English
'By co-arisen' means by the co-arisen condition. 'Those' means the combinations called 'miscellaneous combinations'. Indeed, those that are not joined by the co-arisen condition are here called miscellaneous combinations. In 'purejāta...etc...by way of', this is the connection: It is said that by the co-arisen (condition) of the pre-arisen, post-arisen, nutriment, and faculty, there is mutual commonality, and by the co-arisen (condition) of those very same (things), there is mutual uncommonality. Just as there is uncommonality between the pre-arisen and post-arisen by co-arisen (condition) due to their different natures, for that very reason, there is also uncommonality for nutriment and faculty by that (co-arisen condition). Similarly, there is mutual uncommonality among all four, the pre-arisen and so on, due to their different natures. Thus, by way of uncommonality, by way of dissimilarity, the aforementioned combinations are scattered. However, just as co-arisen conditioning phenomena, such as the immaterial aggregates, by that very co-arisen conditionality, by their mutual similarity, unmixed with others, become conditions for their own conditioned phenomena – thus their occurrence is by way of uncommonality. Similarly, for the pre-arisen and other conditioning phenomena, by their co-arisen (condition) and by the aforementioned mutual commonality and uncommonality, those combinations are scattered, and thus they are called miscellaneous. If this is so, do the combinations of co-arisen things also become miscellaneous? No, they do not, because their unscattered nature is established by their very co-arisen nature. Therefore, it is said: 'Those spoken of without including co-arisen are called miscellaneous'. 'Those' means the miscellaneous combinations. 'Wholesome-resultant' means wholesome and resultant, which, having an undivided characteristic, are of a wholesome nature and of a resultant nature. And such a nature is only one of the faculties of others, so it is said: 'This...etc...is obtained'. But is this meaning also obtained by way of the faculty of faith and so on? Their functional nature... It is also present. Suffering means mental suffering. Therefore it is said, "only unwholesome." The meaning is, "of the suffering of result." Therefore it is said, "because it is not a jhāna factor." Unwholesome resultant action means that the mental stability is an unwholesome resultant action because it occurs in doubt-consciousness, the five sense-consciousnesses, and the mind-element. Since, if understood as "because they are unwholesome results," it is not obtained in the case of others in the way it is obtained in the jhānas in terms of suffering and mental stability, therefore, showing that if understood as "of the result of unwholesome," it is obtained in the case of the faculties in terms of the faculty of suffering, he says, "of the unwholesome... and it would be obtained." In this wholesome triad, "result" is understood as "resultant indeterminate," and not specified by terms like "unwholesome," showing this meaning, he says, "wholesome results... there is not." The direct enumeration in the section on questions is completed. Description of the Opposing Section 527. In "not by the root condition," the particle "na" (not) indicates "otherwise," so he says, "by a condition other than the root condition." By grasping what was not grasped: by grasping what was not grasped, in the sense of including co-nascence and so on. There are eight: the eight conditions, such as object, that are mentioned in this Pāli text. In them: in the eight conditions. By three: by the object, co-nascent, and decisive support conditions. By two: by the object condition and the decisive support condition. In that particular condition: in that particular root and so on condition. From that: from the root and so on condition. Should be joined appropriately: the meaning is that in whichever condition the opposing is present, those conditions that obtain a direct joining should be joined. Of the two: of the immediately contiguous decisive support and the natural decisive support. Because pre-nascence is included by the object pre-nascent in terms of the base pre-nascent, and by the object. Of another volition: of the volition that occurs only as a karma condition at different moments. Immaterial nutriment becomes a nutriment condition only as an unabandoned co-nascent state; material nutriment is said to have reached stability. "Nourishment is nourishment by means of edible food, other than that which is co-arisen." "Other than that which is co-arisen" was said to exclude immaterial nourishment, not to specify edible food, as such does not exist. For material nourishment is not a co-arisen condition, nor is it a pre-arisen condition. Just as a co-arisen condition is not a co-arisen condition for co-arisen things, so too a post-arisen condition is not a post-arisen condition for pre-arisen