清淨道論 緣起總說Visuddhimagga · General Account of Dependent Origination
第十七品是全書的引擎室，也是最多人翻開就合上的一章。剝到底只在說一件事：苦不是誰造的，也不是無端冒出來的；它依一串條件而生，所以也能依條件的拔除而滅。整章的密，是為了把這串條件看得極清楚——清楚到你能找出從哪裡下手把它斷掉。
先分兩個詞：緣起是「緣」那一邊——無明、行、識……；緣生法是「果」那一邊——老死等。「無論諸如來出世或不出世，那個界就是這樣住立的」——緣起不是佛發明的，是佛看見的。四異名說同一件事的四面：不多不少、必生、不錯位、就是這些緣。論主破兩派：緣起不是「事情就這樣發生了」，那樣讀不掉斷見；也不是抽象的因性，那樣把無明架空了——緣起就是無明等這些具體的緣。
「緣」這個字擋住常見，「起」這個字擋住斷見；合起來是中道，而且不超越世俗名言——你仍可以說「我」。佛陀說緣起如四個採藤人：從根、從梢、從中段抓都行；十二支是一條可以從任何一環抓住的環鏈，不是只能從頭讀起的直線。無明不是第一因，它有因（漏），只是輪說從它起講；輪之說有兩個頭：無明推向惡趣的業，有愛推向善趣的業——連善業也在輪子裡。無明最鋒利的一義：它於不存在的（女人男人）上馳走，於存在的（蘊）上卻不馳走——不是不知道，是知道錯了地方。苦蘊——不是有情，也不是樂淨：從頭到尾沒有一個「人」在受苦，只有苦之聚在生成。
Chapter Seventeen is the engine room of the whole treatise, and a chapter many readers open only to shut again. Stripped to its root, it says a single thing: suffering is neither made by somebody nor sprung up without cause; it arises through a chain of conditions, and so can cease when those conditions are removed. The chapter is dense so that this chain may be seen with utter clarity—clearly enough that you can find where to intervene and cut it.
First distinguish two terms. Dependent origination is the side of the “conditions”—ignorance, formations, consciousness, and the rest. Dependently originated phenomena are the side of the “results”—aging-and-death and the rest. “Whether Tathāgatas arise or do not arise, that element stands just so”: dependent origination was not invented by the Buddha; it was seen by him. Its four synonyms show four faces of the same fact: neither more nor fewer, unfailing, not misplaced, and precisely these conditions. The Commentator refutes two schools: dependent origination is not “things just happen,” for that cannot remove the annihilation view; nor is it an abstract causal nature, for that empties ignorance of force. Dependent origination is simply these concrete conditions beginning with ignorance.
“Dependent” blocks eternalism and “origination” blocks annihilationism; together they form the middle way, without overrunning conventional designation—you may still say “I.” The Buddha teaches dependent origination like four vine gatherers who seize a vine from its root, tip, or middle: the twelve factors form a circuit that may be grasped at any link, not a line that can only be read from its head. Ignorance is not a first cause; it has a cause, the influxes, and merely serves as a starting point for teaching the round. The teaching has two heads: ignorance propels kamma toward bad destinations, while craving for becoming propels kamma toward good destinations—even good kamma remains within the wheel. The keenest meaning of ignorance is that it runs toward what does not exist—woman and man—but not toward what exists—the aggregates: it is not simply not knowing, but knowing in the wrong place. A mass of suffering—not a being, nor pleasure or beauty: from beginning to end no “person” suffers; only a mass of suffering is produced.
本單元白話為本編自巴利原典之譯疏（tr. mine）；底本事項詳本單元考據。
§1 緣起與緣生法之分——經證之立 〔CSCD §570–571〕
十七、慧地釋
緣起之說
如今，在「蘊、處、界、根、諦、緣起等等類別的諸法就是地」這樣所說的、作為這慧之地的諸法之中，由於所餘的正是緣起，以及由「等」一語所攝的緣生法¹，所以解釋它們的次第就到了。
其中，先應當知道：無明等等諸法就是緣起。因為世尊說了這個——
「比丘啊，什麼是緣起？比丘啊，無明緣行，行緣識，識緣名色，名色緣六處，六處緣觸，觸緣受，受緣渴愛，渴愛緣取，取緣有，有緣生，生緣老死、愁、悲、苦、憂、惱生起。這樣，就有這整個苦蘊之集。比丘啊，這就叫作緣起。」
而老死等等諸法，就應當知道是緣生法。因為世尊說了這個——
「比丘啊，什麼是緣生法？比丘啊，老死是無常的、有為的、緣生的、盡法、壞法、離貪法、滅法。比丘啊，生……乃至（廣說如前）……有……取……渴愛……受……觸……六處……名色……識……行……比丘啊，無明是無常的、有為的、緣生的、盡法、壞法、離貪法、滅法。比丘啊，這些就叫作緣生法。」
而這裡的略義是這樣：「緣起」就應當知道是諸緣法；「緣生法」就是由那些那些緣所生的諸法。若問：這要怎麼知道呢？依世尊之語。因為世尊在《緣起與緣生法說示經》中〔說〕——
「比丘啊，什麼是緣起？比丘啊，生緣老死。無論諸如來出世或不出世，那個界就是這樣住立的，即法住性、法定性、此緣性。如來現正覺它、現觀它；現正覺了、現觀了之後，就宣說、教示、施設、建立、開顯、分別、明示，並且說『你們看啊』。比丘啊，生緣老死。比丘啊，有緣生……乃至（廣說如前）……比丘啊，無明緣行。無論諸如來出世……乃至（廣說如前）……明示，並且說『你們看啊』。比丘啊，無明緣行。比丘啊，這樣，那裡的如性、不如不性、不異性、此緣性——比丘啊，這就叫作緣起。」
§2 緣起之相味現起與四異名 〔CSCD §572–573〕
這樣，世尊在說示緣起時，是以「如性」等等的異名說了諸緣法正是緣起。所以就應當知道：緣起以作為老死等等諸法之緣為相，以隨繫於苦為味，以邪道為現起。
而這個〔緣起〕：由於各各法唯由那些那些不多不少的緣而生起，所以說為「如性」；由於在諸緣已到達和合之時，由彼所生的諸法沒有片刻不生起的，所以說為「不如不性」；由於由別法之緣不會生起別的法，所以說為「不異性」；由於它是如上所說的這些老死等等之緣、或是諸緣之聚，所以說為「此緣性」。
其中，這是〔此緣性一語的〕語義：這些〔法〕的諸緣，就是「此緣」；正是這些此緣，就是「此緣性」。或者，諸此緣之聚，就是「此緣性」。至於這裡的〔語法之〕相，就應當從聲明論去尋求。
§3 他說二種之破——唯生起說與行變異說 〔CSCD §574–576〕
而有些人這樣說：「不顧外道所計的自性、神我等等之因而相向地、正確地生起的那個生起，就是緣起」——他們這樣主張唯生起就是緣起；那是不成立的。為什麼呢？由於無經之據，由於與經相違，由於甚深之理不成，並且由於語法之壞。
因為並沒有「唯生起就是緣起」這樣的經。而說那個〔唯生起〕是「緣起」的人，就會犯與《分位住經》²相違之過。怎麼說呢？因為依「於是世尊在夜之初分順逆地作意緣起」等等關於世尊之語，緣起之作意就是初成正覺時的住；而分位之住則是那個〔住〕的一分之住。正如所說的：「比丘啊，我以那初成正覺時所住的住，我曾以它的一分而住。」而在那裡，祂是以見緣之行相而住，不是以唯見生起而住。正如所說的：「我這樣了知：由邪見為緣也有所受，由正見為緣也有所受，由邪思惟為緣也有所受。」——一切都應當這樣廣說。這樣，說唯生起是「緣起」的人，就會犯與《分位住經》相違之過。同樣，也犯與《迦旃延經》相違之過。
因為在《迦旃延經》中也說：「迦旃延啊，對於以正慧如實見世間之集的人，世間中的『無』就不存在。」——順觀之緣起，由於是世間之緣，所以以「世間之集」〔之名〕、為了根除斷見而被顯示，並不是唯生起。因為由唯見生起，並不能根除斷見；而由見諸緣之不斷絕，才能〔根除〕。因為在諸緣不斷絕之時，果也就不斷絕。這樣，說唯生起是「緣起」的人，也會犯與《迦旃延經》相違之過。
「由於甚深之理不成」——而世尊說了這個：「阿難啊，這緣起是甚深的，看起來也是甚深的。」而所謂甚深有四種³，那個我們將在後面解說；那個在唯生起之中是沒有的。並且，〔諸師〕是把這緣起解說為以四種理趣所莊嚴的，而那四種理趣在唯生起之中也是沒有的。所以，由於甚深之理不成，唯生起也不是緣起。
「由於語法之壞」——而這個「paṭicca」一語，是在作者相同、時間在前的情況下使用，才能成就義理的。譬如：「緣於眼與諸色而生起眼識。」但在這裡，它與依動作而成立的「生起」一語連用，由於沒有相同的作者，就走向語法之壞，也不能成就任何義理。所以，由於語法之壞，唯生起也不是緣起。
這裡也許有人說：「我們把它與『有』一語相接，作『緣起有』。」那是不對的。為什麼呢？既由於接不上，也由於會犯生起還要有生起之過。「比丘啊，我要為你們說示緣起。比丘啊，什麼是緣起……乃至（廣說如前）……比丘啊，這就叫作緣起。」——因為在這些句子之中，「有」一語與任何一句都接不上；並且生起並不「有」。假使它有，那麼生起也就還要有生起了。
而另有些人這樣認為：「諸此緣之性，就是此緣性；而所謂『性』，就是無明等等在行等等出現之時作為因的那個行相。而『緣起』之想就是在那個行之變異之上。」——他們的那個〔說法〕也是不成立的。為什麼呢？由於〔經中〕說無明等等〔本身〕就是因。因為世尊這樣說了：「阿難啊，所以在這裡，這就是老死的因、這就是它的因緣、這就是它的集、這就是它的緣，就是生……乃至（廣說如前）……〔這就是〕諸行的〔因〕，就是無明。」——這樣說的是無明等等正是因，不是它們的變異。所以就應當知道：前面所說的「『緣起』就應當知道是諸緣法」那句話，是說得正確的。
§4 緣起一語之四釋與其所遮之二邊 〔CSCD §577–580〕
而這裡由於「緣起」這一語的字面之影，會生起「所說的正是生起」這樣的想；那個想，就應當這樣領取這一語之義而息止它。因為世尊——
由於這一語是就那由彼而轉起的法聚，以二種方式而〔取〕的；
而這〔因聚〕是它的緣，所以就以果的假稱而這樣說了。
因為凡是這由緣性而轉起的法聚，他們就在那裡以二種方式取「緣起」這一語。就是說：由於它被知解時能導向利益與安樂，所以「諸智者應當知它」——因此〔說為〕「paṭicco」〔應知〕。而它在生起時是共同而正確地生起的，不是一個一個地〔生起〕，也不是無因地〔生起〕——因此〔說為〕「samuppādo」〔共生〕。這樣，它既是「應知」又是「共生」，所以是「緣起」。再者，「共同生起」所以是「共生」；而它是緣於諸緣之和合、不捨離〔它〕而〔生起〕的——這樣也是「緣起」。而這因聚是它的緣，由於是它的緣，所以這個〔因聚〕也〔得此名〕——猶如世間把作為痰之緣的糖說成「痰糖」，又猶如教內把作為樂之緣的諸佛出世說成「諸佛出世是樂」；同樣，就應當知道「緣起」也正是以果之言說而這樣說的。
或者——
由於是相向而趣，這因聚就說為「paṭicco」；
又由於它生起相合的〔諸法〕，所以說它是「samuppādo」。
因為凡是為了諸行等等之出現，而以無明等等一一之因為首所指示的那個因聚：由於它以成辦共同之果的意義、以及以不缺少的意義，其和合的諸支是彼此相向而趣的，所以就這樣說它是「paṭicco」。而這個〔因聚〕唯生起那些相合的、彼此不相離而轉的諸法，所以也說它是「samuppādo」。這樣，它既是「相向而趣」又是「共生」，所以是「緣起」。
另一種理趣——
由於這緣性是彼此相緣而平等地、共同地生起諸法的，
所以牟尼在這裡也就這樣說了。
因為在以無明等等為首所指示的諸緣之中，凡是那些生起行等等某一法的緣，它們若不彼此相緣、若彼此有所缺少，就沒有能力生起〔它〕。所以，這緣性是相緣而平等地、共同地生起諸法的，不是一部分一部分地〔生起〕，也不是以先後之序〔生起〕；因此，善於隨義而言說的牟尼在這裡就這樣說了——其義就是：正說為「緣起」。
而祂這樣說時——
以前一語，〔顯示了〕常等等之無有；並以後一語，
〔顯示了〕斷等等之破；以二語合說，顯示了正理。
「以前一語」——由於轉起之法的轉起是繫屬於諸緣之和合的，所以由顯示諸緣和合的「paṭicca」一語，就顯示了常論、無因論、不平等因論、自在者論等等類別的常等等之無有。因為對於常住的〔法〕、或是依無因等等而轉起的〔法〕來說，諸緣之和合又有什麼用呢？「並以後一語」——由於諸法是在諸緣和合之時生起的，所以由顯示諸法之生起的「samuppāda」一語，斷論、無有論、無作用論就被破除了；這樣就顯示了斷等等之破。因為在諸法依前前之緣而一再生起之時，哪裡會有斷滅、以及無有論與無作用論呢？「以二語合說」——由「緣起」這完整的一語，因為各各法是不斷絕各各緣之和合的相續而生起的，所以〔顯示了〕中道，〔顯示了〕捨斷「作者即受者、作者異而受者異」之說，〔顯示了〕不執著地方語、不超越世俗名言——這樣就顯示了這個正理。這先是「緣起」一語本身之義。
§5 釋者之難與四種說法之別 〔CSCD §581–583〕
而世尊在說示緣起時，以「無明緣行」等等方式所安立的那部聖典：由於要解釋它的義理的人，必須入於分別說者之眾⁴，不誣謗諸阿闍梨，不離開自宗，不牽引他宗，不違背經，隨順於律，顧視大教法，顯示法，攝持義，並且把同一個義理一再回轉、以別的種種法門而指示——這樣才能作義理之解釋；而緣起的義理之解釋本來就是難作的。正如古德們所說——
諦、有情、結生，以及緣之行相——
這四法難見，而且極難說示。
所以，除了那些已得聖典與已得證的人以外，緣起的義理之解釋是不易作的——這樣衡量了之後〔說〕——
我今日想要說緣之行相的解釋，
卻得不到立足之處，猶如沈入大海。
然而這聖教以種種說法之理趣而莊嚴，
先師之道也不斷絕地流傳著。
由於這樣，所以我就依止這二者，
開始作它的義理之解釋——你們要專心地聽。
因為先師們說了這個——
凡有誰鄭重地聽我〔之語〕，
他就會得到前後次第之殊勝；
得了前後次第之殊勝之後，
他就會走到死王所不見之處。
所以，在「無明緣行」等等〔句〕之中，先從最初起：「依說法之別、依義、依相等等、依一種等等，並且依諸支之安立，就應當知道其決擇。」
其中，「依說法之別」——因為世尊的緣起說法有四種：猶如四個採藤人之取藤，或自初起、或自中起而至於末，同樣，或自末起、或自中起而至於初。
就像在四個採藤人之中，有一個先只見到藤的根，他就在根部把它割斷，把整條拖出來取走而用於作業；同樣，世尊也以「比丘啊，這樣，無明緣行……乃至（廣說如前）……生緣老死」，自初起而至於末地說示緣起。
而就像在那些人之中，有一個先見到藤的中段，他就在中段把它割斷，只把上半拖出來取走而用於作業；同樣，世尊也以「他對那受歡喜、歡呼、耽著而住，喜就生起了。凡是於諸受之喜，那就是取。緣於他的那個取而有有，緣有而有生」，自中起而至於末地說示。
又就像在那些人之中，有一個先見到藤的末梢，他就抓住末梢，順著末梢而直到根部把整條取走而用於作業；同樣，世尊也以「『生緣老死』——這是這樣說了的。比丘啊，究竟是生緣老死呢，還是不是？你們在這裡是怎麼看的？」「大德啊，生緣老死。我們在這裡是這樣看的：生緣老死。」「『有緣生』……乃至（廣說如前）……『無明緣行』——這是這樣說了的。比丘啊，究竟是無明緣行呢，還是不是？你們在這裡是怎麼看的？」，自末起而至於初地說示緣起。
而就像在這些人之中，有一個先只見到藤的中段，他就在中段把它割斷，向下而行，直到根部把它取走而用於作業；同樣，世尊也以「比丘啊，這四食以什麼為因緣、以什麼為集、以什麼為生、以什麼為出生？這四食以渴愛為因緣、以渴愛為集、以渴愛為生、以渴愛為出生。渴愛以什麼為因緣……受……觸……六處……名色……識……行以什麼為因緣……乃至（廣說如前）……行以無明為因緣……乃至（廣說如前）……以無明為出生」，自中起而至於初地說示。
那麼，為什麼這樣說示呢？由於緣起是周遍賢善的，並且由於祂自己已得說法之自在。因為緣起是周遍賢善的，從這裡從那裡〔入手〕都能導向正理之通達。而世尊由於具足四無所畏與諸無礙解、並且由於已得四種甚深之性，所以已得說法之自在。祂由於已得說法之自在，就以種種理趣而說法。
而特別就這一點來說，就應當知道：祂那自初起的順說，是在觀見對轉起之因的分別迷惑的所化之人時，為了顯示諸法各依自己之因而轉起、並且為了顯示生起之次第而轉起的。那自末起的逆說，是在以「這世間實在是陷於艱難了：它生、它老、它死、它歿、它又生」等等方式隨觀陷於艱難的世間時，隨順前分之通達，為了顯示自己所證得的各各老死等等之苦的因〔而轉起的〕。那自中起而至於初的，是隨順於食之因緣的安立，一直上溯到過去世，再從過去世起，為了顯示因果之次第〔而轉起的〕。而那自中起而至於末的，是從現在世中未來世之因的等起處起，為了顯示未來世〔而轉起的〕。在那些之中，凡是為了向對轉起之因迷惑的所化之人顯示諸法各依自己之因而轉起、並且顯示生起之次第，而自初起所說的順說——就應當知道，安立在這裡的正是那一種。
§6 無明居首之由與輪說之二首 〔CSCD §584–586〕
那麼，這裡為什麼把無明說在最初呢？難道無明也像自性論者的自性一樣，是無因的、是世間的根本因嗎？並不是無因的。因為以「由漏⁵之集而有無明之集」說了無明之因。然而有一種法門，由它可以說〔無明〕是根本因；那是什麼呢？就是它在輪之說⁶中作為首的地位。
因為世尊在說輪之說時，是以二法為首而說的：或是無明。正如所說的：「比丘啊，無明的前際是不可知的——不能說『在此之前沒有無明，其後才生起』。比丘啊，雖然這樣說了，然而『無明有此為緣』卻是可知的。」或是有愛⁷。正如所說的：「比丘啊，有愛的前際是不可知的——不能說『在此之前沒有有愛，其後才生起』。比丘啊，雖然這樣說了，然而『有愛有此為緣』卻是可知的。」
那麼，世尊在說輪之說時，為什麼以這二法為首而說呢？由於它們是趣向善趣與惡趣之業的別因。因為趣向惡趣之業的別因是無明。為什麼呢？由於為無明所伏的凡夫，猶如為火炙、杖擊之苦所困的將宰之牛，因那困苦之逼而飲那既無味、於自己又無益的熱水一般，他也起種種趣向惡趣之業——殺生等等，那既由於煩惱之熱而無味、又由於墮於惡趣而於自己無益。而趣向善趣之業的別因是有愛。為什麼呢？由於為有愛所伏的凡夫，猶如前面所說的那頭牛因渴冷水而飲那既有味、又能除自己之困苦的冷水一般，他也起種種趣向善趣之業——離殺生等等，那既由於離於煩惱之熱而有味、又由於令〔自己〕到達善趣而能除自己惡趣之苦的困苦。
而在這些作為輪之說之首的法之中，世尊有時說一法為本之說。譬如：「比丘啊，這樣，諸行以無明為親依，識以諸行為親依」等等。同樣：「比丘啊，於諸可取之法隨觀其味而住的人，渴愛就增長；渴愛緣取」等等。有時也說二法為本之說。譬如：「比丘啊，為無明所蓋、與渴愛相應的愚夫，他的這個身就這樣生成了。這樣，就有這個身與外部的名色——這就是那一對。緣於這一對而有觸，就是那六處；為它們所觸的愚夫就領受苦樂」等等。在那些說法之中，就應當知道：這裡的「無明緣行」是依無明而說的一法為本之說。這樣，先就這裡依說法之別應當知道其決擇。
§7 義門——十二支之語義 〔CSCD §587〕
「依義」——就是依無明等等諸語之義。譬如：由於不應當成滿的意義，身惡行等等就叫作「不應得」，其義就是不應獲得的。它得那不應得的，所以是「無明」。與那相反，身善行等等就叫作「應得」；它不得那應得的，所以是「無明」。它令蘊之聚義、處之處義、界之空義、根之增上義、諦之如義成為不被了知的，所以也是「無明」。它令依逼迫等等而說的苦等等之四種義成為不被了知的，所以也是「無明」。它在無有邊際的輪迴之中，令諸有情於一切生、趣、有、識住、有情居之中馳走，所以是「無明」。它於就勝義而言並不存在的女人、男人等等之上馳走，於雖然存在的蘊等等之上卻不馳走，所以是「無明」。再者，由於它覆蔽眼識等等的所依與所緣、以及緣起與緣生之諸法，所以也是「無明」。
果緣於它而來，它就是「緣」。「緣於」——其義就是不離、不捨。「來」——其義就是既生起而又轉起。再者，緣之義就是資助之義。它既是無明又是緣，所以是「無明緣」。因此〔說〕「無明緣」。
它們行作有為，所以是「行」。再者，行有二種：無明緣之行，以及以「行」一語而來的行。其中，福行、非福行、不動行三種，以及身行、語行、心行三種——這六種就是無明緣之行。它們一切都唯是世間的善與不善之思而已。
而有為行、所行作行、能行作行、加行行——這四種則是以「行」一語而來的行。其中，在「諸行實在是無常的」等等〔句〕中所說的一切有緣之法，就叫作「有為行」。諸義注⁸中說：由業所生的三地之色法與非色法是「所行作行」；它們也就攝在「諸行實在是無常的」這一句之中，至於它們單獨的出處則不可得知。而三地的善與不善之思則叫作「能行作行」；它的出處在「比丘啊，這陷於無明的人，既行作福行」等等〔句〕之中是可得知的。而身與心之精進則叫作「加行行」；它出於「加行之力所及有多遠，它就行了多遠，然後就像被車軸所擊一般停住了」等等〔句〕之中。
而且不只是這些，另外還有許多以「行」一語而來的行，如「毘舍佉賢友啊，入想受滅的比丘，最先滅的是語行，其次是身行，其次是心行」等等這樣的方式。在那些之中，沒有哪一個行是不攝在有為行之中的。從此以下，「行緣識」等等〔句〕中所說的，就應當依所說的方式而知。
而在未說者之中：它了別，所以是「識」。它傾向，所以是「名」。它變壞，所以是「色」。它於來處而伸，又引導所伸展者，所以是「處」。它觸，所以是「觸」。它感受，所以是「受」。它渴求，所以是「渴愛」。它取著，所以是「取」。它有、並且令有，所以是「有」。出生，就是「生」。衰朽，就是「老」。由它而死，所以是「死」。憂愁，就是「愁」。悲泣，就是「悲」。它令〔人〕苦，所以是「苦」；或者，它依生與住而二度掘掊，所以也是「苦」。意惡之性，就是「憂」。強盛之疲惱，就是「惱」。
「生起」——就是出生。而且不只是與愁等等〔相接〕，還應當把「生起」一語與一切句相接。因為不然的話，說「無明緣行」時，就不能知道它們在作什麼；而有了「生起」一語之相接，那麼——它既是無明又是緣，所以是「無明緣」；因此「緣於無明而諸行生起」——這樣，緣與緣生之安立就作成了。一切處都是這個方法。
「這樣」——是對所指示之理趣的指示。由它顯示：〔苦蘊之集〕唯由無明等等之因，不是由自在天所造等等。「這個」——就是如上所說的。「整個」——就是不雜的，或者是全部的。「苦蘊」——就是苦之聚，不是有情，也不是樂、淨等等。「集」——就是生成。「有」——就是生起。這樣，就這裡依義應當知道其決擇。
§8 相門・一種門・支之定 〔CSCD §588–590〕
「依相等等」——就是依無明等等之相等等。譬如：無明以無知為相，以迷惑為味，以覆蔽為現起，以漏為近因。行以行作為相，以積聚為味，以思為現起，以無明為近因。識以了別為相，以先行為味，以結生⁹為現起，以行為近因，或者以所依與所緣為近因。名以傾向為相，以相應為味，以不相離為現起，以識為近因。色以變壞為相，以散布為味，以無記為現起，以識為近因。六處以處為相，以見等等為味，以所依與門之性為現起，以名色為近因。觸以觸為相，以觸擊為味，以會合為現起，以六處為近因。受以領納為相，以受用境之味為味，以苦樂為現起，以觸為近因。渴愛以因為相，以歡喜為味，以不知足之性為現起，以受為近因。取以執取為相，以不放為味，以渴愛之堅固與見為現起，以渴愛為近因。有以業與業果為相，以令有與有為味，以善、不善、無記為現起，以取為近因。生等等之相等等，就應當依〈諦之解釋〉¹⁰中所說的方式而知。這樣，就這裡依相等等也應當知道其決擇。
「依一種等等」——這裡：無明由於是無知、不見、癡等等之性，所以是一種。依不行道與邪行道，是二種；同樣，依有行與無行，〔也是二種〕。依與三受相應，是三種。依四諦之通達，是四種。依覆蔽五趣之過患，是五種。而依門與所緣，就應當知道一切非色法都有六種之性。
行由於是有漏而為異熟法之法等等之性，所以是一種。依善與不善，是二種；同樣，依小與大、劣與中、邪性決定與不決定，〔也各是二種〕。依福行等等之性，是三種。依趣向四生，是四種。依趣向五趣，是五種。
識由於是世間異熟等等之性，所以是一種。依有因與無因等等，是二種。依攝在三有之中、依與三受相應、依無因與二因與三因，是三種。依生與趣，是四種與五種。
名色由於依止於識、並且由於以業為緣，所以是一種。依有所緣與無所緣，是二種。依過去等等，是三種。依生與趣，是四種與五種。
六處由於是生與集之處，所以是一種。依大種之淨與識等等，是二種。依已至、未至、非二者之境，是三種。依攝在生與趣之中，是四種與五種。就依這個方法，觸等等的一種等等之性也應當知道。這樣，就這裡依一種等等也應當知道其決擇。
「並且依諸支之安立」——這裡的愁等等，是為了顯示有輪¹¹之不斷絕而說的。因為它們是在為老死所打擊的愚夫〔身上〕生起的。正如所說的：「比丘啊，無聞的凡夫為身體的苦受所觸時，就愁、就疲、就悲泣、就搥胸而哭、就陷於迷亂。」而只要它們在轉起，無明也就〔在轉起〕；這樣，又是「無明緣行」——有輪就正是相連結的。所以，就應當知道：把它們與老死作成一攝之後，緣起之支就只有十二。這樣，就這裡依諸支之安立也應當知道其決擇。
這先是此中的略說。
註
¹ 緣生法（paṭiccasamuppannā dhammā）：與「緣起」為對之名；論自釋為由彼彼緣所生之諸法，即老死等所生之邊。
² 分位之住（padesavihāra）：所引經之名；論以之證初成正覺之住即緣起之作意，而分位之住為彼住之一分。
³ 四種甚深：論自標其「當於後說」；其義・法・說・通達四門之釋在本品有輪之單元。
⁴ 分別說者之眾（vibhajjavādimaṇḍala）：論所立釋義者所當入之眾，為釋緣起之十事之首。
⁵ 漏（āsava）：無明之近因；本品之末篇更以四漏立愁等之因。
⁶ 輪之說（vaṭṭakathā）：論自標本品之體，即說輪迴流轉之教；其所立之首唯二，即無明與有愛。
⁷ 有愛（bhavataṇhā）：對「有」之渴愛；輪說二首之第二，論以之為善趣業之別因。
⁸ 義注（aṭṭhakathā）：對聖典之古來注釋；本篇引其對「所行作行」之判，而自標其單獨出處不可得知。
⁹ 結生（paṭisandhi）：一期生命最初之心；本篇立之為識之現起，其廣說在本品行緣識之單元。
¹⁰ 〈諦之解釋〉：本論釋四諦之篇；論自標生・老・死等之相味現起近因已於彼說，本品不重出。
¹¹ 有輪（bhavacakka）：本品之總名，於本篇首出；其三時、二十行相、三連結、四攝、三輪轉之廣說在本品末之單元。
The vernacular of this unit is this edition’s own rendering-with-exposition from the Pāli original (tr. mine); see this unit’s apparatus for the base-text particulars.
§1 Dependent Origination and Dependently Originated Phenomena—Establishing the Distinction from the Discourses 〔CSCD §570–571〕
Chapter 17: Explanation of the Soil of Wisdom
Discussion of Dependent Origination
Now, among the phenomena spoken of thus—“phenomena divided into aggregates, bases, elements, faculties, truths, dependent origination, and so forth are the soil”—which constitute the soil of this wisdom, what remains is dependent origination together with the dependently originated phenomena¹ included by the expression “and so forth.” The sequence for explaining them has therefore been reached.
Here, first it should be understood that the phenomena beginning with ignorance are dependent origination. For this was said by the Blessed One:
“Bhikkhus, what is dependent origination? Bhikkhus, with ignorance as condition, formations; with formations as condition, consciousness; with consciousness as condition, name-and-form; with name-and-form as condition, the six bases; with the six bases as condition, contact; with contact as condition, feeling; with feeling as condition, craving; with craving as condition, clinging; with clinging as condition, becoming; with becoming as condition, birth; with birth as condition, aging-and-death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, and despair arise. Thus there is the origin of this whole mass of suffering. Bhikkhus, this is called dependent origination.”
The phenomena beginning with aging-and-death, however, should be understood as dependently originated phenomena. For this was said by the Blessed One:
“Bhikkhus, what are dependently originated phenomena? Bhikkhus, aging-and-death is impermanent, conditioned, dependently originated, subject to exhaustion, subject to dissolution, subject to fading away, subject to cessation. Bhikkhus, birth … up to (expanded as above) … becoming … clinging … craving … feeling … contact … the six bases … name-and-form … consciousness … formations … bhikkhus, ignorance is impermanent, conditioned, dependently originated, subject to exhaustion, subject to dissolution, subject to fading away, subject to cessation. Bhikkhus, these are called dependently originated phenomena.”
The brief meaning here is this: “dependent origination” should be understood as the conditioning phenomena; “dependently originated phenomena” are phenomena produced by those respective conditions. If asked how this is to be known: from the Blessed One’s words. For in the Discourse Teaching Dependent Origination and Dependently Originated Phenomena, the Blessed One [said]:
