English
For it is not only pleasure that is past and so on, in terms of duration and time, similarly pain and neither-pain-nor-pleasure are differentiated by bodily, mental, and so on. Therefore, the origin of feeling deserves to be spoken of as past and so on, in terms of duration and time, because the origin is to be delimited by these. But here, a part of feeling is taken, and these deserve to be delimited by continuity-moments, because those that are to be delimited in that way are taken there. However, in one continuity, due to the existence of many kinds such as pleasure and so on, the differentiation among them that is taken as to be delimited, its delimitation is a continuity that occurs with the door and object associated with that one kind, which is manifest, and that occurs with the uninterrupted conjunction of the same kind of objects that produce it. Thus, it is taken as a delimitation without touching other differentiations. Or, phenomena that change quickly deserve delimitation by their very change, and so delimitation by continuity-moments is stated. "Past, future, and present" by this, the method stated in terms of cause and condition is shown. 11. Due to association with the fire of defilements, they are painful. By this, their grossness by nature is shown; by "due to being of painful result," by this, their function of producing gross results. Actions driven by karma and bound by karma are results that are without effort, due to the absence of activities such as bodily actions, etc. And volitional actions are without result. And those with results are gross, like those with a womb, and so, in contrast to them, those without results are said to be subtle. By "due to being unpleasant," by "due to being not sweet." By this, it shows the opposite of pleasant, an undesirable nature. By "due to being painful," by "due to being painful." By this, it shows the function of tormenting pains. "This feeling, venerable sir, which is neither-pain-nor-pleasure, is it said by the Blessed One to be in a tranquil, refined pleasure?" (M.N. 2.88; S.N. 4.267) By this statement, neither-pain-nor-pleasure, due to the absence of the nature of pervading, is tranquil because it is not a ground for the latent tendencies of untranquil sensual lust and aversion to lie latent. In pleasure, Because it is to be attained by taking patience, it is brought to the state of excellence, thus it is excellent. Similarly, it should be connected as excellent in the sense of pleasure, in the same class, without mixing with the unattainables like the sensuous realm, and in similar distinctions such as being associated or dissociated with knowledge. It is pleasant by being a condition for the developed elements, and painful by being a condition for the disturbed ones. Both arise as if pervading the body, thus it pervades. "Maddening" means causing intoxication. "Concealing" means generating desire, or covering over. Just as the body of one afflicted by heat becomes refreshed when sprinkled with a pot of cool water, so too for one endowed with pleasure, thus it is said "as if sprinkling." Only in the sign of oneness, that is, in the sign that is of a single nature like the earth kasina. "It moves" means it is subtle, like feeling in the impulsion, without agitation, avoiding various faults. Unskilled in intention, inexpert. In the triad of wholesome… …because it is stated thus: "wholesome and unwholesome feelings are coarse, undetermined feelings are subtle." To show the distinction between different planes, "and also that" and so on is commenced. By this method, it shows the principle that by speaking of coarse and subtle states in each specific instance, such as "the equanimity of the sensuous realm is more subtle than the pleasure of the sensuous realm," and by distinctions of nature and so on, it does not break the rule. The worldly and supramundane are spoken of as mixed, therefore, in the absolutely excellent, the inferior and excellent are extracted, and similarly, in the absolutely inferior, the inferior and excellent should be extracted as far as possible. Thus it is permitted, meaning there should be no remorse in extracting them in both cases. They say that because unwholesome things are not more subtle than wholesome things and so on, and because what is stated in the Pali is unchangeable, it is said "the former method should not be looked at." Even when speaking by way of various applications, there is no change, so it is not with reference to change that "the former method should not be looked at" is said. Rather, since the former method has been stated, it is appropriate to take the unstated method and say "or that particular one." "This method should not be looked at," so it is said, and should be understood. Unwholesome actions with many results are gross due to an abundance of hatred, and similarly, wholesome actions with few results. Unwholesome actions with few results are subtle due to slight hatred, and similarly, wholesome actions with many results. The grossness and subtlety of sense-sphere existences, etc., is due to their being objects of gross and subtle craving. "That too" – it should be understood that by the division of meditation-based actions, the individual division of generosity-based and morality-based actions is also shown by this method. Or, "that too" should be connected with "all three kinds." 