English
"Vacanena" means because co-nascent conditionality is not included in the Pāli by the word "aññamañña" (mutual), but it is obtained from the meaning. Therefore, it says "labbhamānepī" (even though it is obtained). "Tassa" refers to the mutual conditionality. "Evaṃ" means in this way, "not in the sense of mutuality." "Samudāyekadesavasena sāmivacanaṃ" means the genitive case in the sense of a part of the whole. The meaning is: in the part, in the whole, the word of the owner, or in determination, like "the black cow among the cows". The description of the Condition of Co-nascence is finished. 8. The Description of the Condition of Support 8. "At some time" this is not taken, because it is always obtained by the condition of support. For, co-nascent and pre-nascent are not distinguished, but merely the state of support is the condition of support. "The base-form in the five-constituent existence" the word "ca" (and) in "the base-form and in the five-constituent existence" should be seen as elided. "Of that" means of the setting aside of the formless result. "Because it is to be made manifest" by this it shows that the objection has no scope, by making the unmanifest manifest. The description of the Condition of Support is finished. 9. The Description of the Condition of Decisive Support 9. "Three in decisive support" means the three decisive supports in the categories of immediate, object, and natural decisive support. "Because of including many" means because of including many condition-states. "They are always" means they occur always due to the rule of mind, as causes of regulation. "In which states" means in which states such as wholesome. "Included" means gone to inclusion, the meaning is: only in those states such as wholesome is immediate decisive support obtained. In those, "of some" is not said. Why? It cannot be said, because it is always found. "In those" means in wholesome and unwholesome states. For, wholesome is not the immediate decisive support of unwholesome, nor is unwholesome of wholesome. But object and natural decisive supports are not always so, therefore "of some" is said there. "Of the established condition-states" means of the wholesome and so on, which have arisen previously as conditions, of wholesome or unwholesome. "By unwholesome and so on" means respectively by unwholesome or wholesome. "Without distinction" means without taking the rule of the aforementioned distinction, in unwholesome and so on, of unwholesome and wholesome, by "of some" and so on. The construction is: because of being without an object, it does not obtain object decisive support, and because of not occurring with a fixed prior-posterior sequence, it does not obtain immediate decisive support. "Of that which is natural" means of that which is produced, or of that which is cultivated. For, form is not There is the production of faith, etc., in one who sees, or the serving of seasons, food, etc., may occur. Therefore it is said: "Just as... ...by the appeasement of form." Now, in the appeasement of form, a distinction is obtained between earlier and later, and that is not without a cause of the same kind. So this is the acquisition of natural strong dependence. Lest one should sometimes suspect this, it is said: "And in which..." and so on. There, "tanti" means season, seed, etc., and kamma, etc., in that form, produced earlier. "Uppādanaṃ" (production) should be understood as intentional. "Pakappanaṃ" (planning) is like the earlier preparation in the case of the dominant factors, it is arrangement. "Pakaraṇaṃ" (instrument) is the state of being a cause with the characteristics mentioned, from which a specific cause is called "pakati" (nature). If so, why is it denied only for form? It is said: "Just as... ...should be understood." Even so, how is there a specific causal state of seasons, seeds, etc., in sprouts, etc.? It is said: "Seasons, seeds, etc., however... ...because of their existence." And since "upanissaya" (strong dependence) is intended as a powerful cause, therefore, earlier production is not absolutely desired here. If so, how is "earlier" taken in the Pāli? It is said: "However, only of the earlier and earlier..." and so on. Or they are indeed called earlier produced by way of conceptualization. For there is no desire for something whose nature is not understood. Therefore it is said: "Because of its similarity in characteristics." "Dhamme" refers to the phenomena that are the basis for the designations of persons and dwellings. "Ayaṃ nayo" (this method) means that the phenomena that are the basis for those designations are taken by way of designation, as stated. "Ettheva" (in this very place) means in this very statement: "The dwelling is also a condition by way of strong dependence." To the question of how the present can be a natural strong dependence, after showing the scripture with "vakkhati" (he will say) and so on, to show the reasoning, it