English
And that is a root of unwholesome kamma, it is said, “two roots by way of ignorance and craving.” Alternatively, “root” means head. The meaning is “two heads of the round of existence.” In the Commentary, however, making the first two five-groups one round of existence, and the latter two five-groups another round of existence, the first is rooted in ignorance. And that is the round for those of wrong view, or for those heading for the lower realms. The latter is rooted in craving. And that is shown as a wheel for those of lustful conduct or for those going to a good destination. But a wheel, from what point does the beginning of the cycle occur? When it has come again, then it would be a wheel. Therefore, here, together with the second pair of cause and effect, it is fitting that everything is just one wheel. Why, among these factors of coming, is ignorance stated as the head? And among the factors of going, is craving alone stated? Shouldn't both be stated as the head in both cases? It is said, there is no nourishment for craving like pleasant feeling. Therefore, when connecting the cycle factor from the feeling factor, craving, which is appropriate to feeling, should be stated. Not ignorance. So, in the factors of going, there is no place for ignorance. And at the very first starting point, ignorance alone should be stated as the most important. And since it is an indispensable factor in the production of volitional formations, nothing needs to be said for the sake of one factor between them. Thus, in the factors of coming, there is no place for craving. For this teaching of dependent origination proceeds by grasping the principal factors, not by grasping all available phenomena. As for what is to be clarified: It is said that the past is rooted in ignorance, the future is rooted in craving. Here, "of the past" means of the past division of cause and effect. "Of the future" means of the future division of cause and effect. Why are these called two roots? He says: By the cessation of these very roots, it ceases. By their arising, the whole cycle arises. And by their cessation, it ceases. Therefore, they are called two roots. Some, however, say that this is a demonstration of dependent origination in reverse order. Dependent origination in reverse order is the cessation section, such as: "With the cessation of ignorance, volitional formations cease; with the cessation of volitional formations, consciousness ceases," and so on. Now, the mention of sorrow and so on is not merely for the purpose of showing the resultant fruit. But rather, together with old age and death, it becomes one factor, and further, the cycle... showing that it also serves to illustrate the suffering-states that lead to rootless states, he said "old age, death, fainting, etc." There, by the word "fainting," sorrow, etc., are included. For they themselves, having arisen from defilements, again become causes for the arising of defilements. By this, their inclusion in the factor of old age and death is established. For fools frequently afflicted by old age, death, and fainting, defilements frequently arise. With the arising of defilements, ignorance also increases. For it is said: "From the arising of defilements, there is the arising of ignorance." And when this is so, the meaning is that "from ignorance, volitional formations" again revolve in a continuous cycle. And here – For one afflicted by various misfortunes, from the arising of sorrow, etc., ignorance and craving increase, from which the cycle continues. This should be said. As it is said: "And what, monks, is the result of suffering?" "I declare, monks, that suffering has delusion as its ripening." "And has seeking as its ripening." There, delusion is ignorance. Seeking is craving. Having made both of these its ripening, suffering like old age, death, sorrow, etc., is called "having delusion as its ripening" and "having seeking as its ripening." There, delusion means one afflicted by the misfortune of relatives, etc., grieves, laments, beats the breast, cries, falls into delusion – such is the delusion that arises. Seeking means just as one afflicted by hunger desires and seeks food; one afflicted by thirst desires and seeks water; similarly, one afflicted by some suffering desires and seeks happiness – such is the craving for seeking that arises. But here, since there is no place of suffering in this world as great, pervasive, and certain as old age and death. And the Teacher's teaching is for the escape from suffering. Therefore, this teaching of dependent origination has old age and death as its foundation. As it is said: "Indeed, this world has fallen into distress, it is born, it ages, it dies, it passes away, it reappears. Yet it does not understand the escape from this suffering, from old age and death, etc." But in which factors, starting from the beginning, when known, ... One can uproot old age and death and thereby free oneself. To show these, the former factors, such as birth, were taught. Moreover, by showing the arising of existence while remaining in one life, with the conditions for coming and the conditions for going, with coming and going, the arising of that particular existence in that particular life in the entire cycle of existence, in the past and future, is indeed shown. And all wrong views are turned back. And the cycle of existence becomes beginningless and indeed binds. Therefore, by the words "old age and death" or by the words "sorrow, etc.," without considering ignorance, one should understand that it is the showing of the great mass of danger of the ongoing cycle. Thus, this is the conclusion. Thus, the connection is that he began with the method "From ignorance come formations," and so on. Thus, they also explain that the binding, beginningless, three-fold cycle continues. There, "Thus, it binds with the infatuation of old age and death," as said in this way, it binds again and again. Why is it said to be beginningless? Was not ignorance mentioned at the beginning? It is said: It is not mentioned at the beginning because it is the beginning of the cycle. It is mentioned at the beginning only because it is the head of the discourse on the cycle. But by it, thus said, the beginningless nature of the cycle is also shown. For ignorance, by name, is not found externally. It is found only in the continuum of beings; this is proven by direct perception. Therefore, here, when ignorance is established in a past life, the existence that is its basis is also established in that life. And being established, it is established by another ignorance in the way stated in this ten-fold method, not otherwise. And thus, again, the existence that is its basis is indeed established. Thus, ignorance and existence, both of these, are unestablished and indeed beginningless. But because it is the primary condition for all three kinds of cycles, it is the head of the discourse on the cycle. If it is not the beginning of the cycle, then a condition for it should also be stated. True. But even if a condition for it is stated, a condition for that condition also... Transgression, it is said, comes indeed. And this being so, its completion would not be known. But elsewhere it is stated. As it is said: "From the arising of taints, there is the arising of ignorance." And as it is said: "Ignorance, monks, I declare to have nutriment, to have a cause." "What is its nutriment?" "The five hindrances, it is said." And as it is said: "Ignorance is the condition, formations are conditioned." "Both of these arise dependently." "He established" means "he made known, he taught." [The method of Dependent Origination.] 167. Now, to show the method of Patthana, the section beginning "hetupaccayo" (root condition) is commenced. There, "hetu" (root) and "paccaya" (condition) is "hetupaccayo" (root condition). Having become a root, it is a condition; it is said to be a condition by way of being a root. There, in what sense is it a root? In the sense of a foundation. And what is the sense of a foundation? Like the root of trees, the sense of establishing co-arisen phenomena firmly in their objects, that is called the sense of a foundation. They also say that the sense of a foundation is the sense of bringing about the states of co-arisen phenomena, such as wholesome states. What needs to be said here, that has already been said below. But from the meaning of the word, "hetu" (root) is that by which co-arisen phenomena firmly stand, by means of growth, development, and expansion, or by means of a strong, powerful, and firm connection to the object. The word "paccaya" (condition), however, means "helper." And "helper" means that by which, when it is present in its own nature, unarisen phenomena arise, or arisen phenomena persist, or persistent phenomena attain conditionality for further growth and development. It is merely its presence in such a nature. For in phenomena by nature, no striving or activity is found, whereby an agent or an instigator might be found. But when there is such a presence, due to the arising of unarisen corresponding conditioned phenomena, or due to the attainment of persistence by arisen phenomena, or due to the attainment of conditionality for further growth and development by persistent phenomena, it is as if it is doing well, as if it is accomplishing, and so it is called a "helper." Thus, firmness in the object... The six causal states, which are helpful by way of the root state, that is, the means of growth and development, are called the condition of cause. Mental states and their concomitants, experiencing great delight, as it were, hanging down, proceed therein; therefore, it is an object. The six object-states, which are helpful by way of being an object, are the condition of object. The meaning of "dominance" has already been stated below. A state that is helpful by way of dominance is the condition of dominance.