“Bhikkhus, what is dependent origination? Bhikkhus, with birth as condition, aging-and-death. Whether Tathāgatas arise or do not arise, that element stands just so: the stability of Dhamma, the fixed order of Dhamma, specific conditionality. The Tathāgata fully awakens to it and directly realizes it. Having fully awakened to and directly realized it, he tells, teaches, designates, establishes, reveals, analyzes, and makes it plain, and he says, ‘See.’ Bhikkhus, with birth as condition, aging-and-death. Bhikkhus, with becoming as condition, birth … up to (expanded as above) … bhikkhus, with ignorance as condition, formations. Whether Tathāgatas arise … up to (expanded as above) … makes it plain, and says, ‘See.’ Bhikkhus, with ignorance as condition, formations. Thus, bhikkhus, the suchness there, the not-unsuchness, the non-otherness, and the specific conditionality—bhikkhus, this is called dependent origination.”
§2 The Characteristic, Function, Manifestation, and Four Synonyms of Dependent Origination 〔CSCD §572–573〕
Thus, when teaching dependent origination, the Blessed One used such synonyms as “suchness” to say that the conditioning phenomena themselves are dependent origination. Therefore dependent origination should be understood to have the characteristic of being the condition for phenomena beginning with aging-and-death, the function of binding to suffering, and the manifestation of the wrong path.
This [dependent origination] is called “suchness” because each particular phenomenon arises only from its respective conditions, neither more nor fewer; it is called “not-unsuchness” because once the conditions have entered into conjunction, there is no non-arising, even for a moment, of the phenomena produced from them; it is called “non-otherness” because the conditions for one phenomenon do not give rise to a different phenomenon; and it is called “specific conditionality” because it is the condition for the phenomena beginning with aging-and-death described above, or the collection of those conditions.
Here is the meaning of the expression [specific conditionality]: the conditions for these [phenomena] are “these conditions”; precisely these conditions are “specific conditionality.” Or the collection of these conditions is “specific conditionality.” Its [grammatical] characteristic here should be sought in grammatical science.
§3 Refuting Two Other Views—Mere Arising and the Modification of Formations 〔CSCD §574–576〕
Some say: “The arising that occurs dependently and rightly, without regard for such causes as primordial nature and a primal self imagined by outsiders, is dependent origination.” Thus they maintain that mere arising is dependent origination. That does not hold. Why? Because it has no basis in a discourse, conflicts with the discourses, cannot establish the profound method, and breaks grammar.
For no discourse says, “Mere arising is dependent origination.” Whoever calls that [mere arising] “dependent origination” incurs a conflict with the Padesavihāra-sutta². How so? From such words about the Blessed One as “Then the Blessed One, in the first watch of the night, attended to dependent origination in forward and reverse order,” attention to dependent origination was his abiding immediately after full awakening; and partial abiding was an abiding in a portion of that [abiding]. As it is said: “Bhikkhus, I abided in a portion of that abiding in which I dwelt immediately after full awakening.” There he dwelt by seeing the modes of conditions, not merely by seeing arising. As it is said: “I understand thus: there is what is felt with wrong view as condition, there is what is felt with right view as condition, and there is what is felt with wrong intention as condition.” All should be expanded in this way. Thus whoever calls mere arising “dependent origination” incurs a conflict with the Padesavihāra-sutta. Likewise, there is conflict with the Kaccānagotta Sutta.
For the Kaccānagotta Sutta also says: “Kaccāna, for whoever sees the origin of the world as it really is with right wisdom, the nonexistence with respect to the world does not occur.” Forward dependent origination, because it is the condition for the world, is shown under [the name] “the origin of the world” for the eradication of the annihilation view; mere arising is not. Seeing mere arising cannot eradicate the annihilation view, but seeing the uninterrupted continuity of conditions can. For when conditions do not cease, their results do not cease. Thus whoever calls mere arising “dependent origination” also incurs a conflict with the Kaccānagotta Sutta.
“Because the profound method cannot be established”: the Blessed One said, “Ānanda, this dependent origination is profound and appears profound.” What is called profound is fourfold³, as we shall explain below; those four are absent from mere arising. Moreover, [the teachers] explain dependent origination as adorned with four methods, and that tetrad of methods is also absent from mere arising. Thus, because the profound method cannot be established, mere arising is not dependent origination.
“Because grammar is broken”: the word paṭicca accomplishes its meaning when it is used with the same agent and an action prior in time. For example, “Dependent upon the eye and forms, eye-consciousness arises.” Here, however, when it is joined to the action-noun “arising,” it falls into grammatical breakdown because there is no common agent, and it accomplishes no meaning. Thus mere arising is not dependent origination because grammar is broken.
Someone here may say: “We shall connect it with the word ‘exists’ and say ‘dependent origination exists.’” That is incorrect. Why? Both because the connection does not occur and because it entails the fault that arising itself must arise. “Bhikkhus, I shall teach you dependent origination. And what, bhikkhus, is dependent origination? … up to (expanded as above) … bhikkhus, this is called dependent origination.” In none of these passages does the word “exists” connect with any clause; nor does arising “exist.” If it did, arising itself would require a further arising.
Others hold: “The state of these conditions is specific conditionality; and what is called ‘state’ is the mode in which ignorance and the rest serve as causes when formations and the rest appear. The concept ‘dependent origination’ applies to that modification of formations.” Their position also does not hold. Why? Because [the discourse] calls ignorance and the rest [themselves] causes. For the Blessed One said: “Therefore, Ānanda, this itself is the cause of aging-and-death, this its source, this its origin, this its condition, namely birth … up to (expanded as above) … [this is the cause] of formations, namely ignorance.” Thus it was stated that ignorance and the rest themselves are the causes, not their modifications. It should therefore be understood that the earlier statement, “‘Dependent origination’ should be understood as the conditioning phenomena,” was rightly made.
§4 Four Explanations of the Term “Dependent Origination” and the Two Extremes It Blocks 〔CSCD §577–580〕
Here, because of the verbal shadow cast by the term “dependent origination,” the perception may arise that what is spoken of is arising itself. That perception should be quieted by taking the meaning of the expression in the following way. For the Blessed One:
This expression is applied in two ways to the collection of phenomena that proceeds from it; and this [collection of causes] is its condition, so it is spoken of figuratively by the name of the result.
For the expression “dependent origination” is understood in two ways in regard to this collection of phenomena that proceeds through conditionality. Because, when understood, it leads to welfare and happiness, “the wise ought to understand it”—hence paṭicco [what ought to be understood]. And when it arises, it arises conjointly and rightly, neither separately nor causelessly—hence samuppādo [co-arising]. Thus it is both “what ought to be understood” and “co-arising,” so it is “dependent origination.” Again, because it “arises conjointly,” it is “co-arising”; and it occurs dependent upon, without rejecting, the conjunction of conditions—thus too it is “dependent origination.” This collection of causes is its condition, and because it is the condition for it, this [collection] too receives the name—just as in the world sugar that conditions phlegm is called “phlegm-sugar,” and in the Teaching the arising of Buddhas, which conditions happiness, is called “the arising of Buddhas is happiness.” It should likewise be understood that the term “dependent origination” is applied figuratively by the designation of the result.
Or:
Because it proceeds facing one another, this collection of causes is called paṭicco; and because it produces [phenomena] in conjunction, it is called samuppādo.
The collection of causes indicated under the heading of each cause beginning with ignorance, for the manifestation of formations and the rest, is called paṭicco because, in accomplishing a common result and through completeness, the factors of the assemblage proceed facing one another. And this [collection] produces only conjoined phenomena that operate inseparably from one another, so it is also called samuppādo. Thus it is both “proceeding facing one another” and “co-arising,” so it is “dependent origination.”
Another method:
Because this conditionality, depending mutually, produces phenomena equally and together, the Sage has therefore spoken thus here.
Among the conditions indicated under the headings of ignorance and the rest, those conditions that produce a particular phenomenon beginning with formations would be incapable of producing [it] if they did not depend upon one another or if they lacked one another. Therefore this conditionality, depending mutually, produces phenomena equally and together, not piecemeal and not in temporal sequence. Thus the Sage, skilled in speech that follows the meaning, spoke in this way here—that is, he spoke precisely of “dependent origination.”
And when he spoke thus:
By the first word, the absence of eternalism and the rest [was shown]; by the last, the destruction of annihilationism and the rest; by the two together, the principle was shown.
“By the first word”: since the occurrence of occurring phenomena depends upon a conjunction of conditions, the word paṭicca, which displays the conjunction of conditions, shows the absence of eternalism, causelessness, the doctrine of unequal causes, the doctrine of a controlling lord, and the other varieties beginning with eternalism. For what use would a conjunction of conditions have for what is eternal or what operates causelessly and so forth? “By the last word”: since phenomena arise when conditions are conjoined, the word samuppāda, which displays the arising of phenomena, refutes annihilationism, nihilism, and the doctrine of non-action; thus it shows the destruction of annihilationism and the rest. For when phenomena repeatedly arise in dependence upon preceding conditions, where could there be annihilation, nihilism, or the doctrine of non-action? “By the two together”: the complete expression “dependent origination” shows the middle way, because the respective phenomena arise without breaking the continuity of their respective conjunctions of conditions; it shows the abandonment of the statements “the agent is the experiencer” and “the agent is one, the experiencer another”; it shows non-adherence to local idiom and not overrunning conventional designation. Thus this principle is shown. This, first, is the meaning of the expression “dependent origination” itself.
§5 The Expositor’s Difficulty and Four Modes of Teaching 〔CSCD §581–583〕
When the Blessed One taught dependent origination, he established the canonical text in the form “with ignorance as condition, formations,” and so forth. Anyone explaining its meaning must enter the circle of the Vibhajjavādins⁴, without misrepresenting the Ācariyas, departing from the school’s own tenets, drawing in another school’s tenets, opposing the discourses, or failing to accord with the Vinaya; the expositor must look to the great authorities, illuminate the Dhamma, gather the meaning, and repeatedly turn that same meaning over and indicate it through various other methods. Only thus can its meaning be explained. Moreover, explaining the meaning of dependent origination is intrinsically difficult. As the ancient teachers said:
Truth, being, rebirth-linking, and the modes of conditions— these four phenomena are hard to see and exceedingly hard to teach.
Thus, having weighed that the meaning of dependent origination is not easily explained except by those who have attained learning in the canon and direct attainment, [the Commentator says]:
Today I wish to explain the modes of conditions, yet I find no footing, like a person sunk in the sea. But this Teaching is adorned with many modes of exposition, and the path of the earlier teachers continues unbroken. Therefore, relying upon these two, I shall begin to explain its meaning—listen with collected minds.
For the earlier teachers said:
Whoever should listen to me with earnest regard would gain distinction in the sequence; having gained distinction in the sequence, that person would go where the King of Death cannot see.
Thus, in “with ignorance as condition, formations” and the rest, the determination should first be understood from the outset “by difference in teaching, by meaning, by characteristic and the rest, by the onefold and the rest, and by the determination of the factors.”
Here, “by difference in teaching”: the Blessed One’s teaching of dependent origination is fourfold, like the way four vine gatherers take hold of a vine—from the beginning or from the middle to the end, and likewise from the end or from the middle to the beginning.
Among four vine gatherers, a person may first see only the root of the vine, cut it at the root, drag the whole vine out, take it away, and put it to use. In the same way, the Blessed One teaches dependent origination from beginning to end with the words, “Thus, bhikkhus, with ignorance as condition, formations … up to (expanded as above) … with birth as condition, aging-and-death.”
Another among those people may first see the vine’s middle, cut it there, drag out only the upper half, take it away, and put it to use. In the same way, the Blessed One teaches from the middle to the end with the words, “As he delights in, welcomes, and remains holding to that feeling, delight arises. Delight in feelings is clinging. With his clinging as condition, becoming; with becoming as condition, birth.”
Another among those people may first see the vine’s tip, seize the tip, follow it all the way to the root, take the whole vine away, and put it to use. In the same way, the Blessed One teaches dependent origination from the end to the beginning with the words, “‘With birth as condition, aging-and-death’—so it has been said. But is aging-and-death conditioned by birth, bhikkhus, or not? How do you regard this?” “Venerable sir, aging-and-death is conditioned by birth. We regard it thus: with birth as condition, aging-and-death.” “‘With becoming as condition, birth’ … up to (expanded as above) … ‘with ignorance as condition, formations’—so it has been said. But are formations conditioned by ignorance, bhikkhus, or not? How do you regard this?”
