English
which is merely an exposition of method, should be spoken having made the method complete. Here, regarding "a weighty object": All worldly wholesome things, and the lower paths, fruits, and Nibbāna, are for sense-sphere wholesome consciousness. The Arahantship path, fruit, and Nibbāna are for the four great functional impulsion-consciousnesses associated with knowledge. Nibbāna is for the eight kinds of supramundane. Excluding the two kinds of aversion, the two kinds of delusion, and body-consciousness accompanied by pain, the remaining entire class of worldly wholesome, unwholesome, and indeterminate phenomena are for consciousness associated with greed. Thus, the division of cause and effect should be understood. [234] But that which is to be explained, Having said, "A weighty object is a weighty object through reflection, enjoyment, and so on," by explaining that, it was said: "For that makes the phenomena of reflection, enjoyment, and so on, and path-fruits, and so on, such as jhāna, path, fruit, insight, Nibbāna, and so on, dependent on oneself; therefore, it is called object-dominance." That is not good. Giving, morality, Uposatha practice, previously well-practiced lineage-change, purification, and path, fruit, Nibbāna, and also greed, views, eye, ear, and so on, should be said. And "insight" might be said referring only to lineage-change and purification. And those are not Nibbāna-objects, insight not... They do not become. The meaning is that name-and-form, co-arisen, are those co-arisen with two-rooted or three-rooted javanas. And mutually co-arisen material forms, and mutually at the moment of rebirth, kamma-originated material forms, and in the course of existence, mind-originated material forms. This method applies elsewhere too. In the five-constituent existence, at the moment of rebirth, consciousness does not find a footing without a base. It is said that it does not find a footing without a base, meaning that at the moment of rebirth, the base and results are mutually dependent. In mutual condition, that which supports its own supported state. That very thing goes to the state of being conditioned. And mind-originated material forms cannot support the mind in any way. Similarly, dependent material forms and great elements, it is said, "mind and mental factors are mutually dependent," and so on. [235] But in the explanation: "Because mutual conditionality is only by way of mutual support. Not merely by co-arising, therefore in the course of existence, material form is not a mutual condition for name. Therefore it is said, 'mind and mental factors are mutually dependent'." Here, by "not merely by co-arising," if there were mutual conditionality merely by co-arising. In that case, it would be granted that in the course of existence, material form would be a mutual condition for name. But even in co-arising condition, in the course of existence, material form is not a condition for name. Therefore, this is not good. "Six bases for the seven consciousness-elements" – here, base-co-arisen support, base-pre-arisen support, and base-object-pre-arisen support – thus, base-support is of three kinds. There, at the moment of rebirth, the base is a co-arisen support for the resultant aggregates. But that which is pre-arisen in the course of existence, the mind arises relying on a base, that is called the base-pre-arisen support for that mind. But that pre-arisen base which is both a support and an object for a certain mind, that is called the base-object-pre-arisen support for that mind. This is stated in the Paṭṭhāna: object, support, pre-arisen... conjoined, existent, and unseparated. These are three. And how is that both the support and the object of consciousness? Consciousness arises by reflecting on a present object, or by enjoying it, or by resolving on an act of psychic power. Thus, it is both the support and the object of consciousness. This has been stated in the Paṭṭhāna: One discerns the internal base as impermanent, as suffering. One enjoys it. One delights in it. Regarding that, lust arises, wrong view arises, doubt arises, restlessness arises, displeasure arises. Here, however, the teachers brought this support-object-pre-arisen-condition into the path of recitation only at the time of approaching death. And this is their intention here: In the commentaries, the occurrence of process-consciousness without advertence in an undesirable place is prohibited. Likewise, the commentary teachers desire that the object of consciousness in a single-advertence process be non-different in nature and in time. And in normal times, consciousness is supported by its respective base. Therefore, when one reflects on the present internal base as impermanent, etc., or enjoys it as "this is mine," then this base is adverted to. The javanas also take that same object, not their own respective support-bases. For if they were to take that or another object, the javanas would be without advertence. Why? Because they would operate by taking something else, not what was adverted to by advertence. And they would have different objects. Because they would operate by taking later-arisen respective bases or something else. And that cannot be so, due to contradiction with the commentaries. Therefore, that support-object-pre-arisen condition cannot be obtained in normal times. But at the time of approaching death, all consciousnesses, including advertence, operate relying on a single base. Thus, for those advertences, etc., that operate regarding that, that same base is both their support and their object. If this is so, their being without advertence or having different objects... there is no difference in object, this is their intention. But there, if, without taking the object adverted to by advertence, they were to take their own respective support-objects, then the javanas would be without advertence. This, however, is not reasonable. Because only that kind of object adverted to by advertence is taken. For just as advertence adverts to an object itself, so too the javanas course on an object itself. Not otherwise. Thus, there is no non-adverting for javanas. And just as there is no non-adverting, so too there is no difference in object for them. Why? Because distinction is impossible. For in many objects occurring continuously, as if unified by the density of continuity, one after another, making each single object distinct as 'this is it', neither advertence nor javanas can take it. And in places where it is not possible in that way, it is not possible to obtain a difference in object, either by nature or by time. Thus, there is no difference in object for them. By this much, the obtainability of this arrangement of object-support-pre-arising condition, even in normal times, is established. Furthermore, for those who contemplate all present physical body as their own, thinking 'my form is impermanent' or 'this is mine', it should not be said that this mind-and-matter in internal forms is not the object of that mind. But among those that are objects, some are merely objects, some are objects pre-arising, and some are object-support pre-arising, it can be said. Nutritive essence (kabaḷīkārāhāra) means that which arises from the moment of rebirth onwards for beings in the sense-sphere, the four-originating physical nutriment and external nutriment. For those in the womb, as long as the mother's nutriment is not obtained, during the kalala and other stages, only the three-originating internal nutriment accomplishes the function of support. This is said in the Paṭṭhāna: 'At the moment of rebirth, nutritive essence is a condition for this body by way of nutriment condition.' And the arising of the eight-factor nutriment obtains the support of external nutriment. It should be understood as "at the proper time." If so – Whatever food, drink, and meals The mother eats, By that he sustains himself there, Hidden within the mother's womb. Why was this said? To make that yakkha understand by means of a manifest food. Regarding "this body," for those in the womb, at the moment of the arising of the rebirth-linking consciousness, the body is of one origin; at the moments of its static phase and dissolution, it is of two origins; thereafter, it is of three origins; and at the time of the diffusion of nutriment, it is of four origins. For others, it should be stated as appropriate. In the rūpa-world, however, even without the two kinds of nutriment-taking, the existence of the rūpa-life-faculty, which is perfected by a special kind of jhāna-attainment kamma and is capable of pervading for a very long time, and the existence of bodies for many eons by means of such formless nutriments included in the bhavaṅga, should be understood. By this method, it should be said that in most of the kamma-born bodies of devas, petas, and in hells, existence continues for a very long time without external nutriment. However, internal nutriment is also found among them. Although at the moment of conception, the resultant aggregates are also conditions for the base by way of disassociation, since those mind-and-mental-factor phenomena will be included here as "co-arisen rūpas," it is said "at the moment of conception, the resultant aggregates for the base." "In every way" should be connected with "co-arisen," etc. And the way is of three kinds, to be understood by "co-arisen condition," etc. "Rūpa-life," etc. This "existence condition" and "non-disappearance condition," as stated by the ancients, should be connected. But should not physical food and the rūpa-life-faculty be included among co-arisen things? If so, there would only be three kinds of existence conditions. No. Because of the absence of the characteristic of co-arising, which is called co-generation. For the co-arisen condition has the characteristic of co-arising.