清淨道論 無明緣行廣說Visuddhimagga · Detailed Account of “With Ignorance as Condition, Formations”
第一句用二十四緣重讀一遍：無明對惡業幾乎每一種方式都幫，連「一起生」都幫，因為它就在不善心裡；對善業只從外面幫——當所緣、當強因；對無色定只當強因。無明不在善心裡，卻在善心後面。
三個問答。一因一果會不會是一因論？——不會：無一果由一因生，經文點的是主要的（觸緣受）、顯著的（病由痰起）、不共的（不善以不如理作意為根）那一個。「甲緣乙」從來不是甲是乙唯一的因；別把緣起讀成骨牌。苦楝的種子怎麼生出甘蔗？——「為緣」不等於「感異熟」：乳是酪的緣，酪不是乳的果報；光是眼識的緣，眼識不是光的果報。無明幫了善行生起，善行不是無明的報應，所以善還是善。迷的人怎麼造行？——於死、於生、於輪迴、於諸行之相、於緣生法，每一處都多看見一個「有情」：死了誰、生了誰、誰在輪迴、誰在作；不迷的人只看見蘊在壞、在起、在續。
生盲之人沒有引導者，有時走對，有時走錯——所以善行也在無明裡。區別不在走對走錯，在有沒有睜開眼；明生時不是走上正道，是寂靜而行——不再是走。
Read the first clause again through the twenty-four conditions. Ignorance helps harmful kamma in nearly every way, even by “arising together,” because it is present in the unwholesome mind; it helps wholesome kamma only from outside—as object and powerful cause; it conditions an immaterial attainment only as powerful cause. Ignorance is not in a wholesome mind, yet it stands behind the wholesome mind.
Three questions and answers. Does a single cause and a single effect amount to a theory of a single cause?—No: no single effect arises from a single cause; the scripture names what is principal (contact conditions feeling), conspicuous (illness arises from phlegm), or distinctive (the unwholesome has unwise attention as its root). “A conditions B” never means A is B’s only cause; do not read dependent origination as dominoes. How does a neem seed produce sugarcane?—“Being a condition” does not mean “producing a result”: milk conditions curds, but curds are not milk’s kammic result; light conditions eye-consciousness, but eye-consciousness is not light’s kammic result. Ignorance helps a wholesome formation arise, but the wholesome formation is not ignorance’s retribution, so it remains wholesome. How does a bewildered person form formations?—About death, rebirth, saṃsāra, the characteristics of formations, and dependently originated phenomena, that person sees an extra “being” in every field: who died, who was born, who wanders in saṃsāra, who acts. A person free of bewilderment sees only aggregates breaking up, manifesting, and continuing.
A person blind from birth, without a guide, sometimes takes the right road and sometimes a wrong road—hence wholesome formations too occur within ignorance. The distinction is not between taking the right and wrong road, but between having one’s eyes open and closed; when understanding arises, the person does not step onto the right road but fares in peace—walking no more.
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 無明於二十四緣中為行之幾種緣 〔CSCD §616〕
「無明緣行」一句之廣說
這樣，在這二十四緣¹之中，這無明——
為諸福〔行〕之緣是二種，而為其餘的則是多種；
為後之諸〔行〕，說它是一種之緣。
其中，「為諸福〔行〕之緣是二種」——就是說：它以所緣緣與親依止緣二種而為緣。因為當〔行者〕以盡、以滅而思惟無明之時，它以所緣緣而為諸欲界福行²的緣；當以神通心了知有癡之心之時，〔它以所緣緣而為〕諸色界〔福行的緣〕。而對於為了超越無明而圓滿布施等等欲界福業事、並且生起諸色界禪的人，它以親依止緣而為那二者的緣。同樣，對於由於為無明所迷而希求欲有與色有的成就、就作那些福〔行〕的人，也是這樣。
而「為其餘的則是多種」——就是說：它為諸非福行而以多種為緣。怎麼說呢？因為：當緣於無明而生起貪等等之時，它以所緣緣〔為緣〕；當尊重它而味著之時，以所緣增上與所緣親依止〔為緣〕；對於為無明所迷、不見過患而造殺生等等的人，以親依止緣〔為緣〕；對於第二速行³等等，以無間緣、等無間緣、無間親依止緣、數習緣、無緣、離緣〔為緣〕；對於造作任何不善的人，以因緣、俱生緣、相互緣、依止緣、相應緣、有緣、不離緣〔為緣〕——這樣，它以多種而為緣。
「為後之諸〔行〕，說它是一種之緣」——就是說：對於諸不動行，說它唯以親依止緣一種而為緣。而它的那個親依止之性，應當依諸福行之中所說的方法而知。
§2 一因一果之說何以無過 〔CSCD §617〕
此中有問：這唯一的無明是諸行的緣呢，還是另有別的緣？此中〔有何過失〕呢？如果唯是一〔緣〕，就墮於一因論；如果另有別的〔緣〕，那麼「無明緣行」這樣的一因指示就不能成立了。
並非不能成立。為什麼呢？因為——
此中無有一果由一〔因〕而生，亦無多果〔由一因而生〕，由多〔因〕亦無有一果；
然而於一因一果之顯示，自有其義。
因為此中並沒有由一個原因而有的一個果，也沒有〔由一個原因而有的〕多個果；也沒有由多個原因而有的一個果。而由多個原因所有的，唯是多個〔果〕。正因如此，才見到由名為時節、地、種子、水的多個原因，生起名為「芽」的色、香、味等等多個果。而所作的「無明緣行、行緣識」這樣的一因一果之顯示，其中是有義理的、是有用處的。
因為世尊有時以其為主故、有時以其顯著故、有時以其不共故，並且隨順於說法的自在與諸所化，而唯顯示一個因或一個果。因為「觸緣受」這句話，就是以其為主故而說了唯一的因與果——因為觸是受的主因，由於受隨觸而得其安立；而受是觸的主果，由於觸隨受而得其安立。「諸病由痰所起」這句話，是以其顯著故而說了一個因——因為此中痰是顯著的，業等等則不是。「諸比丘啊，凡是不善之法，一切都以不如理作意為根」這句話，是以其不共故而說了一個因——因為不如理作意於諸不善是不共的，而所依、所緣等等則是共的。
所以應當知道：此中，即使另有所依、所緣、俱生法等等諸行之原因存在，這無明仍被顯示為諸行之因——一、以其為主故：依「隨觀味著者，渴愛增長」與「由無明之集而有漏之集」這二句話，它也是渴愛等等其餘諸行之因的因；二、以其顯著故：依「諸比丘啊，無知而隨於無明者，也行作福行」這句話；三、以其不共故。並且，由這遮遣「一因一果之顯示〔之難〕」的話，就應當知道：於一切處，一因一果之顯示都是有用處的。
§3 不善之無明何以為善行與不動行之緣 〔CSCD §618〕
此中有問：即使如此，無明是一向不可意果的、是有罪的，它為福行與不動行之緣一事，怎麼能成立呢？因為苦楝的種子並不生出甘蔗。
怎麼不能成立呢？因為在世間——
相違的與不相違的，同樣也有相似的與不相似的，
都成立為諸法之緣；而那些〔法〕並非就是它們的異熟。
因為於世間成立：諸法之緣有處、自性、作用等等相違的，也有不相違的。因為前心是後心的處相違之緣；先前對工巧等等的學習，也是後來所轉起的工巧等等之作業〔的處相違之緣〕。業是色的自性相違之緣；乳等等也是酪等等〔的自性相違之緣〕。光明是眼識的作用相違〔之緣〕；糖等等也是酒等等〔的作用相違之緣〕。而眼與色等等則是眼識等等的處不相違之緣。諸前速行等等對諸後速行等等，是自性不相違、作用不相違的〔緣〕。
而正如相違與不相違的緣得以成立，相似與不相似的也是這樣。因為名為時節與食的色是色的相似之緣；稻種等等也是稻果等等〔的相似之緣〕。而色為非色之緣、非色為色之緣，則是不相似的；牛毛、逆毛、角、酪、胡麻粉等等為茅草、箭草、香草等等〔之緣〕，也是〔不相似的〕。而那些以相違、不相違、相似、不相似為緣的諸法，並不就是那些〔緣〕法的異熟。
這樣就應當知道：這無明雖然依異熟而言是一向不可意果的、依自性而言是有罪的，它仍隨其所應，依處、作用、自性之相違與不相違之緣，以及依相似與不相似之緣，而為這一切福行等等的緣。而它的那個為緣之性，已經依「凡是對苦等等名為無明的無知未斷的人，他先是由於對苦、以及對前際等等的無知，把輪迴之苦執取為樂想，而發起作為其因的三種行」這樣的方法說過了。
§4 五處之迷與生盲之喻 〔CSCD §619〕
復有另一法門——
凡是於死與生、於輪迴、於諸行之相，
以及於諸緣生法而迷惑者，
他就行作這三種行；由此，
無明就是那三種〔行〕之緣。
若問：那麼，於這些迷惑的人，怎麼就作了這三種行呢？
先是於死迷惑的人：他不取「一切處諸蘊之壞就是死」這樣的死，卻計度「有情死了」「有情移轉到另一個身」等等。
於生迷惑的人：他不取「一切處諸蘊之現起就是生」這樣的生，卻計度「有情受生了」「有情有了新的身」等等。
於輪迴迷惑的人：輪迴是這樣被解說的——
「諸蘊與諸界、諸處的次第，
相續不斷地轉起，就叫作輪迴」；
他不這樣取它，卻計度「這有情從此世去到他世，從他世來到此世」等等。
於諸行之相迷惑的人：他不取諸行的自相與共相⁴，卻計度諸行為我、為我所、為常、為樂、為淨。
於諸緣生法迷惑的人：他不取由無明等等而有行等等之轉起，卻計度「我或知或不知，正是它作、正是它令作。它於結生而受生；極微、自在天⁵等等以羯羅藍等等之相為它安立身體而令諸根成就。它諸根具足了，就觸、就受、就渴愛、就取、就〔與後有〕相繫。它又在另一有之中而有」；或者計度「一切有情都為定命、境遇、自性所轉」。
他為無明所盲而這樣計度，就猶如盲人行於地上，或行於道、或行於非道，或行於高處、或行於低處，或行於平處、或行於險處一般——這樣，他就行作福〔行〕、非福〔行〕，也行作不動行。
所以說了這個——
「猶如生盲之人而無引導者，
有時行於正道，有時也行於邪道；
愚人輪迴於輪迴之中，同樣沒有引導者，
有時作福，有時也作非福。
而當他了知了法、現觀諸諦之時，
那時由無明之寂止，他就寂靜而行。」
這就是「無明緣行」一句之中的廣說。
註
¹ 二十四緣：其全列與逐一之釋在本品發趣二十四緣之單元；本篇唯配其於無明與行之間。
² 福行・非福行・不動行（puññābhisaṅkhāra・apuññābhisaṅkhāra・āneñjābhisaṅkhāra）：行之三種——福行為欲界與色界之善思，非福行為不善思，不動行為無色界之善思；其開列在本品無明緣行句之單元。
³ 速行（javana）：心路之中領納所緣而造業之一位；其逐一之開列在〈蘊〉一品之識蘊。
⁴ 自相・共相（sabhāvalakkhaṇa・sāmaññalakkhaṇa）：前者為一法各別之自性，後者為諸法共通之相；本篇以迷此二相者計諸行為我・我所・常・樂・淨。
⁵ 極微・自在天（aṇuissara）：迷於緣生法者所計之作者——本篇以其為「安立身體而令諸根成就」之能作。
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 In How Many Ways among the Twenty-Four Conditions Ignorance Conditions Formations 〔CSCD §616〕
Detailed Account of the Clause “With Ignorance as Condition, Formations”
Thus, among these twenty-four conditions, this ignorance—
is a condition for meritorious [formations] in two ways, and for the others in many ways;
for the last [formations], it is said to be a condition in a single way.
