English
And this suitability should not be understood as in the condition of concomitance, where both the conditioning phenomena and the conditioned phenomena are mental, and both are equally balanced; here, due to the nature of both material and immaterial, there is a disparity, this is the difference. By the state of dissociation means by the state of disjunction. Therefore it is said “by attaining diversity”. And this is the specific characteristic of dissociation, that dissociation which is called attaining diversity, it is not merely an absence as in “dissociated from knowledge” etc. And this helpfulness without conjunction, s should be shown by their being established, by their being functional, and so on. And so on, "not indeed" is the corroboration of the meaning of "connected," as it was said, "only when there is such a connection, there is the condition of being disconnected." Therefore, it was said, "not indeed," and so on. Its meaning is: just as from the statement "the base is a condition for the aggregates, co-arisen wholesome aggregates are a condition for mind-originated forms, subsequently arisen wholesome aggregates are a condition for this body that arose previously, by way of disconnected condition" and so on (Paṭṭhāna 1.1.434), there is the disconnected condition for those connected by way of base, co-arisen, subsequently arisen, so there is not for those disconnected by way of base, co-arisen... and so on. If so, why is the disconnected condition not stated for forms with forms? It says, "but for forms," and so on. There is no disconnection itself, due to the absence of any doubt of connection. For the non-material things that are connected with forms, and for forms with them, there might be a doubt of connection, but there is no characteristic of connection, so their disconnection is stated. Therefore, it was said, "connection with four, disconnection with four." "There are those who have done evil deeds," here, the existence, being specified by the state of having done, indicates the accomplished state of the action, not the state of being accomplished. Therefore, it says, "the state of existence characterized by production." In reality, however, the existence of kamma is to be understood here as having unproduced fruit. "There is a person," here, the comprehensibility of that designation, or the uninterrupted continuity of its substratum, is indeed obtained. Therefore, it was said, "the state of existence characterized by being obtainable." Even if the existence of a conditioning dhamma is its obtainability from its arising until its dissolution, nevertheless, just as its activity is more pronounced in the moment of standing than in the moment of arising, so it is in the conditioned. Therefore, it was said, "even with generating, the helpfulness by way of existence, which is like a support." "Base, object, co-arisen," and so on, the word "and so on" includes previously arisen, subsequently arisen, and so on. "By way of existence itself, not by way of support," and so on, clarifies the helpfulness that was called "common." Contact That there is no co-existence of many things is not said with reference to a single moment of consciousness, but rather with reference to different moments of consciousness. This is shown by the statement: “When there is one aggregate of contact, etc., there is not a second.” This meaning is understood by the rejection of co-existence: “There is no co-existence.” This much is explained for the sake of those who do not yet understand. By that: by the absence of co-existence of many contacts, etc. If mere non-existence is not helpfulness or not a condition, it could also be by way of the immediately past. Addressing this objection, it is said: “Even when there is,” etc. Those: the earlier thoughts. Why is it said “as if giving”? Does it not just give opportunity? Indeed, it is said: “Helpfulness by giving opportunity for arising.” This is true. The word “as if” is used to show that the conditioning phenomena are as if passing into non-existence with such an intention. To clarify the special meaning found in non-existent and departed conditions, even when there is a commonality of unobtainability of the condition among non-existence and departure, it is said: “And here,” etc. By mere non-existence: by having been and then being non-existent. Therefore, here, it speaks of the helpfulness of the conditioning phenomenon immediately after cessation, as it is called “giving opportunity.” By departure of nature: by this, it is said that even after cessation, “departure is the attainment of cessation.” When the distinctions of non-existence and departure are shown, by which the non-existent and departed conditions are spoken of in the conditioning phenomenon, the distinction of the non-existent and departed conditions is shown. Thus, it is said: “Non-existence is emptiness immediately after cessation, departure is the attainment of cessation.” Here, “immediately