English
" Taking "whatever" as a single word, with "what" and "ever" indicating a single meaning of indefiniteness, it is said "by the two words." "And what, monks, do you call form?" means: you too call form "form"; for what reason do you call it so? Or alternatively, for what reason is it form? State that reason. Then, when those monks were silent, the Blessed One said, "It is afflicted, indeed," and so on. "It breaks up" refers to the breaking of the previous continuum, observed by the arising of dissimilar continuums when cold and other conditions meet. And breaking is the undergoing of dissimilarity and change; thus, "it breaks up" means it undergoes change. And undergoing change is the arising of dissimilar forms when cold and other conditions meet. For the formless aggregates, however, due to their extremely subtle change, there is no such meeting with others as there is for form-elements at the moment of their persistence with cold and so on, where the heat that has reached persistence there is unable to produce a continuum similar to the previous one, or as with food and so on. And the word "afflicted" (ruppana) is established in the sense of undergoing change through impact. Therefore, because formless elements are devoid of impact, and because there is no manifest change like that of form-elements, they are not called "afflicted" or "having the characteristic of affliction." Affliction by hunger and thirst should be understood as occurring due to the impact of the digestive fire. Here, "it is agitated" shows the derivation of the word "form" in the active sense, while "it is struck, it is oppressed" show it in the passive sense. For the action of agitation and so on is indeed the action of affliction. And so, to show the meaning that the agent and object meaning is being broken, it is said "it breaks, that is the meaning." Or, "it is afflicted, therefore it is form" is the derivation of 'rūpa' in the sense of agent and object. For change is affliction. Therefore, by the word 'bhijjati' (it breaks) in the sense of agent and object, it shows the meaning "it breaks, that is the meaning." And that which is afflicted, which breaks, since it is disturbed, struck, oppressed, therefore by these words too, the meaning of the word is made clear. In the manner of a similar question, "By what meaning?", it is said "by the meaning of affliction." Not only is affliction the meaning of the word, but it is also a characteristic of that meaning, so in terms of meaning and characteristic, he says "it is proper to say 'rūpa' (form) by the characteristic of affliction." "Having been cut" means having been freed from fainting, or having been cut by the cutting of limbs and minor limbs. "By extremely alkaline cold water" might mean extreme alkalinity with reference to extreme coldness itself. For that water, which maintains the eon, which causes prosperity, which supports the earth, cannot be alkaline like the water that destroys the eon. If that were the case, the earth would dissolve. "In the great Avīci hell" means the Avīci hell with its inhabitants is spoken of. Therefore, "for there..." and so on, is said. "Ghosts... etc. ... do not exist" means the intention is that such beings exist, because there is no rule that they must be only of this kind. Similarly in the case of Kālakañjikas and others. "Creeping, going" states the meaning of the word 'sarīsapa' (reptile). "Having gathered together" here also means having made a collection. By this, "all form... etc. ... is shown," by this, it shows the appositional compound nature of the word 'rūpakkhandha' (form aggregate). Therefore, he says, "for not from form... etc. ... exists." "Having put in" here means having put form into the eleven bases. For there, it is not just the matrix that is put in and the matrix established, but rather the form relevant to the context. "Another method... etc. ... has gone into calculation here" by this, "by the past" is an instrumental case ending in the locative sense. It is. To show the manner in which the enumeration is made, it is said, "the four great elements," and so on. In this sense, the state of rūpa as originating from the great elements becomes the reason for the enumeration in the past division. For this statement, "whatever rūpa," is not for the cessation of past things like feeling, since they are already ceased by that very statement. Nor is it for the cessation of rūpa in another way, since every kind is enumerated there. Nor is it for the cessation of future and present states, since they are ceased by the statement of past things. But if the meaning intended is that what is enumerated in the past division is enumerated as "the four great elements... rūpa," then this would be a showing of the enumeration's interval, not a showing of the manner of enumeration in the past division. However, if that is shown, it is indeed established that what is enumerated in the past division is of the nature of rūpa