English
"Filled with food and drink" means: In an empty village, when any vessel is touched, that vessel is touched as empty. Similarly, these, when grasped as permanent and so on, when examined, appear empty. At the doors of the eye and so on, forms and so on are said to be destroyers of the eye and so on, by being producers of covetousness and distress. Snakes, crocodiles, birds, dogs, jackals, monkeys: these are six creatures. Uneven places, holes, open spaces, villages, charnel grounds, forests: these are their ranges. There, by the eye and so on, with inclinations for unevenness and so on, having delighted in the state of unevenness, holes, open spaces, villages, charnel grounds, and forests of clung-to phenomena, the similarity of forms and so on to unevenness and so on should be applied. The state of having been and then not being. "by the state of" this is said separately, as it encompasses the other four aspects. For the state of having been and then not being is indeed the state of arising, ceasing, and changing, etc. There, by "having been," it shows existence in the middle, preceded by separation from the former end. Having said that, by the word "not being," it shows non-existence at the latter end, preceded by existence in the middle. By both, it shows that constant non-existence is the characteristic of impermanence. Abandoning its own nature is change, or transformation by decay and breaking, or the occurrence of alteration in the continuum. Lest there be long-lastingness even in constant non-existence, to prevent that, it says "due to being temporary." That which is free from arising, ceasing, and alteration is permanent; not otherwise. Thus, impermanence is by the rejection of permanence, meaning it is the opposite of permanence. Undesirability due to the nature of birth, etc., is oppression. And by "in the sense of oppression," it means oppressing the person to whom it occurs, or being oppressed by decay, etc., itself. Even for that which lasts for a short time, because it is constantly oppressed by arising, etc., during its moment of existence, it states "due to constant oppression," specifying the previous general characteristic. Oppression of the individual is suffering. Because suffering is the opposite of happiness, it rejects or prevents happiness. Or, the word "suffering" inherently rejects happiness, thus it says "due to the rejection of happiness." There is no controller of this, nor is this a controller; thus, it is without control. Or, being a controller means one's own control over another, and another's control over oneself. This is not present in it, thus it is without control. Or, the meaning or nature of "without control" is the state of being without control. And this is a general characteristic. Therefore, it is empty in the sense of another's control over oneself. And in this sense, "empty" is a specification of "ownerless." Or, because for anyone thinking "may this not... (etc.)... come to be," there is no state of control in the three instances, it is empty in the sense of one's own control. Meaning. This is not anyone's doing as they wish, nor is there anything for it to do as it wishes, thus it is not doing as it wishes. By this, it shows, distinguishing, the state of not being subject to control. Disappearance is going to destruction. In continuity, the arising of another existence is indeed the going to a transition of existence. The abandoning of the existing state of continuity is the abandoning of the natural state. When "the eye is impermanent" is said, because the words "eye" and "impermanent" have the same meaning, the state of being an eye would also apply to other impermanent phenomena. To prevent this objection, and to show the specific understanding of a part and a whole for words denoting specific and general characteristics, it says "furthermore," and so on. What is shown? The meaning is: what characteristic is shown by one who speaks of the practice of insight? "And what, Ananda, is the perception of non-self? Here, Ananda, a monk, having gone to the forest, or to the root of a tree, or to an empty dwelling, thus reflects: 'The eye is non-self'... and so on... 'Phenomena are non-self.' Thus, he dwells contemplating non-self in these six internal and external sense bases." (A.N. 10.60) Since the contemplation of non-self is stated regarding the undifferentiated sense bases, the teaching of the sense bases is for the purpose of clarifying the characteristic of non-self, by showing that the eye and so on, which are causes, and eye-consciousness and so on, which are effects, are non-self merely by being causes and effects. Thus, it says "of the twelve... and so on... the characteristic of non-self." Although the characteristics of impermanence and suffering are shown here, the meaning is that the characteristic of non-self is specifically shown by them. In "Veti ca," the word "iti" means completion. In "Iccassā," the word "iti" is for