Another among these people may first see only the vine’s middle, cut it there, descend toward the root, take it away, and put it to use. In the same way, the Blessed One teaches from the middle to the beginning with the words, “Bhikkhus, what is the source of these four nutriments? What is their origin, their birth, their production? These four nutriments have craving as source, craving as origin, craving as birth, craving as production. What is the source of craving? … feeling … contact … the six bases … name-and-form … consciousness … what is the source of formations? … up to (expanded as above) … formations have ignorance as source … up to (expanded as above) … ignorance as production.”
Why, then, does he teach thus? Because dependent origination is wholly excellent and because he himself has attained mastery of teaching. Dependent origination is wholly excellent; from whatever point it is approached, it leads to penetration of the principle. And because the Blessed One possesses the four kinds of fearlessness and the discriminations, and because he has attained the fourfold profundity, he has mastery of teaching. Since he has attained mastery of teaching, he teaches the Dhamma by various methods.
More specifically, it should be understood that his forward teaching beginning at the beginning occurs when he sees people to be guided who are confused about the differentiation of the causes of occurrence, in order to show how phenomena occur through their own respective causes and to show the order of arising. The reverse teaching beginning at the end occurs when he contemplates the world fallen into hardship in such terms as “This world has indeed fallen into hardship: it is born, ages, dies, passes away, and is reborn,” and, in conformity with his preliminary penetration, in order to show the causes that he himself realized for each kind of suffering beginning with aging-and-death. The teaching from the middle to the beginning conforms to the determination of the conditioning of nutriment, carries the inquiry back as far as the past, and then, beginning from the past, shows the sequence of cause and result. The teaching from the middle to the end begins with the source in the present of the causes of the future and shows the future. Of these, the forward teaching that begins at the beginning, stated in order to show people to be guided who are confused about the causes of occurrence how phenomena occur through their own respective causes and to show the order of arising, is the mode established here.
§6 Why Ignorance Is Placed First and the Two Heads of the Teaching of the Round 〔CSCD §584–586〕
Why, then, is ignorance placed first here? Is ignorance, like the primordial nature of those who hold the doctrine of primordial nature, a causeless root cause of the world? It is not causeless. For the cause of ignorance was stated in the words, “With the origin of the influxes⁵ there is the origin of ignorance.” There is, however, a method according to which it may be called a root cause. What is that? Its position as head in the teaching of the round⁶.
For when the Blessed One teaches the round, he does so by making either of two phenomena its head. Sometimes ignorance: as it is said, “Bhikkhus, a first point of ignorance is not discerned such that ‘before this ignorance did not exist, and afterward it came to be.’ Though this is said, bhikkhus, nevertheless it is discerned that ‘ignorance has this as condition.’” Sometimes craving for becoming⁷: as it is said, “Bhikkhus, a first point of craving for becoming is not discerned such that ‘before this craving for becoming did not exist, and afterward it came to be.’ Though this is said, bhikkhus, nevertheless it is discerned that ‘craving for becoming has this as condition.’”
Why does the Blessed One make these two phenomena the head when teaching the round? Because they are the distinctive causes of kamma leading to good and bad destinations. Ignorance is the distinctive cause of kamma leading to a bad destination. Why? A worldling overwhelmed by ignorance is like an ox for slaughter, tormented by the suffering of fire and blows, driven by distress to drink hot water that is both tasteless and harmful. In the same way, the worldling initiates various kinds of kamma leading to a bad destination, beginning with killing, which is tasteless because of the heat of defilement and harmful because it casts the worldling into a bad destination. Craving for becoming, however, is the distinctive cause of kamma leading to a good destination. Why? A worldling overwhelmed by craving for becoming is like the ox described above, which, thirsting for cool water, drinks cool water that is both tasty and relieves its distress. In the same way, the worldling initiates various kinds of kamma leading to a good destination, beginning with abstaining from killing, which is tasty because free of the heat of defilement and relieves the distress of suffering in bad destinations by bringing the worldling to a good destination.
Of these phenomena that serve as the heads of the teaching of the round, the Blessed One sometimes gives a teaching rooted in a single phenomenon. For example: “Thus, bhikkhus, formations have ignorance as their proximate support; consciousness has formations as its proximate support,” and so forth. Likewise: “Bhikkhus, craving grows in a person who abides contemplating gratification in phenomena subject to clinging; with craving as condition, clinging,” and so forth. Sometimes he also gives a teaching rooted in both. For example: “Bhikkhus, the body of a foolish person, obstructed by ignorance and conjoined with craving, has come to be thus. So there are this body and external name-and-form—this is the pair. Dependent upon the pair there is contact, precisely the six bases; touched by them, the fool experiences pain and pleasure,” and so forth. Of these teachings, it should be understood that “with ignorance as condition, formations” here is a teaching rooted in the single phenomenon of ignorance. Thus, first, the determination here should be understood by difference in teaching.
§7 The Mode of Meaning—The Meanings of the Twelve Factors 〔CSCD §587〕
“By meaning” means by the meanings of such terms as ignorance. For example, because it is not fit to be fulfilled, bodily misconduct and the rest are called “what should not be obtained,” meaning what ought not to be acquired. Ignorance obtains what should not be obtained, and is therefore “ignorance.” Conversely, bodily good conduct and the rest are called “what should be obtained”; ignorance does not obtain what should be obtained, and is therefore “ignorance.” It also makes unknown the meaning of aggregate as mass, base as domain, element as empty, faculty as dominance, and truth as suchness, and is therefore “ignorance.” It also makes unknown the four meanings of suffering and the rest stated as oppression and so forth, and is therefore “ignorance.” In beginningless saṃsāra it drives beings through all births, destinations, existences, stations of consciousness, and abodes of beings, and is therefore “ignorance.” It runs toward women, men, and the rest, which do not ultimately exist, but does not run toward aggregates and the rest, which do exist, and is therefore “ignorance.” Further, because it conceals the bases and objects of eye-consciousness and the rest, together with dependent origination and dependently originated phenomena, it is “ignorance.”
That dependent upon which a result comes is a “condition.” “Dependent upon” means neither leaving nor rejecting; “comes” means both arises and occurs. Further, the meaning of condition is the meaning of assistance. It is both ignorance and a condition, hence “ignorance-condition.” Therefore, “with ignorance as condition.”
They form what is conditioned, and so they are “formations.” Further, formations are twofold: formations conditioned by ignorance and formations to which the word “formation” is applied. Of these, the three—meritorious formation, demeritorious formation, and imperturbable formation—and the three—bodily formation, verbal formation, and mental formation—make six formations conditioned by ignorance. All of them are nothing but mundane wholesome and unwholesome volitions.
Conditioned formation, formed formation, formation that forms, and formation as exertion: these four are formations to which the word “formation” is applied. Of these, all phenomena with conditions spoken of in “Formations are indeed impermanent” and similar passages are called “conditioned formations.” The commentaries⁸ say that the material and immaterial phenomena of the three planes produced by kamma are “formed formations”; they too are included in the sentence “Formations are indeed impermanent,” but no separate locus for them is discerned. Wholesome and unwholesome volition in the three planes is called a “formation that forms”; its locus is discerned in such passages as “Bhikkhus, this person fallen into ignorance forms a meritorious formation.” Bodily and mental energy is called a “formation as exertion”; it occurs in such passages as “He went as far as the force of the exertion carried him and then, as though struck by an axle, came to a halt.”
Nor are these all. There are many other formations to which the word “formation” is applied, as in “Friend Visākha, when a bhikkhu enters the cessation of perception and feeling, verbal formation ceases first, then bodily formation, then mental formation.” Among them, no formation fails to be included among conditioned formations. From here onward, the terms in “with formations as condition, consciousness” and the rest should be understood in the manner already stated.
Among the terms not yet explained: it cognizes, so it is “consciousness”; it bends, so it is “name”; it is deformed, so it is “form”; it extends upon what comes and leads what has been extended, so it is a “base”; it contacts, so it is “contact”; it feels, so it is “feeling”; it thirsts, so it is “craving”; it clings, so it is “clinging”; it becomes and brings into becoming, so it is “becoming”; being born is “birth”; growing old is “aging”; through it beings die, so it is “death”; sorrowing is “sorrow”; lamenting is “lamentation”; it pains, so it is “pain,” or it digs twice by way of arising and persistence, and so it is “pain”; a bad state of mind is “grief”; powerful weariness is “despair.”
“Arise” means are produced. Nor is “arise” to be connected only with sorrow and the rest; it should be connected with every clause. Otherwise, when “with ignorance as condition, formations” is said, what they do would not be discerned. But when “arise” is connected, ignorance is both ignorance and a condition, hence “ignorance-condition”; therefore, “with ignorance as condition, formations arise.” Thus the conditioning and the conditioned are determined. This is the method throughout.
“Thus” points out the method indicated. It shows that [the mass of suffering originates] only from causes beginning with ignorance, not from creation by a controlling lord and the rest. “This” means what has been described above. “Whole” means unmixed or entire. “Mass of suffering” means an accumulation of suffering, not a being and not pleasure, beauty, and the rest. “Origin” means production. “There is” means arises. Thus the determination here should be understood by meaning.
§8 The Mode of Characteristics, the Mode of Classification, and Determination of the Factors 〔CSCD §588–590〕
“By characteristic and the rest” means by the characteristics and the rest of ignorance and the other factors. For example: ignorance has unknowing as its characteristic, delusion as its function, concealment as its manifestation, and the influxes as its proximate cause. Formations have forming as their characteristic, accumulation as their function, volition as their manifestation, and ignorance as their proximate cause. Consciousness has cognizing as its characteristic, precedence as its function, rebirth-linking⁹ as its manifestation, and formations as its proximate cause, or basis and object as its proximate cause. Name has bending as its characteristic, association as its function, inseparability as its manifestation, and consciousness as its proximate cause. Form has deformation as its characteristic, dispersion as its function, the indeterminate as its manifestation, and consciousness as its proximate cause. The six bases have base as their characteristic, seeing and the rest as their function, the nature of basis and door as their manifestation, and name-and-form as their proximate cause. Contact has contacting as its characteristic, striking as its function, concurrence as its manifestation, and the six bases as its proximate cause. Feeling has experiencing as its characteristic, enjoyment of the flavor of the object as its function, pain and pleasure as its manifestation, and contact as its proximate cause. Craving has cause as its characteristic, delight as its function, insatiability as its manifestation, and feeling as its proximate cause. Clinging has grasping as its characteristic, not releasing as its function, the consolidation of craving and view as its manifestation, and craving as its proximate cause. Becoming has kamma and kamma-result as its characteristic, bringing into becoming and becoming as its function, the wholesome, unwholesome, and indeterminate as its manifestation, and clinging as its proximate cause. The characteristics and the rest of birth and the other factors should be understood in the manner stated in the “Explanation of the Truths.” Thus the determination here should also be understood by characteristic and the rest.
“By the onefold and the rest”: here ignorance is onefold because it has the nature of unknowing, not seeing, delusion, and the rest. It is twofold by non-practice and wrong practice, and likewise by prompted and unprompted. It is threefold by association with the three feelings, fourfold according to penetration of the four truths, and fivefold by concealing the dangers of the five destinations. But by way of door and object, all immaterial phenomena should be understood as sixfold.
Formations are onefold because they have such natures as having influxes and being phenomena with result. They are twofold as wholesome and unwholesome; likewise as limited and exalted, inferior and middling, fixed in wrongness and not fixed. They are threefold as meritorious formation and the rest, fourfold as leading to the four kinds of birth, and fivefold as leading to the five destinations.
Consciousness is onefold because it has such natures as mundane resultant. It is twofold as with roots and without roots, and so forth. It is threefold as included in the three existences, as associated with the three feelings, and as without roots, with two roots, and with three roots. By birth and destination it is fourfold and fivefold.
Name-and-form is onefold because it depends on consciousness and has kamma as condition. It is twofold as having an object and having no object, threefold as past and so forth, and fourfold and fivefold by birth and destination.
The six bases are onefold as the place of birth and convergence. They are twofold as great-element sensitivity and consciousness and the rest, threefold by objects that have arrived, not arrived, or are neither, and fourfold and fivefold as included in birth and destination. In this way the onefold and other classifications of contact and the rest should also be understood. Thus the determination here should also be understood by the onefold and the rest.
“And by determination of the factors”: sorrow and the rest are stated here to show that the wheel of becoming¹¹ is unbroken. For they arise in a fool struck by aging-and-death. As it is said: “Bhikkhus, when an uninstructed worldling is touched by a painful bodily feeling, he sorrows, grows weary, laments, beats his breast and cries, and becomes confused.” For as long as these occur, ignorance occurs; thus again there is “with ignorance as condition, formations,” and the wheel of becoming is joined. Therefore, after gathering sorrow and the rest together with aging-and-death in a single grouping, it should be understood that the factors of dependent origination are exactly twelve. Thus the determination here should also be understood by determination of the factors.
This, first, is the brief account here.
Notes
¹ Dependently originated phenomena (paṭiccasamuppannā dhammā): the term paired with “dependent origination”; the treatise explains it as the phenomena born from their respective conditions, that is, aging-and-death and the rest on the side of what is produced.
² Partial abiding (padesavihāra): the name of the cited discourse. The treatise uses it to establish that the abiding immediately after full awakening was attention to dependent origination, while partial abiding was an abiding in a portion of that abiding.
³ Four profundities: the treatise itself marks them as “to be explained later.” Their exposition as the profundities of meaning, phenomenon, teaching, and penetration occurs in the unit on the wheel of becoming in this chapter.
⁴ Circle of the Vibhajjavādins (vibhajjavādimaṇḍala): the circle which, according to the treatise, an expositor should enter; this is the first of ten requirements for explaining dependent origination.
⁵ Influx (āsava): the proximate cause of ignorance. The final unit of this chapter further establishes the four influxes as causes of sorrow and the rest.
⁶ Teaching of the round (vaṭṭakathā): the treatise’s own designation for the subject of this chapter, the teaching of the saṃsāric round. It establishes only two heads for that teaching: ignorance and craving for becoming.
⁷ Craving for becoming (bhavataṇhā): craving directed toward becoming. It is the second head of the teaching of the round, and the treatise makes it the distinctive cause of kamma leading to good destinations.
⁸ Commentary (aṭṭhakathā): an ancient commentary on the canonical text. This unit cites its determination of “formed formation,” while noting that a separate canonical locus cannot be discerned.
⁹ Rebirth-linking (paṭisandhi): the first consciousness in a lifetime. This unit establishes it as the manifestation of consciousness; its detailed explanation appears in the unit on formations as condition for consciousness in this chapter.
¹⁰ “Explanation of the Truths”: the section of this treatise explaining the four truths. The treatise itself notes that the characteristic, function, manifestation, and proximate cause of birth, aging, death, and the rest were stated there and are not repeated in this chapter.
¹¹ Wheel of becoming (bhavacakka): the overall name for the subject of this chapter, first occurring in this unit. Its three times, twenty modes, three links, four groupings, and three rounds are explained in detail in the final unit of this chapter.
別被密林嚇退，這一品只在說一件事：苦依一串條件而生，所以也能依條件的拔除而滅
大局 — 全書的引擎室
第十七品是全書的引擎室，也是最多人翻開就合上的一章——十二支、三世、二十四緣，密得嚇人。但剝到底，它只在說一件事：苦不是誰造的，也不是無端冒出來的；它依一串條件而生，所以也能依條件的拔除而滅。 整章的密，是為了把這串條件看得極清楚——清楚到你能找出從哪裡下手把它斷掉。這也是本義疏那把尺的終局形態：前面教你捨禪樂（第 4 品）、拆「我」（第 14 品），這一章把那個「我」徹底請出因果故事——輪子不需要一個我來推，它靠條件自轉；看清這點，輪子就能停。〔所見〕本單元是全品的門檻：先立緣起與緣生法之別（白話 §1），給緣起的相味與四異名（白話 §2），破兩種誤讀（白話 §3），釋「緣起」一語之四義與其所遮之二邊（白話 §4），交代釋者之難與佛陀四種說法（白話 §5），答「為何無明居首」（白話 §6），末以義門、相門、一種門與支之定收（白話 §7–§8）——十二支逐句廣說自 17-02 起。
§01 緣起與緣生法之分——經證之立 → 白話 §1
慧地諸法中，所餘者正是緣起及「等」所攝之緣生法（白話 §1）。緣起＝無明等諸法——「無明緣行，行緣識，識緣名色，名色緣六處，六處緣觸，觸緣受，受緣渴愛，渴愛緣取，取緣有，有緣生，生緣老死、愁、悲、苦、憂、惱生起。這樣，就有這整個苦蘊之集」；緣生法＝老死等諸法——「老死是無常的、有為的、緣生的、盡法、壞法、離貪法、滅法……無明是無常的……」。略義：緣起＝諸緣法，緣生法＝由諸緣所生之法；經證：「生緣老死。無論諸如來出世或不出世，那個界就是這樣住立的，即法住性、法定性、此緣性……那裡的如性、不如不性、不異性、此緣性——比丘啊，這就叫作緣起。」〔讀法〕先分清兩個詞：緣起是「緣」那一邊，緣生法是「果」那一邊——同樣十二支，看作因是緣起，看作果是緣生法。而經文那句「無論諸如來出世或不出世，那個界就是這樣住立的」是全品的地基：緣起不是佛發明的，是佛看見的。
§02 緣起之相味現起與四異名 → 白話 §2
緣起以作為老死等諸法之緣為相，以隨繫於苦為味，以邪道為現起（白話 §2）。四異名：各法唯由那些不多不少的緣而生起——如性；諸緣和合時所生之法沒有片刻不生起——不如不性；由別法之緣不生別的法——不異性；是老死等之緣或諸緣之聚——此緣性（此緣＝這些法的諸緣；此緣性＝正是這些此緣、或諸此緣之聚）。〔讀法〕四個名字說同一件事的四面：不多不少（如性）、必生（不如不性）、不錯位（不異性）、就是這些緣（此緣性）。「以邪道為現起」一句要留意——這裡說的是流轉的緣起（順觀），它顯現為苦之路；還滅的那一面在 17-11。
§03 他說二種之破——唯生起說與行變異說 → 白話 §3
有人說「不顧自性神我等外因而正確生起的那個生起就是緣起」——不成立：無經之據；與經相違（《分位住經》：世尊初成正覺以見緣之行相而住，非唯見生起——「由邪見為緣也有所受，由正見為緣也有所受」；《迦旃延經》：順觀緣起以「世間之集」為名、為根除斷見而顯示，唯見生起不能根除斷見，見諸緣之不斷絕才能）；甚深之理不成（「阿難啊，這緣起是甚深的」——四種甚深與四種理趣在唯生起中皆無）；語法之壞（paṭicca 須作者相同、時間在前，與「生起」連用則無同一作者；接「有」字作「緣起有」亦接不上，且犯生起還要有生起之過）（白話 §3）。另有人說「此緣性＝無明等作為因的那個行相，緣起之想在行之變異上」——亦不成立：經說無明等本身就是因（「這就是老死的因……就是無明」），非其變異。故「緣起就應當知道是諸緣法」說得正確。〔讀法〕論主破兩派用的是全書一貫的四把尺：有沒有經、合不合經、深不深、通不通語法。第一派把緣起讀成「事情就這樣發生了」——那樣讀不掉斷見，因為看不見條件的相續；第二派把緣起讀成一種抽象的「因性」——那樣讀就把無明本身架空了。論主要的是最樸素的答案：緣起就是無明等這些具體的緣。〔所見〕
§04 緣起一語之四釋與其所遮之二邊 → 白話 §4
「緣起」一語會生「所說的正是生起」之想，須領其義而息之（白話 §4）。四釋：其一，此法聚被知解時能導向利益安樂，「諸智者應當知它」——paṭicco（應知）；它共同而正確地生起，非一一、非無因——samuppādo（共生）；因聚是其緣，故以果之假稱名之——如世間稱作為痰之緣的糖為「痰糖」、教內稱作為樂之緣的諸佛出世為「諸佛出世是樂」。其二，因聚之和合諸支以成辦共果、不缺少之義彼此相向而趣——paṭicco；唯生起相合不相離之諸法——samuppādo。其三，諸緣若不彼此相緣、若有缺少即無力生起——此緣性相緣而平等地共同地生起諸法，非一部分一部分、非先後之序，故牟尼如是說。其四（所遮）：前一語 paṭicca 顯諸緣和合，遮常論、無因論、不平等因論、自在者論——常住的或無因而轉的，要諸緣和合何用？後一語 samuppāda 顯諸法之生起，破斷論、無有論、無作用論——法依前前之緣一再生起，哪裡有斷滅？二語合說顯中道：各法不斷絕各緣和合之相續而生起，捨「作者即受者、作者異而受者異」之說，不執地方語、不超越世俗名言。〔讀法〕這一節是全品最精的一段語言哲學，但要點只有末尾那句：「緣」這個字擋住常見，「起」這個字擋住斷見；合起來就是中道。 而「不超越世俗名言」一句是給讀者的許可——你仍可以說「我」「他」，只要知道那是名言。〔所見〕
§05 釋者之難與四種說法之別 → 白話 §5
釋緣起義理者須入分別說者之眾、不誣諸師、不離自宗、不引他宗、不違經、順律、顧視大教法、顯法、攝義、把同一義理以種種法門回轉指示——而緣起本來難釋（古德：「諦、有情、結生，以及緣之行相——這四法難見，而且極難說示」）；論主自陳「想要說緣之行相的解釋，卻得不到立足之處，猶如沈入大海」，依止聖教之種種說法與先師不斷之道而開始（白話 §5）。決擇五門：依說法之別、依義、依相等、依一種等、依諸支之安立。說法四種如四個採藤人：自初起而至於末（順說：無明緣行……生緣老死——為對轉起之因迷惑者顯諸法各依己因而轉、顯生起之次第）；自中起而至於末（受→喜→取→有→生——從現在世中未來世之因起，為顯未來世）；自末起而至於初（逆說：「究竟是生緣老死呢，還是不是？」——隨觀陷於艱難之世間，為顯所證得之各苦之因）；自中起而至於初（四食以渴愛為因緣……行以無明為因緣——隨順食之因緣上溯過去世，為顯因果次第）。緣起周遍賢善、從何處入手皆能導向正理之通達；世尊具四無所畏、諸無礙解、四種甚深，得說法自在。此處所安立者是第一種順說。〔讀法〕四個採藤人的比喻把「同一條藤可以從根、從梢、從中段抓」講得極清楚：十二支不是只有一種讀法，佛陀依人依事從不同的支起說。這已在暗示——它是一條可以從任何一環抓住的環鏈，不是只能從頭讀起的直線。〔所見〕
§06 無明居首之由與輪說之二首 → 白話 §6
為何無明說在最初？非無因——「由漏之集而有無明之集」；唯在輪之說中它為首（白話 §6）。世尊說輪之說以二法為首：無明（「無明的前際是不可知的……然而『無明有此為緣』卻是可知的」）與有愛（「有愛的前際是不可知的……」）。何以此二為首？因二者是趣向惡趣與善趣之業的別因：為無明所伏的凡夫如將宰之牛因困苦而飲無味無益之熱水，起殺生等惡趣業；為有愛所伏的凡夫如渴牛飲有味能除困之冷水，起離殺生等善趣業。有時說一法為本（「諸行以無明為親依」；「渴愛就增長；渴愛緣取」），有時說二法為本（「為無明所蓋、與渴愛相應的愚夫……」）；此處「無明緣行」是依無明之一法為本之說。〔讀法〕「無明不是第一因」——論主明白封死了把緣起讀成創世論的路：無明有因（漏），只是輪說從它起講。而輪之說有兩個可以起頭的地方：無明推向惡趣的業，有愛推向善趣的業——連善業也在輪子裡，被有愛推著。這一句對「多做好事就是修行」的想像是一記提醒。〔所見〕
§07 義門——十二支之語義 → 白話 §7
無明：得不應得（身惡行等）、不得應得（身善行等）；令蘊之聚義・處之處義・界之空義・根之增上義・諦之如義不被了知；令逼迫等苦之四義不被了知；令有情於無邊輪迴之一切生趣有識住有情居中馳走；於勝義不存在的女人男人上馳走、於存在的蘊等上不馳走；覆蔽眼識等之所依所緣與緣起緣生諸法（白話 §7）。緣：果緣於它而來——不離不捨、既生起又轉起；緣之義＝資助。行：行作有為；二種——無明緣之行（福行・非福行・不動行三、身行・語行・心行三＝六，皆世間善不善之思）與以「行」一語而來之行（有為行・所行作行・能行作行・加行行四）；無一不攝於有為行。餘支：了別故識，傾向故名，變壞故色，於來處而伸、引導所伸故處，觸故觸，感受故受，渴求故渴愛，取著故取，有並令有故有，出生故生，衰朽故老，由它而死故死，憂愁故愁，悲泣故悲，令人苦或二度掘掊故苦，意惡故憂，強盛之疲惱故惱。「生起」與一切句相接；「這樣」＝唯由無明等之因、非自在天所造；「整個」＝不雜或全部；「苦蘊」＝苦之聚、非有情、非樂淨；「集」＝生成；「有」＝生起。〔讀法〕無明的七義裡最鋒利的一條：它於不存在的（女人、男人）上馳走，於存在的（蘊）上卻不馳走——無明不是不知道，是知道錯了地方。而「苦蘊——不是有情，也不是樂、淨」一句，是整條十二支的讀法鑰匙：從頭到尾沒有一個「人」在受苦，只有苦之聚在生成。〔所見〕
§08 相門・一種門・支之定 → 白話 §8
相門：無明——無知為相、迷惑為味、覆蔽為現起、漏為近因；行——行作・積聚・思・無明；識——了別・先行・結生・行（或所依所緣）；名——傾向・相應・不相離・識；色——變壞・散布・無記・識；六處——處・見等・所依門之性・名色；觸——觸・觸擊・會合・六處；受——領納・受用境之味・苦樂・觸；渴愛——因・歡喜・不知足之性・受；取——執取・不放・渴愛之堅固與見・渴愛；有——業與業果・令有與有・善不善無記・取；生等見〈諦之解釋〉（白話 §8）。一種門：無明一種（無知不見癡）、二種（不行道與邪行道；有行無行）、三種（與三受相應）、四種（依四諦之通達）、五種（覆蔽五趣之過患）、六種（門與所緣）；行一種（有漏異熟法之法）、二種（善不善；小大；劣中；邪性決定不決定）、三種（福等）、四種（趣四生）、五種（趣五趣）；識一種（世間異熟等）、二種（有因無因等）、三種（攝三有；與三受相應；無因二因三因）、四五種（生與趣）；名色一種（依識、業為緣）、二種（有所緣無所緣）、三種（過去等）、四五種；六處一種（生與集之處）、二種（大種之淨與識等）、三種（已至未至非二之境）、四五種；觸等準此。支之定：愁等為顯有輪不斷絕而說——為老死所打擊的愚夫愁疲悲泣搥胸迷亂，只要它們在轉起無明就在轉起，又是「無明緣行」，有輪相連結；把愁等與老死作成一攝，緣起之支唯十二。此中略說。〔讀法〕相門那張表把十二支每一支都給了「近因」——而每一支的近因就是前一支：無明←漏、行←無明、識←行、名色←識……這張表就是十二支的鏈自己。而末尾「愁等攝於老死」一句回答了一個常見的問題：為什麼經文列了愁悲苦憂惱，支卻只有十二？——因為愁等是老死的餘波，也是無明再起的地方；它們是輪子接回開頭的接縫。〔所見〕
對位 — 和華嚴「法界緣起」、唯識「阿賴耶緣起」是同一回事嗎〔解碼者的讀法，以俟來哲〕
這是給漢傳讀者最要緊的一段，因為「緣起」一詞在漢傳被發展成幾種很不同的東西——標明：對位屬解碼者讀法，漢傳教義部分請本門讀者自校，以俟來哲。唯識「阿賴耶緣起」：以第八阿賴耶識持種、為流轉所依（接 14-03 對位節之分岔）。南傳此處無阿賴耶：緣起即十二支之「此緣性」（白話 §2），相續靠業與結生識（17-05），不靠藏識。如來藏緣起：以如來藏／真常心為依。南傳緣起不立此一真常所依。華嚴「法界緣起」：把緣起讀為法界萬法之重重無盡、事事無礙的相即相入——一種宇宙論規模的相互緣成。南傳的緣起不是宇宙論，是解脫論：它是針對「苦如何生、如何滅」的特定條件序列（白話 §1 經文），目的是找出斷處，不是描述法界的總體結構。一句話別錯號：漢傳多把緣起向「存有的根據／法界的總相」推；南傳把它鎖在「苦之生滅的條件」這一具體、可操作的序列上。 讀本品時，把它讀回它的解脫論本位——找下手斷輪之處——對位自然清楚。〔所見〕
給一般讀者
本單元是引擎室的門檻，帶走三件事就夠：其一，緣起＝那些具體的緣（無明、行……），不是一種抽象的「發生」，也不是「因性」；其二，「緣」擋常見、「起」擋斷見，合起來是中道——所以你可以照常說「我」，只要知道那是名言；其三，無明不是第一因，只是輪說起講的地方，而輪子連善業也推——這不是要你別做好事，是要你知道好事也在輪裡。十二支的每一支怎麼緣下一支，從下一單元起逐句細講；記住四個採藤人：這條藤從哪一環抓都行。
想讀本單元全文：白話 §1–§8 即緣起與緣生法之分、相味與四異名、他說之破、一語四釋、四種說法、無明居首之由、義門相門一種門與支之定的全段逐段全譯。
Do not be driven back by the thicket: this chapter says a single thing—suffering arises through a chain of conditions, and so can cease when those conditions are removed
The Big Picture — The Engine Room of the Whole Treatise
