English
And in all these, the straightness in their long-term persistence according to what was created, Is evident and should be understood. They hold equally, thus common, With all beautiful minds, Or common to them, thus beautiful common qualities. 111. Here, Right Speech is threefold: By way of discourse, volition, and abstention. Among these, speech connected with meaning and Dhamma, well-spoken, Is called Right Speech as discourse. The wholesome volitional action that gives rise to it Is called Right Speech as volition. But that mental activity which is an abstention from evil, For one undertaking the precepts of abstention from false speech etc., Or for one resolving, Or for one not transgressing an object encountered. This abstention is called Right Speech. That is intended here. They speak rightly by this, thus Right Speech. By this... Here, the word "instrument" should be understood in the sense of "instrument" or "cause." In that regard, for one who undertakes precepts by speech, referring to the words of undertaking, both the sense of "instrument" and "cause" are appropriate. Then, they go about speaking only blameless words, saying, "We will guard well the precepts as undertaken or as resolved." Referring to these, the sense of "cause" is appropriate, consistent with the sense of "instrument." Or, whether they speak thus or not. But when they speak, this enables them to speak rightly. It is called "Right Speech" because it means not speaking wrongly. Moreover, this, proceeding by way of abandoning verbal misconduct, is indeed the purification of the door of speech, and so it is called "Right Speech." 112. Right Action is also threefold: by way of action, by way of intention, and by way of abstinence. Here, the bodily action of one doing any blameless deed is called "action-Right Action." The intention that gives rise to it is called "intention-Right Action." But that mental activity, in the form of abstaining from evil, of one who undertakes or resolves upon precepts like abstaining from taking life, or of one who does not transgress an object that has come into contact. This abstinence is called "abstinence-Right Action." They act rightly by this, hence "Right Action." That same "Right Action" is like "discourse" and "forest edge." The rest here is as explained before. 113. Right Livelihood is also twofold: by way of effort, and by way of abstinence. Here, the exertion, reckoned as energy and strength, of those who maintain their lives by naturally blameless means like farming or alms-round, is called "effort-Right Livelihood." But that mental activity, in the form of abstaining from evil, of those who, desiring purity of livelihood, abandon bodily and verbal misconduct which are causes of livelihood-virtue failure. This abstinence is called "abstinence-livelihood." This is what is intended here. They maintain their life rightly by this, hence "Right Livelihood." The rest here is as explained before. 114. Each of these here is threefold: by way of temporary abstinence, by way of undertaking abstinence, and by way of cutting-off abstinence. Here, that which is precepts... Even without undertaking them, or having undertaken them, without looking at them, solely by the power of shame and fear of wrong, for those not transgressing an object that has come, abstinence arises. This is called abstinence by attainment. It has only the present as its object. For it is said that the five precepts have the present as their object. But that which arises for one undertaking the precepts, or resolving upon them, or for one not transgressing an object that has come, saying, "I will guard well what I have undertaken or what I have resolved upon." This is called abstinence by undertaking. It can have the present as its object or the future as its object. Thus, it is said in the commentary that "the five precepts have the present as their object" was stated in the sense of abstinence by attainment. But that which arises at the moment of the path, by way of the eradication of the conditions of all misconduct, is called abstinence by eradication. It has only Nibbāna as its object. Abstinence by fruition is also included here. Therein, worldly abstinences, taking objects to be transgressed like the faculty of life, abandon objects to be abstained from like the killing of living beings. But supramundane abstinences, taking Nibbāna as their object, abandon those very objects to be abstained from. This should be understood. 115. When there is suffering in others, it causes the heart-pain of the compassionate; thus, it is compassion (karuṇā). Or it scatters the suffering of others, or it harms the suffering of others; thus, it is compassion. Or it is spread among the suffering; thus, it is compassion. Moreover, 'kali' means cutting. 'Kali' is called suffering, as in "kali arises in existence." 