English
Another becomes angry and repelled, generating aversion therein. For one person, they are agreeable, lovely, and pleasing; for another, they are disagreeable, unlovely, and displeasing. One person takes these as "agreeable, lovely, and pleasing" on the right side, another as "disagreeable, unlovely, and displeasing" on the left. Therefore, there is no such thing as agreeable and disagreeable distinctly divided. For those living in border regions, even earthworms are agreeable, lovely, and pleasing, while for those living in the middle country, they are utterly disgusting. And for them, peacock meat and the like are agreeable, while for others, these are utterly disgusting. He should be asked: "Do you then say that there is no such thing as agreeable and disagreeable objects distinctly divided?" "Yes, I say there is not." Again, having established it in the same way up to the third time, the question should be asked: "Is Nibbāna agreeable or disagreeable?" Knowing, he will say "agreeable." Even if he does not say it, let him not say it. But Nibbāna is certainly exclusively agreeable. "But when the qualities of Nibbāna are being described, one person becomes angry, saying, 'You are describing the qualities of Nibbāna; are there the five strands of sense pleasure there, abundant with food, drink, garlands, scents, and unguents, and beds and coverings?' And when it is said 'No,' he says, 'Enough of your Nibbāna!' and becomes angry when the qualities of Nibbāna are being described, and blocks both ears. Is this agreeable? But according to your argument, Nibbāna becomes disagreeable. But this should not be taken in this way. For this person speaks with a distorted perception. And due to the perversion of perception, the very same object is agreeable to one person and disagreeable to another." But there is no such thing as agreeable and disagreeable objects distinctly divided. It is said that one thing is divided. According to whom is it divided? According to the average person. For this is not divided according to the very powerful, like Mahāsammata, Mahāsudassana, or Dhammāsoka. For even a divine experience arises for them as something unpleasant. Nor is it divided according to the very poor, who lack food and drink. For even gruel, rice bran, and rotten meat broth are extremely sweet and like nectar to them. But it is divided according to average people like accountants, high officials, wealthy merchants, householders, and traders, who sometimes get what they like and sometimes what they dislike. For such people are able to discern what is liked and disliked. But Tipiṭaka Cūḷanāga Thera said, "What is liked and disliked is discerned only by way of result, not by way of impulsion. Impulsion, however, due to the perversion of perception, is attached only to what is liked, and is averse only to what is liked; is attached only to what is disliked, and is averse only to what is disliked." But this is discerned entirely by way of result. For it is not possible to deceive the result-consciousness. If the object is liked, a wholesome result arises. If it is disliked, an unwholesome result arises. Even though those of wrong view, seeing the Buddha or the Sangha or great shrines or other magnificent objects, close their eyes, and experience displeasure, hearing the sound of the Dhamma, they block their ears, their eye-consciousness and ear-consciousness are only the result of wholesome deeds. Even though dung-pigs and the like, smelling the odor of dung, become joyful, thinking, 'We will get to eat it,' upon seeing the dung, their eye-consciousness, upon smelling its odor, their nose-consciousness, and upon tasting its flavor, their tongue-consciousness, are only the result of unwholesome deeds. And even though a pig, bound and laid on an excellent bed, squeals, displeasure arises only in its impulsion due to the perversion of perception, but its body-consciousness is only the result of wholesome deeds. Why? Because the object is liked. Moreover, what is liked and disliked should be understood also by way of the sense-doors. Happiness Contact with feces is undesirable at the eye-door and nose-door, but desirable at the body-door. For a wheel-turning monarch, the jewel-treasure being rubbed, and being pierced by a golden spike, the jewel-treasure and golden spike are desirable at the eye-door, but undesirable at the body-door. Why? Because they produce great suffering. Thus, the desirable and undesirable should be understood as being determined solely by result. And in "that, that, or whatever," the previous method should not be considered. For the Blessed One does not break what is agreeable to convention, but He does break what is agreeable to the individual. Therefore, the inferior and superior should be understood only in terms of "that, that, or whatever" being taken up. For the form of hell-beings is called extremely inferior; taking that up, the form of nāgas and supaṇṇas among animals