Chapter Seventeen is the engine room of the whole treatise, and the chapter most readers open only to shut again—the twelve factors, three times, and twenty-four conditions form a frightening thicket. Yet stripped to its root, it says a single thing: suffering is neither made by somebody nor sprung up without cause; it arises through a chain of conditions, and so can cease when those conditions are removed. The chapter is dense so that this chain of conditions may be seen with utter clarity—clearly enough that you can find where to intervene and cut it. This is also the final form of the measuring blade used throughout this exposition: earlier it taught you to relinquish the pleasure of jhāna (Chapter 4) and dissect “I” (Chapter 14); this chapter removes that “I” altogether from the causal story—the wheel needs no self to push it; conditions keep it turning, and when that is clearly seen, the wheel can stop. 〔Observation〕 This unit is the threshold of the chapter: it first distinguishes dependent origination from dependently originated phenomena (vernacular §1), gives dependent origination’s characteristic, function, manifestation, and four synonyms (vernacular §2), refutes two misreadings (vernacular §3), explains the term “dependent origination” in four ways and the two extremes it blocks (vernacular §4), sets out the expositor’s difficulty and the Buddha’s four modes of teaching (vernacular §5), answers why ignorance is placed first (vernacular §6), and closes with the modes of meaning, characteristic, classification, and determination of the factors (vernacular §§7–8). The detailed treatment of the twelve factors begins with 17-02.
§01 Dependent Origination and Dependently Originated Phenomena—Establishing the Distinction from the Discourses → Vernacular §1
Of the phenomena constituting the soil of wisdom, what remains is dependent origination and the dependently originated phenomena included by the word “and so forth” (vernacular §1). Dependent origination means the phenomena beginning with ignorance: “With ignorance as condition, formations; with formations as condition, consciousness; with consciousness as condition, name-and-form; with name-and-form as condition, the six bases; with the six bases as condition, contact; with contact as condition, feeling; with feeling as condition, craving; with craving as condition, clinging; with clinging as condition, becoming; with becoming as condition, birth; with birth as condition, aging-and-death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, and despair arise. Thus there is the origin of this whole mass of suffering.” Dependently originated phenomena means the phenomena beginning with aging-and-death: “Aging-and-death is impermanent, conditioned, dependently originated, subject to exhaustion, subject to dissolution, subject to fading away, subject to cessation … ignorance is impermanent …” In brief, dependent origination is the side of the conditioning phenomena, and dependently originated phenomena are the phenomena born from those conditions. The discourse gives the proof: “With birth as condition, aging-and-death. Whether Tathāgatas arise or do not arise, that element stands just so: the stability of Dhamma, the fixed order of Dhamma, specific conditionality … the suchness there, the not-unsuchness, the non-otherness, and the specific conditionality—bhikkhus, this is called dependent origination.” 〔Reading〕 First distinguish the two terms: dependent origination is on the side of the conditions; dependently originated phenomena are on the side of the results—the same twelve factors, viewed as causes, are dependent origination; viewed as results, they are dependently originated phenomena. And the discourse’s words “whether Tathāgatas arise or do not arise, that element stands just so” are the foundation of the whole chapter: dependent origination was not invented by the Buddha; it was seen by him.
§02 The Characteristic, Function, Manifestation, and Four Synonyms of Dependent Origination → Vernacular §2
Dependent origination has the characteristic of being the condition for phenomena beginning with aging-and-death, the function of binding to suffering, and the manifestation of the wrong path (vernacular §2). Its four synonyms are these. Each phenomenon arises only from conditions that are neither more nor fewer—suchness. Once the conditions have come together, the conditioned phenomenon never fails to arise even for a moment—not-unsuchness. Conditions for one phenomenon do not produce a different phenomenon—non-otherness. It is the condition for aging-and-death and the rest, or the collection of those conditions—specific conditionality (“these conditions” means the conditions for these phenomena; “specific conditionality” means precisely these conditions, or their collection). 〔Reading〕 The four names show four faces of the same fact: neither more nor fewer (suchness), unfailing (not-unsuchness), not misplaced (non-otherness), and precisely these conditions (specific conditionality). Attend to the phrase “manifested as the wrong path”: this is dependent origination in its roundward course (forward contemplation), appearing as the road of suffering. Its cessationward face comes in 17-11.
§03 Refuting Two Other Views—Mere Arising and the Modification of Formations → Vernacular §3
Some say that “the arising which takes place correctly and independently of such external causes imagined by outsiders as primordial nature and a primal self is dependent origination.” This does not stand: it has no basis in a discourse; it conflicts with the discourses (the Padesavihāra-sutta: after full awakening the Blessed One dwelt seeing the modes of conditions, not merely arising—“There is what is felt with wrong view as condition, and there is what is felt with right view as condition”; the Kaccānagotta Sutta: forward dependent origination is called “the origin of the world” and shown to eradicate the annihilation view, which seeing mere arising cannot eradicate, while seeing the uninterrupted continuity of conditions can); its profundity cannot be established (“Ānanda, this dependent origination is profound”—the four profundities and four methods are absent from mere arising); and it breaks grammar (paṭicca requires the same agent and prior time, but when joined to “arising” there is no common agent; attaching “exists” to make “dependent origination exists” also fails and entails a further arising of arising) (vernacular §3). Others say, “Specific conditionality is the mode in which ignorance and the rest serve as causes, and the concept ‘dependent origination’ applies to the modification of formations.” This too fails, because the discourse says ignorance and the rest themselves are the causes: “This is the cause of aging-and-death … this is ignorance.” Thus the statement “dependent origination should be understood as the conditioning phenomena” is correct. 〔Reading〕 The Commentator tests both schools with the same four blades used throughout the treatise: Is there discourse support? Does it agree with the discourses? Is it deep enough? Does its grammar work? The first school reduces dependent origination to “things just happen”—that cannot remove the annihilation view, because it does not see the continuity of conditions. The second reduces it to an abstract “causal nature”—that empties ignorance itself of force. The Commentator wants the plainest answer: dependent origination is these concrete conditions beginning with ignorance. 〔Observation〕
§04 Four Explanations of the Term “Dependent Origination” and the Two Extremes It Blocks → Vernacular §4
The expression “dependent origination” can suggest that what is meant is simply arising; that impression must be quieted by grasping the term’s meaning (vernacular §4). Four explanations follow. First, when this collection of phenomena is understood it leads to welfare and happiness, so “the wise ought to understand it”—paṭicco (“to be understood”); it arises conjointly and rightly, neither separately nor causelessly—samuppādo (“co-arising”). The collection of causes is its condition, so the name of the result is figuratively applied to the cause—just as the world calls sugar, which conditions phlegm, “phlegm-sugar,” and the Teaching calls the arising of Buddhas, which conditions happiness, “the arising of Buddhas is happiness.” Second, the factors in the assemblage of causes, through their roles in accomplishing a common result and through their completeness, proceed facing one another—paṭicco; they produce only phenomena that arise in conjunction and operate inseparably—samuppādo. Third, if the conditions did not depend upon one another, or if any were missing, they could not produce the result: this conditionality, depending mutually, produces phenomena equally and together, not piecemeal and not in a temporal sequence. Thus the Sage spoke. Fourth, in terms of what the expression blocks: the first word, paṭicca, displays the conjunction of conditions and blocks eternalism, causelessness, the theory of unequal causes, and the doctrine of a controlling lord—for what use would a conjunction of conditions have for what is eternal or operates without causes? The second word, samuppāda, displays the arising of phenomena and refutes annihilationism, nihilism, and the doctrine of non-action—for phenomena repeatedly arise dependent upon preceding conditions, so where could annihilation be? Together the two words display the middle way: phenomena arise without breaking the continuity of their respective conjunctions of conditions; the claims “the agent and experiencer are the same” and “the agent is one, the experiencer another” are abandoned; local idiom is not clung to, and conventional designation is not overrun. 〔Reading〕 This is the chapter’s most refined passage of linguistic philosophy, but its point lies in the last sentence: the word “dependent” blocks eternalism, and the word “origination” blocks annihilationism; together they form the middle way. “Not overrunning conventional designation” also grants the reader permission: you may still say “I” and “he,” provided you know that these are conventions. 〔Observation〕
§05 The Expositor’s Difficulty and Four Modes of Teaching → Vernacular §5
Anyone explaining dependent origination must enter the circle of the Vibhajjavādins, not misrepresent the teachers, depart from the tenets of the school, draw in another school’s tenets, contradict the discourses, or fail to accord with the Vinaya; the expositor must look to the great authorities, illuminate the Dhamma, gather the meaning, and restate that same meaning through various other methods—and dependent origination is intrinsically difficult to explain (the ancient teachers said: “Truth, being, rebirth-linking, and the modes of conditions—these four phenomena are hard to see and exceedingly hard to teach”). The Commentator declares, “Wishing to explain the modes of conditions, I find no footing, like a person sunk in the sea”; nevertheless, relying on the Teaching’s many modes of exposition and the uninterrupted path of earlier teachers, he begins (vernacular §5). Determination proceeds in five modes: by differences in teaching, by meaning, by characteristic and the rest, by the onefold and the rest, and by the determination of the factors. The four modes of teaching resemble four vine gatherers: from beginning to end (forward teaching: ignorance conditions formations … birth conditions aging-and-death—to show, for those confused about the causes of occurrence, that phenomena occur from their own causes and to show the order of arising); from the middle to the end (feeling → delight → clinging → becoming → birth—to show the future from causes of the future in the present); from the end to the beginning (reverse teaching: “Is aging-and-death really conditioned by birth, or not?”—contemplating the troubled world, to show the causes of the suffering beginning with aging-and-death that he had himself realized); and from the middle to the beginning (the four nutriments are conditioned by craving … craving → feeling → contact → six bases → name-and-form → consciousness → formations → ignorance—following the conditioning of nutriment back into the past, to show the sequence of cause and effect). Dependent origination is wholly excellent and leads to penetration of the principle from whatever point it is entered. The Blessed One possesses the four kinds of fearlessness, the discriminations, and the four profundities, and has mastery of teaching. The mode established here is the first, the forward teaching. 〔Reading〕 The simile of the four vine gatherers makes it perfectly clear that the twelve factors admit more than a single reading: the Buddha begins with different factors according to the person and occasion. This already suggests that they form a circuit whose chain may be seized at any link, not a line that can only be read from its head. 〔Observation〕
§06 Why Ignorance Is Placed First and the Two Heads of the Teaching of the Round → Vernacular §6
Why is ignorance placed first? Not because it is causeless: “With the origin of the influxes there is the origin of ignorance.” It is first only in the teaching of the round (vernacular §6). The Blessed One teaches the round with either of two phenomena as its head: ignorance (“A first point of ignorance is not discerned … yet ‘ignorance has this as condition’ is discerned”) or craving for becoming (“A first point of craving for becoming is not discerned …”). Why these two? Because they are the respective distinctive causes of kamma leading to a bad destination and to a good destination. A worldling overwhelmed by ignorance initiates kamma leading to a bad destination, such as killing, like an ox for slaughter, tormented by fire and blows, driven by distress to drink hot water that is tasteless and harmful. A worldling overwhelmed by craving for becoming initiates kamma leading to a good destination, such as abstaining from killing, like an ox that drinks cool water which is tasty and relieves distress. Sometimes the teaching has a single phenomenon as root (“formations have ignorance as their proximate support”; “craving grows; with craving as condition, clinging”), and sometimes two (“the foolish person, obstructed by ignorance and conjoined with craving …”). Here “with ignorance as condition, formations” is the teaching rooted in the single phenomenon of ignorance. 〔Reading〕 “Ignorance is not a first cause”—the Commentator expressly closes the path that would turn dependent origination into a creation account: ignorance has a cause, the influxes; the round is merely taught from ignorance as a beginning. The teaching of the round has two possible heads: ignorance propels kamma toward bad destinations, while craving for becoming propels kamma toward good destinations—even good kamma remains within the wheel, propelled by craving for becoming. This qualifies the thought that practice consists merely in accumulating good deeds. 〔Observation〕
§07 The Mode of Meaning—The Meanings of the Twelve Factors → Vernacular §7
Ignorance: it obtains what should not be obtained (bodily misconduct and the rest) and fails to obtain what should be obtained (bodily good conduct and the rest); it prevents the meanings of aggregate as mass, base as domain, element as empty, faculty as dominance, and truth as suchness from being known; it prevents the four meanings of suffering beginning with oppression from being known; it drives beings through every birth, destination, existence, station of consciousness, and abode of beings in beginningless saṃsāra; it runs toward women and men who do not ultimately exist, but not toward aggregates and the rest that do exist; and it conceals the bases and objects of eye-consciousness and the rest, together with dependent origination and dependently originated phenomena (vernacular §7). A condition is that dependent upon which a result comes: it neither leaves nor relinquishes it, and the result both arises and occurs; the meaning of condition is assistance. Formations form what is conditioned. They are twofold: formations conditioned by ignorance (the three—meritorious, demeritorious, and imperturbable—and the three—bodily, verbal, and mental—making six; all are nothing but mundane wholesome and unwholesome volitions) and formations to which the word “formation” is applied (conditioned formation, formed formation, formation that forms, and formation as exertion, making four); none falls outside conditioned formations. The remaining factors: consciousness because it cognizes; name because it bends; form because it is deformed; base because it extends upon what comes and leads what has been extended; contact because it contacts; feeling because it feels; craving because it thirsts; clinging because it clings; becoming because it becomes and brings into becoming; birth because of being born; aging because of growing old; death because through it beings die; sorrow because of sorrowing; lamentation because of lamenting; pain because it pains or digs twice by way of arising and persistence; grief because of a bad state of mind; despair because of powerful weariness. “Arise” is connected to every clause, not only to sorrow and the rest. “Thus” means only from causes beginning with ignorance, not through creation by a controlling lord. “Whole” means unmixed or entire. “Mass of suffering” means an accumulation of suffering, not a being and not pleasure or beauty. “Origin” means production, and “there is” means arises. 〔Reading〕 Of ignorance’s seven meanings, the keenest is this: it runs toward what does not exist—woman and man—yet does not run toward what exists—the aggregates. Ignorance is not a lack of knowing; it is knowing in the wrong place. And “mass of suffering—not a being, nor pleasure or beauty” is the key to reading the whole chain: from beginning to end there is no “person” who suffers, only a mass of suffering being produced. 〔Observation〕
§08 The Mode of Characteristics, the Mode of Classification, and Determination of the Factors → Vernacular §8
The mode of characteristics: ignorance—unknowing, delusion, concealment, influxes; formations—forming, accumulation, volition, ignorance; consciousness—cognizing, precedence, rebirth-linking, formations (or basis and object); name—bending, association, inseparability, consciousness; form—deformation, dispersion, the indeterminate, consciousness; the six bases—base, seeing and the rest, the nature of basis and door, name-and-form; contact—contacting, striking, concurrence, six bases; feeling—experiencing, enjoyment of the flavor of the object, pain and pleasure, contact; craving—cause, delight, insatiability, feeling; clinging—grasping, not releasing, consolidation of craving and view, craving; becoming—kamma and kamma-result, bringing into becoming and becoming, wholesome/unwholesome/indeterminate, clinging; birth and the rest are as in the “Explanation of the Truths” (vernacular §8). The mode of classification: ignorance is onefold; twofold (non-practice and wrong practice; prompted and unprompted); threefold according to the three feelings; fourfold according to penetration of the four truths; fivefold by concealing the dangers of the five destinations; and sixfold by doors and objects for all immaterial phenomena. Formations are onefold (having influxes and being phenomena with result); twofold in several ways (wholesome/unwholesome; limited/exalted; inferior/middling; fixed in wrongness/not fixed); threefold as the meritorious and the rest; fourfold by leading to the four modes of birth; and fivefold by leading to the five destinations. Consciousness is onefold (mundane resultant and the rest); twofold (with roots/without roots and so forth); threefold (included in the three existences; associated with the three feelings; without roots/with two roots/with three roots); and fourfold and fivefold by birth and destination. Name-and-form is onefold (dependent on consciousness and conditioned by kamma); twofold (with object/without object); threefold (past and the rest); and fourfold and fivefold. The six bases are onefold (the place of birth and convergence); twofold (great-element sensitivity and consciousness and the rest); threefold (objects that have arrived, not arrived, or are neither); and fourfold and fivefold. Contact and the rest are to be understood similarly. Determination of the factors: sorrow and the rest are stated to show that the wheel of becoming remains unbroken—the foolish worldling struck by aging-and-death sorrows, wearies, laments, beats the breast, and becomes confused; for as long as these occur, ignorance occurs, and again “with ignorance as condition, formations”: the wheel of becoming is joined. Sorrow and the rest are gathered together with aging-and-death, so the factors of dependent origination are exactly twelve. This is the brief account here. 〔Reading〕 The table of characteristics gives every factor a “proximate cause,” and each factor’s proximate cause is the preceding factor: ignorance ← influxes, formations ← ignorance, consciousness ← formations, name-and-form ← consciousness … the table is the twelvefold chain itself. The closing statement that “sorrow and the rest are gathered with aging-and-death” answers a familiar question: why does the discourse list sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, and despair, yet there are only twelve factors? Because these are the aftershocks of aging-and-death and the point at which ignorance rises anew; they are the seam that joins the wheel back to its beginning. 〔Observation〕
Correspondence — Is This the Same as Huayan “Dependent Origination of the Dharma Realm” or Yogācāra “Dependent Origination from the Ālaya”? 〔The Decoder’s Reading; Awaiting Those Yet to Come〕
This is the most important passage for readers of the Chinese traditions, because the term “dependent origination” developed there in several very different directions. To mark the boundary: the correspondence is the decoder’s reading; readers within those traditions should check the Chinese doctrinal material for themselves, awaiting those yet to come. Yogācāra “dependent origination from the ālaya”: the eighth, ālaya consciousness, holds seeds and serves as the support for the round (continuing the fork in the correspondence section of 14-03). Here the Theravāda account has no ālaya: dependent origination is simply the twelve factors’ “specific conditionality” (vernacular §2), and continuity depends on kamma and rebirth-linking consciousness (17-05), not on a storehouse consciousness. Tathāgatagarbha dependent origination: it takes tathāgatagarbha or a true and permanent mind as support. The Theravāda account of dependent origination establishes no such single true and permanent support. Huayan “dependent origination of the Dharma realm”: it reads dependent origination as the endless mutual inclusion and interpenetration of all phenomena throughout the Dharma realm—a cosmological scale of mutual conditioning. Theravāda dependent origination is not cosmology but soteriology: it is the specific conditional sequence of “how suffering arises and how it ceases” (the discourse in vernacular §1), meant to locate where the round can be cut, not to describe the total structure of the Dharma realm. In brief, do not confuse the labels: Chinese traditions often press dependent origination toward “the ground of being” or “the general form of the Dharma realm”; Theravāda holds it to the concrete and actionable conditional sequence of “the arising and cessation of suffering.” Read this chapter back into its soteriological home—seek the point at which to cut the round—and the correspondence becomes clear. 〔Observation〕
For the General Reader
Three points are enough to carry away from this unit. First, dependent origination means the concrete conditions—ignorance, formations, consciousness, and so forth—not an abstract “happening” or “causal nature.” Second, “dependent” blocks eternalism and “origination” blocks annihilationism; together they form the middle way—so you may continue to say “I,” provided you know it is a convention. Third, ignorance is not a first cause but the point from which the round is taught, and the wheel propels even good kamma—this does not tell you to stop doing good, but to know that good action too remains within the wheel. From the next unit onward, each factor’s conditioning of the next is explained line by line. Remember the four vine gatherers: the vine can be grasped at any link.
