English
it is the supreme, excellent meaning, because it is non-deceptive, thus ultimate truth. But the other, because it does not exist, will be deceptive in achieving that purpose for those who practice for its direct knowledge and so on. It cannot achieve that purpose, thus it is not fit to be called ultimate truth. [14] In the Vibhāvanī, it is also said: "Ultimate truth is the meaning, the object, of supreme or excellent knowledge." That is not good. For the word 'parama' is not seen to apply to knowledge. Nor does the word 'attha' mean 'object'. And what is said in the Anuṭīkā: "Truth itself is true. That very meaning, because it is the object of undistorted knowledge, is called 'saccikaṭṭha' (true state)." That too shows this meaning: "It is the meaning to be reached, to be approached, by undistorted knowledge." It does not mean 'of the supreme'. [The word Paramattha] 13. Here, 'citta' (mind) means 'it thinks'. And here, the act of thinking is always dependent on an object. For it is not found without an object. Therefore, the grasping of an object, the perception of an object, should be understood as thinking here. If this is so, the view of those who say that mind operates without an object during the bhavaṅga state and in the state of non-percipient beings is refuted. Even though there are other conditions for it, such as support and contiguity, it should be understood that its name is established not by these, but by way of the object condition. 'Citta' (mind) is that by which the associated phenomena think. For it is the grasping of an object... that which is the forerunner, the associated phenomena, grasping the object, grasp it by its power. Or, mind is mere thinking. Indeed, all phenomena are merely their respective actions. No substance, or shape, or form is found in them. And they exist dependent on conditions. They cannot arise by their own strength, or power, or might, or ability. Much less can they think or touch. And they last only for a moment, they can never be controlled by anyone. Therefore, it should be understood that in them no such distinction is found as "this is substance," "this is power," "this is action." And having done so, in all ultimate truths, only the establishment of being is primarily obtained. And other establishments are obtained only indirectly, this should be known. And here, to explain the specific meaning of the thought of non-difference in terms of substance, etc., the making of distinctions by way of conceptual divisions is an indirect teaching, this should be understood. Just as "the body of a stone child," so too, this making is to show the complete absence of a doer-being, a self, a soul, a living being, a person, conceived by others, which is free from the phenomena called "that action." For if there were a self, etc., what would be the point of conceiving difference in non-difference? But it should be clarified: It seems to be said that the conception of something existent from something non-existent is like a rabbit's horn. This is its meaning: Among phenomena, there is no doer or agent. But in the world, a doer who is self-dominant and accomplishes actions is established. Therefore, to show the self-dominance in the act of thinking, that doer-state is attributed to the mind, and it is said "it thinks," hence it is called "mind" (citta). And to show the favorable activity of the associated phenomena in that act by the power of the mind, the state of being an instrument is again attributed to the mind, and the state of being a doer is attributed to them, and it is said "the associated phenomena think by this," hence it is called "mind" (citta). And here, the word "citta" should be understood as conveying the meaning of "varied." For it is said in the Saṃyutta: "Have you seen, monks, the course of conduct?" the mind. Yes, venerable sir. That wandering mind, monks, is conceived by the mind itself. By that wandering mind, monks, the mind itself is more varied. I do not, monks, see any other single group that is so varied, as these, monks, animals. Those animals, monks, are made varied by the mind itself. By those animals, monks, the mind itself is more varied. Here, the "wandering mind" means that which, having made various divine mansions and so on, as if painted works, and doing this and that merit, wanders about showing that it is reborn here and there. This is the name of that banner-maker. "By the mind" is a locative of instrument. "As these" means as these. "Made varied" means made diverse. Here, the body is varied by the mind, the perceptions are varied by the mind. Due to the variety of perceptions, cravings are varied. Due to the variety of cravings, actions are varied. Due to the variety of actions, births are varied. Due to the variety of births, the variety of those animals should be understood. [Meaning of words] That nature, its characteristic, the accomplishment of its function, its essence; The manner of apprehension, or its