English
as stated here. However, the others are established after being touched upon. How so? Of those three dyads from the beginning in the miscellaneous section of the twofold compilation, taking each one, "that form that is clung to, is there appropriated, is there unappropriated?" in this manner, combining with five dyads each, fifteen tetrads based on the triad are established at the beginning. Now, that tetrad that is a visible dyad, since "that form that is visible, is there resistant, is there non-resistant?" in this manner, it does not combine with later dyads, or with earlier dyads in the manner of "there is form that is clung to, there is form that is not clung to," because of the absence of meaning, the absence of order, and the absence of distinction. For "non-resistant" is called "visible," or "not clung to," there is nothing, so it does not combine because of the absence of meaning. "But there is appropriated and unappropriated, so it does not combine because of the absence of order. For all dyads are combined only with the very last ones. This is the order here. But there is an absence of order with the earlier ones." "If there is meaning, there is an absence of order, it is not a reason. Therefore, it should be combined with the 'appropriated' term, etc." - No, because of the absence of distinction; for the 'appropriated' term, etc., are combined with this. Therein, "is the visible appropriated, or is the appropriated visible?" when said, there is no distinction, so it does not combine because of the absence of distinction. Therefore, that fourth dyad is not touched upon, and then with the later three dyads, "there is form that is resistant," etc., "that form that is resistant, is there a sense-faculty, is there not a sense-faculty? That form that is non-resistant, is there a "Exists faculty, does not exist faculty," in this manner, by combining two dukas at a time, six tetrads are established. Just as this fourth duka does not combine, so too does the initial duka with it. Why? Because non-derived-form is entirely invisible. For that form which is non-derived, there exists visible, there exists invisible—thus, when combined with the fourth duka, it does not combine. Therefore, having skipped it, it is combined with the fifth. Thus, it should be understood which combines with which, and which does not. This is the arrangement of the text in the fourth grouping. But beyond this, the seven groupings, beginning with the fivefold grouping, are unmixed. Thus, the arrangement of the text for the entire matrix should be understood. Explanation of the Analysis of Form, Single Designation 594. Now, to show its meaning by dividing it, "all form is not only cause," etc., is begun. Why is the question "what is all that form which is not a cause?" not asked here? Because there is no distinction. Just as in the dukas, there is "derived form" and also "non-derived form," so here there is no distinction such as cause and non-cause, or caused and uncaused; therefore, it is analyzed without asking a question. There, "all" means entire, without remainder. "Form" is a designation of the general characteristic that reveals its nature of being afflicted by cold, etc. "Not only cause" is a designation of the rejection of a common cause. There, cause-cause, condition-cause, supreme cause, and common cause are the four kinds of cause. Among them, "three wholesome causes, three unwholesome causes, three indeterminate causes" (Dhs. 1059) is called "cause-cause." "Monks, the four great elements are the cause, the four great elements are the condition for the manifestation of the form aggregate" (MN 3.85; SN 3.82) is called "condition-cause." "Wholesome and unwholesome in its place of result, the supreme desirable object in the place of wholesome result, the supreme undesirable object in the place of unwholesome result" is called "supreme It is called "root cause." As it is said, "He truly knows the place, the cause, and the result of past, future, and present undertakings" (MN 1.148; Vibh. 810; Patis. MA 2.44), "This is the cause, this is the condition for formations, namely ignorance." Thus, ignorance, being a common cause for formations, fulfills the function of a condition. This is called "common cause." Just as the earth element and the water element are conditions for both sweet and non-sweet tastes, so too, ignorance is a common condition for both wholesome and unwholesome formations. But in this context, "cause of a cause" is intended. Thus, in the matrix "states that are causes, states that are not causes" (Dhs. Duka-matika 1), by restricting and rejecting the state of being a cause for form, he says "it is not a cause at all." In this way, both the indication of rejection and the indication of non-rejection should be understood in all passages. The meaning of the words, however, has already been stated