English
, respectively. Therefore it says: “and in complete obtainment…pe… is to be understood.” The section on root causes is finished. 445. In the fifth, “one” means the indeterminate root of unwholesome states, with support. Referring to this, he said: "He will speak of the dependent by way of the object." This is not the fourth combination. Even if obtained, it is not a combination by way of the object, because it is being spoken of. Therefore, "only by way of the object" is taken as exclusive. This is the explanation of the meaning. 446. By "co-arisen and pre-arisen are one condition of dependence," it shows that even with a difference in conditioning phenomena, there is no difference in the state of being a condition. And similarly by "existence condition." The non-disappearance condition here should be understood as included in the existence condition. The reading is "existence and non-disappearance condition." However, co-arisen and object-dominance are not merely a distinction of conditioning phenomena, but rather there is also a distinction in the state of being a condition. So he said, "thus... (etc.)... due to absence." To make the explained meaning clearer, "for the state of dependence" and so on was said. There, "of co-arisen and pre-arisen dependence, etc." means of co-arisen dependence, pre-arisen dependence, etc. By the word "etc.," it includes co-arisen, pre-arisen, existence, and non-disappearance states. Explaining the meaning stated by "not so" and so on, he said "for co-arisen" and so on. They are of different natures, even though they are equally expressible by the word "dominance." They are of different natures by a nature distinguished by the state of being a condition, not merely by nature like the root conditions and so on. Therefore, it is precisely because they are of different natures. Otherwise, "the wholesome is a condition for the wholesome by way of co-arising, the indeterminate is a condition by way of the object, by way of the dominance condition" – both of these should be stated together. And to show that it is not stated, he said: "in the analysis of the question section... (etc.)... it is not stated." 447-452. "By way of commonality" means by the commonality of the state of dominance and faculty. And similarly, he shows by combining six combinations, starting with "dominance." "Two conditioning phenomena" means two conditioning phenomena by way of energy and investigation. Only one by way of mind-dominance. The meaning is that the complete ones should be stated first in the sequence of dominance. For first is energy-dominance, then mind-dominance. After those, the nutriment and path conditions... are stated as being harmonious. This refers to the statement, "similarity" in the sense of "similarity due to connections stated in terms of causes." 457-460. "Having two roots" refers to roots that are wholesome and indeterminate. To the question, "Why is it stated among wholesome roots?" it is said, "to show the causal nature of wholesome things accompanied by indeterminate things." "Here" refers to the direct enumeration. "In those stated as such" refers to the roots such as co-nascent, reciprocal, support, resultant, associated, dissociated, existent, and non-absent, as stated in "co-nascent, reciprocal, support, resultant, associated, dissociated, existent, and non-absent roots." "Excluding existent and non-absent roots" means that connections are not applied to the remaining roots, excluding existent and non-absent roots, by way of nutriment, by way of nutriment condition. And connections are not applied to co-nascent and other roots, excluding support and others, by way of dominance and faculties. "In those" refers to the roots of cause, kamma, jhāna, and path, and in nutriment, dominance, and faculties, when applied as stated in terms of their respective connections. "By that" means because only causes and other formless phenomena are obtained. "Those connections" refers to the connections applied by causes and others. "Due to the absence of being mixed with form" is the reason for the aforementioned similarity. To the question, "Why are existent and non-absent roots, and support, dissociated, existent, and non-absent roots excluded here by them?" it is said, "But by existent and non-absent roots..." The connection is that dominant and faculty conditions applied by support and others are not stated as being mixed with form. If so, to the question, "Why is the application made by nutriment in existent and non-absent roots, and by dominance and faculties in support and other roots?" it is said, "In dominant, nutriment, and faculty roots..." 