English
that alone is stated to be the cause for its manifestation, because in its absence, it does not exist. The cause for the place of past, future, and present actions Regarding "tuso vipākanti" (the husk is the result), among other existing conditions, because they regulate desirable and undesirable results, the excellent and primary wholesome and unwholesome actions, produced by conditions of destiny, substratum, time, application, success, and failure, and desirable and undesirable objects, are called "causes" due to their primary nature, like kamma. With this intention, kamma-objects are called "supreme causes." It will also be said: "Destiny, substratum, time, and application are the conditions for the result; kamma is the cause." Here, however, because the object is supreme, like kamma, it is worthy of the term "cause," and so it is called "supreme cause." Regarding "saṅkhārānaṃ" (of formations), because ignorance is a common condition for meritorious formations and so on, they are called "causes." "Pharatīti" means "goes, reaches." "Paṭikkhepaniddeso" (statement of rejection) is said in the sense of rejecting what is mentioned in the mātikā. Here, however, the non-inclusion of the term "cause" and so on for rūpa is stated due to its specific nature, and its definiteness is stated due to its non-other nature. In "rūpīduke" (the pair of form), the word "rūpī" itself is here called "rūpa." Thus, the identity of meaning between "rūpī" and "rūpa" is established, as only that which possesses the characteristic of being afflicted is "rūpī" or "rūpa." "Uppannaṃ chahi viññāṇehi viññeyyaṃ" (that which has arisen and is knowable by the six consciousnesses) shows the nature of rūpa as distinct from arūpa. For arūpa, having arisen, is not knowable by the six consciousnesses, as rūpa is. Therefore, it restricts this nature to rūpa alone, by distinguishing it from arūpa, meaning that rūpa, having arisen, is knowable by the six consciousnesses, not arūpa. It does not mean that rūpa is in this nature. For there is past and future rūpa which, having arisen, does not possess the nature of being knowable by the six consciousnesses. And this very restriction is again restricted by the word "eva" (indeed), meaning "the aforementioned restriction indeed exists in rūpa, it is not absent as in arūpa." Alternatively, "sabbaṃ rūpaṃ" (all rūpa) refers to fundamental and derived rūpa, called "all" without regard to temporal distinctions. To exclude past and future rūpa, which have a nature of being knowable in common with arūpa, it is specified by "uppannaṃ" (that which has arisen). The meaning is that all such arisen rūpa is knowable by the six consciousnesses. But then, of the rūpāyatana, is it also subject to being known by ear-consciousness and so on? It is not. It is not said that all form, having been entirely gathered together, taken as a single entity by way of showing its ultimate characteristic, is of a nature to be known by the six consciousnesses, being separate from the formless. If this rule were made: “Only present form is to be known by the six consciousnesses,” then in the statement “all form,” this rule of knowability would not have been stated. Rather, the ultimate characteristic rule for all form would not have been shown as “present.” And in the Pāli, the word “eva” (only) is stated as “only knowable,” not as “only arisen.” Therefore, there is no application of the rule that only what has arisen is knowable by mind-consciousness. So what is the point of its falling within the range of hearing? Therefore, the meaning should be construed in the way stated. “Of what kind” means: how are they constituted by their qualities? Knowledge itself is the basis of knowledge. A collection of similar kinds, or a collection of a similar kind, is a collection of its own kind. That in which they arise is sañjāti (origin). A collection by sañjāti is sañjātisaṅgaho, meaning a collection by way of origin. Right mindfulness and so on, which have arisen in the sphere of concentration by way of mutual support and non-separation, are included in the concentration aggregate. And the thought-moment where concentration performs its own function with the help of mindfulness and so on, that is the sphere of concentration. And because right thought is penetration, its function is similar to penetration. Thus, right view and right thought are included in the wisdom aggregate by their similar function of penetration. The description of the single-unit division of form is finished. The Two-Unit Division Description of the Upādābhājanīya (Divisions of Clinging) 596. The Buddha-eye is the vision of the group of beings with little dust and so on. Among the six uncommon knowledges, it should be understood as the knowledge of the faculties of others. The all-seeing eye is the vision of all conditioned and unconditioned things. The knowledge-eye is the vision of knowledge that proceeds in such a way as: “Suffering is to be fully understood, it has been fully understood” (Saṃ. Ni. 5.1081; Mahāva. 