Here, “a condition for meritorious [formations] in two ways” means that it is a condition in two ways: by object condition and by decisive-support condition. For when [a practitioner] contemplates ignorance in terms of exhaustion and dissolution, ignorance is a condition by object condition for sense-sphere meritorious formations²; when a mind accompanied by delusion is known with a direct-knowledge mind, [ignorance is a condition by object condition] for fine-material-sphere [meritorious formations]. For a person who, in order to transcend ignorance, fulfills sense-sphere bases of meritorious deeds such as giving and produces fine-material-sphere jhānas, ignorance is a condition by decisive-support condition for both. The same applies to a person who, because bewildered by ignorance, aspires to attainments in sense becoming and fine-material becoming and performs those meritorious [formations].
“For the others in many ways” means that it is a condition for demeritorious formations in many ways. How? When greed and the rest arise with ignorance as their object, ignorance is a condition by object condition; when a person gives it weight and relishes it, by object-predominance and object decisive-support conditions; for a person bewildered by ignorance who, seeing no danger, kills living beings and so forth, by decisive-support condition; for the second impulsion³ and the rest, by proximity, contiguity, proximity-decisive-support, repetition, absence, and disappearance conditions; for a person committing any unwholesome act, by root, conascence, mutuality, support, association, presence, and nondisappearance conditions. Thus it is a condition in many ways.
“For the last [formations], it is said to be a condition in a single way” means that for imperturbable formations it is said to be a condition in only a single way, by decisive-support condition. Its nature as decisive support should be understood according to the method stated for meritorious formations.
§2 Why the Presentation of a Single Cause and a Single Effect Is Faultless 〔CSCD §617〕
A question arises here: is this ignorance alone the condition for formations, or are there other conditions? What difficulty is there here? If it alone is [the condition], the theory of a single cause follows; but if there are other [conditions], the presentation of a single cause in “with ignorance as condition, formations” cannot be established.
It is not that it cannot be established. Why? Because—
here no single effect arises from a single [cause], nor do many [effects arise from a single cause], nor does a single [effect arise] from many [causes];
yet the presentation of a single cause and a single effect has its meaning.
For here there is no single effect from a single cause, nor are there many [effects from a single cause]; nor is there a single effect from many causes. What comes from many causes is only many [effects]. Thus, from the many causes called climate, earth, seed, and water, the many effects called the visible form, odor, flavor, and the rest of a “sprout” are seen to arise. Yet the presentation of a single cause and a single effect made in “with ignorance as condition, formations; with formations as condition, consciousness” has meaning and purpose.
For the Blessed One sometimes presents only a single cause or a single effect because it is principal, sometimes because it is conspicuous, sometimes because it is distinctive, and also in accordance with his mastery in teaching and with those to be guided. “With contact as condition, feeling” states a single cause and effect because they are principal: contact is the principal cause of feeling, since feeling is determined in accordance with contact; and feeling is the principal effect of contact, since contact is determined in accordance with feeling. “Illnesses originate in phlegm” states a single cause because it is conspicuous: here phlegm is conspicuous, while kamma and the rest are not. “Bhikkhus, whatever unwholesome states there are, all have unwise attention as their root” states a single cause because it is distinctive: unwise attention is distinctive to the unwholesome, while the basis, object, and the rest are shared.
Therefore it should be understood that, although other causes of formations such as basis, object, and conascent phenomena exist here, ignorance is still presented as a cause of formations: first, because it is principal, since according to the two statements “Craving grows in a person who contemplates gratification” and “With the arising of ignorance, there is the arising of the influxes,” it is also the cause of other causes of formations such as craving; second, because it is conspicuous, according to “Bhikkhus, an unwise person fallen into ignorance also forms a meritorious formation”; and third, because it is distinctive. By this statement that answers the [difficulty concerning] the presentation of a single cause and a single effect, it should be understood that such a presentation everywhere has a purpose.
§3 How Unwholesome Ignorance Can Condition Meritorious and Imperturbable Formations 〔CSCD §618〕
A question arises here: even so, ignorance invariably bears undesirable results and is blameworthy. How, then, can it be established as a condition for meritorious and imperturbable formations? A neem seed does not produce sugarcane.
Why could it not be established? For in the world—
the contrary and the noncontrary, and likewise the similar and the dissimilar,
are established as conditions for phenomena; yet those [phenomena] are not simply their results.
For in the world, conditions for phenomena are established as contrary or noncontrary in place, nature, function, and so forth. A preceding mind is a place-contrary condition for a subsequent mind; prior training in crafts and the like is likewise [a place-contrary condition] for the later practice of crafts and the like. Kamma is a nature-contrary condition for materiality; milk and the rest are likewise [nature-contrary conditions] for curds and the rest. Light is a function-contrary [condition] for eye-consciousness; sugar and the rest are likewise [function-contrary conditions] for liquor and the rest. The eye, visible form, and the rest, however, are place-noncontrary conditions for eye-consciousness and the rest. Earlier impulsions and the rest are nature-noncontrary and function-noncontrary [conditions] for later impulsions and the rest.
Just as contrary and noncontrary conditions are established, so too are similar and dissimilar conditions. The materiality called climate and nutriment is a similar condition for materiality; rice seed and the rest are likewise [similar conditions] for rice fruit and the rest. Materiality is a dissimilar condition for the immaterial, and the immaterial for materiality; cow hair, reverse-growing hair, horn, curds, sesame flour, and the rest are likewise [dissimilar conditions] for thatch grass, arrow grass, fragrant grass, and the rest. The phenomena that have these contrary, noncontrary, similar, and dissimilar conditions are not simply the results of those conditioning phenomena.
Thus it should be understood that although ignorance invariably bears undesirable results in terms of its result and is blameworthy in its own nature, as appropriate it is nevertheless a condition for all these meritorious formations and the rest by way of conditions that are contrary or noncontrary in place, function, and nature, and by way of similar and dissimilar conditions. Its conditionality has already been stated according to the method beginning: “A person whose unknowing called ignorance in regard to suffering and the rest has not been abandoned first grasps the suffering of saṃsāra with the perception of pleasure, through unknowing in regard to suffering and the past limit and the rest, and initiates the three kinds of formation that are its cause.”
§4 Delusion in Five Fields and the Simile of a Person Blind from Birth 〔CSCD §619〕
There is also another method—
Whoever is bewildered about death and rebirth, about saṃsāra, about the characteristics of formations,
and about dependently originated phenomena,
forms these three kinds of formation; therefore,
ignorance is the condition for those three [formations].
If asked, how does a person bewildered about these things form these three kinds of formation?
First, a person bewildered about death does not take death as “the breakup of the aggregates everywhere is death,” but speculates, “A being dies,” “A being passes into another body,” and so forth.
A person bewildered about rebirth does not take rebirth as “the manifestation of the aggregates everywhere is birth,” but speculates, “A being is born,” “A new body has manifested for a being,” and so forth.
For a person bewildered about saṃsāra, saṃsāra is explained thus—
“The succession of aggregates, elements, and bases,
proceeding uninterruptedly, is called saṃsāra”;
but that person does not take it thus and instead speculates, “This being goes from this world to another world and comes from another world to this world,” and so forth.
A person bewildered about the characteristics of formations does not take the formations’ individual characteristics and common characteristics⁴, but speculates that formations are self, belong to self, are permanent, are pleasant, and are pure.
A person bewildered about dependently originated phenomena does not take the occurrence of formations and the rest through ignorance and the rest, but speculates: “Whether the self knows or does not know, that very self acts and causes action. It takes birth at rebirth-linking; atoms, a sovereign deity,⁵ and the rest fashion a body for it in the form of the kalala and subsequent stages and bring its faculties to completion. Once its faculties are complete, it contacts, feels, craves, clings, and becomes connected [to a future becoming]. It then comes to be in another becoming”; or speculates, “All beings are transformed by destiny, circumstance, and nature.”
