English
How is their non-existence after being known? By seeing their change moment by moment. How is that known? By reasoning. What is the reasoning here? The apprehension of distinction. If there were no change moment by moment in the eye and so on, then the apprehension of distinction later, which arises from a change in external conditions, would not occur. For that which does not have such moment-by-moment change, how could there be an apprehension of distinction later when there is no distinction in external conditions? But the apprehension of distinction does occur. Therefore, there is a moment-by-moment change in them, which, gradually increasing, later becomes more manifest. Thus, for the body, there is an apprehension of distinction due to the instability of the in-breaths and out-breaths, and due to weariness. For the in-breaths and out-breaths are unstable, occurring in turns. If there were no distinction in the body later, whether one has breathed in or breathed out, there would be no difference in them, but such a difference is observed. Therefore, the body, having breathed in, changes and gradually reaches a state that is a condition for the out-breath; and having breathed out, again in the same way, it becomes a condition for the in-breath. Thus, even from the instability of the in-breaths and out-breaths, the apprehension of distinction in the body proves its changeability. Similarly, weariness would not occur later in the body if there were no distinction, by which one dispels weariness by changing postures and so on. Or, the apprehension of distinction also arises from the differences in form and so on. For the distinction in form, smell, taste, touch, and so on, which is later apprehended in the body and in non-sensory objects like milk, water, cloth, flowers, fruits, medicines, grains, and so on, is a difference in their color, strength, and so on, and a difference in their taste, potency, and resultant effect, in their states of decay and so on, even when there is no distinction in external conditions, moment by moment. Without change, how could it be perceived? But as for that natural form like stone, etc., what about that? Even for that, due to the difference in cold and hot contacts, there is indeed a perception of distinction. That, without momentary change, is not fitting. And when there is a difference in form, etc., the difference in the great elements it depends on is also proven. For without a difference in the dependent great elements, a difference in the dependent things cannot arise. Thus, from the perception of distinction in material phenomena, there is momentary change, and from that, the proof of having been and then ceasing. But for immaterial phenomena, there is a perception of distinction due to differences in objects, etc. For wherever immaterial phenomena arise in an object, right there they cease, they do not transfer to another. And object-phenomena do not endure beyond their own moment. This meaning should be understood by examples like a lamp. Indeed, different forms, etc., are momentary in a lamp flame, and likewise in falling streams of milk, etc., and contacts when wind strikes. If even these are momentarily changing, how much more so for consciousness and mental factors? Moreover, due to differences in sound, and even specific sounds, there is momentary change in the consciousness and mental factors that are their signs, and from that, a perception of distinction. Indeed, the difference in sounds arising from the mind is seen in one who quickly recites a well-mastered text. For without a difference in cause, there is no difference in effect. Just as with the sounds of instruments, so too is the perception of distinction in immaterial phenomena due to differences in objects. Therefore, their momentary change should be understood. Even in the perception of distinction due to differences in associated phenomena of birth and planes, the same method applies. Thus, from the perception of distinction in material and immaterial phenomena, momentary change is proven. Because they arise and then cease, the eye, etc., are proven to be impermanent. And because of impermanence, they are suffering due to constant oppression. And from that, because they are not subject to control, they are non-self. Therefore, the Blessed One said: "What is impermanent, that is suffering. What is suffering, that is non-self." 10). "Continuously occurring" means it speaks distinguishing the meaning of "frequently" or "constantly." "By mere element" means by the state of being mere elements. "Collected" means from the aggregate of eye and so on, with their constituents. The word "of eyes and so on" is to be understood as a genitive case when connected with the word "collected," and as an objective case when connected with the word "disintegrating." "All four densities" are the densities of continuity, collection, function, and object. "From the apprehension of