15). This, too, like the former two, is of the sense-sphere. The Dhamma-eye is the vision of the Four Noble Truths. The supporting continuities of form arising from the four causes are the constituents. Together with the constituents, sasambh A collection, one possessing ingredients. "Collection" refers to the water element itself, born of collection. "Form" refers to the color-sense-object itself, being a circular and other form. Their separate mention is because the water element and color-sense-object, whether existing in that way or not, are present in the aforementioned lump of flesh. Indeed, the lump of flesh has fourteen ingredients. The dependence of "collection" on the three elements should be understood as associated with the four elements. Or, because the water element and color-sense-object lack collection and form, they are mentioned separately, and thus dependence on the four elements is not contradicted. When one recognizes a lump of flesh as white, etc., one does not recognize it as a sensitive eye; desiring to speak of distinctions like extensiveness, one also says, "There is also earth," etc., even though it has been stated. "Being the place where the body's form arises" by this, the remaining dark circle is rejected. Like oil, having spread through the seven eye-membranes, it stands, having been benefited by its own supporting four elements, and protected and surrounded by life, color, etc., which depend on it, and supported by season, mind, and food, which produce the thirty-two forms. By the mention of spreading through the seven eye-membranes, the eye's multi-component nature is shown. "In measure, the size of a louse's head" is said because it operates in a space the size of a louse's head. "He sees forms" the 'ma' syllable is a connecting particle. Or, 'manu' means a human being. It is gathered by beneficial things. "By way of analogy" by this analogy, it is appropriate to say that the sensitivity of the four, or of one or two of them, is like the wealth of those who have equal wealth. The body is merely the form aggregate. "Impact-friction" is merely impact, impact-friction. Or, friction born of impact, which is the state of the eye-consciousness becoming a support by facing forms, is impact-friction. The conditional statement "if it were to come into range" is the causal action, and "he would see" is the result action, and the statement is made by hypothesizing with that hypothesis. Here, the causal action, though unstated, is understood due to its multiplicity. should be understood. By the word "or sees," it includes the eye that does not become the support of eye-consciousness in all three times. The state of being a leader in seeing is the meaning of "leader in seeing." Just as a lord, saying "do this and that," leads and directs his servants in those various tasks, so too this eye, by being the support of eye-contact and so on, as if commanding those phenomena in the task of seeing, leads them; therefore it is called "eye." For it "eyes" (cakkhati), meaning it "points out" or "leads" in the manner described. Or, it "eyes" (cakkhati) or "points out" or "reveals" even and uneven forms; therefore it is "eye." They arise here, therefore "arising." What arises? Contact and so on. Similarly, "coming together." It performs the function of "Indra" by the non-deviation of the keenness and dullness of eye-contact and so on. Even for that which is grasped as "constant, permanent, self," it is in the sense of being broken and shattered. They enter through this, therefore "entering," in the sense of the entering of contact and so on that have that as their door. 597. The previously mentioned "conception" is the meaning of "discrimination." "While striking" means while reaching a specific state of facing of the sensitive faculty. 599. By the statement of the arising of eye-contact and so on with reference to form, the arising of those that have that as their door, and others, with reference to form, is stated. And with the intention that just as form is a condition for them, their arising through that condition is stated, he says "by this" and so on. Here, by the phrase "of contact and so on, which have the eye-sensitivity as their basis," the arising of those that are similar to them, such as the mind-element and so on, which have that object-form as their object, through the pre-nascent condition, should be understood as shown. Where there is a distinction, to show that, he says "of those included in the eye-door javana process" and so on. For these, being delight and rejoicing, which proceed making form important, and those associated with them, arise by way of object-predominance and object-proximate support. Others arise only by way of object-pre-nascent condition. Thus, "with reference to" (ārabbhā) means... The word 'condition' indicates that it is also a condition other than the object condition,