English
"There is nothing undesirable born of wholesome karma." It is not said, "There is nothing desirable born of unwholesome karma." Thus, it will be allowed that even what is born of unwholesome karma can be beautiful and desirable to other beings. But they say that what is born of wholesome karma is desirable to all. However, for some animals, human form is unpleasant, since they flee upon seeing it. And humans fear upon seeing divine forms. Even for them, vipāka-consciousness arises as wholesome vipāka with respect to that form. But due to the absence of such merit, they do not find delight in it. This is the intention. Just as there is no undesirable from wholesome kamma, so should it be said there is no beautiful or desirable from unwholesome kamma. Indeed, the unwholesome kamma-born of elephants and others is an object for the unwholesome result of humans, while the wholesome kamma-born, arisen in the present, is for the wholesome result. But because it is mixed with desirable objects, it can be said that a small amount of unwholesome kamma-born will not be the cause for the arising of much unwholesome result. However, results cannot be evaded anywhere, thus the distinction of desirable and undesirable objects based on results is well stated. Therefore, following that, desirability and undesirability should be applied everywhere. Why is it said, "the five sense-pleasures are undesirable"? Are not forms cognizable by the eye desirable, and so on, are not forms and others called "sense-pleasures" precisely because they are desirable? The term "sense-pleasures" is used for things similar to sense-pleasures. And this similarity is their nature as forms and so on, not their desirability. Or by the word "undesirable", their non-sense-pleasure nature is shown. Thus, forms and others, dissimilar to sense-pleasures, are called "sense-pleasures", just as the inauspicious is called "auspicious". Or all forms and others, desirable and undesirable, are indeed sense-pleasures because they are objects of craving. For it is said, "forms in the world are dear, are delightful," and so on. But because of their extreme desirability, in the suttas, desirable forms and others are called "sense-pleasures". In both the inferior and superior sections, the phrase "by way of unwholesome kamma-born, by way of wholesome kamma-born," is stated by specifying and dividing by way of beings, "of those respective beings." And this meaning should be understood as stated by using the genitive "of those respective" in the sense of a part-whole relationship. Among those included in the continuum of beings, kamma-born is distinguished. Thus it is said "by way of kamma-born." If, however, "of those respective" is a genitive in the sense of "by those respective," or in the sense of subject-object relationship, then forms and others are not divided only by way of kamma-born, but by way of all those bound by faculties They are known as 'meals'. And here, the method is shown by visible forms etc. So, inferiority and superiority should be applied even to the eye and so on. "Ending in what is pleasing" means that which is pleasing is the limit, the boundary, among the five sense-pleasures, so I say. What is the reason? Because for some they are pleasing, for others unpleasing. For whomever they are pleasing, for them they are supreme. Therefore, the supremacy of sense-pleasures depends on the inclination of each person, not on their inherent nature. Thus, in the manner stated in this discourse. Because of delighting and being displeased in the same thing, and because the object's nature itself is both pleasing and unpleasing, and because of taking the unpleasing as "pleasing", and taking the pleasing as "unpleasing", it means that there is no individually distinct "pleasing and unpleasing" as such. And by perversion of perception, etc., as in Nibbāna, in other objects too, the taking of pleasing and unpleasing occurs through perversion of perception. Just as for those with bile-madness, etc., there is a perception of bitterness in milk and sugar, etc., due to a perversion of perception arising from an excess of humors, it shows that the phrase "ending in what is pleasing" was stated with this meaning in mind. And "there is distinction" means "there is something established". Or it means "distinguished and explained by the Aṭṭhakathā teachers". And that is established and explained according to the average being, and for others, due to perversion, this becomes pleasing and unpleasing – this is the intention. And when such established pleasing and unpleasing things are taken, the unpleasing as pleasing, not only is perversion of perception the cause, but also the state of being a cause for the arising of wholesome and unwholesome results, due to the disturbance of elements, the occurrence of sense-faculty disorders, etc., can be said to be a cause. For example, cold water is a cause for wholesome resultant body-consciousness