English
while the word 'object' indicates only that it is an object condition. This is the difference between them. 600. 'Hears' means it hears by way of being the support of ear-consciousness. The action understood by the word 'tongue' is tasting, so he says "by way of tasting". 'Body' is the abode of unpleasant things, such as contact associated with suffering, or of suffering, suffering due to change, and suffering of suffering. Because the body-base is pervasive, there is also the nature of body-sensitivity in eye-sensitivity. Therefore, if eye-sensitivity were not pervaded, it would not be pervasive, yet it is said to be so. Thus, the manifestation of touch by eye-sensitivity and the manifestation of visible objects by body-sensitivity are taken to imply a mixing of characteristics, which is a criticism. Because eye and body are dependent on each other, and are in different groups, he says "because one is not in the other". The illustration of visible objects and tastes is said to show that there is no presence of one in the other, due to the non-assumption of each other's nature even by those with the same support, let alone those with different supports. And that sensitive element is fit for impact by visible objects, thus, 'sensitive element fit for impact by visible objects'. Such is the characteristic of the eye. 'Impact by visible objects' means impact on visible objects, or impact of visible objects. The second method is stated everywhere: the craving for sensual pleasures and the craving for existence, which are the causes of the kamma that produces the complete and incomplete sense-bases, are worthy of terms like 'desire to see', because they are aspirations for existence related to those bases. Among these, the kamma whose cause is the desire to see is the origin of those things, thus, 'originated from kamma whose cause is the desire to see'. The eye has the characteristic of sensitivity of such elements, or such a sensitive element is the desire to see… and so on… sensitivity. Such is the characteristic of the eye. It has the function of drawing in a person or consciousness to visible objects. 'Body for all' - what is the distinction here? Are not the sensitivities of elements like fire also for all? That is true, but this word 'for all' indicates the meaning 'for similar ones', of the part that is more than what is being followed. because it was said in the sense of prevention. By 'tejādīnaṃ' (of fire, etc.), it means that the eye, etc., are useful for grasping forms, etc., because in the former and latter arguments, they are supported by the respective qualities of those elements, such as the light of fire (lamp), the sound of wind, the smell of earth, and the taste of water (saliva). To show the predominance of forms, etc., the first speaker says, "forms, etc., are their qualities," seeing that in fire, form is brilliant; in wind, sound is heard by nature; in earth, smell is fragrant, etc.; and in water, taste is sweet, these being distinct qualities. And he further says, "we would wish," etc. By this method, the second speaker is also refuted. Or else, it should be understood that the third argument, that of Kaṇāda, who says that the eye, etc., are made by the distinct qualities of forms, etc., namely fire, space, earth, water, and wind, was brought up to refute it, and "athāpi vadeyyuṃ" (or if they should say), etc., was stated. If it is said that the smell found in fermented liquor, though associated with water and earth, is different from that of cotton, so it does not lead to the predominance of cotton smell? No, because it is not overpowered. The earth associated with water in fermented liquor is overpowered by water, but not the earth in cotton, so its smell should be predominant. And if fire associated with hot water is to be perceived as great, then just as its touch, its color should also be perceived as brilliant, like the color of hot water; the color of cold water, which is not connected with fire, would then diminish. Therefore, because of the absence of both of these. For by their absence, the distinct quality of forms, etc., as belonging to fire, etc., is negated, and by that negation, the reason "because of being unsupported by forms, etc., the qualities of fire, etc." is negated. Thus, in this way, the absence of both is the cause for abandoning the postulation of distinctions, so he says, "therefore, it would diminish," etc. The example of form, taste, etc., was given to show that even in a single kalāpa (atomic aggregate), form, taste, etc., are dissimilar, how much more so in different kalāpas, even in the absence of distinct elements for the eye, etc. When If there is no specific kind of element, then what is the cause of the specific kind of eye and so on? To show this, it is said, "that which is mutually..." and so on. Even one karma, born from the aspiration to be endowed with five sense faculties, is said to be "mutually uncommon" and "a specific kind of