English
This is a sign here for the explanation, namely, the sequential occurrence and the bearing of the burden that has come, as it is the task of the wise. The connection is: "having shown what has not yet arrived." Therein: in that showing of time and so on. "Restraint, cessation" is Yama, "death," he says, "when there is birth, there is death... (and so on)... the domain." Here, just as "when there is birth, there is death" means birth is the domain of Yama, so too, it should be connected as "when the aggregates of clinging exist, there is death" means the aggregates of clinging are the domain of Yama. For these are subject to death. The messengers of Yama inflict various tortures on the person who has committed evil deeds only when death has arrived, not before death has arrived; therefore, death is called the domain of Yama. "The place where commands are issued" is the meaning of the word "domain." "The place" refers to the realm of the three planes of existence, such as the sense-sphere. For the King of Death is the lord of the three planes. The five heinous crimes and the dedication to another teacher, or together with that, the five enmities and the six impossible states. "Turning" means circumambulation. "Body hairs" means hairs. The explanation of the beginning of the text is finished. 1. The Root Yamaka Explanation of the Summary Section 1. "Of the collection of Yamakas": of the collection of Yamakas, such as the Root Yamaka. For the Root Yamaka and so on, although they are parts in relation to the treatise, they are called a collection of Yamakas in relation to their permanent parts. Therefore, it says, "of that collection and of the entire treatise." "Of the distinctions of wholesome and unwholesome roots": the connection is, "because the state of being a meaning-yamaka of the distinctions of wholesome roots, which are included in the doubtful terms mentioned in the second question, and likewise of the wholesome roots mentioned in the first question, has been stated." Just as the wholesome phenomena, which were mentioned as having distinctions in the first question, are mentioned as distinctions in the second question, so too, the wholesome root phenomena, which were mentioned as distinctions in the first question, are mentioned as having distinctions in the second question. For the phenomena... they are distinct and have distinctions. The meaning is that the roots of wholesome and unwholesome actions, which are gathered in doubtful terms, are distinct and have distinctions. Here, the first interpretation of meaning is stated in terms of the distinct having distinctions, while the second is in terms of the distinct having distinctions. This is their difference. Therefore, it says, "of those wishing to know," and so on. Here, "of those wishing to know" means those that are the subject of the question. "Distinctions" means the distinctions of wholesome and unwholesome roots. "Having distinctions" means those that are relative to the distinct, which are called wholesome roots and wholesome actions. "Having distinctions" means wholesome roots and wholesome actions. "Relative to distinctions" means relative to the distinctions of wholesome and unwholesome roots. "Here" means in this root pair. "Predominance" means that in the first interpretation, due to the predominance of the doubtful, the predominance of the distinctions of the question should be understood. For these are the distinct of the doubtful. In the second interpretation, however, distinctions are dependent on the distinct, so the predominance of the distinct should be seen there. But the predominance of both together is not appropriate. For if there is a non-predominant, there would be a predominant. Therefore, it says, "each question encompasses only one meaning." And this should be accepted, otherwise, the predominance here would not be appropriate with respect to the determined and distinguished. "Not a word for phenomena" means not a word for inherent phenomena. Even inherent phenomena are called "meaning" in phrases like "deeply wise, seeing subtle meaning" (Sn 178). In phrases like "knowledge of cause and effect is analytical knowledge of meaning" (Vibh 720), the word "meaning" should be understood as referring to cause and effect. The word "and so on" includes the meaning of benefit, etc., as found in "attainment of meaning" (S I.129) and so on. "Therefore" means precisely because it is a word for the meaning of the Pāli text. "All three terms": here, the word "pi" (even/also) is for aggregation, and aggregation occurs in similar contexts. To dispel the doubt that the word "nāma" (name) collects wholesome actions, etc., without remainder, it says, "three." ...and so on... comprehensiveness." There, "mere comprehensiveness" - the word "mere" means to exclude a specific quality. To show the exclusion of that specific quality, it is said: "not complete comprehensiveness." For form is not comprehended by the term "name." The rule should be understood as: "only wholesome things, etc., are name," not "only name is wholesome things, etc." Referring to this very rule, it is said: "it is said with reference to the mere comprehensiveness of wholesome things, etc." Although the term "name" does not completely comprehend wholesome things, etc., it does comprehend wholesome things, etc. And it is taken for that purpose. Thus, showing that "name" is included in the wholesome triad, it is said: "wholesome things... and so on... it is said." The explanation of the Summary Section is concluded. The explanation of the Detailed Section. 