English
thus the distinction between covetousness and sensual passion is stated as being of the nature of the two cankers and one canker. And covetousness and phenomena, excluding wrong view and ignorance, are not of the nature of cankers. And covetousness is indeed of the nature of the two cankers, and there is no greed that is not of the nature of covetousness; with this intention he says, "the existence of greed that is not a canker should be investigated." It is said "seven by enumeration in terms of cause," referring to the text of the question section. For there, "A canker-phenomenon is a condition by way of root-cause for a canker-phenomenon. A canker-phenomenon for a non-canker-phenomenon. A canker-phenomenon for a canker-phenomenon and a non-canker-phenomenon. A non-canker-phenomenon for a non-canker-phenomenon. A non-canker-phenomenon for a canker-phenomenon. A non-canker-phenomenon for a canker-phenomenon and a non-canker-phenomenon. Canker-phenomena and non-canker-phenomena are a condition by way of root-cause for a non-canker-phenomenon." (Paṭṭhāna 3.3.16) In terms of these variations, it is said "seven by enumeration." If there were greed that is also of the nature of a non-canker, then in terms of a mind associated with wrong view, "Canker-phenomena and non-canker-phenomena, namely delusion and greed as stated, are a condition by way of root-cause for a canker-phenomenon, namely wrong view," would be the seventh. And making the seventh that appears in the Pāli an eighth, "Canker-phenomena and non-canker-phenomena are a condition by way of root-cause for a canker-phenomenon and a non-canker-phenomenon," a ninth question would be stated, but it is not stated. Thus, having shown the non-existence of the non-canker nature of greed associated with wrong view, he shows that for the other also. This is what was said, "and in those disconnected from view." 1162. Just as when a person is said to walk, stand, or sit, due to the occurrence of a certain kind of bodily posture, so too, the mind that produces clear forms supports the postures. That mind, however, is of fifty-eight kinds, breaking down into fifty-seven javanas (impulsive consciousnesses) and one voṭṭhabbana (determining consciousness), whether it be wholesome or functional, and whether it has attained or not attained the fifth jhāna. It is said that "being unable to maintain the posture" means that the mind accompanied by sloth and torpor does not produce or support clear forms, because it makes co-arising phenomena unworkable. 1163. Even in the opposite case, due to its presence, it is inconclusive and therefore does not prove the fear of form. The attainment of heaviness, the absence of lightness, should be understood. Even though other unwholesome states also lack lightness, it is said "by forms arisen from sloth and torpor" because sloth and torpor are absolutely opposed to lightness, and the result is in accordance with the cause. "Not waking... etc. ...continuity" shows by this that sleep is not established in the mental body. In "the result of torpor," it is not intended that torpor alone is the cause of sleep; rather, it should be understood that the cause of sleep is indeed torpor. Thus, in the commentaries, it is shown that for Arahants, the cause of sleep is the weakness of the physical body, distinct from torpor. Onāha is covering or spreading. Thinking that this is the very nature of form, he said, "Onāha and pariyonāha are mentioned together with it." Vipphārika-bhāva is a clear occurrence in the sense of non-contraction. "Like the state of obstruction" shows that even though torpor has the nature of obstruction, its unique and exclusive nature is onahana and so on. The intention here is that since the nature of obstruction is common to all five, including sensual desire, the state of onahana and so on, which is similar to the state of obstruction, is taken as being found in the mental body. "Drinking" and "application" mean that the volition that accomplishes that action is intended, as in "the drinking of liquor, liquor... etc. ...and application." Because of unwholesomeness, the weakening of defilements is proper, it is said. "The consumption of intoxicants and fermented liquors, and addiction to places of heedlessness" is the intention of another. "Becoming a hindrance," and so on, shows this: "For the accusation that shows the associated nature of hindrances with the nature of hindrances, the taking of a form that is unassociated, whose application is not seen anywhere as a hindrance, as it is obtained, is not a proper inference. But the taking of those natures that are associated with the established nature of hindrances, only those formless phenomena of that nature are shown, not form. Thus, just as sloth, so too torpor is understood to be formless." "Yanti" by which word. "Asambhavavacanato" because of the nature of the word "impossibility." "Tena" by that word for the abandoning of desire-and-lust for