English
no other formless dhammas arise later, so that they might be post-natal conditions for them. 83-87. In the remaining eight: Of the nine variations found in object condition, etc., starting with "the dhamma associated with pleasant feeling," and ending with one root, excluding the one mentioned, in the remaining eight. Only in the three: Co-nascence and kamma conditions are found only in the three pure ones. The description of the Feeling Triad is finished. 3. Description of the Result Triad 1-23. The same: The meaning expressed by the terms without compounds is the same meaning. 24-52. That: That statement, or that kamma-born form. Because the arising of form dependent on mind-origination is dependent on aggregates, just as it is dependent on great elements. For its arising is not without both of these. This is not so for kamma-born form. For that, arising due to kamma, arises dependent on great elements. Birth, therefore, to show that specific characteristic of mind-originated form as derived form, only that was stated, not kamma-born form. To show this meaning, it begins with "dependent on aggregates." Although kamma-born form is not included here in "mind-originated form, derived form, dependent on the great elements," yet to show that it is included by another statement, it begins with "but in the course of existence." And having done so, it is only due to the non-origination dependent on aggregates. Not by nutriment condition, because it stands opposed to nutriment condition. That too, kamma-born form too. Because nutriment is a supporter of kamma-born form at the static moment, it is said "at the moment of arising." The explanation of the Resultant Triad is finished. 4. Explanation of the Clung-to Triad 51. Only the predominant phenomenon among supramundane phenomena does not arise from a predominant condition. It is said, "Not by predominant condition, because it is itself predominant." "But does not a predominant phenomenon also arise by a predominant condition through the predominance of object?" To address this objection, it says, "inseparable…etc…shows." "In inseparable object-predominances," it refers to the supramundane. For these are called so because Nibbāna is their object. By the word "pi" (also), it shows, "what then to speak of separable object-predominances, and indeterminate object-predominances?" 72. "By way of sustenance and support" means: just as the life faculty sustains kamma-born forms, so too nutriment becomes a condition for that very kamma-born body by way of support, not by way of generation. This is the connection. But when this meaning exists, that is, when it is obtained that nutriment in the kamma-born aggregate is a condition for that very kamma-born body by way of support. It is also said "nutriment" in the sense that, just as it is said concerning the life faculty, "the clung-to and clingable phenomenon is a condition for the clung-to and clingable phenomenon by way of presence condition," so too it is said concerning the aforementioned nutriment. This is the meaning. And here, the meaning that kamma-born nutriment in which aggregate sometimes becomes a supporting condition for that very aggregate, this meaning is in the commentary. was shown. If karma-born nutriment exists solely through the support of all other forms, then there would be a contradiction with this Pāli text. Showing this, he quoted the commentary's statement: "If indeed... (etc.) ...it is," and pointing out a flaw in it, he said: "If that is so." There, "tanti" refers to that statement. "Uningested," meaning born from its own cause, and here the cause is karma itself. Therefore, he said: "of the nutriment that is taken up and belongs to one's own continuum." This too is a problem, not merely the nutriment mentioned earlier, is the intention. It should be quoted, but it was not quoted. Therefore, this is connected with "the argument is stronger." Why, then, among the two problems mentioned, was the nutriment not quoted? He says: "of the ingested," and so on. There, "the second problem" is to be construed as "the second problem in the root of the pair." And "the second problem was not quoted" here too, "of the ingested... (etc.) ...absence" should be brought in and connected. "Of the other" means of the uningested. Only the ingested, not the uningested, is the nutriment as stated, is the intention. Having said "stronger," he shows its strength by saying "for not," and so on. The special effect on the body of the ingester by mere ingested things like frogs, etc., which have been ingested and remain, with some parts missing, should be understood. "By those mentioned here" means by those mentioned in this triad of "taken up." "By the problem-solutions at the end of the single-root pairs and triads" means by the problem-solutions at the end of pairs and at the end of triads, which have a single root word. These are to be understood thus: "The uningested-taken-up phenomenon