English
and kamma-arisen forms themselves, are produced only by the great elements arisen from mind and kamma. This is because the great elements are their proximate cause. By 'others', he refers to the derived forms arisen from season and food. The distinction is made: 'mind-arisen form, kamma-arisen form, derived form'. The meaning is: by similar kinds of form, by season, and by food. This phrase, 'only clear distinctions', is said because the great elements by which they are produced are distinguished as 'food-arisen' and 'season-arisen'. They do not deserve distinction, they should not be distinguished, because the distinction is established only by the distinction of their cause. The meaning is that it should only be said: 'derived form dependent on the great elements'. But these are mind-born and kamma-born forms. By 'specific distinction', showing the distinction by which they are distinguished, referring to mind, he said: 'by being a co-arisen condition and so on'. But referring to the other, he said: 'by being a root cause'. The meaning is: by being a strong dependence condition for kamma. By 'the others', he means the derived forms arisen from food and season. They are distinguished only by the distinction of the great elements, as 'dependent on one great element arisen from food, dependent on one great element arisen from season'. by the special nature of the great elements, by the generative condition, by food, and by season. Here, it means in the statement: “Mind-originated form, kamma-originated form, derived form.” For here, by stating that derived forms are mind- and kamma-originated, their dependence on them is also revealed. A specific qualification becomes a dual qualification, because it operates indivisibly for both. 58. Previously, in the root condition and so on. As a separate condition, as in “at the moment of rebirth, dependent on one resultant indeterminate aggregate, three aggregates and kamma-originated form,” by the separate conditionality of the base. And here, it cannot be said that they are shown as separate conditions, for the conditionality of the aggregates is shown as one, just as the dependent origination of “the base dependent on the aggregates, the aggregates dependent on the base.” Therefore, expressing his disinclination for that meaning, he says, “with this intention, he said.” But to show the meaning he prefers, he said, “but this, ‘the base dependent on the aggregates’,” and so on. The showing of the pervasion of the dependent state of the aggregates as conditions, the showing of the pervasion of the dependent state of the base as a condition, is not of the aggregates—this is the connection. Here itself, in this mutual condition itself. The same method applies to the root condition and so on, for there is similarity in the pervasion of the dependent state. By the shown pervasion of the two dependent states. And of the aggregates and the base, it is shown— and the pervasion of the dependent state of the aggregates and the base together is shown. Thus and so on— by the word “and so on,” “dependent on an unwholesome phenomenon,” and so on, is included. Surely, it should be so—this is the construction. As by the root condition and so on, meaning a similar example— showing that, he says, “for not,” and so on. What is said as “dependent on one, three, and two aggregates” means the conditioned phenomenon. For the dependent state is the condition state. Therefore, he says, “they are not root conditions.” By this, the pervasion of the dependent state is not exclusively a root. shows the state of being a proximate cause. Therefore it says, "This is the method in relation to the object condition and others." For a phenomenon that is an object condition does not affect the dependent state. And it is said, "A wholesome phenomenon arises depending on a wholesome phenomenon, by way of object condition." Even by taking merely the state of being helpful through other conditions, in the dependent section and in other sections, the root condition and other conditions are shown. Thus, elucidating the aforementioned by way of inference, it says, "and in the condition section," etc. "That condition" means the base condition, the meaning is, having obtained the base that is a condition as appropriate. "Those" refers to the wholesome aggregates, depending on them. "Of those" refers to the aggregates of the great elements. "The absence of the state of being a condition" is said because the state of the aggregates being a root, co-arising, etc., condition is seen in the great elements. If so, they would also be a mutual condition for them, dispelling the doubt of another, it says, "For the word 'mutual'," etc. "Independent" means independent of others. For a root phenomenon does not become a root condition by depending on another phenomenon; here the meaning is stated by way of the word. "Dependent on one another" means that which is a co-operative