English
And when there is no such possibility, since there is also no deviation, that implication is meaningless. Here, 'byabhicārassa' means 'of the implication'. And here, for unwholesome results, since they are themselves indeterminate phenomena, and since they are themselves unwholesome results, there is no possibility of them being rooted by unwholesome roots like greed, etc., or by blameless roots like non-greed, etc. And when that possibility does not exist, their rootless nature is indeed non-deviating; therefore, the term 'rootless' is not used there. However, for wholesome results, since they are themselves wholesome results, there is indeed a possibility of them being rooted by blameless roots like non-greed, etc., which are wholesome and indeterminate. And when that possibility exists, their rootless nature would be accompanied by deviation; therefore, it should be understood that the term 'rootless' is used there. 35. The advertence arising in the five doors, such as the eye, is five-door advertence, for it arises by taking an object that has struck the five doors. The advertence arising in the mind-door, which is called bhavaṅga, is mind-door advertence. For it in that it occurs by taking an object that comes into range and attending to it. Here, "mind-door" should be understood as the entire bhavanga-citta. [37] However, in the commentary, It is said, "Here, 'mind-door' refers to the bhavanga-citta which is the immediate condition for adverting, and that is called 'mind'. That itself is the door because it is the opening for the occurrence of process-cittas like adverting and javana." And in the Vibhāvanī, It is said, "The bhavanga-citta which is the immediate condition for adverting is the mind-door, because it is the opening for the occurrence of process-cittas." All of this is not fitting. If it were that the bhavanga, immediately after which process-cittas occur, is exclusively the mind-door because it is the opening for their occurrence, and not those before it, then this meaning would arise. And if this were so, then those eye-doors, etc., where objects like forms are impinged upon, and where process-cittas like adverting occur, would exclusively be called doors because they are the opening for their occurrence, and not others. This meaning would arise. But there are no such eye-doors, etc., which are not door-forms. All of this will become clear in the section on the collection of doors above. Laughter is smiling. It is the occurrence of a delighted expression of the face. That which produces, generates it, is hasituppāda. Or, that by which the Arahants produce it, is hasituppāda. Or, that by which it arises, is hasituppāda. That itself is citta, this is the compound. It is the name for the citta by which Arahants manifest a smile at subtle objects. For Arahants do not laugh at gross laughable things in a way that is defiling, like ordinary people. But in the commentaries, it might be that "hasituppāda" is designated with reference to citta. As stated, these are rootless and are mere functional cittas, being devoid of the function of ripening or producing results, hence they are rootless functional cittas. Here, cittas free from the process are weak in function, the five consciousnesses are weak in their basis, and receiving consciousnesses, etc., are weak in their functional location. Without their own effort, they arise merely as results; all of these are results. But those that arise with their own effort, due to their strong function, and are accompanied by effort to produce results in the future, these are called wholesome or unwholesome. But those mental states that go beyond mere result-producing, and arise with their own effort, among these, the two adverting minds, being slightly weak due to receiving conditions from the result-continuum; and the others, arising in a continuum free from latent tendencies, are entirely devoid of effort to produce results. Therefore, all of these should be understood as belonging to the functional class. 36. Now, from the beginning, the investigation of feeling is stated. Indeed, for eye-consciousness and so on, their bases and objects are merely derived material forms. And the mutual impact of derived material forms is weak, like balls of cotton. Therefore, these arise accompanied by equanimity towards desirable and undesirable objects. But for body-consciousness, its objects are the great elements. Just as when striking a ball of cotton placed on an anvil with an iron hammer, the impact of the hammer on the anvil, bypassing the cotton ball, is stronger; similarly, the impact of these object-elements on the body-basis, bypassing the body-object, is stronger. Therefore, body-consciousness is accompanied by pleasure for desirable objects, and by pain for undesirable objects. But the receiving consciousness, arising immediately after the weakest five consciousnesses, is always weak, and is accompanied by equanimity