13. "Dissimilar" means having dissimilar parts by way of birth, etc. "Unmixed" means having dissimilar functions or dissimilar natures by way of painful results, etc., not "unassociated." If it were so, then "nearness" would arise from the sense of being mixed, meaning "near" by way of being the opposite of "far," but there is no association of feeling with feeling. And in the explanation of the word "near," it will be said "by way of similar parts and similar characteristics," so the meaning should be understood in the way stated. Why is it said that "nearness should not be inferred from farness"? Is it that just as unwholesome actions are inferred to be far from unwholesome actions that are near, so too, wholesome actions cannot be inferred to be near from wholesome actions that are far? It cannot be. For if that were the case, by taking wholesome actions as near to wholesome actions, nearness would be inferred from nearness itself. And if that were the case, the statement "nearer and nearer" would arise. Here, "far and near" is spoken of in a relative sense. Therefore, just as farness cannot be inferred from farness, so too, nearness cannot be inferred from nearness, because "farther and farther" and "nearer and nearer" are not intended. But if one were to say, "Wholesome actions should not be inferred as near to wholesome actions, but rather to those unwholesome actions from which they are far," that is also not the case. For wholesome actions are never near to unwholesome actions. Or if one were to say, "That unwholesome action which is near to a wholesome action, should be inferred from that wholesome action which is far," that is also not the case. For there is no unwholesome action in a wholesome action from which it could be inferred as near. Therefore, Oh, here, for what is called 'far', from the far, due to extreme dissimilarity, there is no near in the far. Thus, it is not possible to derive the near from the far. But here, when the near is spoken of, when divided, the far is found right there. Therefore, it is said: "From the near, the far should be derived." Taking one by one, it is not possible to derive the near from the far. For if it is said that 'that accompanied by hatred is far from that accompanied by greed, and that accompanied by greed is near', then the near is derived from the near itself. Similarly, if it is said that 'that accompanied by greed is far from that accompanied by hatred, and that accompanied by hatred is near', here too, it is because a similar kind is derived from a similar kind. And it is not possible to say "that accompanied by hatred is far from that accompanied by greed, and that same (hatred) is near," because being accompanied by hatred is not a cause for nearness. Therefore, dissimilarity does not operate without taking difference into account; due to the non-pervasiveness of similarity, it is not possible to derive the near from the far in the context of farness. For that accompanied by hatred does not operate pervading all similar unwholesome kinds. But similarity operates by including difference, so due to the pervasiveness of dissimilarity in the context of nearness, it is possible to derive the far from the near. For unwholesomeness pervades all dissimilarities like being accompanied by greed, etc. Therefore, it is said, "The near should not be derived from the far," and so on. The exposition of the feeling aggregate is concluded. 3. The exposition of the perception aggregate. 17. In "perception born of eye-contact," although contact is named from the basis, and perception from contact, yet, a specific perception is specified by a specific contact based on a basis, and by the basis itself, just as contact is, because it also has that basis. Therefore, it is said "named from the basis." In "perception born of impingement-contact," similarly, just as contact arises from the impingement of a basis-object, so too the perception born from it (arises from impingement). Therefore, it is said "named from the basis-object." And here, it should be understood that "impingement-contact" is said by eliding the latter part of the compound, meaning either 'contact born of impingement' or 'contact knowable by impingement'. The statement regarding knowability is further Actions proceed, or formless aggregates depend on words. Or their manifestation is by designation, thus they are called "designations." Contact born from that is "designation-contact." Or contact itself, by meanings stated, is both designation and contact, thus "designation-contact."