English
being the most primary function, is the head of the discourse of the cycle. Thus, being the head of the discourse of the cycle, it is stated at the beginning. "The beginningless nature has been shown" means the beginningless nature has indeed been shown. It does not mean it has not been shown. Thus, this collection of meanings is proven by direct perception. "Here" means in this existence. "Of that" means of the ignorance pertaining to a past existence. "Of another ignorance" means of another ignorance established in an existence prior to the past existence. "Of that also" means of the ignorance in a still earlier existence. "Existence" means a still earlier existence. "Because it is the primary condition" means because it is the function of causing blindness, in the manner stated before, it is the primary condition for the arising of the cycle. Thus, because it is the primary condition. "Of that, of that, there would be no end" means the condition of that condition would have to be stated. And the condition of that condition would have to be stated, and so, for a hundred years, for a thousand years, no end would be found. "It has been stated" means the condition of ignorance has been stated. "It should be said that the five hindrances are its food" means it should be said that the phenomena of the five hindrances are the food of ignorance. Here, "food" is said to mean a strong condition. The elucidation of the method of dependent origination is finished. 167. Pa In the section on modes of standing: Regarding "It is both a root and a condition," greed, being of the nature of a root, is a root. And it is a condition for other phenomena by way of object, contiguity, and so on. Since this meaning is possible, it is explained as "being a root, it is a condition." Even when explained thus, if "being a root, it is a condition" means that it is a condition by being a root, that same meaning is possible. Therefore, it is explained as "a condition by being a root again." Here, it might be said: In "It is both a root and a condition," the two words are in apposition, having the same referent, a single phenomenon. But in "a condition by being a root," the two words are not in apposition. For the former word is primary in terms of the nature of a phenomenon, the latter is primary in terms of the phenomenon itself. If this is the case, it is not appropriate to explain an appositional sentence by making it non-appositional. No, it is not inappropriate. Because there is a difference in meaning due to primary and figurative usage. For the latter sentence is a primary statement. The former sentence is a figurative statement. And in a figurative statement, a figurative meaning is appropriate. In a primary statement, a primary meaning is appropriate. "What was said below" refers to what was said in the Miscellaneous Compendium. "They stand firm in this" is a root. "They stand firm by this" is a root. Here, "they stand firm" means they are well-established. Who stands firm? It says, "co-arisen phenomena." And how do they stand firm well? It says, "by way of growth, development, and attainment of fullness." Why do they stand firm well? To show that the place of establishment or the cause of establishment is endowed with strength and power, it is said, "firmly fixed on the object, endowed with strength and power." And this is an adjective for "root." It should also be applied to "phenomena" here: "firmly fixed on the object, endowed with strength and power." And "helper" is connected to "is just the finding." "By what kind of nature" means by the nature of being a root, and so on. Why is "is just the finding" said? Does not the word "helper" refer to an agent or a causer? It refers to them by way of convention. But to show that in reality there is no agent or causer, it says, "for there is no..." in the states of being.” Thus he said. If there is no doer or instigator by nature, why is it called a helper? He said, “However, in what is thus found,” and so on. In the condition of object. “Clinging to” means clinging to by way of making an object. “By way of being an object” means by way of being a sphere of perception. In the condition of dominance. “Esteemed” means esteemed by way of delighting and rejoicing, or by way of faith and clarity. “Like a master to his slaves” means like a master making his own slaves act according to his will. However, co-arisen dominance was mentioned below in the summary collection, so it is not mentioned here. In the two conditions of contiguity. “Interval” means a gap, an opening. “Continuum” means the mind-continuum. “By way of the binding of the continuum” means by way of repeatedly binding the mind-continuum. “Producing” is the connection. “Of another state” means of another state of the aggregates of mind. “The condition of contiguity” means the function of the condition of contiguity, it is said. Any other state. “Of those occurring in the prior and posterior