Thus speculating while blinded by ignorance, that person is like somebody blind who travels upon the earth, going by a path or a nonpath, over high ground or low ground, over even ground or uneven ground. In the same way, that person forms meritorious, demeritorious, and imperturbable formations.
Therefore this is said—
“Just as a person blind from birth, without a guide,
sometimes travels by the path and sometimes by a wrong path,
so too a foolish person, wandering in saṃsāra without a guide,
sometimes performs merit and sometimes also demerit.
But when that person knows the Dhamma and directly comprehends the truths,
then, through the calming of ignorance, that person will fare in peace.”
This is the detailed account of the clause “with ignorance as condition, formations.”
Notes
¹ Twenty-four conditions: their complete list and individual explanations appear in this chapter’s unit on the twenty-four conditions of the Paṭṭhāna; this unit applies them only to the relation between ignorance and formations.
² Meritorious, demeritorious, and imperturbable formations (puññābhisaṅkhāra・apuññābhisaṅkhāra・āneñjābhisaṅkhāra): the three kinds of formation—meritorious formation is wholesome volition in the sense and fine-material spheres, demeritorious formation is unwholesome volition, and imperturbable formation is wholesome volition in the immaterial sphere. They are enumerated in this chapter’s unit on the clause “with ignorance as condition, formations.”
³ Impulsion (javana): a position in the cognitive process that receives an object and makes kamma. Its types are enumerated individually in the unit on the consciousness aggregate in the chapter on the aggregates.
⁴ Individual characteristic and common characteristic (sabhāvalakkhaṇa・sāmaññalakkhaṇa): the former is a phenomenon’s particular nature, the latter the characteristic common to phenomena. Here a person bewildered about these two characteristics conceives formations as self, belonging to self, permanent, pleasant, and pure.
⁵ Atoms and a sovereign deity (aṇuissara): agents conceived by a person bewildered about dependently originated phenomena; here they are said to “fashion a body and bring its faculties to completion.”
苦楝的種子怎麼生出甘蔗？——一個不善的因，為什麼能是善行的緣
大局 — 第一句用二十四緣重讀一遍
上一單元備好了工具，本單元第一次真正用它：無明對三種行各以幾種緣為緣（白話 §1）；接著答三個必然會來的難——一因一果之說會不會墮於一因論（白話 §2）、不善的無明怎能是善行的緣（白話 §3）、迷惑的人究竟怎麼造行（白話 §4）。這一單元的骨是三個問答，肉是兩個譬喻：苦楝與甘蔗、生盲之人。讀通了它，後面每一句「甲緣乙廣說」的形制就都認得。〔所見〕
§01 無明於二十四緣中為行之幾種緣 → 白話 §1
偈：為諸福行之緣是二種，為其餘的則是多種；為後之諸行說它是一種之緣（白話 §1）。福行二種：所緣緣（以盡以滅思惟無明時，為欲界福行之緣；以神通心了知有癡之心時，為色界福行之緣）與親依止緣（為超越無明而圓滿布施等欲界福業事並生色界禪者；為無明所迷而希求欲有色有之成就而作福者）。非福行多種：緣於無明生貪等——所緣緣；尊重它而味著——所緣增上・所緣親依止；為無明所迷不見過患而殺生等——親依止；對第二速行等——無間・等無間・無間親依止・數習・無・離；對造任何不善者——因・俱生・相互・依止・相應・有・不離。不動行一種：唯親依止緣。〔讀法〕看清這一分配就看清無明的位置：對惡業它幾乎每一種方式都幫（連「一起生」都幫——因為無明本身就在不善心裡）；對善業它只從外面幫——當所緣、當強因；對無色定的安住，只當強因。無明不在善心裡，卻在善心後面。〔所見〕
§02 一因一果之說何以無過 → 白話 §2
難：唯一無明是諸行之緣則墮一因論；另有別緣則「無明緣行」的一因指示不成（白話 §2）。答：此中無一果由一因生，無多果由一因生，無一果由多因生——由多因所有唯是多果（時節・地・種子・水多因生芽之色香味多果）；而一因一果之顯示自有其義：世尊或以其為主（觸緣受——觸是受之主因、受是觸之主果）、或以其顯著（諸病由痰所起——痰顯著、業等不顯）、或以其不共（一切不善以不如理作意為根——不如理作意於不善不共，所依所緣則共），並隨說法自在與所化而唯顯一因一果。無明被顯示為行之因：以其為主（它也是渴愛等餘因之因——「由無明之集而有漏之集」）、以其顯著、以其不共。〔讀法〕這一節先立了一條全品都要用的規矩：「甲緣乙」從來不是說甲是乙唯一的因——是就主、就顯、就不共而點名一個。緣起不是一因論；十二支每一環後面都站著一群緣，經文只點那個最該點的。這條規矩讀者若忘了，會把緣起讀成骨牌。〔所見〕
§03 不善之無明何以為善行與不動行之緣 → 白話 §3
難：無明一向不可意果、有罪，怎能為福行與不動行之緣？——苦楝的種子不生甘蔗（白話 §3）。答：世間成立諸法之緣有處・自性・作用相違的與不相違的，有相似的與不相似的，而那些法並非就是緣的異熟——前心是後心的處相違之緣、先前對工巧的學習是後來作業之緣；業是色的自性相違之緣、乳是酪之緣；光明是眼識的作用相違之緣、糖是酒之緣；眼與色是眼識的處不相違之緣；前速行對後速行自性作用不相違；時節與食之色是色的相似之緣、稻種是稻果之緣；色為非色之緣、非色為色之緣不相似，牛毛逆毛角酪胡麻粉為茅草箭草香草之緣亦不相似。故無明雖依異熟一向不可意、依自性有罪，仍依相違不相違相似不相似之緣而為一切福行等之緣。〔讀法〕苦楝與甘蔗的難問其實在問一件很自然的事：壞的怎麼會生出好的？論主的答案有一個銳角：「為緣」不等於「感異熟」——乳是酪的緣，但酪不是乳的果報；光是眼識的緣，但眼識不是光的果報。無明「幫」了善行生起，善行卻不是無明的異熟。分開這兩件事，緣起裡許多看似矛盾的地方就都通了。〔所見〕
§04 五處之迷與生盲之喻 → 白話 §4
另一法門：於死、於生、於輪迴、於諸行之相、於諸緣生法迷惑者，行作三種行（白話 §4）。於死迷惑者不取「一切處諸蘊之壞就是死」，計度「有情死了、有情移轉到另一個身」；於生迷惑者不取「諸蘊之現起就是生」，計度「有情受生了、有了新的身」；於輪迴迷惑者不取「諸蘊諸界諸處之次第相續不斷地轉起就叫輪迴」，計度「這有情從此世去到他世、從他世來到此世」；於諸行之相迷惑者不取自相共相，計諸行為我、我所、常、樂、淨；於緣生法迷惑者不取由無明等而有行等之轉起，計度「我或知或不知，正是它作、令作；它於結生受生；極微、自在天等為它安立身體令諸根成就；它觸受渴愛取相繫，又在另一有中而有」，或計「一切有情為定命、境遇、自性所轉」。如是計度者如盲人行於地上——或行於道或非道、高處低處平處險處——作福、非福、不動行。偈：「猶如生盲之人而無引導者，有時行於正道，有時也行於邪道；愚人輪迴於輪迴之中，同樣沒有引導者，有時作福，有時也作非福。而當他了知了法、現觀諸諦之時，那時由無明之寂止，他就寂靜而行。」此「無明緣行」一句之廣說。〔讀法〕五處之迷有一個共同的形狀：每一處，迷的人都多看見一個「有情」——死的是有情、生的是有情、去來的是有情、諸行是我、有個作者在作。而不迷的人只看見蘊之壞、蘊之現起、蘊之相續、諸行之相、無明等之轉起。生盲之喻收得很公平：盲人不是只走錯路，他也會誤打誤撞走對——所以善行也在無明裡。明生時不是走上正道，是「寂靜而行」——不再是走。〔所見〕
給一般讀者
三個問答帶走三句話：其一，「甲緣乙」從來不是「甲是乙唯一的因」——經文點的是主要的、顯著的、不共的那一個，別把緣起讀成骨牌；其二，「為緣」不等於「感果」——乳是酪的緣，酪不是乳的果報；無明幫了善行生起，善行不是無明的報應，所以善還是善；其三，迷的人在每一處都多看見一個「有情」——死了誰、生了誰、誰在輪迴——不迷的人只看見蘊在壞、在起、在續。生盲之人也會誤打誤撞走對路；區別不在走對走錯，在有沒有睜開眼。
想讀本單元全文：白話 §1–§4 即無明對三行之緣種、一因一果之辯、善緣不善之辯、五處之迷與生盲喻的全段逐段全譯。
How Does a Neem Seed Produce Sugarcane?—Why Can an Unwholesome Cause Condition Wholesome Formations?