everywhere. However, this meaning is explained in the *Vibhāvanī* (commentary) by the fact that they receive conditions from dissimilar bases. But the investigating consciousness itself arises relying on a strong basis. And by such a strong basis, it receives conditions from the preceding mind, thus it is slightly strong. Therefore, that wholesome result is accompanied by equanimity for desirable objects, and by joy for very desirable objects. But the unwholesome result, for undesirable... even in the very disagreeable, it is accompanied by equanimity. Why is that? If it were to be broken by feeling on account of a very disagreeable object, it would be accompanied by suffering or by displeasure. There, it is not accompanied by suffering, why? Because suffering is exclusively bodily. Nor is it accompanied by displeasure. Why? Because displeasure, having attained the state of displeasure by being struck by aversion, does not arise without aversion. Displeasure, which is always conjoined with aversion, which is exclusively unwholesome, is impossible in the indeterminate. The two acts of adverting, however, are slightly stronger than investigating. For results, there is no inherent strength to arise on their own. But those born from strong causes, such as kamma, are strong. Those born from weak causes are weak. Even so, these two acts of adverting, being free from the influence of kamma and having taken conditions from the result-continuum, are weak, and thus are always accompanied by equanimity. [38] In the Vibhāvanī, however, it is said: The five-door adverting, because it arises only once in an object not previously apprehended by anything, and the mind-door adverting, because it depends on another function by turning the continuum of dissimilar consciousness, cannot experience the taste of the object excessively, and thus in all cases, it is accompanied by neutral feeling. There, "depending on another function" is not appropriate. For the distinction of strong and weak consciousnesses cannot be spoken of based on the consciousness that arises after itself. It can only be spoken of based on its own conditions. Otherwise, even investigating would depend on another function. For it too turns the continuum of dissimilar consciousness after itself. 37. These consciousnesses do not fail to arise when their natural collection of conditions is present. Therefore, they are called unprompted. In the Mūlaṭīkā, however, in the section on results: The unprompted state of rootless results, which is contrary to prompted kamma, due to their indistinct function, there is none. There is no volitional action that is unprompted and has been overcome by prompted action. Therefore, it is said that the Elder allowed the arising of both types of action. By this, the absence of both states for the three functional consciousnesses is stated. For these too, their functions are not fully developed. Alternatively, Sentient beings do not always perform seeing forms, hearing sounds, etc., by their own will. Sometimes they do so being incited by others, this is evident from direct experience. There, when they do so by their own will, then all the process consciousnesses, such as the five-door adverting, are called unprompted. When they do so being incited by others, then they are called prompted. Regarding the two indifferent investigating consciousnesses that are free from doors, it should be stated as in the case of the eight great resultant consciousnesses. Thus, all rootless consciousnesses are, by that method, distinct according to the division of volition. Even so, it should be understood that their division by volition is not stated in the Pāli, precisely because their functions are not fully developed. 38. Since roots are great phenomena, they do not arise in these consciousnesses which are produced by weak kamma and in weak functional bases. There, all unwholesome kamma, being associated with distraction, and being unstable itself, is weak. Therefore, even if it is long-lasting, it cannot generate resultant consciousness associated with roots in the future. Even kamma associated with three roots cannot generate resultant consciousness associated with roots in weak bases like the eye, etc., and in functional bases like seeing, etc. Adverting and smiling functions are also weak functions. Therefore, it should be understood that all these arise without associated roots. 39. The meaning of the word "in every way" should be understood in the manner stated above. [39] In the Vibhāvanī, however, "In every way" is said to mean in the division of unwholesome resultant, wholesome resultant, and functional. That is not good. For that division is already included by "etc." In the summary verse, the unwholesome resultant consciousnesses are seven by the division of base and function, the wholesome resultant consciousnesses are by the division of base, function, and feeling. by these eight, and functional consciousnesses