6.

The Sixth Chapter

1. Commentary on the Treatise on the Fixed Course

445-447. Now there is the discussion called the fixed course. Therein, "fixed course" is called the noble path, from the statement "capable of entering upon the fixed course, the right path, in wholesome mental states." But since, even when that has arisen and ceased, the person is not called undetermined, therefore "that fixed course is unconditioned in the meaning of permanent" is the view of those, just as of the Andhakans; with reference to them, the question is of the proponent of one's own doctrine, the acknowledgment is of the other. Thereupon, explaining "if it is unconditioned, it must be of such a nature," he said beginning with "Nibbāna." The comparative questions are of manifest meaning only.

"Are there any" and so on was said for the purpose of illustrating the conditioned nature of the fixed course. In the question "the path is unconditioned," he rejects because of its nature of arising and cessation. In the question "the fixed course is conditioned," he rejects with reference to the existence of the fixed course even when the path has ceased. In the questions beginning with "the fixed course of stream-entry" and so on too, the meaning should be understood by this very method in both forward and reverse order. When asked "are there five unconditioned," not seeing a source where five unconditioned are mentioned, he rejects. When asked the second time, he acknowledges because of the four fixed courses of the right path being called fixed courses and because of the unconditioned nature of Nibbāna. The question on the fixed course of the wrong path was said for the purpose of illustrating the inappropriateness of being unconditioned merely by the term "fixed course."

Commentary on the Treatise on the Fixed Course.

2. Commentary on the Treatise on Dependent Origination

448. Now there is the discussion called dependent origination. Therein, for those whose view is "dependent origination is unconditioned" because of the statement in the chapter on causality beginning with "whether there is an arising of Tathāgatas or whether there is no arising of Tathāgatas, that element still stands - the principle of the causal relationship of phenomena," just as the Pubbaseliyas and the Mahīsāsakas hold; with reference to them, the question is of the proponent of one's own doctrine, the acknowledgment is of the other.

449. The questions beginning with "Is ignorance unconditioned?" were stated for the purpose of showing that ignorance and so on are indeed dependent origination. But the meaning by which each factor therein is called "dependent origination" has been stated just in the Analysis of Dependent Origination.

451. "Ignorance is the condition for activities" - whatever principle of the causal relationship of phenomena and so on, was stated for the purpose of breaking the view by showing the meaning of that very discourse by which the view was established. For the meaning here is this: That which was stated above as "that element still stands - the principle of the causal relationship of phenomena, the cosmic law of phenomena" does not exist separately apart from ignorance and so on as a single thing. But this is indeed the name of the conditions beginning with ignorance. For whether a Tathāgata has arisen or has not arisen, activities come to be from ignorance, and consciousness and so on from activities and so on; therefore, "ignorance is the condition for activities" - whatever in this term is the stability in the meaning of being the cause of phenomena subject to activities, that is the principle of the causal relationship of phenomena. And the regularity of those very phenomena in the meaning of being the cause is the cosmic law of phenomena - thus ignorance is called. He asks whether that is unconditioned and whether Nibbāna is unconditioned. The opponent, having acknowledged by the influence of his view, when again asked "are there two unconditioned," having rejected due to the absence of a discourse, acknowledges by the influence of his view alone. The same method applies to the remaining terms as well. But what is similar to what was stated above should be understood there by the very method already stated.

Commentary on the Treatise on Dependent Origination.

3. Commentary on the Treatise on Truth

452-454. Now there is the discussion called the talk on truth. Therein, for those whose view is "the four truths are permanent and unconditioned," in dependence on the discourse "These four, monks, are true, unerring," just as the Pubbaselīyas hold; with reference to them, the question is of the proponent of one's own doctrine, the acknowledgment is of the other. For this was his intention - in suffering, origin and path, the subject-matter truth is conditioned, the characteristic truth is unconditioned. In cessation, there is no subject-matter truth; it is only unconditioned. Therefore he said "Yes." But that is merely his view. For he wishes suffering to be the subject-matter truth, likewise origin and path. But whatever are their characteristics of affliction, production and leading to liberation, those are called the characteristic truth, and there is nothing called suffering and so on other than the characteristic of affliction and so on. In those beginning with "shelters," the intention should be understood in the manner already stated.

