English
Therefore, they are not brought forth in the sense of being non-includers, but the others are brought forth in the opposite sense. However, what is said in the commentary, “for by such a term, Nibbāna would not attain the mere inclusion of aggregates,” that is said with reference to the truth of suffering. But Nibbāna is included among the invisible and non-impinging non-includers, not And that alone is not included by it. By combining them according to similar answers, with the second question and so on, thus made, the first question, the name-and-form question, and so on, all together become thirty-four; this is the meaning. The word extracted by the question, "that alone" refers to a specific word like the form aggregate, not to the specific phenomena to be questioned. For these are shown by their characteristics, not by their intrinsic nature through a word. Here, by the word "alone" in "that alone", it should be understood that it shows the certainty of what is extracted not being included by what is not included, and the uncertainty of others. For in "that alone by which it is not included", the remaining phrase "certainly" can be supplied. Or, the word "alone" in "that alone" means that what is extracted by the question, being of such a kind, is certainly not included by what is not included, by virtue of its being extracted by the question. It should not be seen as preventing others from not being included by what is not included. For what is extracted by the question, whether accompanied by others or not accompanied, is not included by what is not included. For the form aggregate and so on are accompanied by others, while the consciousness aggregate and so on are not accompanied. "The rest are included" – this should be understood as "the rest are not not included". By those consciousness phenomena, those form phenomena alone are not included by the three categories. The meaning is that what is extracted by the question, being not included by the three categories, is not included. For feelings and so on, not extracted, are also not included. Here, in the first method, feelings and so on are said to be not included by consciousness. In the second, "only form phenomena" – this is the distinction. For feelings and so on are not included by the aggregates, etc., only by form and consciousness. The meaning is that they are not included by the three categories: gross form and consciousness. For a part of form is taken here by the term "form". 196. In the fourth question, "the eye-base by feelings and so on, by four" – here, by "the eye-base", what is extracted by the question is not included. It should be understood that it shows. However, the ten gross sense bases, not included by the eye-base, are not the eye-base itself. By "form and the mind-base," and so on, that which is not included by the three groups of phenomena is consciousness itself. And that which is not included by that unincluded (consciousness), all that, except consciousness, is expressed in those very phenomena. Similar answers should be expressed and shown together. There, when similar answers for the first form-aggregate are expressed and shown together, other dissimilar answers are shown by way of explanation. Therefore, it is said: "Form and the mind-base... and so on... are shown summarized in another way." There, "two existences" are the non-percipient one-constituent existence. "Two" refers only to external clinging-phenomena. That by which the unincluded, not included by the non-includer, which is to be questioned and answered, is delimited— that, starting with the form-aggregate, is called "domain" (visaya) because it is the basis for those questions and answers. However, since it is merely an explanation of the summary shown, it is called "method" (nayo). "And the twenty-twofold method" is also a reading; the meaning is, "this is the twenty-two-word method." The explanation of the term "unincluded by the unincluded" in the fifth method is concluded. 6. The Sixth Method: Explanation of the terms "association" and "disassociation." 228. In the terms "association" and "disassociation," whatever is found and whatever is not found, all that is included in the question— this is not said with reference to terms like the form-aggregate, etc., but rather, it should be understood as referring to the term "association" and the term "disassociation." Indeed, in the form-aggregate, etc., whatever term, like the mind-base, is not found, that is also not included in the question. However, the term "association," even if not found in the form-aggregate, etc., is included in the question thus: "With how many... and so on... is the form-aggregate associated?" It is found in the feeling-aggregate, etc. But the term "disassociation" is always found everywhere. However, there is no such thing as association of material phenomena with matter or Nibbāna, nor of Nibbāna with matter, because of their co-arising... By preventing association due to the absence of dissimilarity, that very co-arising and so on is their dissimilarity; and from its absence, disjunction is also prevented, it should be understood. For the co-arising and so on existing in the four aggregates is their mutual similarity, and their dissimilarity with form and Nibbāna, and the dissimilarity of form and Nibbāna with them. And that co-arising and so on does not exist for a part of form or for Nibbāna, which would be the dissimilarity of a part of form with parts of form and Nibbāna, and of Nibbāna with form. Therefore, it is said "disjoined from four". In "not disjoined from even one of the seven consciousness-elements", just as the realm of form (is disjoined) from three consciousness-elements, and neither-result-nor-result-producing phenomena from five, and non-initial-application-non-sustained-application from one, they indicate non-object-mixed phenomena as disjoined. Not indicating thus, when not disjoined from even one, (they are) associated with all seven, or they indicate all seven. This is the meaning. For "not disjoined" means those phenomena which are not disjoined, it is said to be those phenomena, not "associated". Therefore, the terms like 'sense-base of phenomena' which indicate those associated with them, and the terms like 'non-mental concomitants' which indicate what is not to be spoken of in terms of association or disjunction, and the terms like 'truth of suffering' which indicate what is associated and not to be spoken of— the non-inclusion of all these indicators of non-object-mixed phenomena is stated. For there is no association or disjunction of the aggregates of non-object-mixed, all consciousness-elements, those associated with them, and both of these, with the aggregates, sense-bases, or elements. If so, in the definition of 'disjoined and not disjoined' terms, it should not be said: "those phenomena which are disjoined from wholesome phenomena, those phenomena which are disjoined from those phenomena." For unwholesome and indeterminate (phenomena) are they non-object-mixed and both types of phenomena? No, because of the statement of the absence of association and disjunction of the aforementioned aggregates and so on with the aggregates and so on themselves. For the aggregates and so on are parts of them, and other aggregates that are parts of them. And due to the absence of distinction between aggregates and their parts, there is no similarity or dissimilarity. Therefore, for them... there is no conjunction or disjunction with aggregates and so on. But wholesome states are distinct from unwholesome and indeterminate states, and these are distinct from wholesome states. There is no part of their collection, nor is there a part of one collection and a part of another collection. Therefore, without touching upon aggregates and so on, by the mere fact of disjunction, when showing the states as defined, the disjunction of others from wholesome states, and of wholesome states from others, is not absent, because of their dissimilarity. Thus, their mutual disjunction is stated. This method applies to all such cases. However, in the summary, “eighteen and beyond” should be “sixteen”; and “twenty-three” should be “twenty-one”. And everywhere, the aggregates of enumeration, the aggregates, the elements, the sense bases, and the elements of states, which are collections of many states, free from or not free from distinctions of time and continuum, are taken as parts, such as the aggregate of feeling, which is the truth of origination, and also as mixed parts, such as the bases of power, and as unmixed with non-objects, such as the aggregate of form, and as unmixed with objects, and as distinct from other parts that are simultaneous and continuous, by way of being conjoined or disjoined. Thus, they obtain conjunction and disjunction, as appropriate, with those other distinct parts. For there is their co-arising and so on, their similarity and dissimilarity. Therefore, in various places, it is said, “conjoined with one aggregate, with one sense base, with one element, with some,” and “disjoined from one sense base, from one element, from some.” However, the aggregates of feeling, perception, and consciousness, which are collections of different times, and also individual states in the present, therefore, since there is no simultaneous division for them, the faculty of pleasure and so on do not make a division of the aggregate of feeling, nor do the element of eye-consciousness and so on make a division of the aggregate of consciousness and the mind-base. Therefore, it is not said, “the faculty of pleasure is disjoined from one aggregate, from some,” and “the element of eye-consciousness is disjoined from one aggregate, from one sense base, from some,” and so on. But consciousness, even without a division of aggregates and sense bases, is indeed divided by the division of elements. It is said: "The eye-consciousness element... ...