To read this unit in full: vernacular §§1–8 translate in full the distinction between dependent origination and dependently originated phenomena, the characteristic, function, and four synonyms, the refutation of other views, the term’s four explanations, the four modes of teaching, why ignorance is placed first, the modes of meaning, characteristic, and classification, and determination of the factors.
考據Apparatus
一、科判定位
譯底 本單元之譯底＝CSCD（內用不上站）。本層一切巴利逐字取自本單元原典欄之譯底，定位一式：〔CSCD §NN〕式對譯底欄逐字可核。本品無自家對頁之巴利，故頁域一概不記。
篇名 譯底欄自帶 ### 小節 2 個：### 17. Paññābhūminiddeso（品題行，不入讀者面題名）與 ### Paṭiccasamuppādakathā（本篇之題）。本單元起於譯底檔首，故品題行落於其內；讀者面之篇題取品題行之後之首個小節題，即 Paṭiccasamuppādakathā。
段號域 譯底欄之段號自〔CSCD §570〕至〔CSCD §590〕，實落段號 21 個，號序連續無缺。本篇於譯底欄之幅為 27,404 位元組——為本品十一單元中次長之篇（最長者為行識廣說之單元之 30,590；再次為有輪之單元之 22,162）。
本品段號之正面記載（就全品之域，一次記於本單元） 本品十一單元之段號域為〔CSCD §570〕至〔CSCD §661〕，譯底欄實落段號 90 個。其中二事非「連續無缺」，逐一誌其位而不代改：①無明緣行句之單元（本品第二單元）之首段，譯底欄之號作〔CSCD §561〕，其位在〔CSCD §590〕與〔CSCD §592〕之間——其詳與其核見該單元目三；②〔CSCD §632〕〔CSCD §633〕二號於譯底欄不落，而其所繫之偈頌正文如實在檔，落於行緣識之單元——其詳見該單元目三。本單元自身之二十一號則連續無缺，故本篇無「缺號之誌」可入本檔目三。
篇之骨——一略說二總綱 本篇為全品之略說（saṅkhepakathā），其骨有二層：前層〔CSCD §570〕至〔CSCD §581〕釋「緣起」一語之所指與其語義，後層〔CSCD §582〕至〔CSCD §590〕以一總綱偈開四門而釋十二支之定型句。總綱偈逐字作 Desanābhedato attha, lakkhaṇekavidhādito. Aṅgānañca vavatthānā, viññātabbo vinicchayo.，其四門即說法之別・義・相等・一種等・支之定，各門皆以「如是於此依某門應知其決擇」一式收之——逐字實測五收：Evaṃ tāvettha desanābhedato viññātabbo vinicchayo.・Evamettha atthato viññātabbo vinicchayo.・Evamettha lakkhaṇāditopi viññātabbo vinicchayo.・evamettha ekavidhāditopi viññātabbo vinicchayo.・Evamettha aṅgānaṃ vavatthānatopi viññātabbo vinicchayo.。
篇末之收 本篇收於一縮排之句 Ayaṃ tāvettha saṅkhepakathā.（此為此中之略說），論自標其略而以「廣說」屬於後篇。
前後接點 前承慧地之總說：本篇首句逐字引 ''khandhāyatanadhātuindriyasaccapaṭiccasamuppādādibhedā dhammā bhūmī''ti，此語即前品〈蘊〉之單元所立慧地之複合詞，論以其末目 ādi（等）攝緣起與緣生法而開本品。後接無明緣行句之單元：本篇之略說既竟，次單元逕以 Ayaṃ pana vitthāranayo 起其廣說——二篇之界即「略」與「廣」之界，論自標之。
movement 品夾《總覽》繫本單元於 §A〈緣起 — 慧地之最深者〉與 §B〈十二支〉二節；其所繫之章§逐字見該表，本目不重錄、不截取——段號與章§二系不明對映，不推估不換算。
二、詞義與譯語
本目只記本篇用法與其定位；名相定讀以規範詞表為準，詞表所未定者，本目不代定。前此諸品已立之讀不重解——本篇所涉之既立詞為 khandha（蘊）・āyatana（處）・dhātu（界）・indriya（根）・sacca（諦）・paññā（慧）・viññāṇa（識）・vedanā（受）・citta（心）・bhavaṅga（有分）・javana（速行）・lakkhaṇa・rasa・paccupaṭṭhāna・padaṭṭhāna（相・味・現起・近因）。以下唯列本篇新出者。
十二支之名與本品骨幹詞〔CSCD §570〕–〔CSCD §590〕
本表之立由 下列諸詞為本品之骨幹而於本編既立之名相諸列中無獨立條目（本欄逐一比對實測而得）——其定讀或在上游規範詞表，或在本編既有校讀，或本篇新提。本表遂依「非既列」而立之，非重列；其後諸單元復出者不重解。
| 巴利 | 本編用語 | 本篇用法之要 | 定位 |
|---|---|---|---|
| avijjā | 無明 | 十二支之首；本篇以八義釋之（見下之義門） | 〔CSCD §570〕・〔CSCD §587〕 |
| saṅkhāra | 行 | 十二支之二；本篇分為六（福非福不動・身語心） | 〔CSCD §570〕・〔CSCD §587〕 |
| nāmarūpa | 名色 | 十二支之四 | 〔CSCD §570〕・〔CSCD §587〕 |
| ⚠︎ saḷāyatana | 六處 | 十二支之五；規範詞表 §III 定 āyatana＝處，而既有校讀 §B 作「六入」——同形二讀，以俟來哲 | 〔CSCD §570〕・〔CSCD §587〕 |
| upādāna | 取 | 十二支之九 | 〔CSCD §570〕・〔CSCD §587〕 |
| bhava | 有 | 十二支之十 | 〔CSCD §570〕・〔CSCD §587〕 |
| jāti | 生 | 十二支之十一 | 〔CSCD §570〕・〔CSCD §587〕 |
| jarāmaraṇa | 老死 | 十二支之十二 | 〔CSCD §570〕・〔CSCD §587〕 |
| parideva | 悲 | 愁等五之二；論自釋 Paridevanaṃ paridevo | 〔CSCD §587〕 |
| upāyāsa | 惱 | 愁等五之五；論自釋 Bhuso āyāso upāyāso | 〔CSCD §587〕 |
| saṃsāra | 輪迴 | 論之語：Antavirahite saṃsāre | 〔CSCD §587〕 |
| āsava | 漏 | 無明之近因；本品之末篇更以四漏立愁等之因 | 〔CSCD §584〕・〔CSCD §588〕 |
| paṭisandhi | 結生 | 識之現起；本品之行緣識一篇廣說之 | 〔CSCD §588〕 |
緣起與緣生法〔CSCD §570〕–〔CSCD §573〕
| 巴利 | 本編用語 | 本篇用法之要 | 定位 |
|---|---|---|---|
| paṭiccasamuppāda | 緣起 | 本品之所釋；論自判其所指為緣法：Paṭiccasamuppādoti paccayadhammā veditabbā | 〔CSCD §571〕 |
| paṭiccasamuppannā dhammā | 緣生法 | 與上為對：tehi tehi paccayehi nibbattadhammā（由彼彼緣所生之法） | 〔CSCD §571〕 |
| paccayadhamma | 緣法 | 緣起之所指，即無明等 | 〔CSCD §571〕 |
| tathatā | 如性 | 四異名之一；論自釋 tehi tehi paccayehi anūnādhikeheva tassa tassa dhammassa sambhavato | 〔CSCD §572〕 |
| avitathatā | 不如不性 | 四異名之二；論自釋 muhuttampi tato nibbattadhammānaṃ asambhavābhāvato——本編擬讀，以俟來哲 | 〔CSCD §572〕 |
| anaññathatā | 不異性 | 四異名之三；論自釋 aññadhammapaccayehi aññadhammānuppattito | 〔CSCD §572〕 |
| idappaccayatā | 此緣性 | 四異名之四；論自釋 imesaṃ paccayā idappaccayā. Idappaccayā eva idappaccayatā | 〔CSCD §572〕–〔CSCD §573〕 |
| paccayalakkhaṇa | 以緣為相 | 緣起之相：jarāmaraṇādīnaṃ dhammānaṃ paccayalakkhaṇo paṭiccasamuppādo | 〔CSCD §572〕 |
| dukkhānubandhanarasa | 以隨繫於苦為味 | 緣起之味 | 〔CSCD §572〕 |
| kummaggapaccupaṭṭhāna | 以邪道為現起 | 緣起之現起 | 〔CSCD §572〕 |
| dhammaṭṭhitatā・dhammaniyāmatā | 法住性・法定性 | 所引經句之語，與 idappaccayatā 並舉 | 〔CSCD §571〕 |
破他說之四據〔CSCD §574〕–〔CSCD §576〕
| 巴利 | 本編用語 | 本篇用法之要 | 定位 |
|---|---|---|---|
| uppādamatta | 唯生起 | 他說之所立；論判其 na yujjati（不成） | 〔CSCD §574〕 |
| suttābhāva | 無經之據 | 破他說之第一據 | 〔CSCD §574〕 |
| suttavirodha | 與經相違 | 破他說之第二據；所舉之相違二經逐一見目四 | 〔CSCD §574〕 |
| gambhīranayāsambhava | 甚深之理不成 | 破他說之第三據 | 〔CSCD §574〕 |
| saddabheda | 語法之壞 | 破他說之第四據；論以 paṭicca 之連續體須與同一作者之前時之用相配而立之 | 〔CSCD §574〕–〔CSCD §575〕 |
| padesavihāra | 分位之住 | 所引之經名之語：padesavihāro ca tassekadesavihāro | 〔CSCD §574〕 |
| ucchedadiṭṭhisamugghāta | 斷見之根除 | 論判《迦旃延經》之意趣 | 〔CSCD §574〕 |
| saṅkhāravikāra | 行之變異 | 第二他說之所立；論以「論主自標無明等為因，非其變異」破之 | 〔CSCD §576〕 |
緣起一語之四釋〔CSCD §577〕–〔CSCD §580〕
| 巴利 | 本編用語 | 本篇用法之要 | 定位 |
|---|---|---|---|
| paṭicca | 應知（第一釋） | paccetumarahanti naṃ paṇḍitāti paṭicco——智者應知之故 | 〔CSCD §577〕 |
| samuppāda | 共生（第一釋） | saha sammā ca uppajjati, na ekekato, nāpi ahetuto | 〔CSCD §577〕 |
| phalopacāra | 果之假稱 | 因聚而以果之名稱之；論舉世間與教內二例證之 | 〔CSCD §577〕 |
| paṭimukhaṃ ito | 相向而趣（第二釋） | sāmaggiaṅgānaṃ aññamaññena paṭimukhaṃ ito gatoti katvā paṭiccoti vuccati | 〔CSCD §578〕 |
| avinibbhogavuttidhamma | 不相離而轉之法 | 第二釋之所生：sahiteyeva aññamaññaṃ avinibbhogavuttidhamme uppādetīti | 〔CSCD §578〕 |
| paccayatā | 緣性 | 第三釋之主語：Paccayatā aññoññaṃ, paṭicca yasmā samaṃ saha ca dhamme | 〔CSCD §579〕 |
| sassatavāda・ahetuvāda・visamahetuvāda・vasavattivāda | 常論・無因論・不平等因論・自在者論 | paṭicca 一語所遮之四；論總以 sassatādīnaṃ abhāvo 收之 | 〔CSCD §580〕 |
| ucchedavāda・natthikavāda・akiriyavāda | 斷論・無有論・無作用論 | samuppāda 一語所遮之三 | 〔CSCD §580〕 |
| majjhimā paṭipadā | 中道 | 二語合說之所顯：tesaṃ tesaṃ dhammānaṃ sambhavato majjhimā paṭipadā | 〔CSCD §580〕 |
| janapadanirutti・samaññā | 地方語・世俗名言 | 中道之所含二事：janapadaniruttiyā anabhiniveso, samaññāya anatidhāvana | 〔CSCD §580〕 |
釋者之難與說法之四式〔CSCD §581〕–〔CSCD §583〕
| 巴利 | 本編用語 | 本篇用法之要 | 定位 |
|---|---|---|---|
| vibhajjavādimaṇḍala | 分別說者之眾 | 釋義者所當入：vibhajjavādimaṇḍalaṃ otaritvā | 〔CSCD §581〕 |
| mahāpadesa | 大教法 | 釋義者所當顧之一：mahāpadese olokentena | 〔CSCD §581〕 |
| āgamādhigamappatta | 得聖典與證得者 | 論自標非此不能釋緣起 | 〔CSCD §581〕 |
| vallihāraka | 採藤者 | 四種說法之喻之主；四人各於根・中・末見藤而取之 | 〔CSCD §582〕 |
| anulomadesanā・paṭilomadesanā | 順說・逆說 | 四種說法之二；順說者自初至末，逆說者自末至初 | 〔CSCD §583〕 |
| samantabhaddaka | 周遍賢善 | 論自標緣起之德，故得四式而說 | 〔CSCD §583〕 |
| desanāvilāsappatta | 得說法之自在 | 論自標世尊之德 | 〔CSCD §583〕 |
| catuvesārajja | 四無所畏 | 說法自在之所由 | 〔CSCD §583〕 |
| veneyyajana | 所化之人 | 四式說法之所對 | 〔CSCD §583〕 |
輪說之二首〔CSCD §584〕–〔CSCD §586〕
| 巴利 | 本編用語 | 本篇用法之要 | 定位 |
|---|---|---|---|
| vaṭṭakathā | 輪之說 | 本品之體：Bhagavā hi vaṭṭakathaṃ kathento dve dhamme sīsaṃ katvā katheti | 〔CSCD §584〕 |
| sīsa | 首 | 輪說之所立首者；本品唯二，即無明與有愛 | 〔CSCD §584〕 |
| bhavataṇhā | 有愛 | 輪說之第二首；論以其為善趣業之別因 | 〔CSCD §584〕–〔CSCD §585〕 |
| purimā koṭi na paññāyati | 前際不可知 | 所引二經之同式：無明與有愛皆無前際而有其緣 | 〔CSCD §584〕 |
| visesahetu | 別因 | 論之判：惡趣業之別因為無明，善趣業之別因為有愛 | 〔CSCD §585〕 |
| ekadhammamūlikā desanā | 一法為本之說 | 說法之二式之一；論判本品之定型句屬之 | 〔CSCD §586〕 |
| ubhayamūlikā | 二法為本之說 | 說法之二式之二 | 〔CSCD §586〕 |
義門——十二支之語義〔CSCD §587〕
| 巴利 | 本編用語 | 本篇用法之要 | 定位 |
|---|---|---|---|
| avijjā | 無明 | 本篇以八義釋之，首二義為 Taṃ avindiyaṃ vindatīti avijjā 與 taṃ vindiyaṃ na vindatīti avijjā | 〔CSCD §587〕 |
| avindiya・vindiya | 不應得・應得 | 無明語義之所依：身惡行等為不應得，身善行等為應得 | 〔CSCD §587〕 |
| javāpeti | 令馳 | 無明第六義：sabbayonigatibhavaviññāṇaṭṭhitisattāvāsesu satte javāpetīti | 〔CSCD §587〕 |
| chādana | 覆蔽 | 無明第八義，亦為其味：chādanatopi avijjā | 〔CSCD §587〕 |
| upakārakaṭṭha | 資助之義 | 緣之義：Apica upakārakaṭṭho paccayaṭṭho | 〔CSCD §587〕 |
| saṅkhatamabhisaṅkharonti | 行作有為 | 行之語義 | 〔CSCD §587〕 |
| puññābhisaṅkhāra・apuññābhisaṅkhāra・āneñjābhisaṅkhāra | 福行・非福行・不動行 | 無明緣行之行之三 | 〔CSCD §587〕 |
| kāyasaṅkhāra・vacīsaṅkhāra・cittasaṅkhāra | 身行・語行・心行 | 無明緣行之行之後三；合前三為六 | 〔CSCD §587〕 |
| saṅkhatasaṅkhāra | 有為行 | 「行」一語所攝之四之一：sabbepi sappaccayā dhammā | 〔CSCD §587〕 |
| abhisaṅkhatasaṅkhāra | 所行作行 | 四之二；論自標其出處不明：Visuṃ pana nesaṃ āgataṭṭhānaṃ na paññāyati | 〔CSCD §587〕 |
| abhisaṅkharaṇakasaṅkhāra | 能行作行 | 四之三：三地之善不善思 | 〔CSCD §587〕 |
| payogābhisaṅkhāra | 加行行 | 四之四：身心之精進 | 〔CSCD §587〕 |
| namati | 傾向 | 名之語義：Namatīti nāmaṃ | 〔CSCD §587〕 |
| ruppati | 變壞 | 色之語義：Ruppatīti rūpaṃ | 〔CSCD §587〕 |
| āye tanoti | 於來處而伸 | 處之語義：Āye tanoti āyatañca nayatīti āyatanaṃ | 〔CSCD §587〕 |
| paritassati | 渴求 | 渴愛之語義：Paritassatīti taṇhā | 〔CSCD §587〕 |
| bhavati bhāvayati | 有・令有 | 有之語義：Bhavati bhāvayati cāti bhavo | 〔CSCD §587〕 |
| paccayapaccayuppannavavatthāna | 緣與緣生之安立 | 補入 sambhavanti 一語之效 | 〔CSCD §587〕 |
| issaranimmāna | 自在天所造 | 論以 Evanti 一語所遮者 | 〔CSCD §587〕 |
| dukkhakkhandha | 苦蘊 | 論自釋 dukkhasamūhassa, na sattassa, na sukhasubhādīnaṃ | 〔CSCD §587〕 |
相門與一種等門〔CSCD §588〕–〔CSCD §590〕
| 巴利 | 本編用語 | 本篇用法之要 | 定位 |
|---|---|---|---|
| aññāṇalakkhaṇā avijjā | 無明以無知為相 | 相門之首列；其味 sammohanarasā、現起 chādanapaccupaṭṭhānā、近因 āsavapadaṭṭhānā | 〔CSCD §588〕 |
| pubbaṅgamarasa | 以先行為味 | 識之味 | 〔CSCD §588〕 |
| paṭisandhipaccupaṭṭhāna | 以結生為現起 | 識之現起 | 〔CSCD §588〕 |
| saṅghaṭṭanarasa・saṅgatipaccupaṭṭhāna | 以觸擊為味・以會合為現起 | 觸之味與現起 | 〔CSCD §588〕 |
| hetulakkhaṇā taṇhā | 渴愛以因為相 | 渴愛之相；其現起 atittabhāvapaccupaṭṭhānā（不知足） | 〔CSCD §588〕 |
| amuñcanarasa | 以不放為味 | 取之味 | 〔CSCD §588〕 |
| kammakammaphalalakkhaṇo bhavo | 有以業與業果為相 | 有之相 | 〔CSCD §588〕 |
| appaṭipatti・micchāpaṭipatti | 不行道・邪行道 | 無明之二種 | 〔CSCD §589〕 |
| sasaṅkhāra・asaṅkhāra | 有行・無行 | 無明二種之另一分 | 〔CSCD §589〕 |
| gatipañcakādīnavacchādana | 覆蔽五趣之過患 | 無明之五種之所依 | 〔CSCD §589〕 |
| sañjātisamosaraṇaṭṭhāna | 生與集之處 | 六處之一種之義 | 〔CSCD §589〕 |
| bhavacakka | 有輪 | 本品之總名，於本篇首出：sokādayo cettha bhavacakkassa avicchedadassanatthaṃ vuttā | 〔CSCD §590〕 |