is a condition by way of presence for the ingested-taken-up and the uningested-taken-up phenomenon; the uningested-untaken-up phenomenon is a condition by way of presence for the ingested-taken-up, the uningested-taken-up, and the uningested-untaken-up phenomenon." "Here" means in this triad of "taken up." "As in the solution to the second pair" means as in the problem-solution to the second pair, "the uningested-taken-up phenomenon for the ingested-taken-up..." Regarding the explanation of "the condition of a dhamma that is not clung to, by the presence condition, conascent, postnascent," this is the meaning. And this meaning is found even in the questions ending in dukas and tikas that are based on the third term. If those questions are also found in the kusala-tika, then why are they not cited there? He says: "But for the ease of understanding, the explanation there is given only in terms of conascence." "Only in terms of conascence" means only in terms of the conascent presence condition. "Ending in dukas of a single root" refers to questions such as "a wholesome dhamma for a wholesome and an indeterminate dhamma." These are cited in the kusala-tika. But here, in this upādinna-tika. By these explanations as stated. "One dhamma" means one conditioning dhamma like feeling and so on. "By many" means by many specific presence conditions such as conascent and postnascent. "Of many dhammas" means of many conditioned dhammas. "One presence condition" this is stated in general as a presence condition. Now, showing in detail the specific differences found in the presence condition, both stated and unstated, he says, "For one," and so on. There, "one" means one of the specific presence conditions. "Of one" means of one such as that. Otherwise, there is no such thing as one dhamma being a condition for one dhamma. "By one only" means only by the conascent presence condition, just like the base at the moment of inception. For that is a condition for the name conascent with itself only by the conascent presence condition, not by the prenascent and so on. One conascent immaterial aggregate for many immaterial aggregates conascent with itself by one conascent presence condition, and by many conascent and postnascent presence conditions respectively for mind-originated material forms conascent with itself, and for prenascent material forms originating from those. Many prenascent base-material forms and conascent immaterial aggregates for one immaterial aggregate respectively by prenascent and conascent presence conditions. Many immaterial dhammas for many conascent immaterial dhammas and prenascent material dhammas by conascent and prenascent by post-nascent existence conditions. Or, various kinds of nutriment and faculties are conditions for various kinds of material phenomena by existence condition, in the manner of co-nascent, pre-nascent, post-nascent, nutriment, and faculty, as appropriate. Thus, even if the conditioned phenomena are dissimilar, this meaning is possible; if they are similar, there is no need to speak of it. Therefore it is said, "of conditioned phenomena being similar." The co-nascent, together with the pre-nascent, is an existence condition; thus, the co-nascent existence condition phenomenon together with the pre-nascent existence condition phenomenon is an existence condition. Just as wholesome phenomena, etc., receiving the pre-nascent existence condition from the base, become the co-nascent existence condition for co-nascent aggregates and mind-originated material phenomena, so too, they are also a post-nascent condition for the pre-nascent body. Therefore it is said, "and by the post-nascent." "Is an existence condition" is the connection. This state of co-nascent and post-nascent being existence conditions is desired only when the conditioning phenomena are not distinct, not when they are distinct. Therefore it is said, "by not being different phenomena...etc.... by being different phenomena." Now, explaining the absence of that in different phenomena by means of the Pāli, he says, "If it were to be," etc. There, "one state of being an existence condition is not" means that one state of being an existence condition, obtainable by way of a single conditioning phenomenon, does not exist. Why? Due to contradiction. Therefore it is said, "co-nascent...etc.... not stated." And having done so, it is precisely due to the non-obtainability of co-nascent and post-nascent by way of a single phenomenon. "By way of a single phenomenon" means by way of a single conditioning phenomenon. Therefore it is said, "due to the contradictory nature of different phenomena." And the contradictory nature is to be understood by way of co-nascent and post-nascent, but here, by way of mundane and supramundane, etc. "Otherwise" means if those co-nascent and post-nascent were obtained together. "Even in the rejection of faculty" means even when standing in opposition to the faculty condition.