English
"Painful touch" means unpleasant touch that is a condition for painful feeling. "Heavy" means weighty. "Light" means not weighty, meaning very light. And here, by the terms "hard, soft, smooth, rough, heavy, light," only the earth element is divided. "When this body is accompanied by life, accompanied by heat, and accompanied by consciousness, then it is lighter, softer, and more workable" (D. ii. 424), in that sutta, the light and soft earth element is referred to. But by the two terms "pleasant touch, painful touch," all three great elements are divided. For the earth element is both pleasant touch and painful touch. So are the fire and air elements. There, the earth element as pleasant touch, when massaging soft, tender hands and young feet, making one enjoy and enjoy, makes one say, "Massage, father, massage, father." The fire element as pleasant touch, in cold weather, bringing a charcoal brazier, Having bathed the body, enjoying and enjoying the warmth, he makes them say, 'Fan, dear, fan, dear.' In hot weather, the air element, a pleasant touch, is fanned with a round fan, enjoying and enjoying, he makes them say, 'Fan, dear, fan, dear.' But when massaging the stiff hands and feet of the young ones, it is like the time when bones break. Even he reaches the point of being told, 'Go away.' In hot weather, when a brazier of coals is brought, he should be told, 'Take it away.' In cold weather, when fanned with a fan, he should be told, 'Go away, don't fan.' Thus, the nature of these as pleasant touch and unpleasant touch should be understood. But the thirteen instances, adorned with fourfold methods, spoken of in the way beginning with 'That which is tangible, invisible, and resistant,' should be understood in the same way as explained below, regarding the eye-sphere and so on. But do these three great elements come into view with a single impact, or not? They do come. Having come thus, do they touch the body-sensitivity or not? They do touch. Do they arise, or not arise, making those elements the object with a single impact, and body-consciousness? They do not arise. For the making of an object is either by way of focusing or by way of impact. There, first, by way of focusing, when a bowl is filled with rice and brought, examining whether a single grain is hard or soft, although there is heat and air there, he focuses only on the earth element. Immersing a hand in hot water and examining, although there is earth and air there, he focuses only on the heat element. In hot weather, having opened a window and standing allowing the wind to strike the body, when a gentle breeze blows, although there is earth and heat there, he focuses only on the air element. Thus, he makes an object by way of focusing. But one who stumbles or strikes a tree with his head or bites a piece of gravel while eating, although there is heat there, Though earth is present, and air is present, it focuses on the earth element, due to prominence. Even when stepping on fire, though earth is present there, and air is present, it focuses on the fire element, due to prominence. When a strong wind strikes the ear causing deafness, though earth is present there, and fire is present, it focuses on the air element, due to prominence. The body-consciousness of one focusing on any element, does not arise all at once. When pierced with a needle point, the body is touched all at once. But in whatever place the body-sensitivity is prominent, in that place the body-consciousness arises. And wherever the impact of the striking is strong, in that place it arises first. When a chicken feather is used to wash a wound, it touches the body-sensitivity bit by bit. But wherever the sensitivity is prominent, in that very place body-consciousness arises. Thus, it focuses due to prominence. And body-consciousness arises due to prominence. How does the mind's transition from object to object occur? It occurs in two ways: through intention, or through the predominance of the object. For example, in monastery worship, having gone with the intention, "I will worship those various shrines and images, and I will look at the plasterwork and paintings," having worshipped or seen one, intending to worship or see another, one goes to worship or see, thus, it is called transitioning through intention. But even when standing looking at a great shrine, resembling a peak of Mount Kailāsa, when all the musical instruments are played on the other side, one abandons the visual object and transitions to the sound object. When pleasant fragrances or flowers or perfumes are brought, one abandons the sound object and transitions to the smell object. Thus, it is called transitioning through the predominance of the object. 651. In the definition of the water element, "water" is a definition of nature. Water is simply the state of water. There is no cohesion without affection, and affection comes from cohesion. "The state of being bound in form" means the binding nature of the material form consisting of the earth element and so on. For the lump of iron and so on, the water element binds and holds them together. Because they are bound by it, they are called bound. The same principle applies to stones, mountains, palm trees, staffs, ivory, and gosiṅga. All these, the water element binds and holds together. Because they are bound by the water element, they are bound. But is the earth element a support for the remaining elements or not? It is. Does it support by touching, or without touching? Does the water element, when binding the others, bind by touching, or without touching? The earth element, without touching the water element, is a support, but it touches the fire element and the air element. The water element, however, binds the earth element, the fire element, and the air element without touching. If it were to bind by touching, it would be called the tactile sense base. The same principle applies to the fire element and the air element in performing their respective functions in relation to the remaining elements. The fire element, touching the earth element, burns it. But it does not burn by becoming hot. If it were to burn by becoming hot, it would be called the characteristic of heat. But it heats the water element without touching it. Even while heating, it does not heat by becoming hot. If it were to heat by becoming hot, it would be called the characteristic of heat. But it heats the air element by touching it. Even while heating, it does not heat by becoming hot. If it were to heat by becoming hot, it would be called the characteristic of heat. The air element, touching the earth element, supports it, and it supports the fire element and the water element without touching them. When sugarcane juice is cooked and made into a lump of molasses, is the water element stiff or not? It is not. It has the characteristic of flowing. The earth element has the characteristic of hardness. But the water element is a small amount, and the earth element is in excess. It abandons its state of being in the form of taste, but it does not abandon its characteristic. Even when the lump of molasses is melting, the earth element... It does not dissolve. For hardness is the characteristic of the earth element, flowing is the characteristic of the water element. But earth with too much water becomes excessively watery. It abandons its solid form, but it does not abandon its characteristic. For of the four great elements, there is only difference in state, there is no difference in characteristic. Its absence is shown by the "impossible case" discourse. For it was said: "It is possible, Ānanda, for the four great elements to be different, the earth element… …the air element; but it is not possible for a noble disciple endowed with unwavering confidence in the Buddha to be different" (A. iii. 76). The meaning here is this: Ānanda, the earth element, whose characteristic is hardness, might change and become the water element, whose characteristic is flowing, but there is no difference for the noble disciple. Thus, here the impossible case is presented. 652. In the following explanations of appropriated form, etc., the meaning of the words "appropriated," etc., should be understood in the same way as explained in the outline discussion. The sense bases, beginning with the eye, have already been explained in detail below. But we will explain only the specific differences in each case. In the explanation of "appropriated," the sense bases, beginning with the eye, are stated as being exclusively appropriated. But since the sense objects, beginning with form, are both appropriated and unappropriated, therefore they are shown concisely as "or whatever," and then explained in detail in the manner of "produced by kamma, the sense object," etc., because they are produced by kamma. In this way, the meaning should be understood in all cases of application. But why are "decay and impermanence" not included in both the explanations of "produced by kamma" and "not produced by kamma," but only included in the explanations of "unappropriated," etc.? In "not produced by kamma," that which arises from a cause other than kamma is included. In "produced by kamma," only that which arises from kamma is included. And these two forms arise neither from kamma nor from any other form-producing cause, therefore they are not included. And their non-arising will become clear later. Unappropriated, etc. However, in "iṇṇa," etc., only the arising from kamma, etc., is rejected by the inclusion of "anupādiṇṇa," etc., not the arising from other conditions is permitted. Therefore, they should be understood as included there. 666. In the explanation of cittasamuṭṭhāna, kāyaviññatti and vacīviññatti, this pair is mentioned because they are known to arise from citta alone, based on the elements. But in reality, only the elements that are the basis for it are cittasamuṭṭhāna, because they depend on it.