occurring forms and so on" should be connected as "that which occurs by way of being afflicted and so on, and that apprehension of forms and so on" is the apprehension of occurring forms and so on; "from that." "Due to the existence of the apprehension of impermanence and so on" means because the knowledge of impermanence and so on, distinct from the knowledge of form and feeling and so on, is obtainable. Even though the states of impermanence and so on belong to the objects of form and so on, it states the distinction of the state of impermanence and so on from the state of affliction and so on. Now, to make that distinction clear by being the object of the knowledge of knowing and the knowledge of investigating, it says, "For indeed..." and so on. "Not overshot" —here, the characteristic and the characterized are said to be distinct. In that case, it is not proper to overstate by implying a contradiction, saying they are not distinct, when the vipassanā whose object is the characteristic is said to have the aggregates as its object. If you ask, "Why?" it is said, "Those aspects..." and so on. The intention here should be understood as the manifestation of the characteristics as merely aspects of form and so on. For indeed, one who discerns the formations by their nature as "impermanent, suffering, non-self" also discerns the characteristics. Just as there is a distinction between impermanence and so on and the state of impermanence and so on, as explained, so too, even though there is a commonality in the state of being characteristics, there is a distinction among the three doors to liberation— impermanence, suffering, and non-self— due to their being objects of different knowledges, having different opponents, and having different predominant faculties. Thus, it says, "And one who apprehends as impermanent..." and so on. That is very easy to understand. The commentary on the Suttanta division is finished. 2. Commentary on the Abhidhamma division 155. "By way of the pair of conditions" means by way of the two conditions: internal and external. "Without confusion by way of internal and external" means without confusion by way of internal and by way of external. 167. "Disintegration" of one inclined to Nibbāna. Of one completely freed from formations means of one completely freed from formations, by the cessation of all formations, by the calming of all formations, by the abandonment of craving and attachment, by the highest peace, and by being a refuge. For it is said, “Nibbāna is the destination of the Arahant.” “By being established” is also a reading. In the absence of realizing it means in the absence of realizing that Nibbāna. Led means brought, made known is the meaning. Crushed means broken. Why do you not know? means why do you not know? The opponent, making such a digression as, “Do you know one thing or another? Why do you not know?” is bound by the proponent with “Is it not known?” and so on. Having analyzed means having analyzed the meaning as “because it arises when defilements like lust are exhausted.” The connection is that they do not arise due to the exhaustion of lust and so on. And the inherent nature of Nibbāna is attained. By making Nibbāna the object, which is the cause. For this instrumental case denotes the cause. Or, for one who desires Nibbāna to be merely the exhaustion of defilements, the connection is that it should be by the exhaustion of defilements. Thus, in Nibbāna, which is merely the exhaustion of defilements, the defilements to be exhausted are various and of many kinds, and the path exhausts defilements generally. This refers to the two previous questions: “What exhaustion of defilements, Nibbāna, making what defilements its object, does it exhaust?” That very thing means that which was said, “even a small part of ignorance and craving.” And here, the accusation of non-existence of Nibbāna, which is “Nibbāna is merely the exhaustion of defilements,” is refuted by demonstrating its existence or non-existence from scripture and reason. For the Blessed One said: “There is, monks, the unborn, unbecome, unmade, unconditioned.” “There is, monks, that sphere where there is neither earth, nor water, nor fire, nor air.” And so on, and also: “Profound, difficult to see, difficult to comprehend, peaceful, sublime, beyond the sphere of logic, subtle, to be experienced by the wise.” I will teach you, monks, the Unconditioned and the path leading to the Unconditioned. The endless, the taintless, the truth, the far shore, the subtle, the very difficult to see, the undecaying, the permanent, the unobserved, the unmanifested, the unproliferated, the peaceful, the deathless, the excellent, the auspicious, the secure, the destruction of craving, the wonderful, the amazing, the uncalamitous, the nature of uncalamity, Nibbāna, the unafflicted, dispassion, purity, release, non-attachment, the island, the shelter, the protection, the refuge, the ultimate goal.