English
Feeling, perception, volition, and consciousness are causes by way of co-arising with phenomena born with them, so it is said, "even if there is a generative nature in immaterial nutriments." The act of upholding exists because their causal nature extends even beyond their production. Even if there is no generative nature, because the material form being upheld has been generated by other respective causes. Therefore, it is said, "of the material nutriment that upholds material form arisen from four sources." To the extent that material and immaterial nutriments are causes for the arising of their fruit, to that extent they are also causes for its duration, so the act of upholding does not deviate from the generative nature. Therefore, of a nutriment that does not uphold, Whence is the generating? Therefore he said, "But if there is no… and so on… there is not" is the supporting as primary. Since the generator, even without generating, becomes a supporter as food, but without supporting, it does not become a generator at all, therefore its supporting is primary, this is the meaning. Now, showing that even generating occurs only through the mode of supporting for foods, he said, "For even while generating," and so on. In the mode of non-interruption means in the mode of continuous contact. Having kept in mind the question, "If the meaning of dominance is the faculty conditionality, then what is the difference between the faculty condition and the dominance condition?" he shows that difference between them, saying, "Not like the dominance condition factors," and so on. There, "preventers of occurrence" means other dominance condition factors that prevent the occurrence of one's own dominance condition. "By occurring having overcome" means by occurring having overpowered by the leading position established by previous volitional formations. "Heaviness" means seniority. This is the brief meaning here – that the meaning is that the meaning of dominance in the faculty conditionality is not that seniority by which desire and so on occur having overcome co-existing factors that obstruct their own occurrence, just like other factors. Then who indeed? He said, "Then indeed," and so on. The connection is: "the conformity of the eye and so on to the eye-consciousness and so on, by the eye and so on as conditions, in the functions of seeing and so on, which are the signs." The construction is: "the conformity of life to life, by co-arisen factors that are alive, in the sustenance of life; the conformity of pleasure and so on to pleasure and so on, by co-arisen factors that are pleased, distressed, joyful, sorrowful, and equanimous." "In those respective functions" refers back to the mentioned functions of seeing and so on. "Eye and so on as conditions for these" means eye-consciousness and so on. "By those eye and so on as conditions." "Of the eye and so on" means of the eye and so on, life, pleasure and so on, faith and so on. "In those functions" means in the functions of seeing and so on. "The mastery of the eye and so on is the meaning of dominance, that is the faculty conditionality," this is the meaning. "Of those conditions" of eye-consciousness and so on, by following them, by following those eyes and so on. There, in the function of seeing and so on. "Occurrence" - this is the manifestation of its dominant state. For by the follower, the followed dominant state becomes manifest. Just as the dominant state is by way of the function of eyes and so on, not so for the two states of being. But showing that it is merely a cause of that kind, he says, "But as for the faculties of male and female," and so on. "By conditions" - by conditions such as kamma. "From that" - from being a condition for the apprehension of male and so on. "In the continuum accompanied by that" - in the continuum accompanied by the female faculty and so on. "The faculties of pleasure and pain are also apprehended by the apprehension of the eye and so on" - this is said with reference to the faculty condition itself, but by post-natal and so on, they are also conditions for material phenomena. "Of those that are the object of close observation of characteristics and objects" - of those that occur by way of close observation of the characteristic of impermanence and so on, and of the object such as the earth kasina and so on. "Of vitakka and so on" - of initial application, sustained application, rapture, feeling, and one-pointedness of mind. "Approaching and close observation" - approaching and observing more clearly the object of jhāna with the eye of jhāna, which in essence is merely thinking, thus it is said, "looking and thinking." Therefore he says, "by way of initial application and so on." It is common only to vitakka and so on, whereby they alone are called "jhāna factors." "The two feelings of pleasure and pain" - even the general statement indicates that it is of a non-closely-observing nature, because the state of close observation is predominant, thus he says, "the two faculties of pleasure and pain." For that is intended here, not the faculties of joy and sorrow. Therefore it is said, "the intention." Equanimity and one-pointedness of mind, which are not jhāna factors, accompanied by the five consciousnesses, should be understood as being after vitakka, among the jhāna factors. "If so" - if the non-jhāna factors are excluded by the very term "jhāna factors," if that is the case. Absolutely, not conditionally like equanimity. For the non-jhāna factor nature of equanimity is conditional. If the faculty of pleasure and pain is absolutely a non-jhāna factor, Then how is the connection? He said: Because it is designated in the place of the jhāna factors. Or if the two feelings are entirely not jhāna factors, how is there the designation 'jhāna factor'? He said: Because it is designated in the place of the jhāna factors. Even though there is... (etc.)... for the purpose of showing, it is said: "excluding the two faculties of pleasure and pain." This is the connection. If so, why is such equanimity-one-pointedness not excluded along with the two feelings mentioned? He said: "Equanimity... (etc.)... exists." The meaning is: there is no jhāna-condition-state for those accompanied by the five consciousnesses, but not for others. "The taking is done of equanimity-one-pointedness," bringing this in, is the connection. "From wherever it may be," means the exit from a bad destination or a good destination, from defilement or from purification. This, in due course, is either right or wrong, he said: "It means either right or wrong." In "they are not found in rootless consciousnesses," the emphasis should be taken as: "they are not found *only* in rootless consciousnesses," and not: "they are *only* not found in rootless consciousnesses." Therefore, in the former emphasis, the non-finding in rootless consciousnesses is certain, and thus it is excluded in the counterparts. Therefore he said: "It is said to show the absence of non-finding in rooted consciousnesses." But in the second, rootless consciousnesses are certain in non-finding, so there must be non-finding in them without remainder. If that were so, any jhāna-condition found in some rootless consciousnesses would also be prevented. Therefore it is said: "Not in rootless consciousnesses," and so on. There, "for the purpose of showing the absence of finding" means it is not said *only* for the purpose of showing the absence of finding. By that, the finding in some cases is not rejected. Therefore he said: "The finding of something by someone in some place is not prevented." When the meaning is taken thus, that is, when the meaning is understood in the way stated, by means of the emphasis on the first word. Only this much should be understood: that the finding of any condition among the jhāna-path conditions in some rootless consciousnesses is not prevented; only this much should be understood, because it is stated without distinction. "What more is to be done here?" he said. ‘not accompanied by initial application…etc…done’’. Even if it is not done, it should be understood that in essence it is done. Or in the sense of showing the absence of gain in the rootless consciousnesses, etc., the meaning is shown by determining the last word. Therefore, because when such a rule is made that they are not obtained in the rootless consciousnesses, the aforementioned meaning becomes possible, therefore. And to show that this meaning also corresponds with another reading, “by which non-gain” etc. is said. That non-gain means that non-gain declared in the Dhammasaṅgaṇī. This means this non-gain mentioned in this Paṭṭhāna commentary as “not obtained in the rootless consciousnesses”. What kind of non-gain is it? To show that, he says “just as” etc. There, in the rooted means in the rooted consciousnesses. Having drawn together means having made them unscattered. Making them attain oneness means bringing them into a single state. In this treatise, however, the jhāna condition is stated as it is, in the explanation of the mode of the condition of gain, due to its prominence in the teaching. Samam means evenly, rightly, or together. By modes means by modes such as having a single basis. By suitability means by being conjoined. And that suitability, since it is like the attainment of oneness even of many things existing by nature, therefore it is said “helpfulness as if attaining oneness”. And such helpfulness should be shown by the co-occurrence of many of them acting as one. Even of those that are suitable means even of those that are similar, suitable by being connected to each other in the manner stated.