parts” means of those occurring in the prior part and in the posterior part of cessation and non-percipient existence. “Even of mind-moments” means the wholesome and functional mind-moments of the sphere of neither perception nor non-perception in the prior part of cessation. In the posterior part, the mind-moments of the fruit of non-returning and the fruit of arahantship. In the prior part of non-percipient existence, the mind-moments of death in the sense-sphere. In the posterior part, the mind-moments of rebirth in the sense-sphere itself. But how can there be contiguity among these? The objection is that there is an interval of a mind-less time and a mind-less material continuum between the two prior and posterior parts. To refute this, “For it is not non-existent,” and so on, was said. “Of these” means of the two mind-moments. A material state does not create an interval. The contiguity of immaterial states, and so on, is the explanation. “The ability to occur thus” means the ability to produce another state immediately after itself, as if they were unified. is the ability. In co-nascence condition: “And those phenomena” are the resultant phenomena. “In itself” is said to be the conditioning phenomenon. “Like a tripod supporting each other” is like three poles erected on the ground, leaning on each other, supporting each other. “By the former” is by the former co-nascent condition. “The one and the other’s support” is mutual support. “Cook” is the one who prepares food. “Pot” is the cooking pot for food. “Rain showers” are the rain showers from clouds. “Strong dependence” is the strong dependence for the production of food. “When these are absent” is when the rain showers for the rice fields are absent. “By way of being more powerful” is by way of being a more powerful dependence. “Natural strong dependence” here “natural” means very much made. Therefore, it says “well-made.” And the making is to be seen as well-producing in one’s own continuum and well-practicing. This is the connection. “In the manner stated” is in the manner stated by ‘when it is made, it is so,’ and so on. “Only dependence and object phenomena” are only dependence condition phenomena and object condition phenomena. “Distinguished only by pre-nascence” here, by the word “only,” it shows that there is no power called pre-nascent power distinct from the power of dependence and object. Some also say that there is a distinct pre-nascent power. To show that view, it says “by the Elder Ācariya Ānanda,” and so on. Here, the five bases and the five objects, being pre-nascent, because of their great power, fulfill the base function and the object function for the five consciousnesses. Similarly, the heart-base and the mind-element and the mind-consciousness element. This, he would say, is a distinct pre-nascent power. True. But for those who, standing here at the pure mind-door, contemplate that in the hells there are such forms of hell-fire, and now among the devas there are such divine forms, or for those who contemplate that such forms arose in them previously, or that such forms will arise in them in the future, those forms, being undifferentiated, become the mind. They go to be object-condition for non-conscious things. There, present material phenomena, having arisen earlier and existing then, are object-pre-nascent condition. The others are just object-condition. And here, there is no distinction in the pre-nascent nature of present material phenomena that are pre-nascent. Nor are they not pre-nascent conditions. If one were to say that a distinct pre-nascent power-speciality is the pre-nascent condition, then they would not be called pre-nascent conditions. Why? Because such a speciality is absent. But they are not absent. Why? Because there is a speciality of being merely pre-nascent. Here they might say: "But in the five doors, a distinct pre-nascent power-speciality is seen in the way mentioned before." Although it is seen, that is merely a support power-speciality or an object power-speciality among the various support, condition, and object conditions. Moreover, the statement "there is no distinct pre-nascent power-speciality" was made with reference to the absence of such a speciality in the pure mind-door as explained. The statement "there is a distinct pre-nascent power-speciality" was made with reference to the presence of such a speciality in the five doors. Whichever is preferred, that should be taken. In the post-nascent condition. The explanation is: "Like young trees," water poured later is helpful by way of supporting, causing the young trees to grow and flourish. "Desiring food" is 'āhārāsā' (desire for food). Hunger, thirst, craving. The analysis is: volition associated with that. And that volition of desire for food certainly supports, is the connection. "This meaning" is this meaning stated by "very clearly," etc. All this deliberation prevents the simile of the vulture from being merely a simile.