is called superior. Their form is inferior; taking that up, the form of ghosts is called superior. Even theirs is inferior; taking that up, the form of country-dwellers is called superior. Even theirs is inferior; taking that up, the form of village headmen is called superior. Even theirs is inferior; taking that up, the form of landowners is called superior. Even theirs is inferior; taking that up, the form of regional kings is called superior. Even theirs is inferior; taking that up, the form of a wheel-turning monarch is called superior. Even his is inferior; taking that up, the form of earth-deities is called superior. Even theirs is inferior; taking that up, the form of the gods of the Four Great Kings is called superior. Even theirs is inferior; taking that up, the form of the gods of the Thirty-three is called superior…pe… But the form of the Akaniṭṭha gods is called supremely superior. 7. In the Distant Dyad, the female faculty, etc., have already been distinguished below. But in this dyad, subtle form is called distant because of the difficulty of grasping, the difficulty of penetrating its characteristics. Coarse form is near because of the ease of grasping, the ease of penetrating its characteristics. And at the end of nutriment that is taken in mouthfuls, even at the place of excretion, it is not said, "This is called distant form." Why? Because "distant" is twofold – in terms of characteristics "And because of space." There, "distant by characteristic" was not said; that should be said because of space. Therefore, "distant" was not said. To show coarse matter as distant because of space, without excluding it, he said, "Or whatever else." The same method applies to the designation of "near." There, "not near" means not in proximity, "not close" means not touching, "distant" means in the distance, "not proximate" means not nearby. This is called matter that is distant; this fifteenfold subtle matter is distant by characteristic, but the tenfold coarse matter is called distant because of space, by way of exclusion. The designation of "near" is straightforward in meaning. "This is called matter that is near"; this tenfold coarse matter is near by characteristic, but the fifteenfold subtle matter is called near because of space, by way of exclusion. From how far is matter called near in terms of space? From how far is it called distant? For those speaking in conventional terms, a twelve-cubit range is called the vicinity of hearing. Matter within that is near, beyond that is distant. There, subtle matter that is distant is distant both by characteristic and by space; but that which is near is near only by space, not by characteristic. Coarse matter that is near is near both by characteristic and by space; that which is distant is distant only by space, not by characteristic. "Or whatever that is"; here, the previous method should not be considered. Below, he went on dividing. But here, he does not divide what is distant by characteristic, but only what is distant by space. Nearness and distance are shown here by taking and taking. One's own matter is called near; even for another inside the womb, it is distant. For one inside the womb, it is near; for one standing outside, it is distant. For one lying on the same bed, it is near; for one standing outside facing away, it is distant. Matter inside the enclosure is near; outside the enclosure, it is distant. Matter inside the monastery is near; outside the monastery, it is distant. Matter inside the boundary is near; outside the boundary, it is distant. Matter inside the village area is near; In the outer village field, it is far. In the inner country, form is near; in the outer country, it is far. Within the border of the kingdom, form is near; outside the border of the kingdom, it is far. Within the ocean, form is near; outside the ocean, form is far. Within the universe, form is near; outside the universe, it is far. This is the exposition of the aggregate of form. 2. Exposition of the Aggregate of Feeling 8. In the exposition of the aggregate of feeling, etc., omitting what is similar to what has been said below, we will explain only what is new. "Whatever feeling there is" includes feeling in all four planes of existence. "Pleasant feeling," etc., are stated to show the nature of feeling defined in terms of past, etc. Therein, pleasant feeling exists, bodily and mental. Likewise, painful feeling. But neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling, with reference to the sense organs such as the eye, is, by way of explanation, "bodily and mental." Therein, all bodily feeling is in the Sensuous Sphere. Likewise, painful mental feeling. But pleasant mental feeling is in the three planes of existence. Neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling is in all four planes of existence. Of that, in all its kinds, its being past, etc., should be understood in terms of continuity and in terms of moments, etc.