indicating the fault to be attributed as concluded. "Thus" means when there is such a statement as "the eye is self." Or, in "Iccassā," the word "iti" is for indicating the nature of the fault of the opponent who says "thus." "Thus" is for indicating the manner in which the fault arises. If it is said that in form, as self, there is an imputation of ownership, as in "May my form be thus"? No, because it is grasped as "my self." For form grasped as "my self" is subject to control... If it were subject to control, and one wished, "May it be thus for me," it would be just so. But even though one wishes, that self, reckoned as form, is not subject to control. "For affliction" means thus by suffering. "Making known" means making others know. Because making known the characteristic of non-self is not within the scope of others, the non-scope of making known the characteristics of impermanence and suffering, which illuminate the characteristic of non-self, is shown. But thus, the difficulty of making these known is due to their difficulty in being understood. Asking the reason for their non-comprehension, he said, "But these..." and so on. Of the constant oppression, mentioned below, continuously occurring in positions and so on. The separation of eyes and so on from the aggregate, by being merely elements, is the analysis into various elements. "By solidity" means having brought all four solidities to unity by way of solidity, he speaks. It should be seen that wisdom itself is the uprooting of continuity. "By its true essence" means by its unperverted nature. For nature, being tasted and savored by uncorrupted penetration, is called "essence." The saying of the characteristics of impermanence etc. in another place by impermanence etc. is due to the existence of a distinct apprehension of impermanence etc. from the apprehension of form etc. that occurs by way of affliction etc. For the task is not accomplished merely by the analysis of mind-and-matter, and impermanence etc. are to be seen as aspects of form etc. But considering those aspects, which do not exist in ultimate reality, to be merely aspects of form etc., it is said in the Aṭṭhasālinī (Dhammasaṅgaṇī Aṭṭhakathā 350) that for insight with characteristics as its object, the aggregates are its object. It is proper to remain at the level of intention, not to go beyond. And one who apprehends "impermanent" does not apprehend "suffering" and "non-self"; similarly, when apprehending suffering etc., the other is not apprehended. And the apprehensions of impermanence etc. are those that turn away from the perception of permanence etc., are dominant in faith, concentration, and wisdom faculties, and are the three doors to liberation. Therefore, because there is a distinction among these aspects when they are apprehended, three characteristics are stated. The commentary on the Suttanta division is finished. 2. Commentary on the Abhidhamma division. 167. Mind-and-matter A detailed discourse is an Abhidhamma discourse, where the knowable sense-bases are spoken of impartially in the Abhidhamma analysis in terms of internal and external, not in terms of pairs of conditions as in the Suttas. "Āgamma" means for one who is disgusted with all formations, inclined towards the unformed, whose mind is turned away by the Gotrabhu, by realizing it through the path. For having attained that which is being realized, and having depended on it as the object condition, and on it as the dominant condition, in the nature of supreme solace, and in the nature of the destination of the liberated being, having established oneself in that which is the foundation, the path called "destruction" eradicates lust and so on. If that realization is absent, there is no going to the non-arising cessation of lust and so on. Therefore it is said: "Based on that, lust and so on are destroyed." "Having been released from the Sutta" means having abandoned the Sutta words. Another meaning of the Sutta, like in "Having slain mother and father" etc. (Dhp. 294-295), should be understood. The meaning is that it is not derived solely from the Sutta words. "One thing, many things" means a crushed or small matter. He speaks of "crushing" with disrespect. "You do not know one thing, many things" means "Do you not know even this much yourself?" "Is it not known?" (meaning) "Even if it was not known before, if it is known now, is it not good?" — concealing his own knowledge, he binds one who is causing distraction. "Having analyzed" means not sticking to the mere literal meaning, having analyzed the hidden meaning, having extracted it, having brought it out, it is spoken. The destruction of lust and so on is merely non-existence, and non-existence has no multiplicity, to one who says "because it is non-existent itself," in order to refute his statement, he asks, "Is the destruction of lust merely the destruction of lust?" and so on. If the destruction of lust is not the destruction of hatred and so on,