52. In the second pair, it is in the single-root pair. Similarly here, just as in the single-root pair the question "Whatever are wholesome" is begun, so too here in the mutual-root pair, the question "Whatever are wholesome" should be begun. Why? Because the former pair... and so on... does not proceed in that way. This is said because the second pair does not proceed in that way, but the third pair does proceed in that way. "Some" refers to the grammarians. For they say that just as in the first and second pairs, the latter question is made by reversing the former question, so the latter question is similar to the former question, except for being in reverse order; but it is not so in the mutual-root pair. For there, both questions are mutually dissimilar. If there too, both questions should be similar, then the first question "Whatever are wholesome" should be begun, or the latter question "All those phenomena have one root with the wholesome root" should be said. But not saying this, and not making the former and latter questions similar as in the first and second pairs, in the third pair their dissimilarity is due to "Whatever are wholesome" not being begun. Therefore, referring to this meaning, that the direct question should be in accordance with the reverse question, they say: "by not asking 'Whatever are wholesome'." "By way of meaning" is by way of facts that arise, both certain and doubtful. "Suitable for that" means suitable to that former question by way of meaning and expression. Indeed, having considered the former, the latter should be. "Therefore" means therefore. Because even when doubt is resolved in the direct order, doubt arises in the reverse order; if it did not arise, there would be no purpose for the reverse question. Therefore, the former question is not suitable for the latter question, but rather, in the manner stated, the latter question is suitable for the former question. And by that suitability, because of the connection of the two terms by way of meaning, etc., the "yamaka" (pair) of meaning, etc., is stated. Here, the direct and reverse order should be understood by the order of teaching, because it is said, "Wholesome are wholesome roots," and also, "Wholesome roots are wholesome." In the remaining "yamakas" too, this is the same method. Or here, the direct and reverse order should be understood from taking the distinguished and the distinction, or the distinction and the distinguished. Indeed, in the first question, showing those phenomena that are distinguished as the basis of certainty, having said, "Whatever wholesome phenomena," and among them, for the purpose of showing that in which the distinction is the basis of doubt, the question "Are all of them wholesome roots?" is made. But in the second question, in its reverse, showing that distinction by which they are distinguished as the conclusion, having said, "Or whatever wholesome roots," to show those distinguished ones as the basis of doubt, the question "Are all those phenomena wholesome?" is made. Indeed, conclusions and doubts have an undetermined object, because of the diverse inclinations of beings. "By this expression too" means by this phrase too: "Whatever are one-rooted with wholesome roots." "It cannot be said thus"—the intention with which it was said, that very intention is explained by "for not," etc. There, "by that very reason" is because the meaning of the expression "wholesome" and the meaning of the expression "one-rooted with wholesome roots" are different. "Explanation" means analysis. "Otherwise" means if the question were made by the expression "one-rooted with wholesome roots." "Those words" means the word "wholesome" and the word "wholesome root." with one root, and the word for one root. Its being shown as indeterminate should be seen as by way of formations arising from wholesome consciousness. Here, it is in the statement: “because the meaning of that very thing is possible even with this expression.” “Whatever wholesome things… …are possible” by this, it shows the non-deviation of wholesome things from having one root with the wholesome root. Therefore, it says: “for not… …are there.” “because the meaning of the expression itself is possible” for by this statement, that the meaning of the unstated expression is not possible, this meaning of the intention is clarified.