a part, the whole is spoken of. Or because there is a cause for these, they are causal. "Undetermined" means not fixed. Because the meaning is to be taken by way of determining the preceding word, it is a meaning to be explained. "To set forth in meaning" means to designate by way of showing the meaning of the very qualities shown in the previous method, like in "the three wholesome roots: non-greed, non-hatred, non-delusion" and so on (Dhs. 1060), by the distinction of cause and what is to be abandoned by cause. 1029. Because the supramundane states associated with higher knowledge do not have limited objects, it is said "or the exalted states like psychic powers and so on." Because the knowledge of past lives is of the sense-sphere, he says "mind... (ellipsis) ...associated with knowledge." 1035. "Appointed in the immediate (result)" means the result immediately following death is immediate; appointed in that, because it absolutely produces that, it means they are unavoidable. The doing of the immediate of the aforementioned kind is immediate; that should be connected with "virtues." When many immediate (actions) have been done, although only the powerful one gives rebirth, not the others, but because the task to be done by oneself is done by that (powerful one), and because it proceeds by way of supporting its result, the other (actions) are not indeed results prevented by it. What then to say of wholesome deeds which are opposed (to them)? Therefore it is said "because their results are not prevented by the opponent." "Why is it said 'even in many... (ellipsis) ...there is not'?" "Is it not true that when many immediate (actions) are done, only the powerful one gives rebirth? And by that, the result of the others is obstructed?" He says "and not for them" and so on. And that for them Their non-obstruction of each other has been extensively discussed in the matrix description. Without taking the meaning as it arises, but taking the meaning of the Pāli text simply according to its sound, and referring to the occurrence of those views as a consequence thereof, it is said "the former view" and so on, to show the distinction of the view of no cause and so on. But even one who denies the cause of bondage and liberation, which is the action of preparation, divided into non-emancipatory and emancipatory, denies action. In the Sumaṅgalavilāsinī, however, since result is the cause of action, defilement, concentration, and wisdom, result is also a cause of bondage and liberation, so it is said, "one who says 'there is no cause' denies both" (Dī. Ni. Aṭṭha. 1.170-172). There, by denying action, result is denied; and by denying result, action is denied. Thus, all three of these views are to be understood as denying both in terms of meaning.