the object of form. Having made the abandoning of form different from the abandoning of desire-and-lust for form, it is called "another action." Which in the commentary is called "otherwise." "Idanti" and so on, shows that the Pāli phrase "abandon that" does not intend an absolute abandonment. "It is suitable only for the formless" shows that the mind, which is very difficult to see, far-ranging, and so on, and the formless phenomenon associated with it, are alone capable of binding. "Pervasion of the mind" is the taking of a wholesome mind. For hindrances, when they arise, are said to take up the wholesome turn by not allowing it to arise. And here, "pariyuṭṭhānaṃ" (pervasion) is like in "thieves pervaded the road," and so on. 1176. Restlessness and remorse are stated together, referring to the enumeration, question, and conclusion. But what is said in the commentary, after stating the reason for restlessness being separate from remorse, "stated separately," refers to the separate designation of restlessness and remorse in the explanation of the phrase "both hindrances and associated with hindrances." The pre-eminence of sensual desire as a hindrance is its nature as a lower fetter. For it, taking sensual desire of the type of desire for form and desire for the formless, is called "pre-eminent hindrance" because of its intense function. Indeed, craving is called the hindrance of sensual desire, not by being broken down. And when it is said that the hindrance of sensual desire is abandoned completely by the path of the non-returner, the craving that is to be abandoned by the fourth path would become non-hindering in nature. Thus it says, "If... (etc.) ...it were." The non-hindering type of craving, such as attachment to form and formless realms, is for the hindrance of ignorance, etc. By the word "etc.", it includes these five questions: "The non-hindering phenomenon is a condition for the hindering and non-hindering phenomenon. The hindering and non-hindering phenomena are a condition for the hindering phenomenon. The hindering and non-hindering phenomena are a condition for the non-hindering phenomenon. The hindering and non-hindering phenomena are a condition for the hindering and non-hindering phenomenon by way of root condition." (Paṭṭhāna 3.8.25) It is said "four" based on three rooted in the hindrance term and one rooted in the non-hindrance term. But it is said "nine" based on three each rooted in hindrance, non-hindrance, and both. Therefore, because there is no Pāli text in the manner shown, there is no non-hindering craving. 1219. By that very means: by the very way of former view arising. For the words "permanent, beautiful," etc., spoken by those with views, and the words of worldly usage like "sky-flower," etc., spoken by those without views, their objects are merely objects of speech. Thus it says, "speech... (etc.) ...or." 1221. Standing in another world with the mind: He who, by being born in a certain world, is himself standing there, takes another world as "another world" with his mind and stands there. 1236. Indeed, by "not by former ones," etc., it shows that the defilements like lust, etc., which have been eradicated from the state of going to lower realms by the first path, etc., are abandoned by the second path, etc. 1287. Even when signs of a bad destination, etc., are present, intense craving does not arise as it does for signs of a good destination, etc. Thus it says, "due to the absence of strong attachment." 1301. Just as there is a co-arising sequence for those arising in one mind-moment, so too there is for those arising in one continuum. Thus, by the singleness of abandonment, the lust and the delusion accompanied by doubt and restlessness... spoken as 'raṇatā'. The delusion born together with restlessness and doubt, that too is 'with defilement' because of its oneness in abandonment with lust. To show that the explanation of the term 'saraṇa' (with defilement), which encompasses all unwholesome things by way of the classification of kamma arising from the aggregates associated with the defilements of greed, hatred, and delusion, also corresponds to the Araṇa-vibhaṅga Sutta, it begins with "in the Araṇa-vibhaṅga Sutta". The commentary's showing of lust and other defilements, or all unwholesome states, as 'saraṇa' by illustrating their oneness in association and abandonment, is to be understood as referring to the mutual 'saraṇa' nature of the states shown in the Pāḷi, and as denying the 'saraṇa' nature of other states, otherwise there would be a contradiction with the Araṇa-vibhaṅga Sutta. Or, since the Suttanta teaching is a conventional discourse, just as the 'saraṇa' nature is of unwholesome states in a non-conventional sense, so too is the 'araṇa' nature; thus, there is no contradiction with the Sutta in the commentary's statement as it stands. Explanation of the Suttanta Duka-nikkhepa Discourse 1313. Here, in "the meaning that is the cause by the word 'I'",