'Kali' is also called evil and defeat. For it is said, "kali in evil is defeat." All this is indeed the cause of compassion for the compassionate. Thus, compassionate people, by this, protect beings from kali, or suffering, or evil, or defeat from all prosperity, or they protect beings from being cut off from it; thus, it is compassion. 116. Seeing the prosperity of others, they rejoice by this; thus, it is sympathetic joy (muditā). There is no measure for these beings; they are immeasurable. It exists among the immeasurable; thus, it is immeasurable (appamaññā). They are to be applied to only so many beings. Not to others. Thus, due to the absence of a defined measure, even when applied to one being, they are called immeasurables. [77] But in the commentaries, it is said: They are immeasurable because their objects are immeasurable beings. That is not good. 117. The faculty of wisdom is the same non-delusion mentioned earlier. It is called the faculty of wisdom because it is wisdom in the sense of knowing, and a faculty in the sense of being dominant. In the collection of beautiful things, this is the exposition of ultimate truth. 118. "Thus far" and so on is the collection of the three groups. Having thus shown the nature of the fifty-two, now, showing the manner of their connection with consciousness, he says "of these" and so on. From here, after seeing the nature of the mental factors, the connection of these mental factors, which are inseparable from consciousness, with each mind-moment is stated as "such a connection." "In mind-moments" means "in consciousnesses." "Moments of arising" are those in which mental factors arise. Having made "consciousnesses themselves are moments of arising," they are "mind-moments." Due to the extreme weakness of the fifty-two consciousnesses, the six particulars do not arise in them. Due to being abandoned by the power of development, initial application does not arise in the second jhāna and so on, sustained application in the third jhāna and so on, and rapture in the fourth jhāna and so on. Due to the nature of determination, resolution does not arise in the consciousness of doubt, which has the nature of non-determination. Due to energy being the leader of strength, it does not arise in the sixteen consciousnesses that are weak, such as the five-door adverting consciousnesses. Due to rapture having the nature of liking, it does not arise in those accompanied by displeasure or equanimity. Due to desire having the nature of wishing, it does not arise in those devoid of wishing, in the rootless, and in the utterly deluded consciousnesses. Thus, he says, regarding the particulars, initial application, etc., "in consciousnesses excluding the utterly deluded." And those mind-moments are either devoid of particulars or accompanied by particulars— this is the connection. 119. "In unwholesome ones" means in unwholesome mental factors. They are common to all unwholesome states. Therefore, they are found in all twelve unwholesome consciousnesses— this is the connection. [78] But in the Vibhāvanī, it is said: The latter is intended as a statement supporting the former. Is not good. This indeed is the main point for showing their occurrence in minds. But since all unwholesome consciousnesses do not arise without these four. For they do not arise for those who stand, having seen danger in evils. Nor for those weary of them through shame or fear. Nor for those concentrated in wholesome states. Therefore, they are found in all of them. And since wrong view and conceit, without abandoning delight in the aggregates, proceed having grasped them in various ways. Therefore, they arise only in consciousness rooted in greed. But when they arise there, wrong view, having firmly grasped the self-grasping in the aggregates, proceeds perceiving that self only with false characteristics like permanence and so on. But conceit, having firmly grasped the aggregates as "I am", proceeds perceiving that grasped form only with "I am better" and so on. Therefore, they indeed have dissimilar functions from the mode of grasping, thus it is said. Wrong view in four (greed-rooted consciousnesses) dissociated (from wrong view). But those who adhere to wrong views, by wrong view, grasp the self itself as "I am" as it is grasped. For them also, wrong view and conceit, having reached the mode of grasping, indeed have dissimilar functions. For there is no activity for wrong view in the grasping of self, like there is for conceit. Nor is there for conceit, like for wrong view, the imagining of an unreal aspect of phenomena. For that very reason, the conceit of "I am" occurs even for non-returners. But wrong view, which has become the grasping of self, is only for ordinary people. [79] But in the Vibhavaniya, Having said, "Conceit also, from occurring by way of 'I am' conceit, indeed occurs like wrong view, thus it does not occur in one moment of consciousness together with wrong view," Kesara Siha establishes that meaning by reasoning. That is not good. For similar occurrence indeed