English
are the characteristics of the conditioned five aggregates, the conditioned. The meaning is that they are not found separately apart from the conditioned five aggregates. Since it should be said: "How is the distinction between the characteristics of the conditioned, old age and death, to be known?" it is said: "The alteration of one standing in old age..." There, "the alteration of one standing in old age" means the alteration of the continuum of aggregates that is standing; this is manifest old age, not momentary old age. Death is decay, which is conventional death, which is passing away. is not momentary death, is not cutting-off death. Therefore it is said: “Arising is discerned, passing away is discerned, the alteration of what has remained is discerned.” If death were only of what has remained, then the distinctness of old age and death would not be proper. If it were not proper, then the statement “those three questions” would also be improper, so it is said: “and there, of old age,” and so on. There, the distinctness in meaning of old age mentioned in the three verses of explanation and of death mentioned is proper. Because it is to be said: “For what reason is it proper? How, for what reason, should distinctness be accepted?” it is said: “for even those in the womb die.” Because even beings in the womb, not having reached old age, die, therefore distinctness should be accepted. Because it is to be said: “Even those in the womb might have reached old age,” it is said: “but they do not become old.” Even having reached old age, because they are not aged, they die without having reached aged old age. Thus, because the death intended here, devoid of aged old age, is possible, it is said that it should be understood that old age is one thing, death is another. Because it is to be said: “It is not only for those in the womb that there is death not having reached aged old age; it exists for others too,” it is said: “and there is death for devas.” Because it is to be said: “Devas too, due to their long existence, might have reached old age,” it is said: “but their bodies do not decay.” Because it is to be said: “This is all the reason for the distinctness of old age and death,” to show that there is something else, it is said: “or in what can be done,” and so on. There, a remedy for aged old age can certainly be done, but a remedy for death can certainly not be done. By this reason too, the distinctness of old age and death should certainly be accepted—this is the meaning. “Why is it said that a remedy for death cannot be done? Surely, when mastery of the development of the bases of psychic power is attained, a remedy for death can also be done”— having considered this objection, “another It is said that the sphere of psychic power belongs only to those with psychic power. The distinct nature of old age and death from each other was shown by the teacher, and understood by us. Since it might be asked, "How then is craving distinct from old age and death?" to show its distinctness from them, the passage beginning "But what is said..." was stated. Because even when craving is absent, those free from passion are seen to grow old and die, therefore, the distinct nature of craving from old age and death should be accepted. Since it might be asked, "If craving has the characteristic of aging and breaking, what fault would there be in its non-distinctness from them?" to show the fault, the passage beginning "And if..." was stated. Just as old age and death are evident by the characteristic of aging and breaking, so too is craving evident by the characteristic of aging and breaking. And if it were so, then all young people would be free from craving. But they are not free from craving. Therefore, their distinct nature should be accepted. To show that another fault would arise from this, the passage beginning "And just as craving is for suffering..." was stated. In that case, if old age and death were not distinct from craving, just as craving, the craving for existence, is the origin of suffering, so too old age and death would be the origin of suffering. Because old age and death are not the origin of suffering, therefore, the distinctness of craving from old age and death should be understood. To show that if they were not distinct from it, this fault too would arise, the passage beginning "And just as craving is slain by the path..." was stated. In that case, if they were not distinct from it, just as craving is slain by the path, so too old age and death would be slain by the path. Just as old age and death are not slain by the path, so too craving would not be slain by the path. And that is not the case, due to the nature of being abandonable and not abandonable. Therefore, the distinctness of craving from old age and death should also be understood. Since it is said, "The distinctness of craving from old age and death should be sought only by the reasoning and justification stated in 