14.
Fourteenth Chapter
1. Commentary on the Discussion of Putting Together the Wholesome and Unwholesome
686-690.
Now there is the discussion called the reuniting of wholesome and unwholesome.
Therein, since there is no such thing as the wholesome arising immediately after the unwholesome, or the unwholesome arising immediately after the wholesome, their mutual reunion is not fitting.
But those who, having taken up the view that since one finds pleasure and detaches oneself regarding the very same object, therefore that reunites mutually, just as the Mahāsaṅghikas;
with reference to them, the question is of the proponent of one's own doctrine;
the acknowledgment is of the other.
"Adverting" and "aspiration" - both are names for adverting itself.
For that turns the life-continuum - thus "adverting."
It directs and establishes consciousness upon an object other than the life-continuum object - thus "aspiration."
"The wholesome for one not adverting" - he asks whether that wholesome which arises reuniting immediately after the unwholesome, arises for one not adverting.
The other, however, not seeing the arising of the wholesome without adverting, rejects.
"The wholesome arises for one attending unwisely" - this was stated for the purpose of challenging that if the wholesome were to arise immediately after the unwholesome, it would arise for one attending unwisely through the adverting of the unwholesome itself.
The remainder proceeds according to the canonical text itself.
Is it not that the statement "in whatever object" explains the arising of passion and dispassion regarding a single object, not the immediate succession of wholesome and unwholesome, therefore it is not a proof.
Commentary on the Discussion of Connecting Wholesome and Unwholesome.
2. Commentary on the Discussion of the Arising of the Six Sense Bases
691-692.
Now there is the discussion called the arising of the six sense bases.
Therein, for spontaneously born beings, the six sense bases arise together with the rebirth-seeking consciousness of conception.
For womb-born beings, among the internal sense bases, only the mind sense base and the body sense base arise at the moment of conception.
The remaining four at the seventy-seventh night.
And those indeed are produced by that very action by which conception was taken, or by another - this is the argument in one's own doctrine.
But for those whose view is that, because of origination from a single action, the six sense bases arise in mere seed form in the mother's womb at the very moment of conception, like a sprout of trees and so on endowed with accomplished branches and boughs, just as the Pubbaselīyas hold;
With reference to them, "the six sense bases" is the question of the proponent of one's own doctrine, the acknowledgment is of the other.
Beginning with "with all major and minor parts" was stated for the purpose of challenging - that when the six sense bases exist, having become of such a form, one would descend.
"Of one gone into the mother's womb" is the question of the opponent.
From what follows, "afterwards for one gone into the mother's womb, hair" and so on is the question of the proponent of one's own doctrine.
The remainder here is clear in meaning.
Commentary on the Discussion of the Arising of the Six Sense Bases.
3. Commentary on the Discussion of the Proximity Condition
693-697.
Now there is the discussion on the proximity condition.
Therein, having seen the swift turning over of seeing forms, hearing sounds, and so on in dancing, singing, and so on, "these consciousnesses arise in immediate proximity to one another" is the view of those, just as the Uttarāpathakas hold;
with reference to them, "of eye-consciousness" is the question of the proponent of one's own doctrine, the acknowledgment is of the other.
"Ear-consciousness would have just a visual object" - this was said to accuse that if it were to arise immediately after eye-consciousness, it would have a visual object like the resultant mind-element.
"Dependent on the eye and forms, does ear-consciousness arise?" - having rejected in the questions due to the absence of a discourse, yet considering the proximate arising, he acknowledges by the influence of his view.
"Is that very eye-consciousness that ear-consciousness?" - just as the second impulsion immediately after the first impulsion is that very same by way of being mind-consciousness, is it likewise for you that this pair too is just one? - thus he asks.
By this method, the meaning should be understood in all instances.
The statement beginning with "dances, sings" explains the mixed-up state due to the swift turning over in the combination of objects, not the proximity conditionality; therefore it is not a proof.
Commentary on the Discussion of the Proximity Condition.
4. Commentary on the Discussion of Noble Form
698-699.
Now there is the discussion called noble form.
Therein, right speech and right action are materiality, and that indeed, from the statement "all materiality is the four primary elements and the materiality derived from the four primary elements," is derived materiality - this is the view of those, just as the Uttarāpathakas hold;
with reference to them, "noble form is derived from the primary elements" is the question of the proponent of one's own doctrine.
Therein, the form of the noble ones, or noble form - thus "noble form."
"Yes" is the acknowledgment of the other, standing on the view.
When asked "wholesome," he acknowledges by the influence of the view alone.