originating from the elements. And such a nature cannot be the reason for enumeration in the past, since such a nature is enumerated in the present and future, and the nature of pleasure, etc., is enumerated in the past. Therefore, the former method is appropriate. The same meaning is found in the designations of internal and external. "By way of the Suttanta method" is said because it is a teaching by way of analogy in the Sutta. "By way of the Abhidhamma exposition" is said because it is a definitive exposition of the Abhidhamma, taking "niddesa" as a certain exposition. In "although," and so on, this is the meaning: since it is a Suttanta analysis, just as in "one should not pursue the past," and so on, the state of past, etc., is spoken of in terms of time, so too it should be designated here. Even so, even the Suttanta analysis is an Abhidhamma teaching, proceeding by distinguishing and dividing the doctrines stated in the Suttanta. Therefore, the state of past, etc., is designated by the Abhidhamma exposition. In "by way of time, continuity, moment, and instant," the word "addhā" (time) refers to the period delimited by death and rebirth, as in the Sutta statement, "Was I in the past?" and so on. is understood. "There are these three times, monks. Which three? The past time, the future time, the present time," but here, when analyzed in the ultimate sense, time, according to the path of expressions and the Suttas, is appropriately defined by moments. For there it is said: "Whatever form, monks, has arisen, has appeared, 'it exists' is its designation," the presentness of what exists, and the past and future before and after that, are stated. However, for the most part, the past, etc., time in the Suttas is described as defined by death and rebirth, and so that very same is here also called "by way of time." Cold is similar to cold, and similarly, heat to heat. But when cold or heat has come together in the body, and continues in a continuum, without deficiency or excess, of a single kind, that is called one season. The taking of one is done because of the non-exclusivity of similar seasons, and similarly in food. "Arising from a single path and a single impulsion" is said by way of the fifth and sixth doors. The discourse on the time of continuity is explained in the commentaries for the benefit of those who practice insight. The function of the cause is completed, the function of the cause is completed but the function of the condition is not completed, the function of both is not attained, present at the moment of its own function. The generator is the cause, the supporter is the condition, their generating and supporting is the function. Just as the generation of a sprout by a seed and the supporting of it by earth, etc., the generation of the result of action, of form, by action performed, and the supporting of it by food, etc., so too, the function of the generators of each kalāpa and of the arising of consciousness, and of the supporters, such as karma and immediately preceding conditions, and of the co-arisen, pre-arisen, and post-arisen, should be applied as appropriate. There, the function of the cause should be seen at the moment of arising, the function of the condition in all three moments. The supporting, etc., of earth, etc., and the touching, etc., of contact, etc., is their own respective function, the moment of its performance The moment of having a task. That which has a task, with a task, is a task. The moment in which the task, whether form or formless, arises, is the moment of having a task. In that moment, it is present. 6. "Only this much" means the same as what was said by the repetitive phrase "of those, of those," in the sense of pervasion. "Of another, of another" is an explanation, an explanation of another. "Let him seek" shows that seeking is not a reason for not wishing for an end. Indeed, due to the fault of karma and the fault of mental delusion, creatures eating filth, madmen, and so on, would seek; and due to the fault of wrong view, Yavanas and so on, would seek, not because the object is to be sought, but because it is not to be sought, it is called undesirable. From the absence of attainment. Attainment is the fruit of wholesome karma in the existence of divine and human attainments, such as forms, and their prosperity and beauty. "From the absence of that" is the meaning. Therefore, that should not be sought. And some beautiful things, like elephant forms, are produced by unwholesome karma. They do not become the cause of happiness for those very elephants and so on. To include them, it is said "undesirable." For indeed, for that very being, what is produced by wholesome karma done by oneself is a cause of happiness; what is produced by unwholesome karma is a cause of suffering. Therefore, the desirability or undesirability of things born of karma should be applied according to the being who performed the karma. However, in the commentaries, it is said,