English
appears as pleasant, even so, just as the human-like form born of wholesome kamma, belonging to some animals and so on, though appearing unpleasant, is in reality desirable, being an object of wholesome result, so too, what is born of unwholesome kamma, though appearing pleasant to some, is in reality undesirable, being an object of unwholesome result. And this should be accepted. Otherwise, there would be a contradiction with the Aṭṭhāna Pāḷi (M.N. 3.131) which states: "It is impossible, there is no opportunity, for a desirable, lovely, pleasant result to arise from bodily misconduct." Therefore, he says, "but of that born of wholesome kamma," and so on. "Of all" means of oneself and of others. The non-existence of the desirable should be stated. Just as it is said, "there is no such thing as undesirable born of wholesome kamma," so too, although it is not stated in the commentary, "there is no such thing as desirable born of unwholesome kamma," yet by that method of showing, the non-existence of what is born of unwholesome kamma (as desirable) is indeed stated. The intention is that this should be determined and stated by way of explanation. By this, he shows that the emphasis on the preceding word "only what is born of wholesome kamma is desirable" should be taken. Now, by "even of elephants and so on," and so forth, he clarifies that very meaning. "Of wholesome result" means here too, the meaning is "an object of wholesome result only." And "of humans" is an example. It should be seen. And for others, that which is born of unwholesome kamma is the object of unwholesome result, and that which is born of wholesome kamma is the object of wholesome result— this method has been shown. Why, in a matter mixed with pleasant and unpleasant, does only pleasantness persist? It is said: "by a pleasant object... ...it is possible to say." It is well said, that "pleasant and unpleasant are determined solely by the result," thus the determination of pleasant and unpleasant objects is well stated. Following that, following the determination of pleasant and unpleasant objects by way of result. Everywhere, in good and bad destinations, or in all objects. By the word "unpleasant," their pleasantness is ceased. It is said: "and similarity is just the state of form, etc." Forms, etc., are only pleasant sense objects, as stated in the Suttas. Thus, just as a friend's opponent is an enemy, so the pleasant's opponents are the unpleasant— this is intended. It is said: "unpleasant... ...is like a designation." If it is asked how all these unpleasant forms, etc., can become sense objects, given the statement "lovely form, delightful form" (Dī. Ni. 2.400; Ma. Ni. 1.133; Vibha. 203)? Because even for them, by way of perversion, being objects of craving, the state of being a lovely form is intended. If so, how is the Sutta passage "forms cognizable by the eye are pleasant," etc. (Ma. Ni. 1.166; 2.155; 3.57; Saṃ. Ni. 5.30) to be understood? It is said: "exceedingly," etc. To show that in the Pāḷi, the designation of the inferior pair occurs by way of forms bound to the faculties, it is said: "in both inferior and superior passages," etc. The genitive case is for a partitive relation, not for an agent—this is the intention. When forms bound to the faculties are designated in "of those beings," why is the meaning stated by way of kamma-born, and not by way of the four continuities? It is said: "the continuity of beings... ...is stated." Because of its pre-eminence, having stated the meaning by way of kamma-born, an over-application is made in the commentaries for the rest: "thus also in those arisen from season, etc." "In this meaning, 'by those'"— by this, the genitive case "of those" is suspected to be in the agentive sense. There, when there is an object, or in the master's word, it shows the quality obtained by saying "not merely by the force of kamma," etc., and the mention of kamma here should be understood as an indication. Being the boundary means being the ultimate boundary. Therefore, it says, "Whatever is pleasing to him, that is supreme to him." Of these means of sense pleasures. By nature means by characteristic. By "from delighting and being displeased in the same thing," etc., it shows that the explanation of the Suttanta, "because the same forms, etc., one delights in," etc., is stated as the cause for the agreeable and disagreeable states. The grasping of agreeable and disagreeable occurs means that, just as in Nibbāna, the grasping of the disagreeable, by perversion of perception, the clinging to agreeable and disagreeable occurs even in other objects, this is the intention. Division means non-confusion, and expansion means it states the meaning of the word "divided" as "established, revealed." Of others means of the extremely poor. This is agreeable and disagreeable means that by the word "and" here, the meaning that it is disagreeable and agreeable is also stated, this should be