| ekasaṅkhepa | 一攝 | 論之判：愁等攝於老死而支數定為十二 | 〔CSCD §590〕 |
本編既有校讀須併觀之五處 ①既有校讀之 §B 列十二支作「無明・行・識・名色・六入・觸・受・愛・取・有・生・老死」，與譯底欄〔CSCD §570〕之定型句（自 Avijjāpaccayā, bhikkhave, saṅkhārā 至 jātipaccayā jarāmaraṇaṃ）逐支相配；其中二目與規範詞表不齊：規範詞表 §III 定 āyatana＝處（本編前品既立之名相諸列亦作「處」），而既有校讀作「六入」；規範詞表定 taṇhā＝渴愛並明記「不單作愛」，而既有校讀作「愛」。二處皆同形二讀，本目誌其實而不代裁。②既有校讀之 §A 稱緣起為「慧之地之最後、也最深的一類」，與譯底欄〔CSCD §570〕之 tesaṃ vaṇṇanākkamo anuppatto（其解釋之次第今至）相合而語有增——譯底欄唯言「次第今至」，未言「最深」；「甚深」一義譯底欄實有其文，然不在本篇而在有輪之單元之四種甚深段。誌其實，不代改既有校讀。③既有校讀之 §G 立「無第一因」一事，與譯底欄〔CSCD §580〕之 sassatāhetuvisamahetuvasavattivādappabhedānaṃ sassatādīnaṃ abhāvo 及〔CSCD §584〕之 Na akāraṇaṃ（無明非無因）相合，定讀逐字保入；然既有校讀同節所出之「無始」一語，其對應之巴利於本篇之譯底欄零命中，其義在渴愛緣取廣說之單元與有輪之單元。誌其實。④既有校讀之 §B 於十二支之外別出「愁悲苦憂惱」而未言其何以不入支數；譯底欄〔CSCD §590〕正有此問之答（tesaṃ jarāmaraṇeneva ekasaṅkhepaṃ katvā dvādaseva paṭiccasamuppādaṅgānī）。誌其可補而不代補於彼。⑤既有校讀全七 § 未及本篇之四種說法（採藤者之喻）、未及輪說二首之判、亦未及義門之十二支逐一語源。本目誌其實，不代補。
三、異讀
材料之面 本篇無自家對頁之巴利，故無校勘段可錄；可查之面唯譯底欄自身。誌錄不判。
普查之實測 譯底欄全篇逐字普查：異讀括注式（(sī.)・(syā.)・(kaṃ.)・(pī.) 等）零命中；異誦之標識詞 pāṭho 零命中。方括注唯二式（[§NN] 段號 21 個與版頁記 12 個，後者皆在註記之內）。查無即記無：譯底欄自身無異讀之記。
本欄自出之一處出處括注之不齊 同一經之同一號，本篇之圓括注二形並見：〔CSCD §587〕之 (dī. ni. 2.221, 272; saṃ. ni. 1.186)（二號以半形逗點相連）與同段稍後之 (dī. ni. 2.221; 272; saṃ. ni. 1.186)（同二號改以半形分號相連）。一段之內、同一出處而二式並書，本欄誌其字面之實而不判其為傳本之式或清檔之記。
本欄自出之一處引而不繫號 〔CSCD §586〕之 ''avijjānīvaraṇassa, bhikkhave, bālassa taṇhāya sampayuttassa evamayaṃ kāyo samudāgato. 一引繫 (saṃ. ni. 2.19)，而同段之他二引亦各繫號；然〔CSCD §574〕之 ''Uppādamattaṃ paṭiccasamuppādo''ti hi suttaṃ natthi 一語為論自造之反詰之句而作引號之形，非引經——引號之形與引經之實不一，誌之不判。
引號之對稱 全篇 '' 實測 90 處為偶數，逐一成對。
本欄之界 上列皆為譯底欄之字面之實；未與 PTS 掃描頁對勘。本欄之零命中唯就譯底欄一面，不以之推斷他本。
四、論主引據
論主自引之處，逐處繫段號錨；出處唯本文自標者記之，不代考定。「本文自標之出處」欄之括注逐字照錄，不代譯其經名。
| 位置 | 引式〔逐字〕 | 所引之要 | 本文自標之出處 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 〔CSCD §570〕 | Vuttañhetaṃ bhagavatā –／''Katamo ca, bhikkhave, paṭiccasamuppādo? Avijjāpaccayā, bhikkhave, saṅkhārā | 緣起之定型句——本品之所釋之全文，順生十二支至純大苦聚之集 | (saṃ. ni. 2.1) |
| 〔CSCD §570〕 | Vuttañhetaṃ bhagavatā –／''Katame ca, bhikkhave, paṭiccasamuppannā dhammā? Jarāmaraṇaṃ, bhikkhave, aniccaṃ saṅkhataṃ paṭiccasamuppannaṃ | 緣生法之定型句——與上為對句 | (saṃ. ni. 2.20) |
| 〔CSCD §571〕 | Bhagavatā hi paṭiccasamuppādapaṭiccasamuppannadhammadesanāsutte –／''Katamo ca, bhikkhave, paṭiccasamuppādo? Jātipaccayā, bhikkhave, jarāmaraṇaṃ, uppādā vā tathāgatānaṃ | 如性等四異名之所出——本篇四異名之全據 | (saṃ. ni. 2.20) |
| 〔CSCD §574〕 | ''atha kho bhagavā rattiyā paṭhamaṃ yāmaṃ paṭiccasamuppādaṃ anulomapaṭilomaṃ manasākāsī''ti | 初成正覺之住即緣起之作意 | (mahāva. 1) |
| 〔CSCD §574〕 | Yathāha ''yena svāhaṃ, bhikkhave, vihārena paṭhamābhisambuddho viharāmi, tassa padesena vihāsi''nti | 分位之住即彼住之一分 | (saṃ. ni. 5.11) |
| 〔CSCD §574〕 | Yathāha ''so evaṃ pajānāmi micchādiṭṭhipaccayāpi vedayitaṃ sammādiṭṭhipaccayāpi vedayitaṃ micchāsaṅkappapaccayāpi vedayita''nti | 分位之住所見者為緣之行相，非唯生起 | (saṃ. ni. 5.11) |
| 〔CSCD §574〕 | ''lokasamudayaṃ kho, kaccāna, yathābhūtaṃ sammappaññāya passato yā loke natthitā, sā na hotī''ti | 《迦旃延經》——順觀緣起以除斷見 | (saṃ. ni. 2.15) |
| 〔CSCD §574〕 | ''gambhīro cāyaṃ, ānanda, paṭiccasamuppādo gambhīrāvabhāso cā''ti | 緣起之甚深；論自標其四種甚深「當於後說」 | (dī. ni. 2.95; saṃ. ni. 2.60) |
| 〔CSCD §575〕 | ''cakkhuñca paṭicca rūpe ca uppajjati cakkhuviññāṇa''nti | paṭicca 一語之正用之例 | (saṃ. ni. 2.43) |
| 〔CSCD §575〕 | ''Paṭiccasamuppādaṃ vo, bhikkhave, desessāmi. Katamo ca, bhikkhave, paṭiccasamuppādo…pe… ayaṃ vuccati, bhikkhave, paṭiccasamuppādo''ti | 破「以 hoti 一語相接」之說之據 | (saṃ. ni. 2.1) |
| 〔CSCD §576〕 | ''tasmātiha, ānanda, eseva hetu, etaṃ nidānaṃ, esa samudayo, esa paccayo jarāmaraṇassa yadidaṃ jāti…pe… saṅkhārānaṃ, yadidaṃ avijjā''ti | 論主破第二他說之全據——世尊自標無明等為因 | (dī. ni. 2.98 ādayo) |
| 〔CSCD §581〕 | Yathāhu porāṇā –／''Saccaṃ satto paṭisandhi, paccayākārameva ca; | 四難見之法：諦・有情・結生・緣之行相 | 無（自標為古德之語而不繫號） |
| 〔CSCD §581〕 | Vuttañhetaṃ pubbācariyehi –／''Yo koci maṃ aṭṭhikatvā suṇeyya, | 先師之勸聽偈 | 無（自標為先師之語而不繫號） |
| 〔CSCD §582〕 | ''iti kho, bhikkhave, avijjāpaccayā saṅkhārā…pe… jātipaccayā jarāmaraṇa''nti | 四種說法之一：自初至末之順說 | (ma. ni. 1.402; saṃ. ni. 2.2) |
| 〔CSCD §582〕 | ''tassa taṃ vedanaṃ abhinandato abhivadato ajjhosāya tiṭṭhato uppajjati nandī. | 四種說法之二：自中至末 | (ma. ni. 1.409; saṃ. ni. 3.5) |
| 〔CSCD §582〕 | ''jātipaccayā jarāmaraṇanti iti kho panetaṃ vuttaṃ, jātipaccayā nu kho, bhikkhave, jarāmaraṇaṃ no vā kathaṃ vo ettha hotīti? | 四種說法之三：自末至初之逆說 | (ma. ni. 1.403) |
| 〔CSCD §582〕 | ''ime ca, bhikkhave, cattāro āhārā kinnidānā, kiṃsamudayā, kiṃjātikā, kiṃpabhavā? | 四種說法之四：自中至初 | (saṃ. ni. 2.11) |
| 〔CSCD §583〕 | ''kicchaṃ vatāyaṃ loko āpanno jāyati ca jīyati ca mīyati ca cavati ca upapajjati cā''tiādinā | 逆說之所對：觀世間之苦迫 | (dī. ni. 2.57; saṃ. ni. 2.4) |
| 〔CSCD §584〕 | ''Āsavasamudayā avijjāsamudayo''ti | 無明非無因之據——全品三見之關鍵句，本篇為其首出 | (ma. ni. 1.103) |
| 〔CSCD §584〕 | Yathāha – ''purimā, bhikkhave, koṭi na paññāyati avijjāya 'ito pubbe avijjā nāhosi, atha pacchā samabhavī'ti | 無明之前際不可知而有其緣 | (a. ni. 10.61) |
| 〔CSCD §584〕 | Yathāha – ''purimā, bhikkhave, koṭi na paññāyati bhavataṇhāya 'ito pubbe bhavataṇhā nāhosi, atha pacchā samabhavī'ti | 有愛之前際不可知——與上為同式之對句 | (a. ni. 10.62) |
| 〔CSCD §586〕 | ''iti kho, bhikkhave, avijjūpanisā saṅkhārā, saṅkhārūpanisaṃ viññāṇa''ntiādi | 一法為本之說之例一 | (saṃ. ni. 2.23) |
| 〔CSCD §586〕 | ''upādāniyesu, bhikkhave, dhammesu assādānupassino viharato taṇhā pavaḍḍhati, taṇhāpaccayā upādāna''ntiādi | 一法為本之說之例二（以渴愛為本） | (saṃ. ni. 2.52) |
| 〔CSCD §586〕 | ''avijjānīvaraṇassa, bhikkhave, bālassa taṇhāya sampayuttassa evamayaṃ kāyo samudāgato. | 二法為本之說之例 | (saṃ. ni. 2.19) |
| 〔CSCD §587〕 | ''aniccā vata saṅkhārā''tiādīsu | 有為行之語之所出 | (dī. ni. 2.221, 272; saṃ. ni. 1.186) |
| 〔CSCD §587〕 | ''avijjāgatoyaṃ, bhikkhave, purisapuggalo puññañceva saṅkhāraṃ abhisaṅkharotī''tiādīsu | 能行作行之語之所出 | (saṃ. ni. 2.51) |
| 〔CSCD §587〕 | ''yāvatikā abhisaṅkhārassa gati, tāvatikā gantvā akkhāhataṃ maññe aṭṭhāsī''tiādīsu | 加行行之語之所出 | (a. ni. 3.15) |
| 〔CSCD §587〕 | ''saññāvedayitanirodhaṃ samāpajjantassa kho, āvuso visākha, bhikkhuno paṭhamaṃ nirujjhati vacīsaṅkhāro, tato kāyasaṅkhāro, tato cittasaṅkhāro''tiādinā | 「行」一語之他用之例 | (ma. ni. 1.464) |
| 〔CSCD §590〕 | Yathāha – ''assutavā, bhikkhave, puthujjano sārīrikāya dukkhāya vedanāya phuṭṭho samāno socati kilamati paridevati urattāḷiṃ kandati sammohamāpajjatī''ti | 愁等之所以生於為老死所打之愚夫 | (saṃ. ni. 4.252) |
論主自陳其說之難 〔CSCD §581〕有二處論主明陳釋緣起之不易：①引古德之偈判諦・有情・結生・緣之行相為 Duddasā caturo dhammā, desetuṃ ca sudukkarā（四法難見而難說）；②自作三偈自陳 Patiṭṭhaṃ nādhigacchāmi, ajjhogāḷhova sāgaraṃ（如入大海而不得立足處），而以「聖教多門・先師之道不斷」二事為所依而起釋。二處皆論主自陳，本目逐字錄其位而不代評。
引式之數〔本欄實測〕 Yathāha 5 處・Vuttañhetaṃ 3 處（其一作 Vuttañhetaṃ pubbācariyehi）・Yathāhu 1 處（Yathāhu porāṇā）・Vuttampi cetaṃ・Tena vuttaṃ・kira 俱零命中。本文自標之圓括注出處 25 種，其分布為 saṃ. ni. 11・ma. ni. 5・dī. ni. 4・a. ni. 3・mahāva. 1・餘 1（二式並書之同一處，見目三）——為本品十一單元中經證最密之篇。此數唯就本篇之域，不及全書。
五、譬喻·修辭
本目只記本篇譬喻之所在與其所配，不作文學評價。
甲・譬喻 本篇之比況語實測：viya 詞界 4 見、sadisa 諸形 零命中、iva 詞界 零命中。四喻逐一列之。
| 位置 | 譬喻 | 所配之義 |
|---|---|---|
| 〔CSCD §577〕 | yathā loke semhassa paccayo guḷo semho guḷoti vuccati | 如世間稱痰之緣之糖為「痰糖」——以果之名稱其因聚 |
| 〔CSCD §582〕 | vallihārakānaṃ catunnaṃ purisānaṃ valligahaṇaṃ viya | 如四採藤人之取藤——四種說法之總喻 |
| 〔CSCD §585〕 | aggisantāpalaguḷābhighātaparissamābhibhūtā vajjhagāvī tāya parissamāturatāya nirassādampi attano anatthāvahampi ca uṇhodakapānaṃ viya | 如將宰之牛為火炙杖擊所困而飲熱水——為無明所伏者造惡趣業 |
| 〔CSCD §585〕 | sā vuttappakārā gāvī sītūdakataṇhāya saassādaṃ attano parissamavinodanañca sītūdakapānaṃ viya | 如同一牛之飲冷水——為有愛所伏者造善趣業；與上為正反之對 |
牛之一喻分二用 〔CSCD §585〕之牛喻一喻而二用：同一將宰之牛，飲熱水以配惡趣業之無味而不利，飲冷水以配善趣業之有味而暫解——論以一喻之二飲配二首，為本篇修辭之最密處。譯底欄之第二用逕以 sā vuttappakārā gāvī（前所說之牛）回指，不重述其形。
乙・修辭之可核觀察 ①本篇之骨為問答之排比：Kasmā? 自問實測 8 見，? 全篇 18 見，逐一為論主自設之問而後自答——為本品十一單元中問句最密之篇。②偈頌實測：縮排之行 24 行，其中論主自作之釋義偈 4 首（Dvedhā tato pavatte・Paṭimukhamitoti vutto・Paccayatā aññoññaṃ・Purimena sassatādīna 各二行）・自陳之偈 3 首（Vattukāmo ahaṃ ajja 以下六行）・所引之偈 2 首（古德之四法偈二行、先師之勸聽偈四行）。③總綱偈 Desanābhedato attha, lakkhaṇekavidhādito. Aṅgānañca vavatthānā, viññātabbo vinicchayo. 不作縮排而入正文一行——為本篇偈頌唯一不縮排者，誌其形之不齊而不代改。④各門之收束式（見目一）五見四同一異：四門作 Evamettha 起（其一以小寫作 evamettha），而說法之別門獨作 Evaṃ tāvettha desanābhedato viññātabbo vinicchayo。⑤…pe… 省略式 9 見，逐一在所引之經文之內，正文無一見。⑥「應知」一語之屈折諸形（veditabbā 7 見・veditabbaṃ 2 見・veditabbo 2 見・veditabbāni 2 見・veditabboti 1 見）全篇 14 見，Yathā／yathā 17 見（其中 4 見為採藤者之喻之逐句排比 Yathā hi vallihārakesu・Yathā pana tesu purisesu・Yathā ca tesu purisesu・Yathā panetesu purisesu——四句同式而唯連詞異）。
以上諸數唯就本篇之域實測，不及全書。
六、章內互讀
每指皆帶段號錨；所指之處唯就本篇文中可核之名相立——本篇之段號與章§二系不明對映，故所指不繫章§，亦不推估換算。不代考定。
| 本篇之處 | 所指 | 可核之由 |
|---|---|---|
〔CSCD §570〕 ''khandhāyatanadhātuindriyasaccapaṭiccasamuppādādibhedā dhammā bhūmī''ti | 前品〈蘊〉之慧之總說之單元 | 該複合詞為彼篇所立慧地之全文，本品以其末目 ādi（等）自承之 |
〔CSCD §574〕 Gambhīrattañca nāma catubbidhaṃ, taṃ parato vaṇṇayissāma | 有輪之單元〔CSCD §659〕 | 論自標四種甚深「當於後說」，彼篇正以義・法・說・通達四門釋之 |
〔CSCD §581〕 Ayaṃ pana vitthāranayo 之所待 | 無明緣行句之單元〔CSCD §561〕 | 本篇收於略說，次篇逕以廣說之標語起 |
〔CSCD §584〕 ''Āsavasamudayā avijjāsamudayo''ti | 有輪之單元〔CSCD §652〕 | 彼篇復引同句而以「愁等由漏而生」逆成無明 |
〔CSCD §586〕 ''upādāniyesu, bhikkhave, dhammesu assādānupassino viharato taṇhā pavaḍḍhati | 無明緣行廣說之單元〔CSCD §617〕 | 彼篇以同引證「無明之外別有行之因」而不害一因之說 |
〔CSCD §588〕 Jātiādīnaṃ lakkhaṇādīni saccaniddese vuttanayeneva veditabbāni | 前品〈諦〉之單元 | 論自標生老死等之相味現起近因已於諦之解釋中說，本品不重出 |
〔CSCD §589〕 Nāmarūpaṃ viññāṇasannissayato kammapaccayato ca ekavidhaṃ 之列 | 識緣名色廣說之單元〔CSCD §638〕 | 彼篇以分別・諸有中之轉・攝・緣四門廣之，本篇唯出其一種等之數 |
〔CSCD §590〕 dvādaseva paṭiccasamuppādaṅgānīti veditabbāni | 有輪之單元〔CSCD §653〕 | 彼篇以十二支配三世而立二本、四攝、二十行相 |
七、傳本
作者、傳本與注疏源流諸問題，本編不於考據內立說。
I. Placement in the Outline
Base text This unit’s base text is CSCD (internal and not published). Every Pāli item in this layer is taken verbatim from the base-text column in this unit’s source file. A single locus form is used: 〔CSCD §NN〕, checkable verbatim against the base-text column. This chapter has no in-house Pāli aligned by page, so page ranges are not recorded.
