English
Here, in "ye keci kusalā," since there is no doubt among the kusala things as to whether they are kusala or not, the meaning of Sanniṭṭhāna should be understood in this phrase. In "sabbe te kusalamūlā," since it is asked with doubt as to whether all those kusala things are rooted in kusala or not, the meaning of Saṃsaya should be understood in this phrase. And that was spoken by the Buddha to dispel the doubt by revealing the doubt in the place of doubt for those to be trained. But there is no place of doubt for the Tathāgata. The same method applies to the subsequent question phrases. Just as these four Nayas and so on occur relying on the kusala phrase, so too with the akusala phrase, so too with the abyākata phrase. And likewise, relying on the nāmapada specified by combining the three phrases kusala, etc. Thus, it should be understood that in the Kusalattika matrix, in all four phrases, there are all sixteen Nayas, forty-eight Yamakas, ninety-six questions, and one hundred ninety-two meanings, as stated in terms of Uddesa. Thus far, the Mūlavāra, Hetuvāra, Nidānavāra, Sambhavavāra. Originating, arising, nutriment, object, condition, and aggregation: All ten are the divisions. There, as in the root division, The methods and so on should be understood in the remaining ones. The Pāli here is very concise. Thus, in all ten divisions, There are sixty-one hundred methods, Four hundred and eighty yamaka pairs, Nine hundred and sixty questions, And nineteen hundred and twenty meanings are stated, it should be understood. Having understood the arrangement of the Pāli here according to the divisions of method, yamaka, question, and meaning, now the method of concise meaning explanation along with the method of analysis, according to the meaning of the unelaborated words, should be understood thus: "Whatever" means without remainder. "Wholesome states" means having blameless, pleasant results, and selfless nature. "Are all those wholesome roots?" means, are they all wholesome roots? is the question. However, these are not in the answering matrix. For in the yamaka matrix, only the question terms are extracted everywhere, not the answers. However, the answers are stated only in the exposition, therefore, everywhere we will show the answer face only by the exposition method. To this question, "Whatever wholesome states there are, are all those wholesome roots?", this is the answer face by the analysis method: "There are only three wholesome roots, the remaining wholesome states are not wholesome roots." And this is its meaning: not all those wholesome states are wholesome roots, but only the three, non-greed and so on, are wholesome roots. Or, those wholesome roots, the three, non-greed and so on, said to be the roots of wholesome states, are all those wholesome states? is the question, are all those three states wholesome? In its exposition, the answer is "yes." Its meaning is, I also accept the wholesomeness of those three roots. This, so far, is the root yamaka method in the root method. In the single-root yamaka, "are all those single-rooted by the wholesome root?" should be taken in the sense of similarity, not taking "single-rooted" in the sense of enumeration. This is the meaning here: "S Because they have one root, a similar root, by way of the wholesome root, they are called "having one root." Is that which is the root of contact the same as feeling, etc.? This is the question. Then, the answer in the analysis is "yes," by way of accepting their being so. Are all those things that have one root by way of the wholesome root wholesome? This is the question. But the form that arises from the wholesome mind is indeed one-rooted by way of the wholesome root, but it is not wholesome; however, the group of phenomena beginning with contact is both one-rooted by way of the wholesome root and wholesome. Just as, for contact, etc., the non-greed, etc., are the root because they are the condition by way of being the cause that establishes a very firm state, so too for the form that arises from them. Therefore, that form is also called having a similar root together with the formless phenomena, but it is not wholesome because it lacks the nature of being blameless and having a pleasant result. This is the one-root pair. In the reciprocal-root pair, the question is asked, "Whatever things are one-rooted by way of the wholesome root," without asking, "Whatever things are wholesome." Why? In order to show that the meaning of that is possible even by this expression, and also to include the form that arises from the wholesome. "Reciprocal-root" means, are all those things roots for each other in the sense of being a causal condition? This is the question. The answer is that those two or three roots that arise together are both one-rooted and reciprocal-rooted, but the remaining form and formless phenomena that are co-arisen with the wholesome root are only one-rooted by way of the wholesome root, and not