The Big Picture — Reading the First Clause Again through the Twenty-Four Conditions
The preceding unit prepared the tools; this unit uses them in earnest for the first time: in how many ways does ignorance condition each of the three kinds of formation (vernacular §1)? It then answers three difficulties that inevitably arise—whether the presentation of a single cause and a single effect falls into a theory of a single cause (vernacular §2), how unwholesome ignorance can condition wholesome formations (vernacular §3), and exactly how a bewildered person forms formations (vernacular §4). This unit’s bones are three questions and answers; its flesh is two similes: neem and sugarcane, and a person blind from birth. Once this is understood, the pattern of every later “Detailed Account of A as Condition for B” becomes recognizable. 〔Observation〕
§01 In How Many Ways among the Twenty-Four Conditions Ignorance Conditions Formations → Vernacular §1
The verse says: it is a condition for meritorious formations in two ways, for the others in many ways, and for the last formations in a single way (vernacular §1). Two ways for meritorious formations: object condition (when contemplating ignorance in terms of exhaustion and dissolution, it conditions sense-sphere meritorious formations; when knowing a mind accompanied by delusion with a direct-knowledge mind, it conditions fine-material-sphere meritorious formations) and decisive-support condition (for a person who fulfills sense-sphere bases of meritorious deeds such as giving and produces fine-material-sphere jhāna in order to transcend ignorance; and for a person who, bewildered by ignorance and aspiring to attainment in sense and fine-material becoming, performs merit). Many ways for demeritorious formations: when greed and the rest arise with ignorance as object—object condition; when giving it weight and relishing it—object predominance and object decisive support; when killing and so forth while bewildered by ignorance and seeing no danger—decisive support; for the second impulsion and the rest—proximity, contiguity, proximity decisive support, repetition, absence, and disappearance; for anyone committing any unwholesome act—root, conascence, mutuality, support, association, presence, and nondisappearance. A single way for imperturbable formations: decisive-support condition alone. 〔Reading〕 Seeing this allocation clearly means seeing ignorance’s position: for harmful kamma it helps in nearly every way (even by “arising together,” because ignorance itself is in the unwholesome mind); for wholesome kamma it helps only from outside—as object and as powerful cause; for abiding in an immaterial attainment, it serves only as powerful cause. Ignorance is not in a wholesome mind, yet it stands behind the wholesome mind. 〔Observation〕
§02 Why the Presentation of a Single Cause and a Single Effect Is Faultless → Vernacular §2
Difficulty: if ignorance alone is the condition for formations, this falls into a theory of a single cause; if there are other conditions, the single-cause presentation “with ignorance as condition, formations” cannot stand (vernacular §2). Answer: here no single effect arises from a single cause, no multiple effects arise from a single cause, and no single effect arises from multiple causes—what comes from multiple causes is only multiple effects (the many causes climate, earth, seed, and water produce the many effects of a sprout’s visible form, odor, and flavor); yet the presentation of a single cause and a single effect has its meaning. The Blessed One presents a single cause or effect because it is principal (contact conditions feeling—contact is feeling’s principal cause and feeling contact’s principal effect), conspicuous (illnesses arise from phlegm—phlegm is conspicuous, kamma and the rest are not), or distinctive (all unwholesome states have unwise attention as their root—unwise attention is distinctive to the unwholesome, while basis and object are shared), and in accord with mastery of teaching and those to be guided. Ignorance is presented as the cause of formations because it is principal (it is also the cause of the other causes, such as craving—“with the arising of ignorance, there is the arising of the influxes”), conspicuous, and distinctive. 〔Reading〕 This section establishes a rule needed throughout the chapter: “A conditions B” never means that A is B’s only cause—a factor is named because it is principal, conspicuous, or distinctive. Dependent origination is not a theory of a single cause; behind every link in the twelvefold chain stands a company of conditions, while the scripture names the factor most in need of naming. Forget this rule, and dependent origination becomes a row of dominoes. 〔Observation〕
§03 How Unwholesome Ignorance Can Condition Meritorious and Imperturbable Formations → Vernacular §3
Difficulty: ignorance invariably bears undesirable results and is blameworthy; how can it condition meritorious and imperturbable formations?—a neem seed does not produce sugarcane (vernacular §3). Answer: in the world, conditions for phenomena are established as contrary or noncontrary in place, nature, and function, and as similar or dissimilar, yet the conditioned phenomena are not simply the results of those conditions—a preceding mind is a place-contrary condition for a subsequent mind, and prior training in a craft conditions later practice; kamma is a nature-contrary condition for materiality, and milk conditions curds; light is a function-contrary condition for eye-consciousness, and sugar conditions liquor; eye and visible form are place-noncontrary conditions for eye-consciousness; earlier impulsions are nature- and function-noncontrary conditions for later impulsions; materiality called climate and nutriment is a similar condition for materiality, and rice seed for rice fruit; materiality conditions the immaterial and the immaterial conditions materiality as dissimilar conditions, while cow hair, reverse-growing hair, horn, curds, and sesame flour condition thatch grass, arrow grass, and fragrant grass, likewise dissimilarly. Thus, although ignorance invariably bears undesirable results and is blameworthy in nature, it still conditions all meritorious formations and the rest through contrary, noncontrary, similar, and dissimilar relations. 〔Reading〕 The neem-and-sugarcane difficulty asks something very natural: how can the bad give rise to the good? The Commentator’s answer has a sharp edge: “being a condition” does not mean “producing a result”—milk conditions curds, but curds are not milk’s kammic result; light conditions eye-consciousness, but eye-consciousness is not light’s kammic result. Ignorance “helps” a wholesome formation arise, yet the wholesome formation is not ignorance’s result. Once these two matters are separated, many apparent contradictions in dependent origination open out. 〔Observation〕
§04 Delusion in Five Fields and the Simile of a Person Blind from Birth → Vernacular §4
Another method: a person bewildered about death, rebirth, saṃsāra, the characteristics of formations, and dependently originated phenomena forms the three kinds of formation (vernacular §4). A person bewildered about death does not take “the breakup of the aggregates everywhere is death,” but speculates, “A being dies; a being passes into another body.” A person bewildered about rebirth does not take “the manifestation of the aggregates is birth” as rebirth, but speculates, “A being is born; a being has a new body.” A person bewildered about saṃsāra does not take “the succession of aggregates, elements, and bases, proceeding uninterruptedly, is called saṃsāra,” but speculates, “This being goes from this world to another and comes from another world to this world.” A person bewildered about the characteristics of formations does not take their individual and common characteristics, but conceives formations as self, belonging to self, permanent, pleasant, and pure. A person bewildered about dependently originated phenomena does not take the occurrence of formations and the rest through ignorance and the rest, but speculates: “Whether the self knows or not, it acts and causes action; it takes birth at rebirth-linking; atoms, a sovereign deity, and the rest fashion its body and complete its faculties; it contacts, feels, craves, clings, connects, and comes to be again in another becoming”; or supposes that all beings are transformed by destiny, circumstance, and nature. Such a person is like somebody blind walking on the earth—by a path or a nonpath, over high or low ground, even or uneven—and forms meritorious, demeritorious, and imperturbable formations. The verse says: “Just as a person blind from birth, without a guide, sometimes travels by the path and sometimes by a wrong path, so too a foolish person wandering in saṃsāra, without a guide, sometimes performs merit and sometimes demerit. But when that person knows the Dhamma and directly comprehends the truths, then, through the calming of ignorance, that person will fare in peace.” This is the detailed account of the clause “with ignorance as condition, formations.” 〔Reading〕 Delusion in these five fields has a common shape: in every field, a bewildered person sees an extra “being”—a being dies, a being is born, a being comes and goes, formations are self, and an agent acts. A person free of bewilderment sees only the breakup of aggregates, the manifestation of aggregates, their continuity, the characteristics of formations, and occurrence through ignorance and the rest. The simile of blindness closes evenhandedly: a blind person does not only take wrong roads but may stumble onto a right road—hence wholesome formations too occur within ignorance. When understanding arises, the person does not step onto the right road but “fares in peace”—walking no more. 〔Observation〕
For the General Reader
Take three statements from these three questions and answers. First, “A conditions B” never means “A is B’s only cause”: the scripture names what is principal, conspicuous, or distinctive; do not read dependent origination as dominoes. Second, “being a condition” does not mean “producing a result”: milk conditions curds, but curds are not milk’s kammic result; ignorance helps a wholesome formation arise, but that formation is not ignorance’s retribution, so it remains wholesome. Third, in every field a bewildered person sees an extra “being”—who died, who was born, who wanders in saṃsāra—while a person free of bewilderment sees only aggregates breaking up, manifesting, and continuing. A person blind from birth may also stumble onto the right road; the distinction is not between taking the right and wrong road, but between having one’s eyes open and closed.
To read this unit in full: vernacular §§1–4 translate in full, paragraph by paragraph, the ways in which ignorance conditions the three formations, the debate about a single cause and effect, the debate about wholesome formations conditioned by the unwholesome, the five fields of delusion, and the simile of a person blind from birth.