In the question about "without mental corruptions" and so on too, the same method applies.
Setting aside the discourse "whatever materiality," the primary elements explain the derived nature of the remaining materiality, not of right speech and right action.
For even their mere materiality is not established, whence the state of being derived materiality;
therefore it is not a proof.
Commentary on the Discussion of Noble Form.
5. Commentary on the Discussion of "The Underlying Tendency is Another"
700-701.
Now there is the discussion called "the underlying tendency being another."
Therein, because when wholesome and indeterminate consciousness is occurring for a worldling, it should be said "with underlying tendencies," not "obsessed," therefore "the underlying tendency is one thing and prepossession is another" is the view of those, just as of the Andhakans;
with reference to them, "the underlying tendency to sensual lust is another" is the question of the proponent of one's own doctrine, the acknowledgment is of the other.
The remainder should be understood by the very method stated in the discussion on underlying tendency below.
But "with underlying tendencies" and so on explains that at that time, because of the underlying tendency not being abandoned, it should be said "with underlying tendencies," and because of not having arisen, it should not be said "obsessed," not the otherness of underlying tendency and prepossession; therefore it is not a proof.
Commentary on the Discussion of "The Underlying Tendency is Another."
6. Commentary on the Discussion of Prepossession Being Dissociated from Consciousness
702.
Now there is the discussion called prepossession being dissociated from consciousness.
Therein, because even when one attends beginning with impermanence, lust and so on arise.
And this too was said -
"Sometimes, dear Bhāradvāja, thinking 'I will attend to it as foul,' one attends to it as beautiful."
Therefore, "prepossession is dissociated from consciousness" is the view of those, just as of the Andhakas only;
with reference to them, the question is of the proponent of one's own doctrine, the acknowledgment is of the other.
The remainder here is clear in meaning.
Commentary on the Discussion of Prepossession Being Dissociated from Consciousness.
7. Commentary on the Discussion of the Included
703-705.
Now there is the discussion called "included."
Therein, because sensual lust underlies the sensual element and is said to be included in the sensual element, therefore lust for fine-material existence and lust for immaterial existence also underlie the fine-material element and the immaterial element.
And for those whose view is that they are indeed included in the fine-material element and the immaterial element, just as the Andhakas and the Sammitīyas;
with reference to them, "lust for fine-material existence" is the question of the proponent of one's own doctrine, the acknowledgment is of the other.
Therein, "underlies" - just as sensual lust underlies the sensual element, which is termed sensual thought, by way of conascence, he asks: "Do you hold thus that lust for fine-material existence underlies the fine-material element?"
"Included" - and just as that is included in the sensual element by way of the threefold sensual element, being included by way of defilement-sensuality, he asks: "Do you hold thus that lust for fine-material existence too is included in the fine-material element?"
But the other, not discerning his intention, merely by the influence of his view, acknowledges "Yes."
Then, in order to make him discern that meaning, by correlating with attainment-seeking and so on, which are termed wholesome, resultant, and functional, in order to ask, he said beginning with "attainment-seeking."
The remainder here proceeds according to the canonical text itself.
Is it not that the statement beginning with "sensual lust" explains only the state of underlying tendency of sensual lust in the sensual element and its being included, not of the others in the other elements?
Commentary on the Discussion of the Included.
8. Commentary on the Discussion of the Indeterminate
706-708.
Now there is the discussion called the indeterminate.
Therein, the fourfold indeterminate, reckoned as resultant, functional, matter, and Nibbāna, was said to be indeterminate because of being resultless.
Wrong view, because of not being declared in terms of eternality and so on, as in "The world is eternal, Vaccha, this is undeclared."
But for those who, not grasping this distinction, hold the view that wrong view too is indeterminate just like the former indeterminate, just as the Andhakas and the Uttarāpathakas;
in order to show them that distinction, "wrong view is indeterminate" is the question of the proponent of one's own doctrine, the acknowledgment is of the other.
The remainder here proceeds according to the canonical text itself.
Commentary on the Discussion of the Indeterminate.
9. Commentary on the Discussion of the Not Included
709-710.
Now there is the discussion called "not included."
Therein, because a worldling who is an obtainer of meditative absorption should be said to be "without lust towards sensual pleasures," but not "one whose wrong view has disappeared," therefore "wrong view is not included" is the view of those, just as of the Pubbaselīyas;
with reference to them, the question is of the proponent of one's own doctrine, the acknowledgment is of the other.
The remainder here proceeds according to the canonical text itself.
Commentary on the Discussion of the Not Included.
The fourteenth chapter.