understood. Disagreeable and agreeable means applying it in order, that is, grasping the agreeable as "disagreeable" and the disagreeable as "agreeable." By the occurrence of sense faculty distortion, etc., the word "etc." here includes former volitional formations, etc. For even without a perversion of perception, due to previously arisen mental formations, the agreeable is grasped as "disagreeable" and the disagreeable as "agreeable." By that result means by that wholesome and unwholesome result. The agreeableness and disagreeableness of the object means it shows the agreeableness and disagreeableness, respectively, of the object in which it arises, such as the form of the Buddha, etc., and filth, etc. Showing the rule of result by the object even when there is a perversion of perception means that only a wholesome result arises in an agreeable object, and only an unwholesome result arises in a disagreeable object, thus showing the rule of result by the object. For the purpose of showing the rule of the object means for the purpose of showing that what is the object of a wholesome result is called agreeable. What is the object of an unwholesome result is called disagreeable. Indeed, the result determined by the object becomes the determiner of its own helpful object. In the interval of an object that is a cause of suffering, from producing a pleasant result in the interval; in the interval of an object that is a cause of pleasure, from producing a painful result in the interval; by showing the determination of objects through results, the pleasantness and unpleasantness are shown by way of results – this is the connection. 7. By the reason of being difficult to grasp, the characteristic, the nature of faculties and so on, is difficult to penetrate. Similarly, by being easy to grasp, the characteristic is easy to penetrate – this should be understood. "Far" means of that which is not said, by characteristic, of that which is not spoken of as "far." Even that which is spoken of, by characteristic, even subtle form spoken of as "far." "Breaking" means "mixing" – so it is said, "making it mixed." But since "breaking" can also mean "making distinct," therefore, in the second alternative, for the word "breaking," he gives the meaning "making it separate." In the third alternative, "breaking" means "destroying." Therefore he says, "breaking the state of nearness and making it a state of farness, and breaking the state of farness and making it a state of nearness." Indeed, it is not possible to make nearness into farness without destroying its nature, and similarly for the other. By making it a state of nearness, it does not break, it does not destroy. Nor does it break or make distinct by separating what is far by space from what is far by characteristic. Nor does it break or mix by mixing what is far by space with what is far by characteristic – this is the connection. The meaning briefly stated as "the meaning should be seen in three ways" is explained by "indeed not" and so on. "Makes separate," "makes mixed" – the connection is made by bringing in the word "makes." By "here also" and so on, just as in "it breaks only what is far by space," making what is far by space into a state of nearness by space is intended, which is destruction, breaking. Similarly, in "it does not break what is far by characteristic," not making what is far by characteristic into a state of nearness by characteristic is non-breaking, non-destruction. shows this meaning of 'seat'. Referring to the state of being mixed and being divided, it says: "Here, 'breaking' is said in a different sense." In the latter method, referring only to the meaning of destruction, it said: "Here, 'breaking' is also said in a different sense." The description of the section on the aggregate of form is completed. 2. The description of the section on the aggregate of feeling 8. 'The eye and other sense faculties' refers to the eye, ear, nose, and tongue faculties, which are included in the gross state, and the eye and ear faculties, which are included in the mind-made state. 'They are worthy of the term 'body'' means that because they are included in the body and are a part of the body, they are worthy of being called 'body'. For 'body' is also used to mean 'existence', as in "the view of an existing body" and so on. And 'body' is also used to mean 'physical body', as in "he creates another body from this body" and so on. 'Based on them' means dependent on the eye and other sense faculties, and is said by way of implication to be 'physical'. But directly, they are 'mental'. As it is said: "that mental feeling which at that time arises from the contact of the eye-consciousness element, which is neither pleasant nor unpleasant, which is neither painful nor pleasurable, arising from mental contact" and so on. By "the eye and other sense faculties are not physical faculties," it shows that feelings dependent on the physical faculty are directly 'physical'.