English
the word 'khandha' mentioned here is in "consciousness is the consciousness aggregate." It is established in the aggregate: it is established in the aggregate of consciousness, which is made into a heap by the gathering of wisdom, divided by distinctions such as past and so forth. By that very established usage, it occurs; by being established in the aggregate, it occurs even in a single consciousness, which is a part of it. And here, it should be understood that just as skill, being born of cleverness, is established in what is conjoined with knowledge, so too, in an aggregate of consciousness disjoined from knowledge, it occurs by established usage even in a part of it. Alternatively, 'established usage' (ruḷhi) is when, having taken some sign, even if there is something else possessing that sign, it occurs in some particular object by convention and long-standing practice, even in the absence of the sign; for example, 'mahiṃso' (buffalo) because it lies on the ground (mahiṃ seti), 'gāvo' (cow) because it goes (gacchanti); in the same way, the established usage of the word 'khandha' should be understood. "From the heap, by quality" - the ablative case should be seen as having the meaning of 'in' or 'by' everywhere. "Having determined" means having distinguished. "Meaning of a mass" is the meaning of a collection. Therefore, since only five khandhas are mentioned, and in the sense of 'part' for 'khandha', there should be a sixth khandha by way of Nibbāna, therefore, it is appropriate that the meaning of 'khandha' is 'heap'. "Or those which have distinctions by way of past and so forth" - by this and so on, it means separately in those phenomena with the nature of being crushed and so forth, which are divided by distinctions of past and so forth. It shows that just as Nibbāna, which is devoid of such divisions, cannot be taken as a heap, so too it cannot be taken as a portion, when things are taken as separate portions. It should be understood that by this, the reason for not grasping at the aggregates even in terms of designation, has been stated. Why are feeling and perception taken as separate aggregates here, without being included in the aggregate of formations, as are contact and so forth? To show the specific nature of being a root of contention, and so on. For householders, the cause of contention is attachment to sensual pleasures. And this has been stated: "Furthermore, bhikkhus, for the sake of sensual pleasures, because of sensual pleasures, on account of sensual pleasures, for the very reason of sensual pleasures, mother quarrels with son, son quarrels with mother," and so on. For renunciants, it is adherence to views. And this too has been stated: "Those who grasp at views and contend, and declare, 'This alone is true'," and so on. Among these, attachment to sensual pleasures arises from the enjoyment of feeling, and adherence to views from the perversion of perception. For from the perversion of perception comes the perversion of consciousness, and from the perversion of consciousness comes the perversion of views, conceit, craving, and mental proliferation. Similarly, one who is greedy for feeling and whose perception is perverted wanders in transmigration. For in one greedy for feeling, craving is established conditioned by feeling, and from that, conditioned by craving, clinging arises, and thus the cycle of existence revolves. And for one with perverted perception, since "mental proliferations are rooted in perception," there is no cessation of transmigration due to the non-cessation of views, conceit, craving, and mental proliferation. Thus, to show this specific nature of being a root of contention, that the causes of contention, namely attachment to sensual pleasures and adherence to views, are causes of transmigration, it should be understood that feeling and perception are taken as separate aggregates, without being included in the aggregate of formations. "In the occasions" means that the past and so on are called "occasions" because they are the places where the act of analysis occurs. "By the word 'iti'" means by the word 'iti' stated in the commentary as "upādāyarūpa" (derived form). "In the sense of example" means in the sense of illustration. "All" means the entire, divided into eleven occasions, divided. the method of division. And this division is "the four great elements... and derived form"; this division is thus divided. In "gross, etc." means in gross, subtle, inferior, excellent, far, near. And the division beginning with "eye-base, etc." means "eye-base... touch-base, femininity faculty... nutriment, forms, sounds, smells, tastes, touches" and the division that proceeds thus. "As far as possible" means as appropriate. In the eleven instances, whichever division is suitable in which, that should be applied there. "Thus also in the feeling aggregate, etc." means just as it is said that the division should be applied in the eleven instances as far