is said: "And because such present things were naturally made earlier." "Tādisānaṃ" (of such) means of such seasons, etc., as are present, because they were made earlier, even earlier, they were brought into a state suitable for natural strong dependence. Even for kasinas, etc., strong dependence as an object is possible. Having done this, it was said: "With this intention, 'to some' was stated." For thus, by "having seen the kasiṇa disk" and so on, its condition of being a strong support is stated in the commentary. Even formless-sphere wholesome karma is a strong support; how much more so sense-sphere and form-sphere wholesome karma, this is the intention. But to show how that becomes a strong support, "in which kasiṇa and so on" was said. "Producing unarisen jhāna" refers to form-sphere jhāna; but in formless-sphere jhāna, there is nothing to be said. By "wholesome karmas producing that," it means wholesome karmas producing that form-sphere result, meaning form-sphere wholesome karmas. By "regulating rebirth," it means regulating form-sphere rebirth. By "death," it means the death that is the immediate condition for form-sphere rebirth. By "by means of the preceding impulsion," it means by the impulsion being close to death. "Form-sphere wholesome karma for formless-sphere result"— here too, it should be brought in and connected by "wholesome karmas producing that" and so on. And just as it was said, "form-sphere wholesome karma is a strong support for formless-sphere result," so too, "sense-sphere wholesome karma" should be connected by "wholesome karmas producing that" and so on. The condition of being a strong support for supramundane results, even for wholesome karmas of the three planes, by way of being a basis and so on, is evident. Similarly, for wholesome karmas of those respective planes, for functional consciousness of those respective planes; for sense-sphere wholesome karma, for form-sphere and formless-sphere functional consciousness; for form-sphere wholesome karma, for formless-sphere functional consciousness, the condition of being a strong support— showing this meaning, he said, "Thus individually...etc.... is to be understood." By "relying on faith, one gives a gift" and so on, the natural strong support is presented in the text by way of enumeration, not by way of division, he said, "in the Pāli text too...etc.... is explained." In the wholesome triad and so on, because of being divided by differences such as direct and so on, "in the question sections" is a plural designation. Relying on the production of the supramundane, in producing affection for another, supramundane states are like a strong support— this is the implication here. But the condition of unwholesome karmas being a strong support for future supramundane states is possible. He said, "It is not to be seen as essential, this is the intention." Regarding wholesome states of the rūpa-sphere and so on: The connection is to the rūpa-sphere, arūpa-sphere, and supramundane wholesome states, to the rūpa-sphere wholesome state that is being produced. How can the rūpa-sphere functional state be a proximate cause for the arūpa-sphere resultant state? He said, "In what was previously dwelt upon... and so on... for the Arahant." Desiring that particular resultant state, one generates the wholesome state that is the cause of that particular resultant state. Thus, resultant states are proximate causes for wholesome states. He said, "The four-fold... and so on... proximate cause." However, showing that mundane wholesome states are not proximate causes for supramundane resultant states, he said, "Even if..." and so on. For this very reason, "likewise the three-fold resultant state," the mention of "three-fold" was made. There, "by him" means by the non-returner. "That" means the fruit of arahantship. "Therefore" means because it has not been seen before. "Like those" means like the fruits of stream-entry. "Of them" means of ordinary people and so on. This is what is meant: Just as for ordinary people and so on, in their continuum, jhānas and so on are not proximate conditions for the fruits of stream-entry and so on, because they have not been experienced before; similarly, for the non-returner, jhānas and so on are not proximate conditions for the highest fruit, because it has not been seen before. Therefore, he said, "What is future is indeed a proximate cause, just like what has been experienced before." In the commentary, however, the proximate causality of wholesome states for the lower fruits has been stated. Just as resultant states are proximate causes for wholesome states, so too functional states are proximate causes for them. To show this method, "functional state, the analytical knowledge of meaning," and so on, was said. There is nothing to be said about wise attention. Thus, there is nothing to be said here that wise attention is a proximate cause even for the four-fold wholesome state,