473-477. In such places, the word "khandha" is understood to refer only to formless things, and so it is said, "the aggregates are not to be taken as cause and effect, as in the case of occurrence." "But also kamma-born form is obtained" refutes the statement, "stated in terms of kamma of a single moment." The meaning for which "Why is it not stated?" was said, making it clearer, after saying "Is it not so?", he then illustrates it with an example. This is said, beginning with "just as". By way of object and support condition, means by way of object condition and by way of support condition. And the conditionality of kamma is already evident, so it says, "kamma should also be spoken of by way of object condition." Of the conditionality of two, meaning the conditionality of kamma and object. By mutually excluding, this shows that due to the distinctness of the conditionality of two, the mode of occurrence is not applicable to a single conditioning phenomenon at a single moment. Showing the dissimilarity between what is shown and what is to be exemplified, it says, "for the present... it is proper to say." Then, by "kamma", etc., it clarifies the non-occurrence as a single entity, due to the distinctness of the mode of occurrence of kamma and object conditions. Since they are said to be mutually exclusive, why is that very thing an object condition and a support condition, but that very kamma is not an object condition and a kamma condition? This should not be questioned, showing that it is the nature of phenomena, it says, "and this is the nature," etc. There, "of those occurring" means of the present. This "which" is to be transformed into the feminine "yā" when connected with "should be said." By "just as", etc., it clarifies that very meaning by showing an example. 478-483. The consciousness that is not an adhipati condition should be seen as having an ungrasped adhipati state. By way of the base, means by way of the base to be abandoned. 484-495. The arūpa faculties are obtained as conditions for rūpa, is the connection. Although it is said thus, that the conditionality of rūpa faculties for arūpa is also obtained, it says, "and the eye, etc., are obtained for eye-consciousness, etc." Having the same movement as that, means having the same movement as effort, by way of path conditionality. 511-514. In the section on "disassociated at the root", "in the tenth, wholesome states, etc., of mind-originated things" this is said in the commentary by way of occurrence, so it says, "but at rebirth-linking, 'the aggregates for kamma-born rūpa and the base for the aggregates' this also..." is not present.” By means of the sight of that, means by means of the sight of that object, not by means of the sight of the causal phenomenon in its entirety. Therefore, it is said, “And the aggregates of the object, this too is indeed obtainable.” They should not be rejected, because they too are to be connected with the state of being an effect. 515-518. The meaning is: of the causal phenomena of formless things, object, great elements, faculties, and nutriment. It should also be said, “And by means of nutriment and faculty conditions.” Why? For by means of faculties and nutriment, co-nascence and so forth are not obtained; but by means of faculties and nutriment, only faculty and nutriment conditions are obtained. For having enumerated “co-nascent, pre-nascent, post-nascent, nutriment, faculty,” the existent condition was analyzed. Some here say, “By the grasping of nutriment, only edible nutriment is grasped, and by the grasping of faculty, only the life faculty of form. The remaining nutriment and faculties are included within co-nascent and so forth. Referring to those that are included therein, the Aṭṭhakathā says, ‘by means of formless things, object, great elements, faculties, and nutriment,’ and here the grasping of faculties and nutriment is done, and it is said, ‘co-nascent, pre-nascent, and post-nascent conditions are obtained.’” Therein, the co-nascent, post-nascent, nutriment, and faculty conditionality of formless things should be understood as appropriate. The base is co-nascent and pre-nascent. The object is only pre-nascent. However, for the knowledge of supernormal power, sometimes a co-nascent thing can also be an object condition. Here, by the grasping of co-nascent, only that which is a co-nascent condition is grasped, and that is endowed with the characteristic of arising together and so forth. Thus, a phenomenon that is co-nascent and becomes an object is not intended here. If a co-nascent thing also becomes an object, why is it not analyzed as such in the Pāḷi? To avoid confusion from a phenomenon belonging to the same cluster and endowed with the characteristic of arising together and so forth, with one belonging to a different cluster. Moreover, it was not grasped due to its rarity and obscurity. Therefore, it means the ninth, not the tenth. For there is no dominance in the eleventh. Similarly, in the fourteenth. Here, by the word 'thus' and by the apprehension of 'basis', eye-basis and other bases are also included. This meaning is summarized. That same (thing) means only the object. 519. 'Like co-arisen things' means combinations like those accompanied by the co-arisen condition.