for those afflicted by heat, but for those overcome by cold, it is a cause for unwholesome resultant. The touch of a cotton tuft is painful on a wound, but pleasant on an uninjured part. And a gentle, soft hand massage produces pleasure. But a blow with the same hand is painful. Therefore, the establishment of objects according to their results is appropriate. Although, etc., even when there is perversion of perception... He shows the arising of wholesome karma-result in seeing Buddha-images and so forth, and of unwholesome karma-result in seeing excrement and so forth. By that karma-result, he shows the pleasantness and unpleasantness of the object. Even when there is perversion of perception, the showing of the rule of karma-result by the object is done only to show the rule of the object. Moreover, by "through the door," and so forth, it is understood that pleasantness and unpleasantness are shown according to karma-result, because, by showing the rule of the object through karma-result, that which is a condition for suffering and happiness in another door produces pleasant and unpleasant karma-results in that other door; and in the same door, for the same tangible object like a jewel, it produces happiness and suffering when touched gently or struck. "The lower method" is the method stated by taking the object determined by the karma-result of middle beings, as in "known to those beings" (Vibh. 6) and so forth. "Conventionally pleasant" is what is conventionally determined as pleasant by the karma-result of middle beings; but the intention is that it is determined by its own nature and therefore cannot be broken. The "personally pleasant" taken as pleasant even by hell-beings and so forth, due to perversion of perception, is broken by "or that, or that," and so forth. Even the form of a Vimānika ghost, being born of unwholesome karma and being a basis for suffering like tools of torture, is said to be "inferior to human form." 7. The easy comprehensibility of gross forms due to their resistance as object-bases, and the difficult comprehensibility of subtle forms due to their lack of such, should be connected. The non-penetration of characteristics should be seen precisely in terms of difficult comprehensibility. "Tenfold" is stated to show what is not said by "far." But what is said is indeed far in terms of space. "The lower method" is the method explained by showing, from the characteristic of "female faculty... etc.... this is called form nearby" (Vibh. 7), and from the space determined by twelve cubits. Since it is explained by taking both far and near in terms of characteristic and space, it creates a mixture when distinguishing. He went. Or, "breaking through" means, by showing its own nature, by its characteristic, by its removal from space, thus, separating by characteristic and by space, he went. This is the meaning. Or, by characteristic, for what is near and far, by making space far and near, breaking the nearness to farness, and breaking the farness to nearness, he proceeded. Thus, "breaking through, he went" is said. But here, regarding "taking up this and that form again and again," here, in the former way, the Blessed One does not break the farness by characteristic by making it near by space, nor by separating it from spatial farness, nor by mixing it with spatial farness. This is the meaning. What then does he do? He breaks only the farness by space. But here, the meaning should not be understood in the three ways mentioned before. For he does not make what is far by space near by characteristic, nor separate by characteristic, nor mix with it. But making what is far by space near by space itself is to be understood as "breaking" here. But here, regarding "he does not break the farness by characteristic," here too, the non-breaking in the three ways mentioned before is not stated. But for what is near and far by characteristic, there is no farness and nearness by characteristic by taking up again and again. Thus, the non-making of farness by characteristic near by characteristic itself is to be understood as the non-breaking of farness by characteristic. For it only shows this much here: that this method is not like the former method. Thus, "breaking through" is said here in one way, and breaking is said here in another way. The explanation of the section on the aggregate of form is finished. 2. Explanation of the section on the aggregate of feeling. 8. The eye-sense and other sense-faculties, being included in the nature of gross and mind-made, are worthy of the term "bodily." Therefore, the neutral feelings based on them are called "bodily" by way of indirect reference, not because they are based on the body-sense. For the eye-sense and others are not the body-sense. Here, by way of continuity and by way of moments, the non-mention of past, etc., by way of time. due to being differentiated by pleasure and so on, from the statement of past and so on.