English
Homage to the Blessed One, the Arahant, the Perfectly Self-Enlightened One In the Abhidhamma Piṭaka The Mūlaṭīkā on the Five Treatises The Mūlaṭīkā on the Dhātukathā Treatise Description of the Commencement of the Work To show the time when the Blessed One taught the Dhātukathā treatise, or to show that this treatise, taught after the Vibhaṅga, is the Dhātukathā, he said, "with eighteen," and so on. There, because the Māra of the devaputtas was crushed by overcoming the realm of power and destruction, because the Māra of defilements and formations was crushed by making them cease, because the Māra of aggregates was crushed by comprehending their arising and cessation, and because the Māra of death was crushed at the foot of the Bodhi tree, the Blessed One is praised as "Mārabhañjano" (Crusher of Māra) due to that unsurpassed crushing, which was independent of external support. There, he crushed Māras, or this is his crushing of Māra, not the crushing of other kings, etc., hence Mārabhañjano. Greatly victorious, greatly energetic, hence Mahāvīro (Great Hero). The aggregates and so on, up to the states that are free from defilement, are called dhātus (elements) in the sense of their intrinsic nature, or in the sense of being the basis for Abhidhamma discourse. Because they are discussed, this treatise is called Dhātukathā (Discourse on Elements). Although these natures are also discussed in other treatises, here, because all of them are discussed in each of the fourteen methods, such as inclusion and non-inclusion, the discussion is exceptional, and therefore this alone is so named. For elsewhere, only a partial discussion is made. Or, because the methods of inclusion and non-inclusion, etc., of the aggregates and so on, up to the states that are free from defilement, are stated by means of aggregates, sense bases, and elements, it should be understood that its name is Dhātukathā, a discourse by means of elements, due to the elements having a vast scope. He proclaimed the division of elements in many ways— in two ways, in three ways, in six ways, in eighteen ways— hence Dhātubhedappakāsano (Proclaimer of the Divisions of Elements). "Tassatthaṃ" means the meaning of that Dhātukathā. The elision of the 'a' sound in place of the 'ā' sound should be noted. Or, in "yaṃ dhātukathaṃ," the word "pakaraṇaṃ" is understood as a supplement, because the description proceeds in order for the seven treatises, and thus, by connecting it, "tassatthaṃ" means the meaning of that treatise. or the elision of the letter 'a'. 'Tanti' means 'listen to that exposition', or 'understand that meaning by listening to the words of that exposition'. 'Samāhitā' means 'with minds not distracted by various tasks', or 'with minds placed within oneself'. The description of the commencement of the text is finished. 1. Description of the Matrix 1. Description of the Method Matrix 1. What then is the division of this treatise? It should not be stated here, as the division of the treatise has already been stated in the Aṭṭhasālinī (Dhammasaṅgaṇī Aṭṭhakathā, Nidānakathā), thus showing, it says, "It is said to be divided in fourteen ways." 'Nayā' are those by which the teaching of aggregates and so forth is led or proceeds, or by which aggregates and so forth are led or understood. 'Mātikā' is the outline of these methods, or the methods themselves are the matrix. Because these terms are fundamental, meaning that the fourteen terms such as inclusion and exclusion, which are called "root matrices," are fundamental and supportive for the division of phenomena like aggregates in this treatise. 2. Description of the Internal Matrix 2. By "the five aggregates" and so forth, terms like the rūpa-aggregate are shown. And by the statement of dependent origination, the twelve terms whose meaning is that the word 'dependent origination' applies to each of the twelve factors, are shown. Thus, regarding those terms like contact, which are shown as such, and shown in their own nature, it says, "by one hundred and twenty-five terms." Here, the twelve-factored nature of dependent origination should be understood because the becoming of karma and rebirth, which are divided here, are undesirable like sorrow and so forth, and like old age and death, due to their nature as suffering caused by them, and because they are included in old age and death. And here, it should be understood that by taking the factors like mindfulness, which are not explicitly stated in the Pāli text, it shows that they should also be explicitly stated. The matrix, from the method matrix to the characteristic matrix, is called the matrix of the Dhātukathā because it is unique to this treatise among other treatises. The division stated within it... Explaining this meaning, that "the exposition of what is to be conquered is called the internal mātikā," he said, "Indeed, this..." and so on. There, "not having said thus" means: just as "all... and so on... mātikā" is