as possible in the form aggregate, so too in the feeling aggregate, etc., the meaning is that the division should be applied in the eleven instances as far as possible. Therein, the feeling aggregate, first, in the former five instances, is divided according to the triad of feelings (pleasant, etc.); in the latter (six instances), according to the triad of wholesome, etc., the triad of feelings, the pair of associated, and the pair of with taints. But the perception aggregate, in the former five instances, is divided according to the six sense-doors of contact; in the latter two (instances) of gross, etc., according to the pair of impingement-contact, and according to the aforementioned triad of wholesome, etc., and so on. In the remaining (instances), only according to the triad of wholesome, etc., and so on. Similarly, the volitional formations aggregate. The pair of impingement-contact is not present in this context. Only volition is mentioned here to show the predominance of volition among the phenomena of the volitional formations aggregate. For thus it (volition) is called "the volitional formations aggregate." "Therein" means in that re-statement of the division of the consciousness aggregate. But that pair means the pair of mind-element and mind-consciousness-element. For that which in the teaching of the seven consciousness-elements is taught as the pair "mind-element, mind-consciousness-element," that in the teaching of the six consciousness-groups is simply called "mind-consciousness." "According to the Pāli method" means according to the Pāli method of the Analysis of Aggregates. "By another method" means by another method presented in the Dhammasaṅgaṇī and in its commentary. 1. Elucidation of the Description of the Form Aggregate 2. The word "whatever" means "some." He says they are not of the same meaning: "Kiñci" touches upon a difference in another kind, showing indefiniteness. By both ways, by the two words "yaṃ kiñci," which proceed by showing indefiniteness, both without touching upon and by touching upon a difference in kind. The intended meaning is form. "Aticca" means having gone beyond. "Pavattito" means from proceeding. "Niyamanatthaṃ" means for the purpose of stopping. In "kiñcā," the word "kiṃ" indicates a causal meaning in a question, and it is a nominative case in the instrumental sense, and the word "ca" is an embellishment of speech; thus he says, "By what reason would you say?" In the second alternative, however, the word "kiṃ," which proceeds in the causal sense in the manner stated, is transformed by its connection with the verb "vadethā" in an instrumental sense, and he says, "You should state that reason." "Breaking of the former continuum" means the destruction of the former continuum; and here, by the designation of destruction, it shows only the arising of dissimilarity in the continuum. Therefore he says, "because of the perception of the arising of a dissimilar continuum." But is there not also the arising of dissimilarity in mental phenomena when hostile conditions come together? Truly, there is; but that is not so evident, and what is intended here is what is more evident. Therefore he says, "when cold, etc., come together." And thus the Blessed One said, "It is afflicted by cold, it is afflicted by heat," and so on (Saṃ. Ni. 3.79). Now, showing that the word "bheda" directly speaks of a change of state, he says, "And the break," and so on. The meaning is only the arising of a dissimilar form, not the alteration of what has arisen. By this, he rejects the Sāṃkhya doctrine of transformation. If the break from the former continuum is the arising of dissimilarity, affliction, then there would be an over-extension of the characteristic; having taken this objection into consideration, he says, "of the immaterial aggregates," and so on. Here, by "cold, etc.," just as heat, hunger, etc., are included, so too should the inclusion of food, etc., be understood. "By which" means by which coming together with cold, etc. "There" means in those material phenomena. Or the connection is "of that which has attained stability, such as food." Just as for material phenomena, at the moment of their stability, there is a coming together with cold, etc. Thus, the formless aggregates have no association with others, being extremely subtle in change. Therefore, formless phenomena, like form phenomena, due to the absence of manifest change, are not called "are afflicted" or "having the characteristic of affliction." This is the connection. To show the meaning of the word "ruppati" in terms of agent and object cases, in the commentary, it is said: "is disturbed, is struck, is oppressed, is broken." Explaining that meaning, it begins with "by 'kuppati' (is disturbed)" and so on. "Action of disturbance, etc." means the action of disturbance, striking, and oppression. Here, the word "kopa" should be understood as a synonym for "khobha" (agitation). "Meaning as agent and object"