after cessation” does not mean “simultaneous with cessation.” Thus: by this, just as the distinction of non-existent and departed conditions is determined even in the non-distinction of the conditioning phenomena, so too is the distinction of existent and undeparted conditions. This meaning is summarized. For just as the distinction of non-existence and departure is marked by the immediate cessation and the attainment of cessation, so too is the distinction of the conditioning phenomenon's existence and cessation. By understanding that they are present and not departed. How then will this distinction in phenomena, this specific conditionality, which stands as difficult to understand, be properly explained? He says, 'For of phenomena...' and so on. For the full comprehension of those specific conditions. The construction is made by changing the case ending to 'by immediate, etc.', because not even one of the four aggregates is not included. 'Other' means subtle matter. Indeed, that is not a pre-nascent condition. But isn't even matter not mentioned as a pre-nascent condition in the 'kusalattika' triad? He says, 'But matter...' and so on. Even though it is not mentioned in the 'kusalattika' triad, it is mentioned elsewhere. Therefore, it is not possible to deny the pre-nascent conditionality of matter, because it is mentioned in the 'sanidassanattika' and other triads, this is the meaning. The explanation of the enumeration of conditions is concluded. Exposition of Conditions 1. Explanation of the Exposition of Root Condition 'Conditionality by root condition' is designated as 'root condition', not 'root condition phenomenon', this is the meaning. That is, a condition by way of a root. And here, the conditionality by root condition mentioned in the first alternative, and the condition by way of a root mentioned in the second alternative, since in essence it is simply the root conditionality of the aforementioned conditioning phenomenon to the aforementioned conditioned phenomena, therefore it is said, 'Thus it is shown that in both ways, helpfulness by way of a root is designated as root condition.' Just as here, so too in the case of object condition and so on, the meaning should be understood as: 'conditionality by object condition, or a condition by way of an object is object condition.' Thus he says, showing that 'this method applies to the remaining conditions as well.' It is merely the nature of phenomena, there is no such thing as a 'power of phenomena' apart from phenomena. He says 'helpful phenomenon' meaning the conditioning phenomenon. 'Helpfulness' means conditionality. 'Designated individually' means designated by way of individual, meaning designated by the first case ending. By that, meaning by the first word 'hetu' (root), which is individually designated and serves as the exposition of the conditioning phenomenon. 'Of this' refers to the meaning denoted by the word 'hetu'. So it is of six kinds, of nine kinds, of twelve kinds, thus, though divided into many distinctions, by the commonality of being a cause, it is gathered into one and spoken of with a single word. The second is the word "cause," thus, bringing it in, it is connected. "Of those associated with a cause" is said because it is emphasized: "A cause, being a condition for those associated with it, is a condition only for those associated with a cause, not for those dissociated from it." This is how this phrase is to be understood. For it is not that in every respect the cause-condition does not apply to phenomena dissociated from a cause. Because the word "associated" is a relative term, it is said, "because the word 'associated' is relative." For when "associated" is said, it necessarily expects another relative term: "associated with what?" Therefore, it says, "of another... etc.... is understood." "This is not absolute" refers to the meaning stated earlier, "when the second word 'cause' is absent," this is not absolute, the idea that a relative word can be a qualifier for another does not hold true in all cases. "Indicated individually" with this, it states the independence of the first word "cause" from the word "associated." Therefore, it is said, "it is only engaged in 'a condition by a cause-condition'." "Unspecified" means not qualified. Thus, just as the associated are not qualified by the word "cause" which is engaged elsewhere, being occupied with another function, so too, by the word "associated," which is devoid of the qualification of the word "cause," being engaged only in that meaning, there would be an unspecified grasping of the associated. Therefore, it is said, "by the word 'associated'... etc." "Because there is no unassociated with nutriment and faculties" means because there is no phenomenon unassociated with nutriment and faculties. For there is no mind-arising devoid of contact, volition, consciousness, feeling, and life. Therefore, it says, "to be avoided... etc.... that is not done."