Title The base-text column contains two ### subsections: ### 17. Paññābhūminiddeso (the chapter-title line, not used as the reader-facing title) and ### Paṭiccasamuppādakathā (the title of this division). This unit begins at the start of the base-text file, so the chapter-title line falls within it; the reader-facing title takes the first subsection title after the chapter-title line, namely Paṭiccasamuppādakathā.
Paragraph-number range The base-text column runs from 〔CSCD §570〕 through 〔CSCD §590〕, containing 21 paragraph numbers, continuous with none missing. The span of this unit in the base-text column is 27,404 bytes—the second-longest of this chapter’s eleven units (the longest is the unit on the detailed account of formations conditioning consciousness at 30,590 bytes; the next is the unit on the wheel of becoming at 22,162 bytes).
Positive record of paragraph numbering in this chapter as a whole—recorded once in this unit The eleven units of this chapter span 〔CSCD §570〕 through 〔CSCD §661〕, with 90 paragraph numbers actually present in the base-text column. Two facts prevent this chapter-wide span from being “continuous with none missing”; each is recorded at its location without being corrected: (1) the first paragraph of the unit on the clause ignorance conditions formations (the chapter’s second unit) is numbered 〔CSCD §561〕 in the base-text column, although it stands between 〔CSCD §590〕 and 〔CSCD §592〕—details and verification appear in Section III of that unit; (2) 〔CSCD §632〕 and 〔CSCD §633〕 do not occur as paragraph numbers in the base-text column, although the stanzas to which they pertain are present in the file in the unit on formations conditioning consciousness—details appear in Section III of that unit. The twenty-one numbers within this unit itself are continuous with none missing, so no “record of a missing number” belongs in Section III of this file.
The unit’s backbone—one summary account and two principal frameworks This division is the summary account for the whole chapter (saṅkhepakathā), and its backbone has two levels: the earlier level from 〔CSCD §570〕 through 〔CSCD §581〕 explains what the term “dependent origination” designates and its word meaning; the later level from 〔CSCD §582〕 through 〔CSCD §590〕 opens four modes with a framework stanza and explains the fixed formula of the twelve links. The framework stanza reads verbatim, Desanābhedato attha, lakkhaṇekavidhādito. Aṅgānañca vavatthānā, viññātabbo vinicchayo. Its four modes are variation in teaching・meaning・characteristic and the rest・single and the rest・determination of the links, and each mode closes with the formula “thus, in this regard, the determination should be understood by way of this mode”—fresh measurement gives five closes verbatim: Evaṃ tāvettha desanābhedato viññātabbo vinicchayo.・Evamettha atthato viññātabbo vinicchayo.・Evamettha lakkhaṇāditopi viññātabbo vinicchayo.・evamettha ekavidhāditopi viññātabbo vinicchayo.・Evamettha aṅgānaṃ vavatthānatopi viññātabbo vinicchayo.
The unit’s close This division closes with the indented sentence Ayaṃ tāvettha saṅkhepakathā. (this, for now, is the summary account here), the treatise itself marking it as the summary and assigning the “detailed account” to the following division.
Connections before and after The division takes up the general account of the grounds for wisdom. Its opening sentence quotes verbatim, ''khandhāyatanadhātuindriyasaccapaṭiccasamuppādādibhedā dhammā bhūmī''ti, the compound that establishes the grounds for wisdom in the preceding chapter’s unit on the aggregates; the treatise uses the final member ādi (and the rest) to include dependent origination and dependently arisen dhammas and thereby opens this chapter. It is followed by the unit on the clause ignorance conditions formations: when the present summary account is complete, the next unit opens directly with Ayaṃ pana vitthāranayo to begin the detailed account—the boundary between the two divisions is the boundary between “summary” and “detail,” expressly marked by the treatise.
Movement The chapter’s accompanying Overview links this unit to §A “Dependent Origination—the Deepest Ground of Wisdom” and §B “The Twelve Links.” The chapter-section wording linked there appears verbatim in that table and is not reproduced or excerpted here—the mapping between paragraph numbers and chapter sections is unknown and is neither estimated nor converted.
II. Terms and Renderings
This section records only this division’s usages and locations; fixed readings of terms follow the normative glossary, and this section does not decide terms not fixed there. Readings established in preceding chapters are not explained again. Previously established terms appearing here are khandha (aggregate)・āyatana (base)・dhātu (element)・indriya (faculty)・sacca (truth)・paññā (wisdom)・viññāṇa (consciousness)・vedanā (feeling)・citta (mind)・bhavaṅga (life-continuum)・javana (impulsion)・lakkhaṇa・rasa・paccupaṭṭhāna・padaṭṭhāna (characteristic・function・manifestation・proximate cause). Only terms new in this division are listed below.
Names of the Twelve Links and Core Terms of This Chapter 〔CSCD §570〕–〔CSCD §590〕
Why this table is established The following terms form the backbone of this chapter but have no independent entries among the terms already established in this edition (as found by fresh comparison in this column)—their fixed readings come either from the upstream normative glossary, from this edition’s existing critical reading, or from proposals in this unit. This table is therefore established on the basis that they have not previously been listed, not as a duplicate listing; later units do not explain them again when they recur.
| Pāli | Rendering | Usage in this unit | Locus |
|---|---|---|---|
| avijjā | ignorance | The first of the twelve links; this division explains it in eight senses (see the mode of meaning below) | 〔CSCD §570〕・〔CSCD §587〕 |
| saṅkhāra | formations | The second of the twelve links; this division divides them into six (meritorious, demeritorious, and imperturbable・bodily, verbal, and mental) | 〔CSCD §570〕・〔CSCD §587〕 |
| nāmarūpa | name-and-form | The fourth of the twelve links | 〔CSCD §570〕・〔CSCD §587〕 |
| ⚠︎ saḷāyatana | six bases | The fifth of the twelve links; the normative glossary §III fixes āyatana as “base,” while the existing critical reading’s §B has “six entrances”—two readings of the same form, left open for the wise who come after | 〔CSCD §570〕・〔CSCD §587〕 |
| upādāna | clinging | The ninth of the twelve links | 〔CSCD §570〕・〔CSCD §587〕 |
| bhava | becoming | The tenth of the twelve links | 〔CSCD §570〕・〔CSCD §587〕 |
| jāti | birth | The eleventh of the twelve links | 〔CSCD §570〕・〔CSCD §587〕 |
| jarāmaraṇa | aging-and-death | The twelfth of the twelve links | 〔CSCD §570〕・〔CSCD §587〕 |
| parideva | lamentation | The second of sorrow and the other five; the treatise explains it as Paridevanaṃ paridevo | 〔CSCD §587〕 |
| upāyāsa | despair | The fifth of sorrow and the other five; the treatise explains it as Bhuso āyāso upāyāso | 〔CSCD §587〕 |
| saṃsāra | round of rebirth | The treatise’s wording is Antavirahite saṃsāre | 〔CSCD §587〕 |
| āsava | influx | The proximate cause of ignorance; the chapter’s final unit further establishes the four influxes as the causes of sorrow and the rest | 〔CSCD §584〕・〔CSCD §588〕 |
| paṭisandhi | rebirth-linking | The manifestation of consciousness; the unit on formations conditioning consciousness explains it in detail | 〔CSCD §588〕 |
Dependent Origination and Dependently Arisen Dhammas 〔CSCD §570〕–〔CSCD §573〕
| Pāli | Rendering | Usage in this unit | Locus |
|---|---|---|---|
| paṭiccasamuppāda | dependent origination | What this chapter explains; the treatise itself judges that it designates conditioning dhammas: Paṭiccasamuppādoti paccayadhammā veditabbā | 〔CSCD §571〕 |
| paṭiccasamuppannā dhammā | dependently originated phenomena | The counterpart to the preceding term: tehi tehi paccayehi nibbattadhammā (phenomena produced by their respective conditions) | 〔CSCD §571〕 |
| paccayadhamma | conditioning phenomenon | What dependent origination designates, namely ignorance and the rest | 〔CSCD §571〕 |
| tathatā | suchness | The first of four alternative designations; the treatise explains it as tehi tehi paccayehi anūnādhikeheva tassa tassa dhammassa sambhavato | 〔CSCD §572〕 |
| avitathatā | not-unsuchness | The second of four alternative designations; the treatise explains it as muhuttampi tato nibbattadhammānaṃ asambhavābhāvato—this edition’s reading, left open for the wise who come after | 〔CSCD §572〕 |
| anaññathatā | non-otherness | The third of four alternative designations; the treatise explains it as aññadhammapaccayehi aññadhammānuppattito | 〔CSCD §572〕 |
| idappaccayatā | specific conditionality | The fourth of four alternative designations; the treatise explains it as imesaṃ paccayā idappaccayā. Idappaccayā eva idappaccayatā | 〔CSCD §572〕–〔CSCD §573〕 |
| paccayalakkhaṇa | having the characteristic of being a condition | The characteristic of dependent origination: jarāmaraṇādīnaṃ dhammānaṃ paccayalakkhaṇo paṭiccasamuppādo | 〔CSCD §572〕 |
| dukkhānubandhanarasa | having the function of binding to suffering | The function of dependent origination | 〔CSCD §572〕 |
| kummaggapaccupaṭṭhāna | manifesting as a wrong path | The manifestation of dependent origination | 〔CSCD §572〕 |
| dhammaṭṭhitatā・dhammaniyāmatā | stability of Dhamma・fixed course of Dhamma | Terms in the cited discourse, stated beside idappaccayatā | 〔CSCD §571〕 |
Four Grounds for Refuting Another Account 〔CSCD §574〕–〔CSCD §576〕
| Pāli | Rendering | Usage in this unit | Locus |
|---|---|---|---|
| uppādamatta | mere arising | What the other account posits; the treatise judges that it na yujjati (is not tenable) | 〔CSCD §574〕 |
| suttābhāva | absence of scriptural authority | The first ground for refuting the other account | 〔CSCD §574〕 |
| suttavirodha | conflict with the discourses | The second ground for refuting the other account; the two discourses said to conflict with it are listed individually in Section IV | 〔CSCD §574〕 |
| gambhīranayāsambhava | impossibility of a profound method | The third ground for refuting the other account | 〔CSCD §574〕 |
| saddabheda | grammatical breakdown | The fourth ground for refuting the other account; the treatise establishes it from the requirement that the absolutive paṭicca refer to a prior action by the same agent | 〔CSCD §574〕–〔CSCD §575〕 |
| padesavihāra | dwelling in a part | Wording from the cited discourse: padesavihāro ca tassekadesavihāro | 〔CSCD §574〕 |
| ucchedadiṭṭhisamugghāta | eradication of annihilation view | The import the treatise assigns to the Kaccāna Discourse | 〔CSCD §574〕 |
| saṅkhāravikāra | modification of formations | What the second other account posits; the treatise refutes it because “the Commentator expressly named ignorance and the rest as causes, not their modification” | 〔CSCD §576〕 |
Four Explanations of the Term Dependent Origination 〔CSCD §577〕–〔CSCD §580〕
| Pāli | Rendering | Usage in this unit | Locus |
|---|---|---|---|
| paṭicca | should be known (first explanation) | paccetumarahanti naṃ paṇḍitāti paṭicco—because the wise should know it | 〔CSCD §577〕 |
| samuppāda | co-arising (first explanation) | saha sammā ca uppajjati, na ekekato, nāpi ahetuto | 〔CSCD §577〕 |
| phalopacāra | figurative naming by result | The collection of causes is named after its result; the treatise gives an example from the world and another from the teaching | 〔CSCD §577〕 |
| paṭimukhaṃ ito | proceeding face-to-face (second explanation) | sāmaggiaṅgānaṃ aññamaññena paṭimukhaṃ ito gatoti katvā paṭiccoti vuccati | 〔CSCD §578〕 |
| avinibbhogavuttidhamma | dhammas occurring inseparably | What arises under the second explanation: sahiteyeva aññamaññaṃ avinibbhogavuttidhamme uppādetīti | 〔CSCD §578〕 |
| paccayatā | conditionality | The subject of the third explanation: Paccayatā aññoññaṃ, paṭicca yasmā samaṃ saha ca dhamme | 〔CSCD §579〕 |
| sassatavāda・ahetuvāda・visamahetuvāda・vasavattivāda | eternalism・causelessness doctrine・unequal-cause doctrine・doctrine of a controller | The four excluded by the term paṭicca; the treatise gathers them under sassatādīnaṃ abhāvo | 〔CSCD §580〕 |
| ucchedavāda・natthikavāda・akiriyavāda | annihilationism・non-existence doctrine・inaction doctrine | The three excluded by the term samuppāda | 〔CSCD §580〕 |
| majjhimā paṭipadā | middle way | What the two terms together disclose: tesaṃ tesaṃ dhammānaṃ sambhavato majjhimā paṭipadā | 〔CSCD §580〕 |
| janapadanirutti・samaññā | regional expression・conventional designation | Two matters included in the middle way: janapadaniruttiyā anabhiniveso, samaññāya anatidhāvana | 〔CSCD §580〕 |
The Difficulty Faced by the Expositor and Four Forms of Teaching 〔CSCD §581〕–〔CSCD §583〕
| Pāli | Rendering | Usage in this unit | Locus |
|---|---|---|---|
| vibhajjavādimaṇḍala | circle of the Vibhajjavādins | What the expositor should enter: vibhajjavādimaṇḍalaṃ otaritvā | 〔CSCD §581〕 |
| mahāpadesa | great authorities | What the expositor should consult: mahāpadese olokentena | 〔CSCD §581〕 |
| āgamādhigamappatta | a person who has attained scripture and realization | The treatise expressly states that dependent origination cannot be explained by someone who has not attained these | 〔CSCD §581〕 |
| vallihāraka | vine-gatherer | The subject of the simile for the four forms of teaching; each of four men sees and takes the vine from its root, middle, or tip | 〔CSCD §582〕 |
| anulomadesanā・paṭilomadesanā | forward teaching・reverse teaching | Two of the four forms of teaching; the forward teaching proceeds from beginning to end, and the reverse teaching from end to beginning | 〔CSCD §583〕 |
| samantabhaddaka | wholly excellent | A quality that the treatise itself attributes to dependent origination, on account of which it can be taught in four forms | 〔CSCD §583〕 |
| desanāvilāsappatta | mastery of teaching | A quality that the treatise itself attributes to the Blessed One | 〔CSCD §583〕 |
| catuvesārajja | four kinds of fearlessness | The ground for mastery of teaching | 〔CSCD §583〕 |
| veneyyajana | person to be trained | The person addressed by the four forms of teaching | 〔CSCD §583〕 |
The Two Heads of the Exposition of the Round 〔CSCD §584〕–〔CSCD §586〕
| Pāli | Rendering | Usage in this unit | Locus |
|---|---|---|---|
| vaṭṭakathā | teaching of the round | The form of this chapter: Bhagavā hi vaṭṭakathaṃ kathento dve dhamme sīsaṃ katvā katheti | 〔CSCD §584〕 |
| sīsa | head | What the teaching of the round sets at its head; this chapter has exactly two, namely ignorance and craving for becoming | 〔CSCD §584〕 |
| bhavataṇhā | craving for becoming | The second head of the teaching of the round; the treatise makes it the distinctive cause of kamma leading to a good destination | 〔CSCD §584〕–〔CSCD §585〕 |
| purimā koṭi na paññāyati | the first point is not discerned | The same formula in the two cited discourses: both ignorance and craving for becoming have no discernible first point, yet each has its condition | 〔CSCD §584〕 |
| visesahetu | distinctive cause | The treatise’s judgment: ignorance is the distinctive cause of kamma leading to a bad destination, and craving for becoming is the distinctive cause of kamma leading to a good destination | 〔CSCD §585〕 |
| ekadhammamūlikā desanā | teaching rooted in a single phenomenon | The first of two forms of teaching; the treatise judges that this chapter’s fixed formula belongs to it | 〔CSCD §586〕 |
| ubhayamūlikā | teaching rooted in both phenomena | The second of two forms of teaching | 〔CSCD §586〕 |
Mode of Meaning—the Word Meanings of the Twelve Links 〔CSCD §587〕
| Pāli | Rendering | Usage in this unit | Locus |
|---|---|---|---|
| avijjā | ignorance | This division explains it in eight senses; the first two are Taṃ avindiyaṃ vindatīti avijjā and taṃ vindiyaṃ na vindatīti avijjā | 〔CSCD §587〕 |
| avindiya・vindiya | what should not be obtained・what should be obtained | The basis for the word meaning of ignorance: bodily misconduct and the rest are what should not be obtained, and bodily good conduct and the rest are what should be obtained | 〔CSCD §587〕 |
| javāpeti | drives | The sixth meaning of ignorance: sabbayonigatibhavaviññāṇaṭṭhitisattāvāsesu satte javāpetīti | 〔CSCD §587〕 |
| chādana | covering | The eighth meaning of ignorance and also its function: chādanatopi avijjā | 〔CSCD §587〕 |
| upakārakaṭṭha | meaning of assistance | The meaning of condition: Apica upakārakaṭṭho paccayaṭṭho | 〔CSCD §587〕 |
| saṅkhatamabhisaṅkharonti | they form what is conditioned | The word meaning of formations | 〔CSCD §587〕 |
| puññābhisaṅkhāra・apuññābhisaṅkhāra・āneñjābhisaṅkhāra | meritorious formation・demeritorious formation・imperturbable formation | The first three formations in ignorance conditions formations | 〔CSCD §587〕 |
| kāyasaṅkhāra・vacīsaṅkhāra・cittasaṅkhāra | bodily formation・verbal formation・mental formation | The latter three formations in ignorance conditions formations; together with the preceding three they total six | 〔CSCD §587〕 |
| saṅkhatasaṅkhāra | conditioned formation | The first of four usages encompassed by the term “formation”: sabbepi sappaccayā dhammā | 〔CSCD §587〕 |
| abhisaṅkhatasaṅkhāra | formed formation | The second of four; the treatise expressly states that its separate source is unknown: Visuṃ pana nesaṃ āgataṭṭhānaṃ na paññāyati | 〔CSCD §587〕 |
| abhisaṅkharaṇakasaṅkhāra | formation that forms | The third of four: wholesome and unwholesome volition of the three planes | 〔CSCD §587〕 |
| payogābhisaṅkhāra | formation as exertion | The fourth of four: bodily and mental energy | 〔CSCD §587〕 |
| namati | bends | The word meaning of name: Namatīti nāmaṃ | 〔CSCD §587〕 |
| ruppati | is deformed | The word meaning of materiality: Ruppatīti rūpaṃ | 〔CSCD §587〕 |
| āye tanoti | extends upon what comes | The word meaning of base: Āye tanoti āyatañca nayatīti āyatanaṃ | 〔CSCD §587〕 |
| paritassati | thirsts | The word meaning of craving: Paritassatīti taṇhā | 〔CSCD §587〕 |
| bhavati bhāvayati | becomes・brings into becoming | The word meaning of becoming: Bhavati bhāvayati cāti bhavo | 〔CSCD §587〕 |
| paccayapaccayuppannavavatthāna | determination of condition and condition-arisen | The effect of adding the term sambhavanti | 〔CSCD §587〕 |
| issaranimmāna | created by a lord | What the treatise excludes with the term Evanti | 〔CSCD §587〕 |
| dukkhakkhandha | mass of suffering | The treatise explains it as dukkhasamūhassa, na sattassa, na sukhasubhādīnaṃ | 〔CSCD §587〕 |
Mode of Characteristic and Mode of Single and the Rest 〔CSCD §588〕–〔CSCD §590〕
| Pāli | Rendering | Usage in this unit | Locus |
|---|---|---|---|
| aññāṇalakkhaṇā avijjā | ignorance has nonknowledge as its characteristic | The first item in the mode of characteristic; its function is sammohanarasā, its manifestation is chādanapaccupaṭṭhānā, and its proximate cause is āsavapadaṭṭhānā | 〔CSCD §588〕 |
| pubbaṅgamarasa | having the function of going before | The function of consciousness | 〔CSCD §588〕 |
| paṭisandhipaccupaṭṭhāna | manifesting as rebirth-linking | The manifestation of consciousness | 〔CSCD §588〕 |
| saṅghaṭṭanarasa・saṅgatipaccupaṭṭhāna | having the function of striking・manifesting as conjunction | The function and manifestation of contact | 〔CSCD §588〕 |
| hetulakkhaṇā taṇhā | craving has cause as its characteristic | The characteristic of craving; its manifestation is atittabhāvapaccupaṭṭhānā (insatiability) | 〔CSCD §588〕 |
| amuñcanarasa | having the function of not releasing | The function of clinging | 〔CSCD §588〕 |
| kammakammaphalalakkhaṇo bhavo | becoming has kamma and the result of kamma as its characteristic | The characteristic of becoming | 〔CSCD §588〕 |
| appaṭipatti・micchāpaṭipatti | non-practice・wrong practice | The twofold division of ignorance | 〔CSCD §589〕 |
| sasaṅkhāra・asaṅkhāra | prompted・unprompted | Another twofold division of ignorance | 〔CSCD §589〕 |
| gatipañcakādīnavacchādana | covering the dangers of the five destinations | The basis for the fivefold division of ignorance | 〔CSCD §589〕 |
| sañjātisamosaraṇaṭṭhāna | place of birth and confluence | The single meaning of the six bases | 〔CSCD §589〕 |
| bhavacakka | wheel of becoming | The general name for this chapter, first appearing in this division: sokādayo cettha bhavacakkassa avicchedadassanatthaṃ vuttā | 〔CSCD §590〕 |
| ekasaṅkhepa | single inclusion | The treatise’s judgment: sorrow and the rest are included under aging-and-death, fixing the number of links at twelve | 〔CSCD §590〕 |
Five Places Where This Edition’s Existing Critical Reading Must Be Considered Together (1) The existing Chinese critical reading’s §B lists the twelve links as “ignorance・formations・consciousness・name-and-form・six entrances・contact・feeling・love・clinging・becoming・birth・aging-and-death,” corresponding item by item to the fixed formula in the base-text column at 〔CSCD §570〕 (from Avijjāpaccayā, bhikkhave, saṅkhārā through jātipaccayā jarāmaraṇaṃ). Two items do not accord with the normative glossary: the normative glossary §III fixes āyatana as “base” (and the terms established in the preceding chapter also use “base”), while the existing Chinese critical reading has “six entrances”; the normative glossary fixes taṇhā as “craving” and expressly states “not simply love,” while the existing Chinese critical reading has “love.” Both are two readings of the same form; this section records the fact without determining it. (2) The existing critical reading’s §A calls dependent origination “the last and also the deepest class of the ground of wisdom,” agreeing with tesaṃ vaṇṇanākkamo anuppatto at 〔CSCD §570〕 (the sequence of their explanation has now been reached) but adding a statement—the base-text column says only that “the sequence has now been reached,” not that it is “the deepest”; the meaning “profound” does occur in the base-text column, but not in this division: it occurs in the fourfold profundity passage in the unit on the wheel of becoming. The fact is recorded without altering the existing critical reading. (3) The existing critical reading’s §G establishes “no first cause,” agreeing with sassatāhetuvisamahetuvasavattivādappabhedānaṃ sassatādīnaṃ abhāvo at 〔CSCD §580〕 and Na akāraṇaṃ at 〔CSCD §584〕 (ignorance is not without a cause), and the fixed reading is carried through verbatim; however, the term “beginningless” in the same section of the existing critical reading has zero matching Pāli in this division’s base-text column, while its meaning occurs in the unit giving the detailed account of craving conditioning clinging and in the unit on the wheel of becoming. The fact is recorded. (4) The existing critical reading’s §B separately lists “sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, and despair” outside the twelve links without saying why they are not counted among the links; the base-text column at 〔CSCD §590〕 gives the answer directly (tesaṃ jarāmaraṇeneva ekasaṅkhepaṃ katvā dvādaseva paṭiccasamuppādaṅgānī). The possible supplement is recorded without adding it there on that section’s behalf. (5) None of the existing critical reading’s seven sections reaches this division’s four forms of teaching (the vine-gatherer simile), the judgment concerning the two heads of the teaching of the round, or the word-by-word derivation of each of the twelve links in the mode of meaning. This section records the fact without supplying that material there on its behalf.