In the question "the truth of suffering," he acknowledges with reference to the characteristic by the influence of his view. In the question "suffering," he rejects with reference to the subject matter. From here onwards, the simple questions and the comparison questions should all be understood by following the canonical text itself. At the end, the discourse brought for the purpose of establishing the view, because of the meaning being wrongly grasped, is as if not brought.

Commentary on the Treatise on Truth.

4. Commentary on the Treatise on the Immaterial

455-456. Now there is the discussion called the immaterial states. Therein, for those whose view is "all those phenomena too are unconditioned," in dependence on the statement "the four immaterial states are imperturbable," with reference to them, "the plane of infinite space" is the question of the proponent of one's own doctrine, the acknowledgment is of the other. The remainder here is clear in meaning. The supporting discourse too, because it was brought without knowing the meaning, is as if not brought.

Commentary on the Treatise on the Immaterial.

5. Commentary on the Discussion of the Attainment of Cessation

457-459. Now there is the discussion called the attainment of cessation. Therein, "attainment of cessation" means the non-continuance of the four aggregates. But since it, being done, is done, being entered upon, is entered upon, therefore it is called concretely produced. But due to the absence of the characteristics of the conditioned and the unconditioned, it should not be said to be "conditioned" or "unconditioned." Therein, for those whose view is "since it is not conditioned, therefore it is unconditioned," just as the Andhakas and the Uttarāpathakas; with reference to them, "attainment of cessation" is the question of the proponent of one's own doctrine, the acknowledgment is of the other. "Produce" and so on is said only by way of attaining and obtaining. But just as matter and so on produce unconditioned states; not so does anyone produce that. "Cleansing and emergence from cessation" should be understood as fruition attainment. But as unconditioned, that does not exist at all, therefore he rejects. "If so" means the view that since it is not conditioned, therefore it is unconditioned. But this is not a reason for its being unconditioned - even though said, it is as if unsaid.

Commentary on the Discussion of the Attainment of Cessation.

6. Commentary on the Discussion of Space

460-462. Now there is the discussion called the talk on space. Therein, space is threefold - demarcated space, space left by the removal of the kasiṇa, and unentangled space. "Hollow space" is also a name for that very thing. Among these, demarcated space is conditioned, the other two are mere concepts. But for those whose view is "even the twofold, since it is not conditioned, is therefore unconditioned," just as the Uttarāpathakas and the Mahīsāsakas hold; with reference to them, "is space" is the question 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 Space.

7. Commentary on the Discussion of Whether Space is Manifest

463-464. Now the treatise called "Space is Manifest" follows. Therein, for those whose view is "all unentangled space too is manifest," in dependence on the occurrence of knowledge regarding keyholes and so on, just as the Andhakans hold; with reference to them, "Space is manifest?" is the question of the proponent of one's own doctrine, the acknowledgment is of the other. Then, for the purpose of challenging him with "if it is manifest, it would be of such a nature," "materiality" and so on was stated. In the questions beginning with "dependent on the eye," having rejected due to the absence of such a discourse, he acknowledges in dependence on the perception of the space between scales and so on. "Between two trees" - here, having seen the form of the trees with the eye, mind-door consciousness arises as "space" due to the absence of materiality in between, not eye-consciousness. The same method applies in the remaining ones too. Therefore this is not a proof.

Commentary on the Discussion of Whether Space is Manifest.

10.

Explanation of the Discussion on the Earth Element Being Non-Manifest and So On

465-470. Now the treatise called "The Solid Element is Manifest" and so on begins. Therein, for those whose view is "the solid element and so on are manifest," having seen the colour sense base in the movement of stones, water, nets, and trees, and in the places that are the support of the five faculties, and the material form of hands, feet, and so on at the time of bodily intimation, just as the Andhakans hold; with reference to them, in all the discussions the initial question is of the proponent of one's own doctrine, the acknowledgment is of the other. The remainder should be understood everywhere in accordance with the canonical text and by the method stated above. The concluding treatise, beginning with "the solid element is manifest" and ending with "bodily action is manifest," is concluded.

The sixth chapter.