karma" because it is the cause of the specific kind of eye and so on. For the specific quality by which it is a condition for the eye is not the same as that by which it is a condition for the ear, due to the non-occurrence of another faculty. By the statement, "At the moment of rebirth-linking, one exalted volition is a condition for the produced material forms by way of karma condition" (Paṭṭhāna 2.12.78), it is understood that at the moment of rebirth-linking, one volition is the karma condition for all existing produced material forms. For if there were different volitions for the arising of faculties at that time, then the produced material form would arise from both limited and exalted karma, and it is not the case that one rebirth-linking is produced by many karmas. Thus, it is established that many faculties arise from one karma. Its support is not clinging, thus it is a non-clinging support, the object called material form. The supports of smell and taste cling to the supports of nose and tongue, thus they are clinging by way of support. Tangible objects are themselves clinging to the body support, being the three elements. Far away... The meaning is that it is only when it is reached that it generates impact and friction. Sound, however, like wind through a succession of elements, comes and clings to the ear support by way of support, strikes the ear, and then gradually settles down, thus it is said to settle down slowly. However, if this were the case, the sound object arising from mind would never be an object condition for ear consciousness. For the arising of mind-originated phenomena externally is not possible. Why is it said that it is heard slowly? Are not the sounds of washermen and so on, when they are far away, heard slowly? No, it is due to the specific way of grasping sounds as they are manifest to those far and near. Just as for those far and near, in the case of vocal sounds, there is a specific way of grasping and not grasping specific characteristics as they become manifest, similarly, in the case of the sounds of washermen and so on, For what is near, from the beginning until the end, becoming manifest in sequence. For what is far, at the end or in the middle, becoming manifest as a mass of occurrence. For the grasping of certainty, occurring beyond the ear-consciousness path, especially if heard quickly, there is the conceit: "Heard long ago." But that sound, wherever it arises, dependent on that, comes within earshot during its moment of existence. But a sound located far away, through the arising of echoes elsewhere, and the movement of vessels and so on, is to be seen as a cause for the movement of iron, like a magnet. Just as beings born from a bell's striking, are the basis for reverberation, being of a striking nature; so too, beings born from striking, having come by way of arising up to the ear's sensitivity, are of a striking nature. Therefore, it is said that sound, dependent on that, through a succession of elements, striking by way of dependence, gradually reaches a settled state. "From such and such a direction," it would not be known by name. Why? Because sound is grasped only at the ear's location. "Its inclination is uneven," thus it is "uneven inclination." Even an eye without inclination, due to its uneven depression, is like an uneven inclination. Thus it is called "uneven inclination." Or, for a person with eyes, the eye is called "uneven inclination" by way of their inclination. Because it occurs only in the ear-cavity opening, and because it is the cause for grasping the object, it is said that it "makes its inclination" right there. For that ear, in hearing sound, by being the basis for ear-consciousness. "Even unmixed space is suitable," explaining the meaning of this according to the commentary's intention, he said, "within the cave," and so on. Explaining according to his own intention, he said, "What is this nature?" and so on. "Wind is its close support, scent is its range," thus, "having wind as close support and scent as range." Here, wind is the close support for the grasping of scent. But by that usage, scent is called "having wind as close support." Or, wind itself is the close support, "wind as close support." For whom? For nose-consciousness. That (wind) is present for it as another co-operative condition. Thus, "wind as close support," scent ho, a condition. Water, and other auxiliary conditions, such as saliva. Likewise, earth. For the earth, being the basis of touchables that are pressed, and the basis of the body's supports that are pressed by touch, is always a proximate cause for the apprehension of touch. However, when touch is apprehended without pressing, the earth, being the support of the body faculty, should be seen as a proximate cause. And its being a proximate cause is always appropriate. The phrase "of five colors" is to show the diversity of suttas that are based on them. Five kinds are five colors. The phrase "absolutely"