cause by itself, or that which depends on any other whatsoever, is "dependent on one another." "Dependent on each other as stated" means that which depends on each other, which are mutually conditions, of the type mentioned in the Pāli, such as the immaterial aggregates, is "dependent on each other." And why is it said that the aggregates and great elements, which are the condition and the conditioned, would be as stated here? For the aggregates and great elements are not said to be mutually a mutual condition for each other. Rather, the aggregates and the great elements should be taken separately. In that case, it should not be said, "The great elements are not any condition for the aggregates." "That condition of which it is, from that, by that, or by that which is dependent on it" means, of which phenomenon it is itself a condition, how can that class of phenomena, arising from that phenomenon itself, be worthy of being called "arising by mutual condition" by that phenomenon, or by that which is dependent on it, as such a mutual condition? The meaning already stated is clarified by the example beginning with ‘‘just as’’. Here, ‘‘dependant on aggregates, aggregates’’ is an example of ‘‘arising by that mutual condition’’. But ‘‘dependant on a base, aggregates’’ is an example of ‘‘arising by a mutual condition dependent on that’’. Therefore, the meaning already stated is recalled as a reason. ‘‘Because of the non-conditionality of one’s own condition’’ means because of the non-conditionality of one’s own conditional formless aggregate. For the great elements from which an aggregate arises are not its conditions. ‘‘Because of mutual expectation’’ means because of the expectation of mutual conditionality. ‘‘Dependant on aggregates, and conditions’’ means dependant on aggregates in the manner stated in the dependent section, and conditions on aggregates in the manner stated in the condition section. ‘‘And mutual conditions are not stated’’ means that the arising of the great elements from a mutual condition and from another supporting condition, etc., is stated. ‘‘Arising dependant on a base’’ means arising by making the base a pre-nascent condition. ‘‘And by a mutual condition dependent on that’’ means they arise by an aggregate dependent on that base being a mutual condition. Therefore, for the reason stated, ‘‘dependant on a base…etc…are stated’’. By this method, however, in direct occurrence, the base is a mutual condition. 59. ‘‘That is not grasped’’ means that the supporting conditionality of the eye-base, etc., stated by ‘‘dependent on the eye-base’’, etc., is not stated here in the dependent section, taking the co-nascent meaning as the dependent meaning. Therefore, he says, ‘‘the eye-base, etc…etc…is the intention’’. But for those for whom the supporting condition is desired in six ways —by way of formless aggregates, great elements, name-and-form, consciousness and mental factors, great elements, and material phenomena— it is indeed analyzed here in terms of them. If it is asked, ‘‘How is it analyzed in terms of form?’’ ‘‘Dependant on a base, aggregates’’ is indeed shown in its own form by way of the heart-base. In terms of others too, ‘‘an indeterminate phenomenon arises dependant on an indeterminate phenomenon’’. is shown in “due to very close proximity.” Just as in “a wholesome phenomenon arises due to a wholesome phenomenon, with object-condition,” the object-condition status of eye-base and so on is shown, even when there is no pervasion of “due to,” so too here, the proximity-condition status of eye-base and so on is shown. Therefore it is said, “proximity… and so on… are not taken.” 60. In the two proximate conditions, means in the immediately preceding proximate conditions. And even wholesome and exalted, the word “and” draws in the indeterminate exalted, meaning “even wholesome exalted phenomena do not obtain object-proximate condition, how much less the indeterminate.” Sometimes they do not obtain, meaning when they do not occur having been made weighty. 61. Elsewhere, in conditions like root-condition. Without specifying the condition, means without specifying the conditioned phenomenon in its own nature. For in the specification of root-condition and so on, the root and other phenomena are not shown as specific natures like non-greed and other wholesome phenomena. In wholesome and so on, this is a qualification of non-greed and so on. Thereby it shows that just as there is no rule that this alone is the condition among non-greed and so on, so too among their specific instances, wholesome and so on. But here, in pre-nascent condition. In the base and non-base phenomena, is the locative of determination. By “arising due to pre-nascent condition,” it excludes the aggregates arising at the moment of rebirth-linking and in the formless realms. Why is only base-pre-nascent taken here, and not object-pre-nascent? Having kept this question in mind, he says,