English
located in a suitable place, all of them. "They are not together" means they are not a single object. Even if many come into range together, wherever there is prior attention, that alone is the object, not all. And this is said in terms of a collection of blue and so on, not in terms of each individual blue and so on sight-field. For it is the collected sight-fields that are the object of eye-consciousness, not separate ones, this method is shown in the commentary on the Analysis of Elements. And what is said in the commentary, "those various ones are various object-conditions," that too is said with reference to the aforementioned meaning. Otherwise, the sight-field would not be an object of the mind-faculty. The same method applies to sounds and so on. Therefore it is said, "likewise sounds and so on." To clarify the meaning of "they are not together" by the Pāli, it says, "for the phrase 'whatever' differentiates sights and so on." The former meaning is "these," and so on, while the latter is "they are not one," and so on. Why is it said, "or here too the meaning should be understood in terms of all-objectivity and so on"? For the all-objectivity of mind-consciousness does not precede this passage, "whatever dhamma is grasped," as it does the Pāli phrase, "whatever one grasps." For it is said, "all dhammas are conditions for the mind-consciousness element and its associated dhammas by way of object-condition." For one should not take the meaning that has just appeared in the Pāli itself and then comment on another word. For there, after stating the six objects by way of rule with "or a sight-object," and so on, the phrase "whatever one grasps" is appropriate for showing all-objectivity and so on. they are aware of. Here, however, having stated that all objects are included, and then saying "whatever phenomenon they apprehend," how can this be consistent with showing that all objects are included? The absence of a sequence is also established by the general statement "all phenomena," because objects are not grasped in a gradual order. For here, objects are not grasped in sequence by the mind-consciousness element, as they are by the mind-element, nor is the absence of a rule explained in the same way as there. Therefore, the meaning here should be understood according to the method stated in the commentary. "Pavattanti" means "they proceed." Just as the flowing of a river and the standing of a mountain are said to be continuous and uninterrupted actions, so too is this proceeding. Therefore, it is said, "flowing continuously and uninterruptedly." Thus, just as the present tense "sandanti" (they flow) was used, so too, by including all phenomena in "whatever phenomena arise," the present tense "uppajjanti" (they arise) is used for the arising of objects. Therefore, the commentary says, "by way of including all times," and so on. And it is said, "past, future...pe...intention," meaning past, future, and present mental states and mental concomitants. "Samudāyavasena" means by way of gathering them together with the mind. "Adhippāyo" indicates that it is possible to apply the present tense meaning to "whatever phenomena arise" even without the present tense usage. Therefore, it says, "these, however," and so on. Although some conditioning phenomena are past and future, the conditioned phenomenon is only present, so it says, "they do not exist for the past and future." For the conditioned phenomenon must exist by its condition at the moment of arising or at the moment of persistence. "Tasmā" means because the past and future do not exist in ultimate reality. "Tesū" means among those conditioned phenomena. "Taṃtaṃpaccayā" means those for which this or that form, etc., is the condition. This meaning is shown by their similar nature. For there is no difference in nature due to a difference in meaning. But the state of having this or that condition is not shown. In past and future (things), unequivocally, because of their non-existence. Because conditioned things are only conditioned, and they are only present. "Whatever phenomenon, those phenomena" — this distinction in wording, to show that, "and here" etc. was begun. Material and immaterial phenomena, though arising in clusters, are sometimes separate objects for consciousness and mental factors, sometimes together. There is no fixed rule here. Previous apprehension alone is the reason for such grasping. And it can be said that the Blessed One made this distinction in wording to illustrate this. However, because when phenomena belonging to one cluster are apprehended together, the whole collection is not grasped due to the absence of such apprehension, but rather the phenomena that have come together, even simultaneous apprehension is of the nature of separate apprehension. Therefore, to show the existence of separate apprehension, having said "whatever, whatever," and to show that even with separate apprehension, all of them together