result, is called its manifestation. That which is the proximate cause, that is considered its immediate cause; These are sufficient for the wise to determine the nature of phenomena. The mind has the characteristic of knowing the object, its essence is to be a forerunner, its manifestation is to connect, its immediate cause is name and form. [Mind] 14. "Mental concomitants" (cetasika) here means that which exists in the mind, due to its dependent occurrence. It is the group of phenomena like contact. Here, "dependent occurrence" means its activity as if unified with the mind by characteristics such as simultaneous arising. By this, whatever is the birth of the mind, that is also of contact and so on. Whatever is the aging of the mind, whatever is the death of the mind, whatever is the object of the mind, whatever is the base of the mind, that is also of contact and so on. Thus, like flowers bound to a single stalk in a cluster of flowers, they are bound to the mind by simultaneous arising and so on. Contact and other states here are established as mental concomitants. And if so, the mind too, together with these contact and others, operates dependently in the same way, so it too is called "contact-born," "feeling-born," and so on. No. Because the mind itself is supreme. "Mind is the forerunner of all states, mind is their chief, they are mind-made," thus it is said. And here, "mind-made" means made by mind itself, created by mind, mind-actions that have come to be. By this it shows that those states of contact and others are not found without the mind. But the mind, even without some of them, still operates. For the five-sense consciousnesses arise without some of these, like initial application and sustained application. Therefore, their dependent operation should be spoken of, not the mind's. [15] But the explanation: "By merely having one object, their dependent operation and their being in the mind is explained." That is not good. For by merely having one object, a mental concomitant is not born. And here in the world, various color pigments, rubbed in water, make various paintings on a cloth. There, spreading and binding on the cloth is the function of water, not of the color pigments. The showing of various forms is the function of the color pigments, not of the water. There, the cloth should be seen as the object. The water as the mind. And the various color pigments as mental concomitant states. [Mental Concomitant] 15. Here, "form" (rūpa) means "it is afflicted" (ruppati). It undergoes change due to uneven operation by opposing conditions like cold and heat, or it is made to change by them. That is the meaning. As it is said: "It is afflicted, monks, therefore it is called form." "By what is it afflicted?" "It is afflicted by cold." "It is afflicted by heat." "It is afflicted by hunger." "It is afflicted by thirst." "It is afflicted by the touch of flies, mosquitoes, wind, sun, and creeping things." And "it is afflicted" means: it is afflicted, it is disturbed, it is struck, it is oppressed, it is broken. It is said in the Mahāniddesa: This is the summary meaning here: those states which are long-lasting and have the nature of resistance. At their moments of duration, by the coming together of opposing conditions... It is not so. Nor for others, those of momentary duration, and of unresisting nature. For indeed, even subtle forms of unresisting nature have no external contact with cold and the like. How much less then for mental phenomena of momentary duration and of unresisting nature? If this were so, subtle forms would become formless. They would not. Because they move in the same way as gross forms. For when gross forms are afflicted, they too are afflicted. And contact here, apart from impulsive movement and making an object, is said to be the mutual striking of gross forms, or of the great elements, which are mutually opposed and have attained stability. For it is said: "It is afflicted, it is struck, it is oppressed." And affliction is also said to be the agitation and breaking up of elements within a group, like the disturbance of a country by a hostile army's battle. For it is said: "It agitates, it breaks up." And here, "it agitates" means it is disturbed, it wavers; "it breaks up" means it undergoes change. At the moment they receive the conjunction of opposing conditions. From that point on, they themselves undergo change. This means they become a condition for the arising of continuous series of forms, both inferior and superior. Moreover, here, affliction is twofold: growth and decay. Both of these are evident in the arising of a world-period, in the establishment of a world-period, and in the changes of various life-spans, years, seasons, months, nights, days, and so on. But why is the name "form" established only for those phenomena that are afflicted by way of striking? Because they alone have a body. For material phenomena are corporeal by attaining the state of aggregation,