stated outside the Dhātukathā mātikā, so "not having said thus" is the meaning. And "within the Dhātukathā" should be understood as "within the Dhātukathā mātikā." For when placed within that unique mātikā, it is said to be placed within that very one. Or else, "not having said thus" means: just as by the statement "all... and so on... mātikā" the mātikā, from wholesome to the cessation of defilements, which is outside the Dhātukathā, is stated as belonging to another treatise, so "not having said thus" is the meaning. And "within the Dhātukathā" means that it is placed, having been shown in its own form, within this very treatise. Because not all of Abhidhamma is included in the mātikā, its scattered nature should be understood as miscellaneous. 3. Explanation of the Nayamukhamātikā The states of inclusion, non-inclusion, disjunction, and conjunction, which are the gateways for the modes of operation, are the nayamukhas (modes' entrances); their exposition is the nayamukhamātikā. Indeed, all fourteen modes operate by way of a mixture of inclusion, non-inclusion, conjunction, and disjunction. The states by which these four exist are the entrances for all fourteen modes. There, regarding terms like "included" and "not included," even if inclusion and non-inclusion are stated in relation to truths and so on, as appropriate, that is stated by those that are the includers, not by those that are the included. Even that, in the extraction of states to be questioned and answered, such as "which states, by the eye-base, are included by the aggregate of form but not included by the base of eye?", is stated as being determined by the aggregates and so on, as includers. Therefore, it is said: "Inclusion by three, non-inclusion by three." Moreover, in the extraction of states to be questioned and answered, and in the questions and answers themselves, the conjunctions and disjunctions, as appropriate, of the aggregates of form and so on, up to cessation, occur only with the four aggregates. Thus it is said: "Conjunction by four, disjunction by four." But surely disjunction... It occurs with form and Nibbāna. Why is it said "disjoined from four"? Even though it exists with form and Nibbāna, it is due to its nature of being four. For form is not disjoined from form or Nibbāna. Nor is Nibbāna disjoined from form. But it occurs with the four aggregates. Thus, the disjunction of the four aggregates from form and Nibbāna is determined by the four aggregates that are disjoined, because without them there is no disjunction. And this disjunction does not occur for the non-object, nor for the mixed with non-object and non-object. But it should be understood that it occurs for the non-object and the mixed with an object, and for the object with an object and the mixed with a non-object. 4. Explanation of the Characteristic Matrix 4. The method of collection is collection itself. Similar. Dissimilar. For this, a separate application should be made with "collection with three, non-collection with three" and "conjoined with four, disjoined from four." By this, the meaning is understood that collection and non-collection are similar and dissimilar states, and likewise conjunction and disjunction. Or, that phenomenon for which there is collection and non-collection, that is similar and dissimilar. Likewise, that for which there is conjunction and disjunction, that too is similar and dissimilar. There, that by which phenomena, such as the aggregate of form... and the mind-consciousness element, go into reckoning, that common nature, such as being afflicted, is to be understood as similarity in collection, and common arising, etc., in conjunction. 5. Explanation of the External Matrix 5. Thus, being placed outside the matrix of the discourse on elements, the meaning is that "all... matrix" is placed outside, at the back, in this manner of placement. Or, by this manner of placement, it means that the skillful, etc., up to the arana, not being placed here, are placed outside the matrix of the discourse on elements, as the matrix of another treatise, and thus revealed as the matrix of this treatise. Among "collection, non-collection, etc.", collection is only one kind. So why is it said to be "fourfold"? Because the word "collection" is used without stating its meaning, and its meaning is undetermined. Collection as In words like "aṅgahoti" and so on, the word "saṅgaha" (inclusion) is, according to its meaning, fourfold; this is the explanation here. Or, even if the meaning is not specifically determined, it is generally to be understood. When "saṅgaha" is said in phrases like "saṅgaha, asaṅgaha" (inclusion, non-inclusion), there is no fault. For when the specific meaning is determined, it would be of one kind, not before that. Since the word "jāti" (kind) is a relative term, when "jātiyā saṅgaho" (inclusion by kind) is said, it is understood as "by its own kind," because no other suitable connection is stated.