become object conditions, "those, those" was said. Explaining this meaning, he said "for the four aggregates" etc. There, "in feelings etc." means in the four aggregates like feelings, by way of grasping them undivided. But by way of grasping them divided, it means in contacts etc. And "whatever is material etc." this is said by way of a common object for the intervening consciousness. And "whatever are many contacts etc." this is said by way of an uncommon object. "All of them" refers to all object-phenomena, both common and uncommon kinds. What needs to be said regarding "arising by apprehending each one," has already been said below. And material object-phenomena are many, due to distinctions like blue etc. Similarly, many. By that, he includes drum sounds etc., root smells etc., root tastes etc., hard touches etc., and feelings etc. For by "many" he states that colors etc. belonging to many clusters are objects for sense consciousness. For what is said generally should be shown by dividing it appropriately. "Of wholesome and resultant" means of wholesome and of resultant. "Nibbāna was not dwelt in before" this (is explained) by "one who has seen Nibbāna" etc. It was spoken, having placed the meaning to be stated in the heart. Indeed, the realization of Nibbāna by the knowledge of past lives might be for one who has not seen the truth, or for one who has seen the truth. There, by one who has not seen the truth, it is not possible to realize it, because it has not been penetrated. But for the other, it is already manifest, so the intention is that it is understood as realized by him. And here, by "it was not spoken," the non-objectification of Nibbāna by the knowledge of past lives is shown from the scriptures, and by "Nibbāna is not," etc., it is shown by reasoning. There, why was it said, "It was not dwelt in before, being unconditioned"? Because what is resorted to by resorting to an object is desired to be "dwelt in." Indeed, only one who has seen the truth realizes Nibbāna with the knowledge of past lives, not one who has not seen the truth. But that knowledge, just as it realizes the aggregates, also realizes what is connected to the aggregates. Thus, in realizing the aggregates which are objects of Nibbāna, Nibbāna itself can be understood as realized. By this, the objection of lack of purpose is to be seen as refuted. Similarly, this should be applied to the knowledge of future events. Just as the objectification of Nibbāna by the knowledge of past lives was shown, so too, it should be applied appropriately to the knowledge of future events. But there, the application is to be understood as "at the time of realizing what is connected to the aggregates," etc. Therefore it was said, "appropriately." For some who have attained supernormal powers, even in the rūpāvacara realm, how much more for others. The explanation of the object condition is concluded. 3. Explanation of the Predominance Condition 3. "Burden" is said because of its association with the burden-bearer, so he says, "Burden means taking the lead." Taking the established praiseworthy nature of desire's precedence, it was called "chief" in the commentary; elucidating that very meaning, he says "foremost." For thus it is said in the Aṭṭhasālinī: "having made desire the forerunner, it was exerted." "Of the former desire" means the word "desire" spoken descriptively in the previous term "desire-predominance," in a similar form, with a similar appearance. Immediately after. By what is indicated, immediately after that previous word 'chanda', by what is stated by way of indication. And for that very reason, and because of its similar meaning, and by its connection, in "associated with chanda," by the word 'chanda' alone, the meaning is, without the word 'adhipati'. Of that which is a condition, (meaning) of that which is an adhipati-condition. The state of being a qualifier for associated things, is that very state of being a qualifier for phenomena associated with itself, reckoned as the adhipati-condition. This method, by this, in phrases like "energy-dominant, for those associated with energy," and so on, in the same way as the former energy, extends the meaning to be stated. The occurrence of wholesome and indeterminate things, (meaning) the manner of occurrence of the wholesome and indeterminate dominants. An unobtained object is to be obtained, obtainable, or capable of being obtained; but in the second sense, it is "to be obtained" because it deserves gain. Un-despised, the meaning is, not despised from the outset. Wholesome functional phenomena that have attained absorption are indeed very powerful and dominant; and so too are those fixed in wrongness, thus it is said, "similar to absorption... (etc.)... do not arise." Similar to absorption, (meaning) similar to those that have attained absorption. And those that are hindrances of kamma and defilements: those phenomena fixed in wrongness are hindrances of kamma;