III. Variant Readings
Material surface This division has no in-house Pāli aligned by page, so no collation passage can be recorded; the only inspectable surface is the base-text column itself. The record does not judge.
Measured comprehensive scan A verbatim scan of the entire division’s base-text column found zero occurrences of parenthetical variant forms such as (sī.)・(syā.)・(kaṃ.)・(pī.); zero occurrences of the variant-reading marker pāṭho. Square brackets occur in only two forms (21 [§NN] paragraph numbers and 12 edition-page records, all of the latter inside annotations). Absence found is recorded as absence: the base-text column itself records no variant readings.
A single inconsistency in a source annotation arising within this column For the same numbers from the same discourse, two forms appear: (dī. ni. 2.221, 272; saṃ. ni. 1.186) at 〔CSCD §587〕 (the two numbers are joined by an ASCII comma) and (dī. ni. 2.221; 272; saṃ. ni. 1.186) later in the same paragraph (the same two numbers are instead joined by an ASCII semicolon). The same source is written in two forms within a single paragraph. This column records the literal fact and does not determine whether it is a witness’s form or an annotation introduced during file preparation.
A single form in this column that is quoted but carries no source number The citation ''avijjānīvaraṇassa, bhikkhave, bālassa taṇhāya sampayuttassa evamayaṃ kāyo samudāgato. at 〔CSCD §586〕 carries (saṃ. ni. 2.19), and each of the two other citations in that paragraph likewise carries a number. By contrast, ''Uppādamattaṃ paṭiccasamuppādo''ti hi suttaṃ natthi at 〔CSCD §574〕 is a sentence constructed by the treatise as a challenge rather than a citation from a discourse—the form of quotation marks and the fact of a scriptural citation are not identical, which is recorded without judgment.
Symmetry of quotation marks The marker '' occurs 90 times, an even number, and every occurrence forms a pair.
Scope of this column Everything listed above is the literal fact of the base-text column. This column has not been collated against the scanned PTS pages. The zero-occurrence findings in this column apply only to the single base-text surface and do not support an inference about other editions.
IV. The Commentator’s Citations
Each citation made by the Commentator is linked to a paragraph-number anchor. A source is recorded only when the text itself marks it; none is identified on its behalf. Parentheses in the “Source Marked by the Text” column are copied verbatim without translating the title.
| Location | Citation Formula 〔verbatim〕 | Point of the Citation | Source Marked by the Text |
|---|---|---|---|
| 〔CSCD §570〕 | Vuttañhetaṃ bhagavatā –／''Katamo ca, bhikkhave, paṭiccasamuppādo? Avijjāpaccayā, bhikkhave, saṅkhārā | The fixed formula of dependent origination—the full text explained by this chapter, proceeding forward through the twelve links to the arising of the whole mass of suffering | (saṃ. ni. 2.1) |
| 〔CSCD §570〕 | Vuttañhetaṃ bhagavatā –／''Katame ca, bhikkhave, paṭiccasamuppannā dhammā? Jarāmaraṇaṃ, bhikkhave, aniccaṃ saṅkhataṃ paṭiccasamuppannaṃ | The fixed formula of dependently arisen dhammas—the counterpart to the preceding formula | (saṃ. ni. 2.20) |
| 〔CSCD §571〕 | Bhagavatā hi paṭiccasamuppādapaṭiccasamuppannadhammadesanāsutte –／''Katamo ca, bhikkhave, paṭiccasamuppādo? Jātipaccayā, bhikkhave, jarāmaraṇaṃ, uppādā vā tathāgatānaṃ | The source of suchness and the other four alternative designations—the full authority for the four alternative designations in this division | (saṃ. ni. 2.20) |
| 〔CSCD §574〕 | ''atha kho bhagavā rattiyā paṭhamaṃ yāmaṃ paṭiccasamuppādaṃ anulomapaṭilomaṃ manasākāsī''ti | The dwelling immediately after full awakening consisted in attending to dependent origination | (mahāva. 1) |
| 〔CSCD §574〕 | Yathāha ''yena svāhaṃ, bhikkhave, vihārena paṭhamābhisambuddho viharāmi, tassa padesena vihāsi''nti | Dwelling in a part is dwelling in a part of that dwelling | (saṃ. ni. 5.11) |
| 〔CSCD §574〕 | Yathāha ''so evaṃ pajānāmi micchādiṭṭhipaccayāpi vedayitaṃ sammādiṭṭhipaccayāpi vedayitaṃ micchāsaṅkappapaccayāpi vedayita''nti | What was seen while dwelling in a part was the mode of conditions, not mere arising | (saṃ. ni. 5.11) |
| 〔CSCD §574〕 | ''lokasamudayaṃ kho, kaccāna, yathābhūtaṃ sammappaññāya passato yā loke natthitā, sā na hotī''ti | The Kaccāna Discourse—contemplating dependent origination in forward order removes annihilation view | (saṃ. ni. 2.15) |
| 〔CSCD §574〕 | ''gambhīro cāyaṃ, ānanda, paṭiccasamuppādo gambhīrāvabhāso cā''ti | The profundity of dependent origination; the treatise itself says that its fourfold profundity “will be explained later” | (dī. ni. 2.95; saṃ. ni. 2.60) |
| 〔CSCD §575〕 | ''cakkhuñca paṭicca rūpe ca uppajjati cakkhuviññāṇa''nti | An example of the correct use of the term paṭicca | (saṃ. ni. 2.43) |
| 〔CSCD §575〕 | ''Paṭiccasamuppādaṃ vo, bhikkhave, desessāmi. Katamo ca, bhikkhave, paṭiccasamuppādo…pe… ayaṃ vuccati, bhikkhave, paṭiccasamuppādo''ti | Authority for refuting the account that connects the expression with the term hoti | (saṃ. ni. 2.1) |
| 〔CSCD §576〕 | ''tasmātiha, ānanda, eseva hetu, etaṃ nidānaṃ, esa samudayo, esa paccayo jarāmaraṇassa yadidaṃ jāti…pe… saṅkhārānaṃ, yadidaṃ avijjā''ti | The complete authority used by the Commentator to refute the second other account—the Blessed One himself names ignorance and the rest as causes | (dī. ni. 2.98 ādayo) |
| 〔CSCD §581〕 | Yathāhu porāṇā –／''Saccaṃ satto paṭisandhi, paccayākārameva ca; | Four things difficult to see: truth・a being・rebirth-linking・the mode of conditions | None (the text attributes the saying to the elders but supplies no number) |
| 〔CSCD §581〕 | Vuttañhetaṃ pubbācariyehi –／''Yo koci maṃ aṭṭhikatvā suṇeyya, | The preceding teachers’ stanza urging attentive listening | None (the text attributes the saying to preceding teachers but supplies no number) |
| 〔CSCD §582〕 | ''iti kho, bhikkhave, avijjāpaccayā saṅkhārā…pe… jātipaccayā jarāmaraṇa''nti | The first of four forms of teaching: forward from beginning to end | (ma. ni. 1.402; saṃ. ni. 2.2) |
| 〔CSCD §582〕 | ''tassa taṃ vedanaṃ abhinandato abhivadato ajjhosāya tiṭṭhato uppajjati nandī. | The second of four forms of teaching: from the middle to the end | (ma. ni. 1.409; saṃ. ni. 3.5) |
| 〔CSCD §582〕 | ''jātipaccayā jarāmaraṇanti iti kho panetaṃ vuttaṃ, jātipaccayā nu kho, bhikkhave, jarāmaraṇaṃ no vā kathaṃ vo ettha hotīti? | The third of four forms of teaching: reverse from the end to the beginning | (ma. ni. 1.403) |
| 〔CSCD §582〕 | ''ime ca, bhikkhave, cattāro āhārā kinnidānā, kiṃsamudayā, kiṃjātikā, kiṃpabhavā? | The fourth of four forms of teaching: from the middle to the beginning | (saṃ. ni. 2.11) |
| 〔CSCD §583〕 | ''kicchaṃ vatāyaṃ loko āpanno jāyati ca jīyati ca mīyati ca cavati ca upapajjati cā''tiādinā | What the reverse teaching addresses: contemplation of the world’s oppression by suffering | (dī. ni. 2.57; saṃ. ni. 2.4) |
| 〔CSCD §584〕 | ''Āsavasamudayā avijjāsamudayo''ti | Authority that ignorance is not without a cause—a key sentence for the chapter’s three views, first appearing in this division | (ma. ni. 1.103) |
| 〔CSCD §584〕 | Yathāha – ''purimā, bhikkhave, koṭi na paññāyati avijjāya 'ito pubbe avijjā nāhosi, atha pacchā samabhavī'ti | The first point of ignorance is not known, yet ignorance has its condition | (a. ni. 10.61) |
| 〔CSCD §584〕 | Yathāha – ''purimā, bhikkhave, koṭi na paññāyati bhavataṇhāya 'ito pubbe bhavataṇhā nāhosi, atha pacchā samabhavī'ti | The first point of craving for becoming is not discerned—the counterpart in the same formula | (a. ni. 10.62) |
| 〔CSCD §586〕 | ''iti kho, bhikkhave, avijjūpanisā saṅkhārā, saṅkhārūpanisaṃ viññāṇa''ntiādi | First example of a teaching rooted in a single dhamma | (saṃ. ni. 2.23) |
| 〔CSCD §586〕 | ''upādāniyesu, bhikkhave, dhammesu assādānupassino viharato taṇhā pavaḍḍhati, taṇhāpaccayā upādāna''ntiādi | Second example of a teaching rooted in a single dhamma (rooted in craving) | (saṃ. ni. 2.52) |
| 〔CSCD §586〕 | ''avijjānīvaraṇassa, bhikkhave, bālassa taṇhāya sampayuttassa evamayaṃ kāyo samudāgato. | Example of a teaching rooted in both dhammas | (saṃ. ni. 2.19) |
| 〔CSCD §587〕 | ''aniccā vata saṅkhārā''tiādīsu | Source of the usage “conditioned formations” | (dī. ni. 2.221, 272; saṃ. ni. 1.186) |
| 〔CSCD §587〕 | ''avijjāgatoyaṃ, bhikkhave, purisapuggalo puññañceva saṅkhāraṃ abhisaṅkharotī''tiādīsu | Source of the usage “forming formations” | (saṃ. ni. 2.51) |
| 〔CSCD §587〕 | ''yāvatikā abhisaṅkhārassa gati, tāvatikā gantvā akkhāhataṃ maññe aṭṭhāsī''tiādīsu | Source of the usage “exertional formation” | (a. ni. 3.15) |
| 〔CSCD §587〕 | ''saññāvedayitanirodhaṃ samāpajjantassa kho, āvuso visākha, bhikkhuno paṭhamaṃ nirujjhati vacīsaṅkhāro, tato kāyasaṅkhāro, tato cittasaṅkhāro''tiādinā | Example of another use of the term “formation” | (ma. ni. 1.464) |
| 〔CSCD §590〕 | Yathāha – ''assutavā, bhikkhave, puthujjano sārīrikāya dukkhāya vedanāya phuṭṭho samāno socati kilamati paridevati urattāḷiṃ kandati sammohamāpajjatī''ti | Why sorrow and the rest arise in an untaught ordinary person struck by aging-and-death | (saṃ. ni. 4.252) |
The Commentator’s own statement of the difficulty of his account At 〔CSCD §581〕, the Commentator twice expressly states that explaining dependent origination is difficult: (1) he cites the elders’ stanza judging truth, a being, rebirth-linking, and the mode of conditions to be Duddasā caturo dhammā, desetuṃ ca sudukkarā (four things difficult to see and very difficult to teach); (2) he composes three stanzas declaring Patiṭṭhaṃ nādhigacchāmi, ajjhogāḷhova sāgaraṃ (as though plunged into the ocean, he finds no footing), then begins the explanation by relying on two things—the many methods of the teaching and the unbroken path of the preceding teachers. Both are the Commentator’s own statements; this section records their wording and location verbatim without evaluating them.
Number of citation formulas 〔measured in this column〕 Yathāha occurs 5 times・Vuttañhetaṃ 3 times (one is Vuttañhetaṃ pubbācariyehi)・Yathāhu once (Yathāhu porāṇā)・Vuttampi cetaṃ・Tena vuttaṃ・kira all have zero occurrences. The text marks 25 distinct sources in parenthetical annotations, distributed as saṃ. ni. 11・ma. ni. 5・dī. ni. 4・a. ni. 3・mahāva. 1・remaining 1 (the same source written in two forms, see Section III)—this division has the densest scriptural attestation among the chapter’s eleven units. These figures apply only to this division’s scope, not the whole work.
V. Similes and Rhetoric
This section records only the locations of this division’s similes and what they are matched with, without offering literary evaluation.
A. Similes Fresh measurement of comparative expressions in this division yields 4 word-bounded occurrences of viya, zero occurrences of forms of sadisa, and zero word-bounded occurrences of iva. The four similes are listed individually.
| Location | Simile | Meaning Matched With It |
|---|---|---|
| 〔CSCD §577〕 | yathā loke semhassa paccayo guḷo semho guḷoti vuccati | As sugar, a condition for phlegm, is called “phlegm-sugar” in the world—the collection of causes is named after its result |
| 〔CSCD §582〕 | vallihārakānaṃ catunnaṃ purisānaṃ valligahaṇaṃ viya | Like four vine-gatherers taking a vine—the general simile for the four forms of teaching |
| 〔CSCD §585〕 | aggisantāpalaguḷābhighātaparissamābhibhūtā vajjhagāvī tāya parissamāturatāya nirassādampi attano anatthāvahampi ca uṇhodakapānaṃ viya | Like an ox for slaughter, exhausted by scorching fire and blows from a cudgel, drinking hot water—the person overpowered by ignorance performs kamma leading to a bad destination |
| 〔CSCD §585〕 | sā vuttappakārā gāvī sītūdakataṇhāya saassādaṃ attano parissamavinodanañca sītūdakapānaṃ viya | Like that same ox drinking cold water—the person overpowered by craving for becoming performs kamma leading to a good destination; the counterpart to the preceding simile |
A single ox simile used in two ways The ox simile at 〔CSCD §585〕 is a single simile used in two ways: the same ox for slaughter drinks hot water, corresponding to the tasteless and harmful kamma leading to a bad destination, and cold water, corresponding to the tasteful kamma leading to a good destination and its temporary relief—the treatise uses the two drinks within a single simile to match the two heads, the densest rhetorical passage in this division. For the second use, the base-text column refers back directly with sā vuttappakārā gāvī (the ox described in the preceding manner) and does not restate its form.
B. Verifiable Rhetorical Observations (1) The backbone of this division is a parallel series of questions and answers: fresh measurement finds 8 instances of the self-posed question Kasmā? and 18 instances of ? throughout the division; each is a question the Commentator raises and then answers—this division has the densest concentration of questions among the chapter’s eleven units. (2) Fresh measurement of stanzas finds 24 indented lines, consisting of four two-line interpretive stanzas composed by the Commentator (Dvedhā tato pavatte・Paṭimukhamitoti vutto・Paccayatā aññoññaṃ・Purimena sassatādīna), three stanzas of self-declaration (six lines beginning Vattukāmo ahaṃ ajja), and two cited stanzas (two lines for the elders’ stanza on the four things and four lines for the preceding teachers’ stanza urging attentive listening). (3) The framework stanza Desanābhedato attha, lakkhaṇekavidhādito. Aṅgānañca vavatthānā, viññātabbo vinicchayo. is not indented but occurs as a single line in the body—the only stanza in this division that is not indented; the formal inconsistency is recorded without being corrected. (4) The closing formulas for the modes (see Section I) occur five times, four alike and one different: four begin with Evamettha (one is lower-case evamettha), while the mode concerning variation in teaching alone reads Evaṃ tāvettha desanābhedato viññātabbo vinicchayo. (5) The abbreviation form …pe… occurs 9 times, each within a cited scriptural passage and never in the treatise’s own prose. (6) Inflected forms of the term “should be understood” occur 14 times throughout the division (veditabbā 7・veditabbaṃ 2・veditabbo 2・veditabbāni 2・veditabboti 1), and Yathā／yathā occurs 17 times (four of them are the repeated phrasing of the vine-gatherer simile, Yathā hi vallihārakesu・Yathā pana tesu purisesu・Yathā ca tesu purisesu・Yathā panetesu purisesu—four statements in the same form, differing only in their connective).
All figures above were measured only within this division and do not extend to the whole work.
VI. Intratextual Cross-Reading
Every reference carries a paragraph-number anchor. Each reference is based only on a term verifiable within this division—the mapping between this division’s paragraph numbers and the chapter’s section-number system is unknown, so these references do not carry chapter-section numbers, nor is a conversion estimated. No identification is supplied on the text’s behalf.
| Passage in This Division | Points To | Verifiable Basis |
|---|---|---|
〔CSCD §570〕 ''khandhāyatanadhātuindriyasaccapaṭiccasamuppādādibhedā dhammā bhūmī''ti | The preceding chapter’s unit on the general account of the aggregates as grounds for wisdom | The compound is the full text establishing the grounds for wisdom there; this chapter takes it up through its final member ādi (and the rest) |
〔CSCD §574〕 Gambhīrattañca nāma catubbidhaṃ, taṃ parato vaṇṇayissāma | The unit on the wheel of becoming 〔CSCD §659〕 | The treatise expressly says the fourfold profundity “will be explained later,” and that unit explains it by way of meaning・phenomenon・teaching・penetration |
〔CSCD §581〕 What Ayaṃ pana vitthāranayo anticipates | The unit on the clause ignorance conditions formations 〔CSCD §561〕 | This division closes with the summary account, and the following division opens directly with the marker of the detailed account |
〔CSCD §584〕 ''Āsavasamudayā avijjāsamudayo''ti | The unit on the wheel of becoming 〔CSCD §652〕 | That unit cites the same sentence again and works backward from “sorrow and the rest arise from the influxes” to ignorance |
〔CSCD §586〕 ''upādāniyesu, bhikkhave, dhammesu assādānupassino viharato taṇhā pavaḍḍhati | The detailed unit on the clause ignorance conditions formations 〔CSCD §617〕 | That unit uses the same citation to establish “apart from ignorance, formations have another condition” without invalidating the statement of a single cause |
〔CSCD §588〕 Jātiādīnaṃ lakkhaṇādīni saccaniddese vuttanayeneva veditabbāni | The preceding chapter’s unit on the truths | The treatise expressly states that the characteristic, function, manifestation, and proximate cause of birth, aging-and-death, and the rest were already explained in the exposition of the truths and are not repeated in this chapter |
〔CSCD §589〕 The list beginning Nāmarūpaṃ viññāṇasannissayato kammapaccayato ca ekavidhaṃ | The detailed unit on consciousness conditioning name-and-materiality 〔CSCD §638〕 | That unit explains it in detail through analysis・occurrence in the states of existence・inclusion・condition, while this division gives only its numbers under single and the rest |
〔CSCD §590〕 dvādaseva paṭiccasamuppādaṅgānīti veditabbāni | The unit on the wheel of becoming 〔CSCD §653〕 | That unit distributes the twelve links over three times and establishes two roots, four summaries, and twenty modes |
VII. Transmission
This edition does not advance claims in the apparatus concerning authorship, textual transmission, or the lineage of commentaries.