reciprocal-rooted. In the reverse way of that, the question is, are all those reciprocal-rooted non-greed, etc., wholesome? The answer is "yes." This is the root method. And just as in the root method, the modes of questioning and answering have been stated in six ways by way of the root pair, the one-root pair, and the reciprocal-root pair, so too should it be understood in the root-root method, etc. Here is the distinction in this matter: "All those are root-roots of the wholesome root" means all those roots that are designated as the wholesome root; the meaning is precisely root-roots of the wholesome root. "One-root-root" means, because they have one root-root in the sense of similarity, they are one-root-roots; the meaning is precisely similar-root-roots. Root from another root, is a root for each other, a mutual root. Because it is a root by way of the condition of cause, they are roots of mutual roots, that is the meaning of roots of mutual roots. The rest is the same. This is the method of root-root. But in the method of root, are all those wholesome roots? All those wholesome things, are they a wholesome root for these, by way of the condition of cause? This is the question. "Yes," is the answer. "Or are all those things wholesome, all those things that are wholesome roots, wholesome?" is the question. Except for form, the rest is wholesome, is the answer. The rest is the same. This is the method of root. But in the method of root-root, are they wholesome root-roots? Do they have a root, known as a wholesome root? The rest is the same. This, so far, is the method of question and answer, in the wholesome terms. The same method applies, to the unwholesome terms and so on. But this is the difference: in the roots of the unwholesome term, in the single-root pair, to the first question, "Are all unwholesome things, single-rooted with the unwholesome root?" in the specification, the answer is given, "The causeless unwholesome, is single-rooted with the unwholesome root." There, the causeless unwholesome, is said referring to the delusion, in the two delusion-rooted consciousnesses. In the roots of the indeterminate term, in the single-root pair, to the question, "Are all indeterminate things, single-rooted with the indeterminate root?" the answer is, "Except for the causeless indeterminate, the rest are single-rooted with the indeterminate root." There, the causeless indeterminate, is the eighteen causeless consciousnesses, form, and Nibbāna. And here, although form, arising from the conditioned indeterminate consciousness, is also single-rooted with the indeterminate root, it should be understood, that this answer is given, making it non-conventional, and considering it as obtainable together, in the specification. And in the roots of the name term, to the question, "Are all name things, name-rooted?" the answer is, "Only some are name-rooted, the remaining name things, are not name-rooted." And here, in the single-root method, the question is, "Are all name things, single-rooted with the name root?" "The causeless..." The explanation is: after setting aside the name, the rest is a single root by way of the root. Here, the name "ahetuka" should be understood in terms of the uncaused consciousness, doubt, agitation, associated delusion, and nibbāna. The rest is easily understood according to the manner described in the section on wholesome qualities. This is the method of the root chapter. In the nine chapters beginning with the cause chapter, the method of explanation is similar to that of the root chapter in all respects. Only the terms beginning with "cause" are different here, and they are the unwholesome causes such as non-greed, which are synonyms for the word "root." Non-greed and the like are roots because they are the foundation for their own result, which is called a co-arisen phenomenon. It is called a cause because it strives to produce that result; it is called a condition because it indicates its own result as if showing it, saying, "Here, take this." It is called a source because the result arises from it. It is called an origin because it comes forth from it. It is called a arising because it arises here or by it. It is called nutriment because it brings that about. It is called a support because one relies on it in a way that cannot be rejected. It is called a condition because that comes to be in dependence on this. It is called an arising because that arises together from this. The verse "root, cause, and condition" is stated in terms of causality and is called the summary verse for all ten chapters. This is the method of explaining the matrix of the root pair. Explanation of the Matrix of the Aggregate Pair In the text of the Aggregate Pair, the arrangement of the text should be understood as follows: This matrix of the Aggregate Pair, which extends from the phrase "five aggregates" up to the phrase "neither aggregates nor formations," is called the matrix of the Aggregate Pair.