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 1 個，即本篇之題 ### Avijjāpaccayāsaṅkhārapadavitthārakathā。
段號域 譯底欄之段號自〔CSCD §616〕至〔CSCD §619〕，實落段號 4 個，號序連續無缺。本篇於譯底欄之幅為 8,208 位元組。
篇之骨——一配三難 〔CSCD §616〕以一偈配無明於二十四緣（配），其後三段各答一難：〔CSCD §617〕答「一因一果之說可否」・〔CSCD §618〕答「不善之無明何以為善行之緣」・〔CSCD §619〕以「五處之迷」別開一門而收之。三難之首二皆以 Etthāha –（此中有問）起，第三則以 Apica ayaṃ aññopi pariyāyo（復有他法門）起——三段之起式二同一異。
篇末之收 本篇收於一縮排之句 Ayaṃ ''avijjāpaccayā saṅkhārā''ti padasmiṃ vitthārakathā.（此為「無明緣行」一句之廣說）——此式為本品逐句廣說諸篇之通收式，自本篇起至取緣有廣說之單元凡七篇皆用之，本篇為其首出。
前後接點 前承發趣二十四緣之單元：本篇首句 Evamimesu catuvīsatiyā paccayesu ayaṃ avijjā 逐字回指彼篇之全列。後接行緣識廣說之單元：本篇既竟無明緣行一句，次篇即以 Saṅkhārapaccayā viññāṇapade 起第二句之廣說——二篇之接即十二支之句序。
movement 品夾《總覽》繫本單元於 §B〈十二支〉；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。前此諸品或本品前單元已立之讀不重解——本篇所涉者為 avijjā（無明）・saṅkhāra（行）・puññābhisaṅkhāra・apuññābhisaṅkhāra・āneñjābhisaṅkhāra（福行・非福行・不動行，於前二單元既立）・二十四緣之諸名（於前一單元既立）・javana（速行）・paṭisandhi（結生）・vipāka（異熟）・saṃsāra（輪迴）・sassata・uccheda（常・斷）。以下唯列本篇新出者。
無明於二十四緣中之配〔CSCD §616〕
| 巴利 | 本編用語 | 本篇用法之要 | 定位 |
|---|---|---|---|
| duvidhā | 二種 | 無明為福行之緣之數：所緣緣與親依止緣 | 〔CSCD §616〕 |
| anekadhā | 多種 | 無明為非福行之緣之數；論逐一列其名而不出總數 | 〔CSCD §616〕 |
| ekadhā | 一種 | 無明為不動行之緣之數：唯親依止緣 | 〔CSCD §616〕 |
| khayato vayato sammasanakāla | 以盡以滅而思惟之時 | 無明為福行之所緣緣之位 | 〔CSCD §616〕 |
| abhiññācittena samohacittaṃ jānanakāla | 以神通心知有癡之心之時 | 無明為色界福行之所緣緣之位 | 〔CSCD §616〕 |
| avijjāsamatikkamattha | 為超越無明 | 無明為福行之親依止緣之第一位 | 〔CSCD §616〕 |
| avijjāsammūḷhattā | 由為無明所迷 | 無明為福行之親依止緣之第二位：求欲有色有之成就而作福 | 〔CSCD §616〕 |
| garuṃkatvā assādanakāla | 尊重而味著之時 | 無明為非福行之所緣增上與所緣親依止之位 | 〔CSCD §616〕 |
| anādīnavadassāvī | 不見過患者 | 為無明所迷而造殺生等者之相 | 〔CSCD §616〕 |
一因一果之難〔CSCD §617〕
| 巴利 | 本編用語 | 本篇用法之要 | 定位 |
|---|---|---|---|
| ekakāraṇavāda | 一因論 | 難者所指之過：若唯無明為緣，則墮一因論 | 〔CSCD §617〕 |
| ekakāraṇaniddesa | 一因之指示 | 難者所指之第二過：若別有緣，則「無明緣行」之一因指示不成 | 〔CSCD §617〕 |
| ekekahetuphaladīpana | 一因一果之顯示 | 論之答之所立：其顯示自有其用 | 〔CSCD §617〕 |
| padhānattā | 以其為主故 | 一因顯示之三由之一；論舉 ''Phassapaccayā vedanā''ti 為例 | 〔CSCD §617〕 |
| pākaṭattā | 以其顯著故 | 三由之二；論舉「痰所起之病」為例 | 〔CSCD §617〕 |
| asādhāraṇattā | 以其不共故 | 三由之三；論舉「不如理作意為不善法之根」為例 | 〔CSCD §617〕 |
| yathāphassaṃ vedanā vavatthānato | 依觸而受得其安立 | 觸為受之主因之由 | 〔CSCD §617〕 |
| utupathavībījasalila | 時節・地・種・水 | 芽之喻之四因；論以之明「多因生多果」 | 〔CSCD §617〕 |
相違與不相違之緣〔CSCD §618〕
| 巴利 | 本編用語 | 本篇用法之要 | 定位 |
|---|---|---|---|
| ṭhānaviruddha | 處相違 | 三種相違之一：前心為後心之處相違之緣 | 〔CSCD §618〕 |
| sabhāvaviruddha | 自性相違 | 三種相違之二：業為色之緣、乳等為酪等之緣 | 〔CSCD §618〕 |
| kiccaviruddha | 作用相違 | 三種相違之三：光明為眼識之緣 | 〔CSCD §618〕 |
| ṭhānāviruddha | 處不相違 | 與上為對：眼色等為眼識等之緣 | 〔CSCD §618〕 |
| sadisa・asadisa | 相似・不相似 | 緣之第二對分：時節食等之色為色之緣為相似，色為非色之緣為不相似 | 〔CSCD §618〕 |
| na vipākā eva | 非即是異熟 | 論之判：緣所生之法不必為其緣之異熟——本篇答難之關鍵句 | 〔CSCD §618〕 |
| ekantāniṭṭhaphalā・sāvajjā | 一向不可意果・有罪 | 無明之二相；論許其如此而仍成善行之緣 | 〔CSCD §618〕 |
五處之迷〔CSCD §619〕
| 巴利 | 本編用語 | 本篇用法之要 | 定位 |
|---|---|---|---|
| cuti | 死 | 五處之一；迷者計 satto marati, sattassa dehantarasaṅkamana | 〔CSCD §619〕 |
| upapāta | 生 | 五處之二；迷者計 satto upapajjati, sattassa navasarīrapātubhāvo | 〔CSCD §619〕 |
| saṃsāra | 輪迴 | 五處之三；論引一偈自釋其為 ''Khandhānañca paṭipāṭi, dhātuāyatanāna ca; 與 Abbocchinnaṃ vattamānā, saṃsāroti pavuccatī''ti | 〔CSCD §619〕 |
| sabhāvalakkhaṇa・sāmaññalakkhaṇa | 自相・共相 | 五處之四所迷者：迷之則計行為我・我所・常・樂・淨 | 〔CSCD §619〕 |
| aṇuissara | 極微・自在天 | 五處之五所迷者之計：以其為安身之作者 | 〔CSCD §619〕 |
| niyatisaṅgatibhāvapariṇatā | 為定命・境遇・自性所轉 | 同上之第二計；論引經而錄之 | 〔CSCD §619〕 |
| avijjāya andhīkata | 為無明所盲 | 論之總判；下接生盲之喻 | 〔CSCD §619〕 |
| apariṇāyaka | 無導者 | 生盲之喻之要語；末偈復出之 | 〔CSCD §619〕 |
本編既有校讀須併觀之二處 ①既有校讀之 §G 立「無我轉生」一事作「無一常住之我貫穿諸支或往來生死」，與譯底欄〔CSCD §619〕之五處之迷之第一二處（死與生之迷所計之 satto marati・satto upapajjati）逐字相合，定讀逐字保入；然既有校讀繫此事於 §G 而譯底欄於本篇即已立之——「無我轉生」一義於譯底欄二見（本篇與行緣識廣說之單元），既有校讀唯繫其一。誌其實，不代改。②既有校讀之 §G 立「離二邊」作「常見（sassata，有我恆存）與斷見（uccheda，死即斷滅）之中道」；譯底欄本篇之 sassatādivipallāsena 之族與此相貫，而本篇之所遮更有 aṇuissarādayo（極微自在天等）與 niyatisaṅgatibhāvapariṇatā（定命境遇自性）二計——二計既有校讀未出。本目誌其實，不代補於彼。
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；異說之標識詞 Porāṇā／porāṇā 零命中。方括注唯二式（[§NN] 段號 4 個與版頁記 7 個，後者皆在註記之內）。圓括注 4 處，逐一為出處標記，無非出處之括注。引號 '' 實測 40 處為偶數，逐一成對。查無即記無：譯底欄自身無異讀之記。
本欄自出之二處引而不繫號 本篇之引六，其中二引無出處括注：①〔CSCD §617〕之 ''Ye keci, bhikkhave, akusalā dhammā, sabbe te ayonisomanasikāramūlakā''ti（不共之例）；②〔CSCD §617〕之 ''avidvā, bhikkhave, avijjāgato puññābhisaṅkhārampi abhisaṅkharotī''ti（顯著之例）——後者即無明緣行句之單元所引而彼處亦不繫號者，一引二見而二處俱不繫號。誌其實而不代考定其所出。
本欄自出之一處自引本篇之前文 〔CSCD §618〕之末，論以引號逐字回引無明緣行句之單元之語：''yassa hi dukkhādīsu avijjāsaṅkhātaṃ aññāṇaṃ appahīnaṃ hoti, so dukkhe tāva pubbantādīsu ca aññāṇena saṃsāradukkhaṃ sukhasaññāya gahetvā tassa hetubhūte tividhepi saṅkhāre ārabhatī''tiādinā。其所引之字與彼篇之原文有一處之異：彼篇作 tasseva hetubhūte，本篇之回引作 tassa hetubhūte（少一 eva）。本欄誌其字面之異而不判其為傳本之別、清檔之記或論主之省。
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 §617〕 | ''Semhasamuṭṭhānā ābādhā''ti | 「顯著故說一因」之例——痰所起之諸病 | (a. ni. 10.60) |
| 〔CSCD §617〕 | ''Ye keci, bhikkhave, akusalā dhammā, sabbe te ayonisomanasikāramūlakā''ti | 「不共故說一因」之例 | 無（引而不繫號） |
| 〔CSCD §617〕 | ''assādānupassino taṇhā pavaḍḍhatī''ti | 證行之因不唯無明——渴愛亦為其因 | (saṃ. ni. 2.52) |
| 〔CSCD §617〕 | ''avijjāsamudayā āsavasamudayo''ti | 證無明為渴愛等行因之因——與緣起總說之單元所引之 ''Āsavasamudayā avijjāsamudayo''ti 恰為逆句 | (ma. ni. 1.104) |
| 〔CSCD §617〕 | ''avidvā, bhikkhave, avijjāgato puññābhisaṅkhārampi abhisaṅkharotī''ti | 證無明為行因之顯著 | 無（引而不繫號） |
| 〔CSCD §619〕 | ''sabbe sattā niyatisaṅgatibhāvapariṇatā''ti | 於緣生法迷者之第二計 | (dī. ni. 1.168) |
論主自作之偈四首 本篇之偈皆論主自作而非所引：①〔CSCD §616〕之配偈 Paccayo hoti puññānaṃ, duvidhānekadhā pana;（二行）；②〔CSCD §617〕之答難偈 Ekaṃ na ekato idha, nānekamanekatopi no ekaṃ;（二行）；③〔CSCD §618〕之相違不相違偈 Viruddho cāviruddho ca, sadisāsadiso tathā;（二行）；④〔CSCD §619〕之五處迷偈 Cutūpapāte saṃsāre, saṅkhārānañca lakkhaṇe;（四行）。四偈皆以「偈立其綱・散文逐句釋之」之式行文——Tattha puññānaṃ duvidhāti・Anekadhā pana paresanti・Pacchimānaṃ sā ekadhā paccayo matāti 逐字回提偈之語而釋之，為本篇之骨。另〔CSCD §619〕之末有所引之偈一組三首（見下）。
