English
the mind-consciousness element are disjoined from sixteen elements." Just so, for the faculties like the pleasure faculty, distinguished by faculty division, their disjunction should be understood as appropriate in phrases like "the states disjoined from the pleasure faculty." Not for the feeling aggregate which is not distinguished. 235. Just as, referring to its conjoined nature, it is said: "The truth of origin is conjoined with three aggregates," why is it not said, referring to its disjoined nature: "It is disjoined from three aggregates"? Because it is not appropriate to speak of disjunction with those (aggregates) when they are not distinguished. Indeed, when there is distinction, it is appropriate to say that the truth of origin is disjoined from the faculties of pleasure, pain, and displeasure, and from consciousness elements other than the mind-consciousness element, because dissimilarity is included precisely by distinction. But it is not appropriate with the feeling aggregate and others which lack distinction, because there is no dissimilarity between the existing origin and those existing (aggregates). For that which is to be distinguished as a conditioned thing, not like unarisen states which do not have a distinction of time, that is distinguished by way of conjunction and disjunction based on its present existence. And that (distinction) is to be relied upon as existing in an undifferentiated time, based on the present existence of the conditioned aggregates and others which lack distinction. Indeed, there is no conjunction of the non-existent with the non-existent, nor of the non-existent with the existent, nor of the existent with the non-existent. But disjunction, when distinctions indicating non-existence are taken, then dissimilarity is also taken thereby. But when distinctions are not taken, and dissimilarity is not taken by that particular apprehension, then, when there is similarity, the existence of states is shown by delimiting the similar by its existence, and thus similarity, characterized by common arising and so on, is also taken. And because that (similarity) is taken, only conjunction is obtained, not disjunction. Therefore, the truth of origin is said to be conjoined with the feeling aggregate and others, not disjoined. This is the method. even in the truths, etc. 262. He shows that the commentary’s statement, “Except for the investigation of the second jhāna, the rest are merely without initial thought and without sustained thought,” means that those which are prominent, not clinging to the constituent mental states like initial thought, are here intended as merely without initial thought and without sustained thought. For this very reason, in the immediately preceding method, those which are similar in movement to the truth of origin are not taken as being with initial thought and with sustained thought. And in the ten methods of purification, the disjunction of those disjoined from these, and of those disjoined from these, from the sixteen elements, and the eighteenfold collection, are stated. However, if these are taken even when accompanied by initial thought, all of them are conjoined with sustained thought, so it is possible to say, “conjoined with some one aggregate.” For that origin is not conjoined with anything else, excluding sustained thought. For the initial thought, which is a part of it, is not conjoined with anything other than sustained thought in the origin. Just as the origin of the bases of psychic power, arising in various mental states, is not conjoined with the three aggregates, which are parts of the base of psychic power, so too should it be understood here. But just as it is said that the origin is conjoined with the aggregates of feeling and perception, and with a part of the aggregate of formations, because there is not even one among them that is not conjoined with these, so too here, since there is nothing that is merely without initial thought and without sustained thought that is not conjoined with sustained thought, it cannot be said that the origin is not conjoined with it. For the conjunction of those that are merely without initial thought and without sustained thought, like those whose roots are to be abandoned by seeing, should not be denied. For just as among those whose roots are to be abandoned by seeing, some are conjoined with a part of the aggregate of formations, namely delusion, and some are not conjoined, so the origin is not conjoined with it, nor is there any other phenomenon with which that origin might be conjoined, so it is said, “There is no conjunction of phenomena whose roots are to be abandoned by seeing,” and similarly for those whose roots are to be abandoned by development, those with roots, etc. But it is not the case that there is nothing with which the origin of merely without initial thought and without sustained thought might be conjoined, namely without initial thought and without sustained thought. since there is no one who is not associated with mere investigation in any of the matters, therefore they should not be said to be "associated." And the plural designation "by some" in every instance, even for a single phenomenon, should be understood as made due to the non-determination by calculation. The explanation of the terms "association" and "dissociation" of the sixth method is concluded. 7. The seventh method: Explanation of the terms "associated and dissociated" 306. In the designation of the terms "associated and dissociated," the aggregates of form and so on are not included because they are not associated with them. Even though the truth of origin and so on are associated with them, and dissociated from the associated, there is no dissociation of the associated and dissociated from the aggregates and so on. For there is no dissociation of other phenomena from the aggregates and so on, which are dissociated from the mind-moments accompanied by greed, which are associated with the truth of origin. But are not those very mind-moments the four aggregates, one and a half sense bases, and one and a half elements? So should not dissociation from them be spoken of? No, because other phenomena are the aggregates and so on. For those very phenomena are not the four aggregates, but rather they and others, and similarly, the one and a half sense bases and elements. Nor are others dissociated from other groups, because there is no dissociation of parts of a group from parts of another group. This method applies to the truth of the path, the faculty of happiness, and so on. Even in the case of mere non-initial application and non-sustained application, when all of them are intended, no reason is seen for their non-inclusion, as they are of the same category as initial and sustained application. In the commentary, however, "such as these" means that just as the explanation for the aggregate of form is not appropriate, so too for any others for which it is not appropriate, those are called "such as these" because their explanation is not appropriate, not because of their non-association. And the terms that indicate phenomena associated with the element of phenomena are shown by "these are the terms for the aggregate of feeling and so on," and "consciousness unmixed with another" shows the terms for the aggregate of consciousness, the mind base, and so on. Here, "unmixed with another" means "unmixed with the unassociated." The feeling that is neither painful nor pleasant, associated Indeed, the conjoined terms, indicating mixed consciousness with their associates, are taken here. And by this characteristic, it shows that only such are taken, not that all such are taken, because terms like 'origin truth' and 'bases of psychic power' are not included. "Then the seven of contact, the mind, with the seven conjoined terms" is the old reading. But considering this to be deficient, the reading "Then the seven of contact, in the triad, three sevens in the great interval" was made. 309. "By means of those disjoined from the term extracted in the question" - this is said by taking it that those disjoined from the associates of the term extracted in the question are disjoined from that. In the Pāli summary verse, "and two conjoined with mind, thought and investigation" shows that the two, thought and investigation, are always conjoined with the mind-element, thus indicating the terms 'with thought' and 'with investigation'. The explanation of the terms conjoined and disjoined of the seventh method is finished. 8. The eighth method: Explanation of the terms disjoined and conjoined. 317. In the definition of terms disjoined and conjoined, it is said that there is no such thing as "disjoined from the form aggregate and so on, and conjoined" as defined. Instead of saying, "those states that are disjoined from the form aggregate, and those states that are conjoined with those states," it is said, "those states that are disjoined from the form aggregate, with how many aggregates are those states... etc. ...conjoined? There are none." Thus, for those disjoined from the form aggregate, there is no conjunction with any aggregate or the like. There is no "disjoined and conjoined" as defined. How then could it again be conjoined with aggregates and the like? This is what it shows. The explanation of the terms disjoined and conjoined of the eighth method is finished. 9. The ninth method: Explanation of the terms conjoined and conjoined. 319. In the explanation of terms conjoined and conjoined, the compound word "by means of which aggregate and so on" should be understood as "by means of which aggregate and the like." And "of that very one" means "of that very aggregate and the like." This is what is said: That which is said to be conjoined here, among the form aggregate and so on, up to the end, by which... Associated with the feeling aggregate and so on,