English
"Things are not roots, but are associated with a root, and are dissociated from a root," and "Things are roots, and are associated with a root, and are dissociated from a root," two pairs can be obtained. Thus, five more pairs can be applied to the root group. But they can be known only according to what the Blessed One has said. Thus, they should be understood as included in these six. Therein, those two or three roots that arise together in one mind, those roots are both roots and, in relation to each other, with cause. But in minds with cause, the remaining mental factors, except for the root, are with cause, but are not called roots. In this pair, all causeless things should not be stated. But among mental factors, those without roots are both unwholesome and wholesome-indeterminate, and desire is with cause, but not a root. The remaining three types should not be stated, and delusion is both a root and with cause, and should not be stated. Fourth. The 'contiguous' pair is similar to this pair in every way. Fifth. In minds with cause, the mental factors other than the roots are not roots, but are with cause. Causeless minds, material form, and Nibbāna are not roots, and are without cause. In this pair, however, the six roots should not be stated. The rest is easily understood. Sixth. The root group is finished. In the seven minor contiguous pairs, with a condition, because of the condition that produces it, are mind, mental factors, and material form. There is no condition for their arising or persistence, because there is no existence without a condition, is without a condition, only Nibbāna. Here, in the teaching, the plural is used in the ultimate sense, as a stream-enterer. And so also in 'with indication' and so on. And these six pairs from here on should be understood as without designation. And after that, wherever we do not say "these should not be stated," it should be taken as without designation. The 'with condition' pair. Made by coming together with conditions, is conditioned. Not con Unconditioned is uncreated. And this is entirely like the conditioned-unconditioned pair. The conditioned-unconditioned-both pair is entirely alike. The conditioned pair. The eye-sphere is called visible. The remaining physical, mental, mental factors, and Nibbāna are called invisible. The visible pair. The twelve sense-object forms are called resistant. The remaining physical, mental, mental factors, and Nibbāna are called non-resistant. The resistant pair. Because form exists for them in the sense of indivisibility, they are called possessors of form; or form, having the characteristic of decaying, exists for them, so they are called possessors of form, namely, derived and material form. Non-possessors of form are the immaterial, mental, mental factors, and Nibbāna. The possessor-of-form pair. The world is said to be a cycle in the sense of breaking and decaying; those bound in the world by being included in it are mundane, namely, the five aggregates of clinging. Those who have transcended that world by not being included in it are supramundane, namely, the noble paths, fruits, and Nibbāna. Here, what should be said about the mental factors should be understood in the manner stated in the training-inadequate triad. The mundane pair. Knowable by some means, that is, knowable by some one of the sense-consciousnesses, either by eye-consciousness or by ear-consciousness, etc. Not knowable by some means, that is, not knowable by that same eye-consciousness or by ear-consciousness, etc., by anyone. Thus, the pair exists because of the difference in meaning of the two terms. Even in the section on terms, one should understand that this is one pair, not taking only "those things that are knowable by eye-consciousness are not those things that are knowable by ear-consciousness" as one pair, but "those things that are knowable by eye-consciousness are not those things that are knowable by ear-consciousness, or those things that are knowable by ear-consciousness are not those things that are knowable by eye-consciousness" as one pair. Its meaning, however, is that form is knowable by eye-consciousness, sound is not knowable by eye-consciousness. Thus, the delimitation of the remaining pairs should be understood. Therein, the eye-sphere is called knowable by the eye or by eye-consciousness. The remaining physical and immaterial phenomena are not knowable by that same eye or by eye-consciousness, by anyone. Thus, the ear... And in these four combinations, beginning with the tongue-body-consciousness-root, the distinction should be understood appropriately. But the five objects, beginning with form, are knowable by some with the three mind-elements. The remaining form and formless phenomena are not knowable by some with those three mind-elements. Although, generally, because there is nothing unknowable by mind-consciousness, a pair is not stated in the Pāli in terms of what is knowable by