所引之偈一組 〔CSCD §619〕之末以 Tenetaṃ vuccati –（故說此）起，引 ''Yathāpi nāma jaccandho, naro apariṇāyako; 以下三首六行之偈——論不標其所出，亦不繫號。誌其實而不代考定。
引式之數〔本欄實測〕 Tenetaṃ vuccati 1 處・Yathāha・Vuttañhetaṃ・Vuttampi cetaṃ・Tena vuttaṃ・Porāṇā・kira 俱零命中——為本品十一單元中引式之標語最疏之篇（六引之中四引逕以引號起而無標語）。本文自標之圓括注出處 4 處，其分布為 a. ni. 1・saṃ. ni. 1・ma. ni. 1・dī. ni. 1——四部各一，為本品十一單元中分布最均者。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 詞界零命中（pathaviyaṃ 一語之內雖含其形，非詞）、sadisa 諸形 9 見、iva 詞界 零命中。本篇之喻不用 viya 而用 Yathā／evaṃ 之對句式與 sadisa 之類比式——為本品十一單元中唯一 viya 詞界零命中之篇，誌其體例之異。
| 位置 | 譬喻 | 所配之義 |
|---|---|---|
| 〔CSCD §617〕 | anekehi utupathavībījasalilasaṅkhātehi kāraṇehi anekameva rūpagandharasādikaṃ aṅkurasaṅkhātaṃ phalaṃ uppajjamānaṃ dissati | 如時節地種水四因生芽之色香味等——多因生多果 |
| 〔CSCD §618〕 | Na hi nimbabījato ucchu uppajjatīti | 苦楝種不生甘蔗——難者之喻，非論主之喻 |
| 〔CSCD §618〕 | purimasippādisikkhā ca pacchā pavattamānānaṃ sippādikiriyānaṃ | 如先學工巧為後起工巧之緣——處相違之緣 |
| 〔CSCD §618〕 | khīrādīni ca dadhiādīnaṃ | 如乳等為酪等之緣——自性相違之緣 |
| 〔CSCD §618〕 | guḷādayo ca āsavādīnaṃ | 如糖等為酒等之緣——作用相違之緣 |
| 〔CSCD §618〕 | sālibījādīni ca sāliphalādīnaṃ | 如稻種為稻果之緣——相似之緣 |
| 〔CSCD §618〕 | golomāviloma-visāṇa-dadhitilapiṭṭhādīni ca dubbā-sarabhūtiṇakādīnaṃ | 如牛毛逆毛角酪胡麻粉等為茅草等之緣——不相似之緣 |
| 〔CSCD §619〕 | yathā nāma andho pathaviyaṃ vicaranto maggampi amaggampi thalampi ninnampi samampi visamampi paṭipajjati | 如盲者行於地而或道或非道、或高或下、或平或險——為無明所盲者之或福或非福 |
| 〔CSCD §619〕 | ''Yathāpi nāma jaccandho, naro apariṇāyako; | 如生盲而無導者——同上之偈頌形；一喻而散文與偈頌二體並出 |
難者之喻與論主之喻並列 〔CSCD §618〕之苦楝種喻為難者所立（Na hi nimbabījato ucchu uppajjatīti 之後即論主之 Kathaṃ na yujjissati?），而其後之六喻皆論主所立以破之。一段之內難者一喻、論主六喻，誌其配而不作評。
乙・修辭之可核觀察 ①本篇之骨為偈立綱・散文逐句回提：〔CSCD §616〕一段之三回提逐字作 Tattha puññānaṃ duvidhāti・Anekadhā pana paresanti・Pacchimānaṃ sā ekadhā paccayo matāti，與其偈之三句逐一相配。②Etthāha – 之設難式 2 見（〔CSCD §617〕〔CSCD §618〕），為本品之最密。③Kasmā? 自問 1 見・? 全篇 6 見。④偈頌實測：縮排之行 19 行，其中論主自作之偈四首（八行）・所引之無主之偈一組三首（六行）・輪迴之釋偈一首（二行）・餘三行為偈之續行。⑤…pe… 省略式零命中——本品十一單元中零命中者三篇（本篇・名色緣六處廣說・六處緣觸等三句廣說）。⑥「應知」一語之屈折諸形全篇 4 見。⑦vikappeti（計度）一語 5 見，逐一為五處之迷之一計。
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 §616〕 Evamimesu catuvīsatiyā paccayesu ayaṃ avijjā | 發趣二十四緣之單元〔CSCD §594〕 | 彼篇立二十四緣之全列，本篇逐字回指而配之 |
〔CSCD §617〕 ''Phassapaccayā vedanā''ti hi padhānattā ekameva hetuphalamāha | 六處緣觸等之單元〔CSCD §643〕 | 彼篇正廣說觸為受之緣之八種 |
〔CSCD §617〕 ''assādānupassino taṇhā pavaḍḍhatī''ti | 緣起總說之單元〔CSCD §586〕 | 彼篇引同句為「一法為本之說」之例二 |
〔CSCD §617〕 ''avijjāsamudayā āsavasamudayo''ti | 緣起總說之單元〔CSCD §584〕・有輪之單元〔CSCD §652〕 | 二處皆引其逆句 ''Āsavasamudayā avijjāsamudayo''ti；三處相引而句向相反，其位可核 |
〔CSCD §618〕 ''yassa hi dukkhādīsu avijjāsaṅkhātaṃ aññāṇaṃ appahīnaṃ hoti | 無明緣行句之單元〔CSCD §593〕 | 論逐字回引彼篇之句而以之為無明之緣性之所已說（其字之一異見目三） |
〔CSCD §619〕 Saṅkhārānaṃ lakkhaṇe vimūḷho saṅkhārānaṃ sabhāvalakkhaṇaṃ sāmaññalakkhaṇañca agaṇhanto | 有輪之單元〔CSCD §658〕 | 彼篇以 salakkhaṇasāmaññalakkhaṇavasena dhammānaṃ adassanato andho viya avijjā 復用盲喻與二相 |
〔CSCD §619〕 ''Khandhānañca paṭipāṭi, dhātuāyatanāna ca; | 有輪之單元〔CSCD §660〕 | 彼篇以 santānānupacchedo ekattanayo 立相續不斷之理趣，與本篇之輪迴之釋相貫 |
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 a single ### subsection, whose title is this division’s ### Avijjāpaccayāsaṅkhārapadavitthārakathā.
Paragraph-number range The base-text column runs from 〔CSCD §616〕 through 〔CSCD §619〕, with 4 paragraph numbers actually present and no gap in their continuous sequence. This division spans 8,208 bytes in the base-text column.
The unit’s backbone—a correspondence and three challenges 〔CSCD §616〕 assigns ignorance among the twenty-four conditions in a verse (the correspondence); each of the next three paragraphs answers a challenge: 〔CSCD §617〕 answers “whether the statement of a single cause and a single result is tenable”・〔CSCD §618〕 answers “how unwholesome ignorance can be a condition for wholesome formations”・〔CSCD §619〕 opens a distinct method through “delusion in five fields” and brings the unit to a close. The first two challenges both begin with Etthāha – (here it is asked), while the third begins with Apica ayaṃ aññopi pariyāyo (further, there is also this other method)—the opening formulas of the three paragraphs comprise two alike and a third different.
The unit’s close This division ends with the indented sentence Ayaṃ ''avijjāpaccayā saṅkhārā''ti padasmiṃ vitthārakathā. (this is the detailed account of the phrase “with ignorance as condition, formations”)—this is the common closing formula for the chapter’s units that explain each clause in detail. From this division through the detailed unit on clinging conditioning becoming, the formula occurs in all seven such units; its first occurrence is here.
Connections before and after The preceding unit concerns the twenty-four conditions of the Paṭṭhāna: this division’s opening sentence Evamimesu catuvīsatiyā paccayesu ayaṃ avijjā refers back verbatim to its full list. It is followed by the detailed unit on formations conditioning consciousness: once this division completes the clause “ignorance conditions formations,” the next begins the detailed explanation of the second clause with Saṅkhārapaccayā viññāṇapade—the connection between the two divisions is simply the order of clauses among the twelve links.
Movement The chapter’s accompanying Overview links this unit to §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 or earlier units of this chapter are not explained again. Terms already established that occur here are avijjā (ignorance)・saṅkhāra (formations)・puññābhisaṅkhāra・apuññābhisaṅkhāra・āneñjābhisaṅkhāra (meritorious formation・demeritorious formation・imperturbable formation, established in the preceding two units)・the names of the twenty-four conditions (established in the immediately preceding unit)・javana (impulsion)・paṭisandhi (rebirth-linking)・vipāka (result)・saṃsāra (round of rebirth)・sassata・uccheda (eternalism・annihilationism). Only terms new in this division are listed below.
