English
"is there a sense-sphere of tongue there? Yes. Is there a sense-sphere of taste there? It should not be said thus," which proceed in an affirmative and negative, conjoined manner, are included. "Of non-tangible sense-spheres" means those devoid of the nature of the tangible sense-sphere, those of a non-tangible nature. Now, even after acknowledging smell and taste as of a non-sense-sphere nature, speaking of a fault, he says "and if". There is no reason for not stating them, as in the Dhamma-teaching of Abhidhamma, or because they are of an insentient, lifeless nature. And just as their nature as elements is absolute, so is their nature as phenomena, and so is their nature as sense-spheres. Thus, showing that there is no reason for not stating the smell and taste which are present there in the sense-spheres, he says "and their nature as phenomena". Because there is no other ultimate reality. Someone says that "something is of the nature of a sense-sphere" referring only to the sense-sphere of mind-objects. Therefore, if smell and taste are found in the realm of form, even if they are not called sense-spheres of smell and taste for the reasons mentioned, they should be called sense-spheres of mind-objects, but they are not. Therefore, it must be concluded here that "smell and taste do not exist in the realm of form". And further, for those not stated as of the nature of smell and taste in the realm of form, but stated in the realm of desire, is their existence in the realm of form by a nature other than the nature of smell and taste, or by the nature of smell and taste? If the former alternative, their presence in the sense-sphere of mind-objects there would be no collection due to the absence of a nature of a non-sense-sphere nature. Then, secondly, for the same reason, their nature as smell and taste spheres is established. To show this meaning, he says, "And if..." and so on. Therefore, because smells and tastes are not mentioned in the Dhamma-heart analysis, and their existence is rejected in the Kathāvatthu, and just as earth and so on cannot be touched, so too those that cannot be smelled or tasted do not exist, and they are included by the word "element," and their nature as dhammas is absolute, and when that exists, their nature as sense-spheres is established, therefore. Thus, by omitting the dhammas not mentioned in the Pāli, in terms of the sevenfold eye, and so on. Thus, when the counting of rūpas is done in terms of the sevenfold eye, and so on. The nature of dhamma, the Pāli dhamma, or the nature of rūpa-dhamma that occurs in the rūpa-existence. "Not inverted" indicates the dhamma as promised. And here, because rūpāvacara beings lack the nose and tongue sense-spheres, even existing smells and tastes do not perform the function of sense-spheres. Therefore, without mentioning them, the Pāli states, "Five sense-spheres appear, six sense-spheres," and so on. And "three foods" is due to the absence of food to be consumed, and the non-performance of the food function, which is the production of the eightfold nutriment, not due to the absolute absence of smells, tastes, and nutriment. Thus, due to the absence of the experiencer and the function, the object and the dhamma with the function are not mentioned. For in an existence where there is no experiencer, the nature of the object as a sense-sphere is not directly established as a result of that. Thus, even if it exists, it is not mentioned, just as in the rūpa-existence, the earth, water, and air elements do not have the nature of the tangible sense-sphere. But where something is mentioned, its nature as a sense-sphere is directly stated as a result of the presence of the experiencer, as seen there for the rūpa-sphere. If the nature of the object as a sense-sphere is directly due to the presence of the experiencer, how is it that for the non-percipient beings, two sense-spheres appear? For non-percipient beings, there is no eye-sphere, no eye-sphere. And is it that because of their non-existence the sense-sphere of forms is not an object for others? This is no contradiction. With the intention that just as for the conscious beings in the realm of form the sense-spheres of smell and so on are not spoken of, so too the sense-sphere of forms is not spoken of, it should be said that for the unconscious beings there is one sense-sphere. For, considering the sphere of their respective faculties, when those are designated for whom there is a direct sense-sphere existence, because of its non-existence the sense-spheres of smell and so on are not spoken of as distinct sense-spheres for conscious beings in the realm of form, but because they do not transgress the nature of phenomena, and because they come to be objects of mind-consciousness, they are included within the sense-sphere of phenomena, and thus it is said in the Pāli: “five sense-spheres.” It is for this reason that the naming “sense-sphere of phenomena” is general, or