in the commentary on the matrix. But here, in "only with conditions," it should be understood that what arises from karma is only conditioned by karma, and what arises from nutriment, etc., is only conditioned by nutriment, etc. Thus, the meaning should be understood in terms of the four conditions mentioned only for form. In "only form," it rejects the state of being formless, as stated in the matrix "states that are with form, states that are without form." In "arisen by the six consciousnesses," only present form is to be known by the six consciousnesses, such as eye-consciousness. The restriction, however, is taken in reference to eye-consciousness, etc. For they do not cognize the past or the future. But mind-consciousness cognizes both the past and the future. Since it has fallen into this stream of five consciousnesses, it has gone by falling into the stream. Having become so, however, it is only impermanent in the sense of non-existence. Being subject to being overcome by decay, it is only overcome by decay. Or, because decay is evident in the body of form, therefore it is said "it is only overcome by decay." Here, in "thus, a single way of including form," the word "way" is seen in the senses of mental configuration and division of space. "The way that I am better, the way that I am equal," etc. (Vibh. 962) "Vidha" means type. As in, "What kind of virtuous one do they call, what kind of wise one do they call?" It means arrangement. "What kind" means what arrangement. As in, "One type of object of knowledge, two types of objects of knowledge," "Vidha" means category. Here too, category is intended. "Saṅgaha" also has four meanings: by shared birth, shared origin, shared action, and enumeration. Therein, "Let all the nobles come, let all the brahmins, all the merchants, all the laborers come," "And, friend Visākha, right speech, right action, and right livelihood - these qualities are included in the aggregate of virtue," this is called "sa-jāti-saṅgaha," shared birth. As if saying, "Let those of one birth come," here all are gathered into one group by birth. "Let all the Kosalans come, all the Magadhans, all the Bharukacchans come," "And, friend Visākha, right effort, right mindfulness, and right concentration - these qualities are included in the aggregate of concentration," this is called "sañ-jāti-saṅgaha," shared origin. As if saying, "Let those born and raised in one place come," here all are gathered into one group by their place of origin and residence. "Let all the elephant riders come, all the horse riders, all the charioteers come," "And, friend Visākha, right view and right thought - these qualities are included in the aggregate of wisdom," this is called "kiriya-saṅgaha," shared action. All of these are gathered into one group by their own actions. "To which aggregate's enumeration does the eye-sphere belong? The eye-sphere belongs to the enumeration of the form aggregate. If the eye-sphere belongs to the enumeration of the form aggregate, then it should be said that the eye-sphere is included by the form aggregate," this is called "gaṇanā-saṅgaha," enumeration. This is what is intended here. Enumeration of form by one category, this is the meaning. Here ends the meaning. This is the method everywhere. Explanation of the Pairs The Discourse on What is Subject to Clinging 595. Now, among the twofold classifications, beginning with "exists form subject to clinging, exists form not subject to clinging," showing the division of terms with a question as a preliminary, due to the existence of such distinctions, he says, beginning with "what form is subject to clinging?" There, "subject to clinging" means "upādā"; taking the great elements, not releasing them, it proceeds dependent on them, is the meaning. Now, showing that in its varieties, he says, beginning with "the eye-sphere." 596. Thus, having outlined the twenty-three kinds of form subject to clinging in brief, again indicating the same in detail, he says, beginning with "what form is the eye-sphere?" There are two kinds of eye: the fleshly eye and the wisdom eye. Among these, there are five kinds of wisdom eye: the Buddha-eye, the all-seeing eye, the knowledge-eye, the divine-eye, and the Dhamma-eye. There, "I saw, monks, looking at the world with the Buddha-eye, beings with little dust in their eyes... leading to easy understanding," this is called the Buddha-eye. "The all-seeing eye is called omniscience-knowledge," this is called the all-seeing eye. "Vision arose, knowledge arose," this is called the knowledge-eye. "I saw, monks, with the divine eye, purified," this is called the divine-eye. "Right there on that seat, the stainless, the immaculate Dhamma-eye arose," this is the knowledge reckoned as the three lower paths, called the Dhamma-eye. The fleshly eye, too, is twofold: the sensitive eye and the eye with its requisites.