How Ignorance Is Assigned Among the Twenty-Four Conditions 〔CSCD §616〕
| Pāli | Rendering | Usage in this unit | Locus |
|---|---|---|---|
| duvidhā | in two modes | the count of modes in which ignorance conditions meritorious formation: object condition and decisive-support condition | 〔CSCD §616〕 |
| anekadhā | in many modes | the count of modes in which ignorance conditions demeritorious formation; the treatise lists their names individually without giving a total | 〔CSCD §616〕 |
| ekadhā | in a single mode | the count of modes in which ignorance conditions imperturbable formation: decisive-support condition alone | 〔CSCD §616〕 |
| khayato vayato sammasanakāla | at the time of comprehending as exhaustion and dissolution | the occasion when ignorance serves as object condition for meritorious formation | 〔CSCD §616〕 |
| abhiññācittena samohacittaṃ jānanakāla | at the time of knowing a mind with delusion by means of direct-knowledge mind | the occasion when ignorance serves as object condition for fine-material-sphere meritorious formation | 〔CSCD §616〕 |
| avijjāsamatikkamattha | for the purpose of surmounting ignorance | the first occasion when ignorance serves as decisive-support condition for meritorious formation | 〔CSCD §616〕 |
| avijjāsammūḷhattā | through being deluded by ignorance | the second occasion when ignorance serves as decisive-support condition for meritorious formation: merit is performed while aspiring to accomplishment in sensual becoming or fine-material becoming | 〔CSCD §616〕 |
| garuṃkatvā assādanakāla | at the time of relishing after treating it as weighty | the occasion when ignorance serves as object-predominance and object-decisive-support conditions for demeritorious formation | 〔CSCD §616〕 |
| anādīnavadassāvī | not seeing danger | the characteristic of a person who, deluded by ignorance, commits killing and the rest | 〔CSCD §616〕 |
The Challenge Concerning a Single Cause and a Single Result 〔CSCD §617〕
| Pāli | Rendering | Usage in this unit | Locus |
|---|---|---|---|
| ekakāraṇavāda | doctrine of a single cause | the fault alleged by the challenger: if ignorance alone is the condition, the account falls into a doctrine of a single cause | 〔CSCD §617〕 |
| ekakāraṇaniddesa | presentation of a single cause | the second fault alleged by the challenger: if other conditions exist, the presentation of a single cause in “with ignorance as condition, formations” is untenable | 〔CSCD §617〕 |
| ekekahetuphaladīpana | illustration of a single cause and a single result | the Commentator’s answer: such an illustration has its own purpose | 〔CSCD §617〕 |
| padhānattā | because it is principal | first of three reasons for illustrating a single cause; the treatise gives ''Phassapaccayā vedanā''ti as the example | 〔CSCD §617〕 |
| pākaṭattā | because it is evident | second of three reasons; the treatise gives “illnesses originating in phlegm” as the example | 〔CSCD §617〕 |
| asādhāraṇattā | because it is not shared | third of three reasons; the treatise gives “unwise attention as the root of unwholesome phenomena” as the example | 〔CSCD §617〕 |
| yathāphassaṃ vedanā vavatthānato | because feeling is determined according to contact | the reason contact is the principal cause of feeling | 〔CSCD §617〕 |
| utupathavībījasalila | climate・earth・seed・water | the four causes in the sprout simile; the treatise uses them to show that “many causes produce many results” | 〔CSCD §617〕 |
Contrary and Noncontrary Conditions 〔CSCD §618〕
| Pāli | Rendering | Usage in this unit | Locus |
|---|---|---|---|
| ṭhānaviruddha | contrary in position | first of three kinds of contrariety: the preceding mind is a condition contrary in position for the subsequent mind | 〔CSCD §618〕 |
| sabhāvaviruddha | contrary in nature | second of three kinds: kamma is a condition for materiality, and milk and the rest are conditions for curd and the rest | 〔CSCD §618〕 |
| kiccaviruddha | contrary in function | third of three kinds: light is a condition for eye-consciousness | 〔CSCD §618〕 |
| ṭhānāviruddha | noncontrary in position | counterpart to the preceding: the eye, visible form, and the rest are conditions for eye-consciousness and the rest | 〔CSCD §618〕 |
| sadisa・asadisa | similar・dissimilar | the second paired division of conditions: materiality from climate, nutriment, and the rest serving as a condition for materiality is similar; materiality serving as a condition for the immaterial is dissimilar | 〔CSCD §618〕 |
| na vipākā eva | are not necessarily results | the treatise’s judgment: phenomena arisen through a condition need not be results of that condition—the key sentence in this division’s answer to the challenge | 〔CSCD §618〕 |
| ekantāniṭṭhaphalā・sāvajjā | yielding exclusively undesirable results・blameworthy | two characteristics of ignorance; the treatise allows both while still holding that ignorance conditions wholesome formations | 〔CSCD §618〕 |
Delusion in Five Fields 〔CSCD §619〕
| Pāli | Rendering | Usage in this unit | Locus |
|---|---|---|---|
| cuti | death | first of five fields; a deluded person conceives satto marati, sattassa dehantarasaṅkamana | 〔CSCD §619〕 |
| upapāta | rebirth | second of five fields; a deluded person conceives satto upapajjati, sattassa navasarīrapātubhāvo | 〔CSCD §619〕 |
| saṃsāra | round of rebirth | third of five fields; the treatise cites a verse and itself explains it as ''Khandhānañca paṭipāṭi, dhātuāyatanāna ca; together with Abbocchinnaṃ vattamānā, saṃsāroti pavuccatī''ti | 〔CSCD §619〕 |
| sabhāvalakkhaṇa・sāmaññalakkhaṇa | individual characteristic・general characteristic | the fourth field in which a person is deluded: through this delusion, formations are conceived as self・belonging to self・permanent・pleasant・pure | 〔CSCD §619〕 |
| aṇuissara | atoms・a controlling lord | the belief of a person deluded in the fifth field: these are taken as makers that establish the body | 〔CSCD §619〕 |
| niyatisaṅgatibhāvapariṇatā | transformed by destiny・circumstance・nature | the second belief in the same field; the treatise records it through a scriptural citation | 〔CSCD §619〕 |
| avijjāya andhīkata | blinded by ignorance | the treatise’s general judgment, followed by the simile of a person blind from birth | 〔CSCD §619〕 |
| apariṇāyaka | without a guide | key expression in the simile of blindness from birth; it recurs in the closing verses | 〔CSCD §619〕 |
Two Places Where This Edition’s Existing Critical Reading Must Be Considered Together (1) The existing critical reading’s §G establishes “no transmigrating self” as “no permanent self runs through the links or passes between lives.” This corresponds verbatim to the first two fields of delusion in the base-text column at 〔CSCD §619〕 (the conceptions satto marati and satto upapajjati under delusion concerning death and rebirth), and the fixed reading is carried forward verbatim. The existing critical reading, however, links this matter to §G, while the base-text column already establishes it in this division—“no transmigrating self” occurs twice in the base-text column (here and in the detailed unit on formations conditioning consciousness), while the existing critical reading links only a single occurrence. The fact is recorded without emendation. (2) The existing critical reading’s §G establishes “free of two extremes” as “the middle between eternalism (sassata, a self that persists) and annihilationism (uccheda, death as cut-off).” The family of sassatādivipallāsena in this division’s base-text column is continuous with this; what this division excludes also includes the two beliefs in aṇuissarādayo (atoms, a controlling lord, and the rest) and niyatisaṅgatibhāvapariṇatā (destiny, circumstance, and nature)—these two beliefs are absent from the existing critical reading. This section records the fact without supplying them 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; and zero occurrences of the alternative-account markers Porāṇā／porāṇā. Square brackets occur in only two forms (4 [§NN] paragraph numbers and 7 edition-page records, all of the latter inside annotations). There are 4 parenthetical annotations, each a source marker, with no non-source parenthetical annotations. The quotation marker '' occurs 40 times, an even number, and every occurrence forms a pair. Absence found is recorded as absence: the base-text column itself records no variant readings.
Two Citations Without Attached Numbers in This Column This division has six citations, of which two have no parenthetical source annotation: (1) ''Ye keci, bhikkhave, akusalā dhammā, sabbe te ayonisomanasikāramūlakā''ti in 〔CSCD §617〕 (the example of being unshared); (2) ''avidvā, bhikkhave, avijjāgato puññābhisaṅkhārampi abhisaṅkharotī''ti in 〔CSCD §617〕 (the example of being evident)—the latter is the very citation given in the unit on the clause “ignorance conditions formations,” where it likewise has no attached number: the same citation occurs twice, without an attached number in either place. The fact is recorded without identifying its source on the text’s behalf.
A Place Where This Column Quotes an Earlier Passage in the Same Chapter At the end of 〔CSCD §618〕, the Commentator quotes verbatim the words of the unit on the clause “ignorance conditions formations”: ''yassa hi dukkhādīsu avijjāsaṅkhātaṃ aññāṇaṃ appahīnaṃ hoti, so dukkhe tāva pubbantādīsu ca aññāṇena saṃsāradukkhaṃ sukhasaññāya gahetvā tassa hetubhūte tividhepi saṅkhāre ārabhatī''tiādinā. The wording cited here differs at a single place from the original in that division: the earlier unit reads tasseva hetubhūte, while this division’s quotation reads tassa hetubhūte (lacking eva). This column records the literal difference without judging whether it is a difference in textual transmission, a feature of the clean file, or an abbreviation by the Commentator.