those are made as secondary, and it is said: “five sense-spheres.” And with the intention by which the sense-sphere of forms is spoken of for the unconscious, so too the distinct apprehension of smell and so on should be made for the conscious. To show this method, it is said: “For the gods of the unconscious realm two sense-spheres arise.” Even though there is no faculty of their own, there is no transgression of the nature of the sense-sphere of color of form, and so it is called the sense-sphere of forms. And by showing this method, it is shown that by including the three of smell and so on, there are eight sense-spheres for the conscious, and five for the unconscious. And this should be accepted. Otherwise, because they would be unable to touch in the realm of form, there would be no vocal sound of earth and so on. For there is no arising of sound without impact and friction, and it is not possible to know the non-touching nature of things that are by nature touchable, anywhere. And in the absence of the three elements which constitute the sense-sphere of touch, there would be no possibility of the sense-sphere of forms and so on in the realm of form. Therefore, even though earth and so on are capable of touching, because of the absence of the body-faculty there, their nature as touchables is not spoken of. And having done so, their being spoken of as having impact in the realm of form is also justified. For it is said: “For the unconscious beings, the non-manifest and having impact…” One great element, contact, two great elements, and so on. Here, contact is the facing of the three elements towards the sense faculty, the body-sensitivity, through the medium of impact, which is their support. And this does not exist because there is no impact for that which cannot be touched. Now, in "two sense bases," is the indirect sense base intended? Why then, including the smell sense base and others, was it not said "five sense bases"? This meaning has been stated: "The teaching proceeds according to the method of insight." Or else, the mention of the visible form sense base alone there might be with reference to the sense faculty being an object for those of other planes, not because others are absent. Nor is it because the smell sense base and others indirectly lack the nature of a sense base. For the visible form sense base of the non-percipient beings becomes an object for the sense faculty of the Vehapphala beings of the same plane, and of the Suddhāvāsa beings of higher planes. But not smell or taste. Thus, their non-mention there is appropriate. And in the Kathāvatthu, the refutation was made with reference to one who acknowledges the existence of the smell sense base and others in a direct sense. Even if this statement there is not an explanation of the absence of the smell sense base and others, is there no other statement indicating their existence? No, it is not so, because in the commentaries, their existence there has been determined and stated. For a commentary statement that does not contradict the Pāli is authoritative like the Pāli, having come down to the present day through an unblamed lineage of teachers. There might be this: A commentary statement that does not contradict the Pāli is authoritative. But this one contradicts it? No, it is not so, because it has been presented in such a way that it does not contradict. The Buddha's teaching on elements is to show the emptiness of beings in the sense bases like the eye and the consciousnesses dependent on them. Thus, the non-mention of their elemental nature is also appropriate, as it is an explanation of the elemental nature of those already mentioned as sense bases. Therefore, in such a way that there is no contradiction with the Pāli, the eight, in terms of the eye-decuplet and so on. It should be understood that there is no room for doubt about the violation of natural law in this counting of forms, which is said to be uncounted. The first meaning is that the wool on a ram at birth is naturally occurring wool. Then, referring to a more subtle state, it is said, "the embryo... etc. ... thus they say." The difference in origin, or the difference in becoming, means the difference in manifestation. In "among the Form-realm Brahmas" is the locative case, and in "among those born spontaneously" is the determinative case. Showing this, it says, "it determines the Form-realm Brahmas from among those born spontaneously." Thus, from the general group "among those born spontaneously," it determines the specific group "among the Form-realm Brahmas." "It does not agree" means it does not correspond, it contradicts. Showing the Pāli text with which it does not agree, it says, "for in the Dhammahadaya Vibhaṅga..." and so on. "Eleven" means the eleven sense-bases excluding the sound sense-base for a complete sense-base set. "For some, ten sense-bases" means excluding the eye sense-base for a blind person. "For some others, ten sense-bases"