English
and there would be dissociation for them. Thus, due to the non-existence of non-inclusion, these and others, here too, just as with the eye-base and so on, due to the non-existence of non-inclusion of those included by these and others, these and others, in whatever way, due to being an inappropriate answer like these, such terms are not taken as includers. This is the meaning. What was said, "Indeed, the aggregate of form is included by the aggregate of form itself," that was refuted by showing the non-existence of its inclusion and non-inclusion by itself. The reason given here for non-inclusion, when understood as the non-existence of non-inclusion even when there is inclusion, would fit with the aggregates of the origin of suffering and so on, due to the non-existence of their non-inclusion when included by them. But there is nothing included by the aggregate of form and so on. Then its non-inclusion will come to be. Therefore, the absence of an includer is indeed the reason for non-inclusion here, which is appropriate. Though non-inclusion due to absence of being included does not exist for what is contained within itself, like the form aggregate, or for a part of itself, it does exist for others. Thus, it is not appropriate for the absence of both to be the reason for non-inclusion here, as it is in the case of the Noble Truth of Suffering, and so on. And when the sense-sphere of phenomena, the life faculty, and so on, are includers of the four aggregates, the dualities, and so on, it is not that there is no non-inclusion for those included by these sense-sphere of phenomena, life faculty, and so on, which are includers of sense-spheres and elements. Thus, the absence of non-inclusion is not absolute. Therefore, the reason for the non-inclusion of the non-included and the inclusion of the included should be understood in the manner stated before. Here, by "invisible and again with impact," the invisible with impact are shown. This is by combining "invisible" with the word "with impact" stated in "visible and with impact." And by "again," it shows the pair of "visible" by excluding the undifferentiated term "visible" from that very place. It is not possible to say: "The eye-sense-sphere alone is included by the eye-sense-sphere." For it has been shown that one cannot say: "The eye-sense-sphere is included by the eye-sense-sphere through the inclusion of sense-spheres," and also "not included." Thus, everywhere, in statements of includer and included concerning its whole and its parts, and in statements of non-includer and non-included, that unutterability should be applied. For it is precisely because of the absence of being an includer that eye-sense-spheres, and so on, are not called "not included by eye-sense-spheres, and so on," not because of the absence of an includer. The explanation of the term "included by the non-included" according to the second method is concluded. 3. The third method: Explanation of the term "included by the non-included." 179. In the definition of "included by the non-included," among those not included by the form aggregate through aggregate inclusion, the three aggregates of feeling, and so on, and Nibbāna, together with subtle form, being similar in terms of sense-spheres and elements, s... Moreover, the form aggregate is not merely subtle form. There is no similarity of sense-bases and elements with the form aggregate. Therefore, by it, those are not included in the inclusions of sense-bases and elements. Not only are they included, but even those not included by it are not included by those inclusions, because of the similarity of sense-bases and elements with a part of it, namely subtle form. However, the absence of inclusion is what is intended here. But those not included by the consciousness aggregate, eye-base, and so on, are not mixed with them in any way. Thus, they are not included by them at all. And Nibbāna, which is not included by the aggregate inclusion, being the collection of the five aggregates by the truths of suffering, and so on, is not included by the sense-base and element inclusions by them, just like the form aggregate. Therefore, the non-inclusion of such things should be understood as due to the absence of the quality of including. But for the unconditioned phenomena, and so on, which are the collection of the five aggregates together with Nibbāna, it is due to the very absence of being non-inclusive. Indeed, there is nothing for which they would be non-inclusive by the aggregate inclusion. And a part of oneself, similar to a part of oneself, is not included by oneself. But the inclusion of the feeling aggregate, and so on, is made because they are inclusive of what is not included by themselves. But what is said in the commentary: "those included by the mind-object base," that cannot be said. Indeed, by the mind-object base, no phenomenon is included by any inclusion, because it is a collection of dissimilar aggregates and Nibbāna. And by the aggregate inclusion, it is not itself inclusive of itself. And due to the absence of the quality of including by the sense-base and element inclusions. This method has been shown, meaning it is counted by the enumeration of the mind-object base. By "those... etc.... included," terms like "bases of psychic power" indicate a part of the mind-object base mixed with consciousness. Terms like "form aggregate" indicate a part mixed with gross form. Terms like "consciousness aggregate" and "eye-base" do not indicate the mind-object base in its entirety. And excluding terms like "mind-object base" which indicate the entire mind-object base, (it indicates) a part of the mind-object base. it shows that they are taken as illuminating, unmixed with other sense-spheres. The explanation of terms included in the third method of inclusion is finished. 4. The fourth method: explanation of terms included by inclusion 191. In the definition of terms included by inclusion, just as the second and third methods were stated as "included by the included, included by the unincluded" due to the specific ways of inclusion and non-inclusion of the three inclusions, the fourth and fifth methods are not so. For, "included by the included" is stated only by the way of inclusion, and "unincluded by the unincluded" is stated only by the way of non-inclusion. Therefore, these two methods are based on the specific distinction of included and unincluded phenomena, in the absence of a specific way of inclusion. Here, a specific phenomenon included by some included phenomenon is again a specific phenomenon included by the included, and should be questioned and answered as included. Showing this as defined, it says: "By the truth of origin, those phenomena that are aggregates... and so on... are included. By those phenomena, those phenomena that are aggregates... and so on... are included." Here, those phenomena that are not includers by all three inclusions, like the aggregate of form, the aggregate of consciousness, the sense-sphere of phenomena, the truth of suffering, etc.; and those that are not includers by the two inclusions of sense-spheres and elements, like the eye-sense-sphere, etc.; and those that are not includers by only one inclusion, like the aggregate of feeling, the truth of cessation, the life faculty, etc., or like the eye-consciousness element, etc. — these phenomena are not brought up as includers due to the absence of being includers. But those that are includers by all three inclusions are brought up here due to the absence of the absence of being includers. For those included by them are also entirely includers of their own includer, of which inclusion is to be questioned and answered. In the commentary, however, "by the entire term aggregate, etc." means by the term "aggregate of form, etc." which is a designator of the whole. What is said here: "that which, having included its own includer, again by that same inclu should go home,” it is not possible to say that there is nothing else included by that (term) without connecting it in this way with terms like “aggregate.” For it is not that what is included by something, its inclusion is asked and answered by that very thing, nor of that very thing, but rather of what is included by it. Just as feeling and sound are an aggregate and a sense-base, subtle matter is not so; but it is a part of aggregates and sense-bases. Therefore, it is said “or subtle matter,” not “or a part of subtle matter.” And everywhere it should be connected as “not mixed with anything else.” And what is said, “referring to those phenomena by which that very thing is included in terms of aggregates, etc.,” that too cannot be said in that way. For here, the inclusion of what is included by what is included is not asked and answered by what is included, but rather the inclusion itself. Therefore, “by one aggregate” means “by one aggregate enumeration,” this is the meaning here, not “by the includer.” For one aggregate is not the includer of its own part. The explanation of the term “included by what is included” in the fourth method is finished. 5. The fifth method: explanation of the term “not included by what is not included” 193. Even in the designation of the term “not included by what is not included,” the showing of phenomena as determined should be understood in the manner stated. Here, among the collection of phenomena together with consciousness and subtle matter, those that are like the truth of suffering, invisible, non-impinging, non-mental, non-clinging, even if some are not includers by one or two inclusions, they are not complete includers or non-includers because there is no phenomenon that cannot be included by three. Those that are like undifferentiated phenomena are only non-includers because they cannot be included by any inclusion.