English
being without a living being, are akin to the dharma-base, dharma-element, and dharma-qualities. Therefore, because they are included in these aggregates and so on, it is said: "birth by two aggregates," and so on. The explanation of the included and not included terms in the first method is finished. 2. The second method: explanation of the included and not included terms 171. In the designation of included and not included terms, that which is to be asked and answered, being not included in the enumeration, is the specific class of dharmas, distinguished as not included. Showing this first, it is said: "Which dharmas are included by the aggregate of form, but not included by the sense-base and element inclusion?" Everywhere, the commonalities of inclusion in aggregates and so on, always depend on distinctions, and because they are based on differences, the questions and answers, with their specific enumerations of aggregates and so on, are pure. There, by the mere statement of included and not included, the specific dharma is designated. Those which are included by one or two of the three inclusions, and not included by others, those very dharmas should be shown as: "included by the aggregate inclusion, not included by the sense-base and element inclusion." But since such are not possible, and because the matrix of the method depends on internal and external matrices, even in the enumeration, whatever is the incluser among the aggregates of form and so on, up to the end of the araṇas, by considering that, the included and not included are designated. Thus, by that, The author, to show the determined dhamma, having regulated it, says "by the eye-base" and so on. Where indeed there is no determination of specific dhammas to be questioned and answered, in the first method and the sixth method, by way of being questioned and answered, and in the others, whatever is determined to be questioned and answered, by way of regulating that, the aggregates of form and so on, up to the 'arana' (cessation), are stated. There, "by the eye-base... ...and so on... ...by the element of touch" should be seen as an instrumental in the agent sense. "By the aggregate collection, by the base collection, by the element collection" is in the instrumental sense. And here, by whichever collector, in the collections of aggregates and so on, there is something else to be collected or not collected by that, that very thing is presented as collector or non-collector. But by the aggregate of form, in the aggregate collection, there is no other dhamma to be collected. Likewise with the aggregates of feeling and so on. Nor is it itself its collector or non-collector. And what is said, "the aggregate of form is collected by one aggregate," that is not said with reference to its being collected by itself. But it is said with reference to its being taken by way of being the aggregate of form, or by the word "aggregate of form." This meaning is thus made clear. And if it itself were collected by that, in the designation of collected, associated, and dissociated terms – "By the aggregate of feeling, whichever dhammas are collected by the aggregate collection, collected by the base collection, collected by the element collection, those dhammas are associated with three aggregates, with one base, with seven elements" and so on, would have to be said. But it is not said. Therefore, just as consciousness is not associated or dissociated with consciousness, so too the aggregate of form is not collected or uncollected by the aggregate of form. Likewise the aggregates of feeling and so on, by the aggregates of feeling and so on. For it is not itself its own similar or dissimilar part. Therefore, it is not like a part of a whole, nor is the whole a collector or non-collector of its parts. Just as the aggregate of form, cak... Of the sense-bases and so on, the mind-base is of the feeling aggregate and so on. The referent phenomena are of the four aggregates. Indeed, for parts included within a whole, there is no distinction by which they might be similar or dissimilar to the whole, and the whole to them. Likewise, the whole is not a gatherer or non-gatherer of parts, whether similar or dissimilar. Just as the mind-base, by the gathering of aggregates, is of a part of the form aggregate, similar to subtle form, and dissimilar to feeling and so on. So too the life faculty, by the gathering of aggregates itself, is of a part of the form aggregate, and a part of the volitional formations aggregate, excluding life, which are similar and dissimilar to form and formless life. Indeed, a part's similarity is not the whole's similarity. Nor is a part's dissimilarity the whole's dissimilarity. Therefore, even though there is inclusion within itself by itself, and similarity to its own part, in not gathering another, there is no gathering for these (parts) themselves. Thus they cannot be non-gatherers of what is gathered. Just from the absence of gathering, the non-gathering of such things should be known. But what is said: "The mind-base, excluding the unconditioned, is gathered by four aggregates" (Dhatu. 25), and "the eye-base and ear-base are gathered by one aggregate" (Dhatu. 26) — not by that is shown the gathering-ness of the whole by the parts, nor the gathering-ness of the parts by the whole. But by the distinctions in counting the four aggregates, it shows the mind-base's fivefold division by being countable and uncountable. And it shows the single kind of the eye-base and so on by being countable with one aggregate. Indeed, the first method is merely the showing of counting for those countable and uncountable, independent of gatherers and non-gatherers, by their respective counts; it is merely the existence of action and instrument. But the second and subsequent methods are showings of non-counting and so on for those gathered and not gathered by gatherers and non-gatherers; they are the existence of agent, instrument, and action. Likewise, in the first method, similarity and dissimilarity is the presence or absence of those respective aggregates and so on, reckoned in various ways as being countable and uncountable. In the second and subsequent instances, when the designated phenomena are shown, the sameness of groups and so on between what collects and what is to be collected is called similarity. The absence of this is dissimilarity. In questions and answers, it is simply the absence of being that particular group and so on. This is their distinction. Things similar to the pleasant faculty of the origin truth are indeed to be collected by them, but what is not collected is not to be collected, and since there is no non-collector, they are not brought up. Things similar to the suffering truth, which are dissimilar origins, are to be collected by the collection of groups among many groups, and there is nothing that is not to be collected by others, since there is no collector or non-collector. Thus, due to the absence of a collector, the absence of a non-collector, and the absence of both, things similar to those mentioned are not brought up. It should be understood that only eye-base and so on are brought up, due to the presence of a collector and a non-collector. There, "by the eye-base, which phenomena are collected by the collection of groups?" It should be understood that the form phenomena apart from the eye-base are collected by the collection of groups, not the form group. For it has been shown that a part is not the collector of the whole. However, in the commentary, "by the word group" means "by the collection of the word group," not "by the collector." "By some collector" should be brought in and stated. But that is not appropriate for the form group and so on. This means that that explanation is not appropriate for the form group and other collectors. If it is said that "by the form group, indeed... and so on... collected," in this way, only the form group is collected by the eye-base, and there is nothing that is not collected by eleven and a half bases and elements, so the eye-base and so on should not be taken in this way, does it follow? It does not follow. For the meaning of the word "eva" (only) is not merely the exclusion of others, but rather the exclusion of what is other than the collector. And "so and so" and so on is not an independent statement, but rather dependent on the collector. How? Just as by the form group, only the form group is collected, so by the eye-base, something other than the eye-base is also collected by the collection of groups. that which is not included by the aggregates of sense bases and elements, there is no such thing that is included by the aggregate of form, or by another aggregate other than the aggregate of form, which would not be included by the aggregates of sense bases and elements. But the aggregate of form is included by the aggregate of form itself. This is the appropriate meaning here. It might be said, "Let that same aggregate of form not be included by the aggregates of sense bases and elements by the aggregate of form itself." To refute this, it is said, "There is no such thing as not being included by the eleven and a half sense bases and elements." Here, it should be understood as "by the aggregate of form." In that case, the aggregate of form is neither an includer nor a non-includer of the aggregate of form or its parts, such as the eye, by the aggregates of sense bases and elements. In this way, the non-existence of non-inclusion is stated, and this is fitting. It is not by the inclusion of the aggregate of form or its parts by the eleven and a half aggregates of sense bases and elements. For such inclusion does not exist. If it did, the aggregate of form would also have to be mentioned in the definition of included, associated, and dissociated terms. Then, the aggregate of form or its parts would be included by all three inclusions,