mind-consciousness, still, it should be stated specifically. Thus, all six types of sense-sphere phenomena are knowable by some with mind-consciousness, such as sense-sphere result. Form-sphere, formless-sphere, supramundane concepts are not knowable by some with that same mind-consciousness. Similarly, sense-sphere, form-sphere, formless-sphere concepts are knowable by some with the unwholesome, etc. The supramundane are not knowable by some with that same mind-consciousness. Thus, Nibbāna is knowable by some with the supramundane, the remaining mundane and supramundane are not knowable by some with that same mind-consciousness. In this way, knowable and unknowable phenomena by some with mind-consciousness should be connected appropriately according to the distinction of form-sphere, formless-sphere, etc. Thus, all phenomena are knowable by some, and not knowable by some. And in this pair, concepts are also included, it should be understood. The Knowable by Some Pair. The Lesser Antara Pairs are finished. In the flood grouping, flowing all around, therefore floods, they flow from the eye… …from the mind, it is said that they flow, they proceed. Or, from the Dhamma to the Gotrabhu, from the location to the peak of existence, they flow, therefore floods, these phenomena, and this location, having made them internal, they proceed, is the meaning. For this ā-prefix is in the sense of making internal. Like intoxicants such as liquor, due to the state of long association, they are also floods. And if they are floods due to the state of long association, these alone are fit to be. Or, without beginning, they cause to flow, they send forth the long suffering of Saṃsāra, therefore floods. Other than these, there are no floods. Therein, sense-flood, existence-flood, view-flood, ignorance-flood, these four are called floods. Therein, all the greed that arises in the eight greed-concomitant consciousnesses is called sense-flood. But in the Aṭṭhasālinī, "the lust for the five sense-pleasures is the sense-flood." And also, "The lust born of views is not the influx of sensuality, it is called the lust of views," and also, "The desire and lust that arise in the Brahma realm for celestial mansions, wish-fulfilling trees, and ornaments, is not the influx of sensuality, because the lust for the five strands of sense pleasure is abandoned right here." But in the Pali, it is said, "The influx of sensuality arises in the eight consciousnesses accompanied by greed," and "Conditioned by the influx of sensuality are the influx of views and the influx of ignorance." Therefore, it is understood that all greed, except for the influx of becoming, is the influx of sensuality, since the lust associated with views and the lust for the Brahma realm's clothes, ornaments, etc., are not the influx of becoming. For indeed, lust dissociated from views becomes the influx of becoming by way of longing for the realms of form and formlessness, as stated in the passage, "In the realm of form, in the realm of formlessness, the underlying tendency to lust for becoming lies dormant," and there is no greed that is free from both the influx of sensuality and the influx of becoming. If there were, it should be said in the Pali, "Greed may be an influx, or it may not be an influx," and it should also be said, "The influx of ignorance, associated with greed dissociated from views, may be associated with influxes, or it may be dissociated from influxes." And in the Padabhajaniya, in the explanation of the influx of sensuality, the meaning of the phrase "desire for sensual pleasures in sensual pleasures" is given in the Atthasalini as "desire for sensual pleasures in the five strands of sense pleasure." However, it is possible to apply the meaning of that phrase to both objective sensuality and defilement sensuality, since the threefold existence is objective sensuality, and in all of that, lust is defilement sensuality. For it was said by the General of the Dhamma in the Mahaniddesa: "What are objective sensuality? Appealing forms... all phenomena of the sensuous realm, all phenomena of the form realm, all phenomena of the formless realm... these are called objective sensuality. "What are defilement sensuality? Desire, lust, passion... the desire and lust for sensual pleasures in sensual pleasures..." Sensual desire is sensual craving, sensual affection, sensual burning, sensual infatuation, sensual clinging, sensual flood, sensual yoke, sensual grasping, sensual hindrance of desire… These are called defiled sensuality. Moreover, here, by stating the nature of defiled sensuality as sensual flood, etc., with "sensual flood, sensual yoke," etc., the General of the Dhamma has approved the state of influxes, etc., of lust concerning the object of sense desire, not only of lust in the five strands of sense pleasure. And there is no difference in the floods and influxes. For in the Aṭṭhasālinī too, in the analysis of terms in the section on grasping,