things, nor is a pre-arisen condition a pre-arisen condition for post-arisen things. Why? Because such a condition-characteristic does not exist. For those of which something is the generator, there is no co-arisenness with it, nor is there pre-arisenness endowed with the pre-arisen condition-characteristic. As for post-arisen conditionality, there is nothing to be said, being a material phenomenon. The same applies to supportiveness. Therefore, its conditionality should be understood as devoid of co-arisenness, etc. That is why, in "co-arisen, pre-arisen, post-arisen, nourishment, faculty," material nourishment is taken separately, like the material life-faculty. Thus it is said, "material nourishment... ...is only a nourishment condition." The meaning of "material life-faculty, other than that which is co-arisen and pre-arisen" should be understood in the same way as stated for material nourishment. "And having done so" means that the later ones are included by way of including what was not included by the earlier ones, and thus nourishment and faculty conditions are included here by way of material nourishment and the life-faculty. Otherwise, the intention is that it should be said, "a condition by nourishment condition, a condition by faculty condition." Therefore, it is said, "object... ...thus it is said." "Absence of others" means the absence of other conditions such as karma, etc., intended here, in wholesome states, other than object, etc. "Therefore" means that since the proximate cause is stated by way of two others than the object, therefore it should be said, "object-dominance is included in object-condition," not object-proximate cause, is the intention. If so, why is the object not mentioned in the "small three-fold question-section" in the negative? For by proximate cause, Referring to the objection: If it is not included, it should be stated. Thus, he said, "But that which..." There, "spoken of as not included by the former" means "of the latter conditions spoken of as not included by the former conditions." "Because there is no exclusion of what is included" means "because there is no exclusion of a condition that is included due to having similar characteristics to oneself." The meaning is: "There is no reason for exclusion." "Because there is no other object from the strong reliance" means "when an immeasurable phenomenon becomes an object for an immeasurable phenomenon, it is only an object-strong-reliance, meaning it is an object-dominance." Just as when an object is taken, the object-strong-reliance is also taken, because it is a powerful object; similarly, when the object-strong-reliance is taken, the object is also taken, because it is of that nature. Therefore, it should be understood that it is not stated separately there. Therefore, he said: "But not because the object-strong-reliance is not included in the object." "Of the post-natal nutriments" means "of the formless nutriments that arise after the pre-natal body, which is their condition." Indeed, they are co-existent present conditions for co-existent formless phenomena and for form phenomena arising from them. But for pre-existent bases, they are post-natal present conditions. "Of the post-natal faculties" means "of the post-natal formless faculties." The rest should be applied in the manner stated for nutriments. Because these nutriments and faculties, at the moment they receive the pre-existent present condition, at that very moment, they become co-existent present conditions and post-natal present conditions for their respective conditioned phenomena. Therefore, it is said: "There is also a state of present and non-disappeared condition." "Of the three" means "of the three, co-existent and so on." "By six distinctions" means "by six distinctions of present condition: by the five, co-existent and so on, taken separately as appropriate, and by the distinction taken collectively." "Having included each one" means "having included the characteristic of present condition and the characteristic of non-disappeared condition, each separately, by the six distinctions, it is stated." "By the distinction of internal and external" should be stated as intended for the eye and so on, and for the life faculty. of the self, and of the faculties of others' continuities, not being intended. The meaning is: of the pre-existent, arisen, dissociated, existent, and non-absent, pre-existent things. For these are included in the pre-existent. Of a part of that: of a part of the object, the meaning is: of the object, the dominant object, and the proximate support object. Of these: of the supports and so on. In the proximate supports and so on: in the proximate support, pre-existent condition, and so on. That pre-existent thing is the object. Therein: in the inclusion of the proximate support condition. To show that the aforementioned method should be taken absolutely here, "then again" and so on was said.