'And if...' and so on," to show that it should be sought by other reasons as well, the passage beginning "By this reasoning..." was stated. There, "by this reasoning" means that reasoning... By this reasoning, this justification, as stated in "yadi ca" and so on. It means that the distinctness of craving from aging and death should be sought through other causes, through other causal justifications. Why is it said, "should be sought through other causes"? Considering the objection that distinctness is evident by reasoning and in reality, it is said, "yadi ca sandissati" and so on. There, if the distinctness of craving from death, which is established by reasoning and in reality, is evident, then its distinctness should also be sought in expression. Since it is to be said, "How is distinctness sought in expression?" "sallo ti vā" and so on is stated. There, for these phenomena, namely desire and craving, which are expressed by two terms, "salla" (dart) or "dhūpāyana" (fuming), on the level of meaning, on the level of reality, oneness, sameness, is appropriate, not distinctness. For aging and death, which are not expressed by the two terms "salla" or "dhūpāyana," oneness with craving is not appropriate. To clarify that very meaning, "na hi" and so on is stated. There, the connection is: on the level of reality, distinctness of desire and craving is not appropriate; only oneness is appropriate. Since it is to be said, "Why is distinctness appropriate?" if oneness of craving with aging and death were possible due to the possibility of aging and breaking for desire and craving, "taṇhāya adhippāye" and so on is stated. There, when the intention of craving is not fulfilled, anger arises, and resentment arises, in the nine bases of ill-will. When aging and death are not fulfilled, anger does not arise, and resentment does not arise, in the nine bases of ill-will. Thus, by this reasoning, the distinctness of aging and death from craving is indeed appropriate on the level of reality. If oneness of desire with craving is appropriate on the level of reality, then why did the Blessed One in the verse "maccunābbhāhato loko" and so on, state it in two ways: "afflicted by the dart of craving, always fuming with desire"? Dispelling this objection, "yaṃ panidaṃ bhagav" He said "atā" and so on. There, that which is expressed by two names, "desire" (icchā) and "craving" (taṇhā), that which is called, that which is named; this naming by the Blessed One, according to the distinctions of external objects of desire and craving, objects like forms and so on, is expressed by "desire" and "craving" by way of naming. The meaning should be understood as unity, not diversity. Because it is to be asked, "By what is the unity of desire and craving, spoken of in two ways by name, to be believed?" therefore "sabbāhi" (all) and so on, was said. There, all distinctions of desire and craving, by various names, are suitable as having one characteristic, the characteristic of clinging. Therefore, it should be understood that even for those differentiated by name, unity by a single characteristic is suitable and to be believed. Because it is to be asked, "Like what is it suitable?" therefore "yathā sabbo" (just as all) and so on, was said. There, just as all fire, which is manifold by way of wood-fire and so on, has one characteristic, the characteristic of heat, so too (craving) has one characteristic, the characteristic of clinging—this is the connection. To show the many names of all fire by way of its fuel, "apicā" (furthermore) and so on, was said. Its meaning is clear. Craving is expressed by the Blessed One by various names according to its object; fire is expressed by various names according to its fuel— this connection should be made. Because it is to be asked, "Is craving expressed only by the names that appear in the verse of explanation?" to show that it is expressed by many names, "desire" (icchā) and so on, was said. There, "desire" (icchā) is that by which beings desire desirable things, objects like forms and so on. "Craving" (taṇhā) is that by which they thirst. "Dart" (sallā) is that which darts, penetrates like a spreading dart; or "dart" is that which takes up suffering; or "dart" is that which causes suffering. "Fuming" (dhūpāyanā) is that which fumes, causes suffering, envelops. "Stream" (saritā) is that which flows, draws, carries away like a swift-flowing river; or "stream" is that which flows, darts. "Poisonous creeper" (visattikā) is that which spreads. It loves by way of attachment, therefore it is affection. It produces weariness in various courses, therefore it is weariness. Beings conceive objects like form by this, therefore it is conception. It binds existence, therefore it is a bond. It is wished for, it is longed for, therefore it is hope. Or it wishes, it longs for, therefore it is hope. It is thirsted for, therefore it is thirst; or it thirsts for the taste of objects, therefore it is thirst.