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 Form [verbatim] | Gist of Citation | Source Marked by the Text |
|---|---|---|---|
| 〔CSCD §617〕 | ''Semhasamuṭṭhānā ābādhā''ti | example of “stating a single cause because it is evident”—illnesses originating in phlegm | (a. ni. 10.60) |
| 〔CSCD §617〕 | ''Ye keci, bhikkhave, akusalā dhammā, sabbe te ayonisomanasikāramūlakā''ti | example of “stating a single cause because it is not shared” | none (citation without an attached number) |
| 〔CSCD §617〕 | ''assādānupassino taṇhā pavaḍḍhatī''ti | proof that the cause of formations is not ignorance alone—craving is also a cause | (saṃ. ni. 2.52) |
| 〔CSCD §617〕 | ''avijjāsamudayā āsavasamudayo''ti | proof that ignorance is a cause of the causes of formations, such as craving—the exact reverse of ''Āsavasamudayā avijjāsamudayo''ti, cited in the general unit on dependent origination | (ma. ni. 1.104) |
| 〔CSCD §617〕 | ''avidvā, bhikkhave, avijjāgato puññābhisaṅkhārampi abhisaṅkharotī''ti | proof that ignorance is evident as a cause of formations | none (citation without an attached number) |
| 〔CSCD §619〕 | ''sabbe sattā niyatisaṅgatibhāvapariṇatā''ti | the second belief of a person deluded concerning dependently originated phenomena | (dī. ni. 1.168) |
Four Verses Composed by the Commentator Every verse in the main body of this division was composed by the Commentator rather than cited: (1) the correspondence verse in 〔CSCD §616〕, Paccayo hoti puññānaṃ, duvidhānekadhā pana; (two lines); (2) the answer-to-the-challenge verse in 〔CSCD §617〕, Ekaṃ na ekato idha, nānekamanekatopi no ekaṃ; (two lines); (3) the verse on contrary and noncontrary conditions in 〔CSCD §618〕, Viruddho cāviruddho ca, sadisāsadiso tathā; (two lines); (4) the verse on delusion in five fields in 〔CSCD §619〕, Cutūpapāte saṃsāre, saṅkhārānañca lakkhaṇe; (four lines). All four verses follow the pattern “the verse establishes the outline; prose explains it phrase by phrase”—Tattha puññānaṃ duvidhāti・Anekadhā pana paresanti・Pacchimānaṃ sā ekadhā paccayo matāti take up the verse’s words verbatim and explain them, forming this division’s backbone. A set of three cited verses occurs at the end of 〔CSCD §619〕 (see below).
A Single Set of Cited Verses At the end of 〔CSCD §619〕, Tenetaṃ vuccati – (therefore this is said) introduces three verses in six lines beginning ''Yathāpi nāma jaccandho, naro apariṇāyako;—the treatise neither identifies their source nor attaches a number. The fact is recorded without identifying them on its behalf.
Counts of Citation Formulas [measured in this column] Tenetaṃ vuccati occurs once・Yathāha, Vuttañhetaṃ, Vuttampi cetaṃ, Tena vuttaṃ, Porāṇā, and kira all have zero occurrences—the sparsest use of formulaic citation markers among this chapter’s eleven units (four of the six citations begin directly with quotation marks and have no marker). Parenthetical sources marked by the text total 4 occurrences, distributed as a. ni. 1・saṃ. ni. 1・ma. ni. 1・dī. ni. 1—a single occurrence in each of four collections, the most even distribution among this chapter’s eleven units. These counts apply only to this division’s scope and do not extend to the whole work.
V. Similes and Rhetoric
This section records only where this division’s similes occur and what they illustrate, without literary evaluation.
A. Similes Measured comparison terms in this division: zero occurrences at the lexical boundary of viya (although its form is contained within the single word pathaviyaṃ, that is not the word), 9 occurrences of forms of sadisa, and zero occurrences at the lexical boundary of iva. This division’s similes do not use viya but instead use the correlative pattern Yathā／evaṃ and analogical forms of sadisa—the only division among this chapter’s eleven units with zero occurrences of viya at the lexical boundary. The difference in pattern is recorded.
| Location | Simile | Meaning Illustrated |
|---|---|---|
| 〔CSCD §617〕 | anekehi utupathavībījasalilasaṅkhātehi kāraṇehi anekameva rūpagandharasādikaṃ aṅkurasaṅkhātaṃ phalaṃ uppajjamānaṃ dissati | as the four causes—climate, earth, seed, and water—produce a sprout with visible form, odor, taste, and the rest: many causes produce many results |
| 〔CSCD §618〕 | Na hi nimbabījato ucchu uppajjatīti | sugarcane does not grow from a neem seed—the challenger’s simile, not the Commentator’s |
| 〔CSCD §618〕 | purimasippādisikkhā ca pacchā pavattamānānaṃ sippādikiriyānaṃ | as earlier training in a craft conditions subsequent activities in that craft—condition contrary in position |
| 〔CSCD §618〕 | khīrādīni ca dadhiādīnaṃ | as milk and the rest condition curd and the rest—condition contrary in nature |
| 〔CSCD §618〕 | guḷādayo ca āsavādīnaṃ | as sugar and the rest condition spirits and the rest—condition contrary in function |
| 〔CSCD §618〕 | sālibījādīni ca sāliphalādīnaṃ | as rice seed conditions rice fruit—similar condition |
| 〔CSCD §618〕 | golomāviloma-visāṇa-dadhitilapiṭṭhādīni ca dubbā-sarabhūtiṇakādīnaṃ | as cow hair, reverse-growing hair, horns, curd, sesame flour, and the rest condition dūb grass, sara grass, bhūtiṇaka grass, and the rest—dissimilar condition |
| 〔CSCD §619〕 | yathā nāma andho pathaviyaṃ vicaranto maggampi amaggampi thalampi ninnampi samampi visamampi paṭipajjati | as a blind person wandering over the earth takes now a path, now no path; now high ground, now low; now even ground, now uneven—so a person blinded by ignorance forms now the meritorious and now the demeritorious |
| 〔CSCD §619〕 | ''Yathāpi nāma jaccandho, naro apariṇāyako; | like a person blind from birth and without a guide—the same simile in verse form; the same simile appears in both prose and verse |
The Challenger’s Simile and the Commentator’s Similes Listed Together The neem-seed simile in 〔CSCD §618〕 is established by the challenger (the words Na hi nimbabījato ucchu uppajjatīti are followed immediately by the Commentator’s Kathaṃ na yujjissati?), while all six similes that follow it are established by the Commentator to refute it. Within a single paragraph stand a single simile from the challenger and six from the Commentator; their assignments are recorded without evaluation.
B. Verifiable Rhetorical Observations (1) The backbone of this division is a verse establishing the outline followed by prose that takes it up phrase by phrase: the three reprises in 〔CSCD §616〕 read verbatim Tattha puññānaṃ duvidhāti・Anekadhā pana paresanti・Pacchimānaṃ sā ekadhā paccayo matāti, corresponding individually to the verse’s three phrases. (2) The challenge formula Etthāha – occurs 2 times (〔CSCD §617〕 and 〔CSCD §618〕), the densest use in this chapter. (3) The self-question Kasmā? occurs once, while ? occurs 6 times across the division. (4) Measured verse lines: 19 indented lines, comprising four verses composed by the Commentator (eight lines), a cited set of three unattributed verses (six lines), a two-line verse explaining the round of rebirth, and three remaining lines that continue verses. (5) The ellipsis form …pe… has zero occurrences—three units in this chapter have zero occurrences (this unit・the detailed unit on name-and-materiality conditioning the six bases・the detailed unit on the three clauses beginning with the six bases conditioning contact). (6) Inflected forms meaning “should be understood” occur 4 times across the division. (7) The word vikappeti (conceives) occurs 5 times, each expressing a belief arising from delusion in a field among the five.
The 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 referenced location is established only from terms verifiable within this division—the mapping between this division’s paragraph numbers and chapter sections is unknown, so the references are not linked to chapter sections and no conversion is estimated. No identification is made on the text’s behalf.
| Passage in This Division | Passage Referred To | Verifiable Basis |
|---|---|---|
〔CSCD §616〕 Evamimesu catuvīsatiyā paccayesu ayaṃ avijjā | the unit on the twenty-four conditions of the Paṭṭhāna, 〔CSCD §594〕 | that division establishes the full list of twenty-four conditions, to which this division refers back verbatim and then assigns ignorance |
〔CSCD §617〕 ''Phassapaccayā vedanā''ti hi padhānattā ekameva hetuphalamāha | the unit giving the detailed account of the six bases conditioning contact and the rest, 〔CSCD §643〕 | that division explains in detail the eight modes in which contact conditions feeling |
〔CSCD §617〕 ''assādānupassino taṇhā pavaḍḍhatī''ti | the general unit on dependent origination, 〔CSCD §586〕 | that division cites the same sentence as its second example of “an account with a single phenomenon as the basis” |
〔CSCD §617〕 ''avijjāsamudayā āsavasamudayo''ti | the general unit on dependent origination, 〔CSCD §584〕・the unit on the round of existence, 〔CSCD §652〕 | both places cite its reverse, ''Āsavasamudayā avijjāsamudayo''ti; the three citations point in opposite directions, and their locations can be checked |
〔CSCD §618〕 ''yassa hi dukkhādīsu avijjāsaṅkhātaṃ aññāṇaṃ appahīnaṃ hoti | the unit on the clause “ignorance conditions formations,” 〔CSCD §593〕 | the Commentator quotes that unit’s sentence verbatim as what has already been stated concerning the conditionality of ignorance (the single difference in wording is recorded in Section III) |
〔CSCD §619〕 Saṅkhārānaṃ lakkhaṇe vimūḷho saṅkhārānaṃ sabhāvalakkhaṇaṃ sāmaññalakkhaṇañca agaṇhanto | the unit on the round of existence, 〔CSCD §658〕 | that division reuses the blindness simile and the two characteristics in salakkhaṇasāmaññalakkhaṇavasena dhammānaṃ adassanato andho viya avijjā |
〔CSCD §619〕 ''Khandhānañca paṭipāṭi, dhātuāyatanāna ca; | the unit on the round of existence, 〔CSCD §660〕 | that division establishes the method of continuity without interruption with santānānupacchedo ekattanayo, continuous with this division’s explanation of the round of rebirth |
VII. Transmission
This edition does not advance claims in the apparatus concerning authorship, textual transmission, or the lineage of commentaries.