English
he is liberated. Being thus, Ānanda, the monk understands thus: 'As I attend to internal emptiness, my mind does not leap into internal emptiness... (and so on) ... I am liberated.' Thus, he is clearly comprehending there. He attends to external emptiness... (and so on) ... internal and external emptiness... (and so on) ... He attends to imperturbability. As he attends to imperturbability, his mind does not leap into imperturbability... (and so on) ... he is liberated.' Thus, he is clearly comprehending there. "Therefore, Ānanda, by a monk..." (Majjhima Nikāya 3.188). There, in internal emptiness and so on, 'internal' (refers to...) and in the external, and in the internal-external, and in the imperturbable, by means of emptiness. “The sign of the first jhāna and so on” means the sign of the first jhāna and so on, which is the basis. For, to one who has emerged from the basic jhāna, and is attending to emptiness internally, the mind does not incline there. Then, thinking, “How is it in another’s continuum?” he attends externally; even there it does not incline. Then, thinking, “How is it sometimes in one’s own continuum, sometimes in another’s continuum?” he attends internally-externally; even there it does not incline. Then, desiring to be liberated in both ways, thinking, “How is it in the immaterial attainments?” he attends to the imperturbable; even there it does not incline. “Now my mind does not incline,” one should not be one whose energy is slackened; rather, the basic jhāna itself should be well attended to again and again. Thus, to show that his attention to the meditation subject works like an axe that cuts when one who is felling a tree, when the axe does not cut, makes it sharp again and again and cuts, “in that very same” and so on was said. “And because it is not the same in meaning”— why was this said? Indeed, having shown all the meanings in which the word “internal” occurs, this was said by way of extracting the meaning to determine the meaning intended here. And in the eye and so on, the word “internal” occurs by reason of the special quality of being internal to the internal things, because they are called “internal, internal.” Moreover, “six internal things”— this was said by way of example here because of the existence of the elucidation of the internal nature of the eye and so on by the word “internal.” For by this, in the commentary, in the pair of internal things, it is said, “internal are indeed internal.” And this being the case, there would not be dissimilarity in sound here either. Therefore, clarifying the aforementioned objection, he says, “but this here” and so on. “By that” means therefore. “Of that which expresses it” means of that which expresses “internal, internal,” it is possible to say it because of the existence of the internal nature of that meaning. “Indeed, Ānanda, b A monk shines when he is attached to company, delighting in company, devoted to the pleasure of company. Thus, by showing that for one gone forth, such conduct is unsuitable, and that the bliss of renunciation and other such attainments are absent, the danger of delighting in company is shown. And by stating the danger of delighting in forms and so on, saying: “I do not see, Ānanda, even one form, in which, for one attached to it, delighting in it, upon its change and alteration, sorrow, lamentation… …despair would not arise.” If some foolish person, having gone forth, were to say: “The Perfectly Enlightened One drives us out of the group, like cows entered into a field, and enjoins us to solitude, while he himself dwells surrounded by kings, great ministers, and so on.” To cut off the occasion for such a statement, and to show that even when seated in the midst of an assembly extending to the edge of the world-system, the Tathāgata is alone, the teaching “This indeed” was begun, he said, “to show the opposite dwelling.” There, “all signs” means the conditioned signs of forms and so on. “Internal” means the internal sphere of objects. “Emptiness” means the attainment of fruition born from the contemplation of non-self. Therefore, he said, “internal,” and so on. There, in the second alternative, the word “ṭhāna” should be understood as a synonym for “cause.” “In the Saccaka Sutta” means in the Mahāsaccaka Sutta. For there it is stated: “I know, Aggivessana, that I teach the Dhamma to an assembly of many hundreds, and each one thinks: ‘The recluse Gotama is teaching the Dhamma just for me.’ But this, Aggivessana, should not be seen in that way. The Tathāgata teaches the Dhamma to others only for the sake of explanation. And I, Aggivessana, at the conclusion of that very talk, in that same former sign of concentration, settle my mind internally, make it firm, make it one-pointed, concentrate it, ‘whereby I constantly dwell.’” It is stated. 22. Making one thing as if it were another by other indications, as in “son of a rock.” “of his body.” Although there is no other demonstrative nature apart from the sense-object of form, in terms of the common nature of phenomena, as stated, there is a nature of phenomena. Therefore, the distinction of the sense-object of form is made by its demonstrative nature. Thus, the demonstrative nature, which distinguishes other phenomena, is treated as if it were different from the sense-object of form, even though it is not. The specific meaning is the difference in meaning of specific commonalities. For the tactile objects that are present by themselves, for the nose, tongue, and body, which are present by way of support, and for odors and tastes, and for others that are not present. Mutual falling is their presence in suitable places for each other, by which there is a striking. By “activity, etc.” is meant the movement of the eye-membrane, etc., up and down, such as sinking and leaping, due to mental activity, the element of wind, and expansion. The arising of alteration is the arising of dissimilarity, meaning the favoring or harming of an object by its desirable or undesirable nature. The commentary on the terms of the Tika-Matika is concluded. The commentary on the terms of the Duka-Matika 1-6. Of those grasped in the same place, of those to be grasped in the same object, or of those having the same object. Alternatively, it means that those whose grasping nature is the same, due to having the same place and the same object, are produced together. Those phenomena that are accompanied by causes are grasped together with causes. And their causal nature is said to be made by co-nascent causes, etc., as stated: “same…etc…nature.” Here, the word “etc.” includes the activity of causes such as establishing and supporting. “Attaining a state of oneness” is said with reference to the difficulty of distinguishing the diverse nature of mind and mental factors, which occur as a single cluster, due to their intermingling and dense aggregation. “Even if there is no diversity of phenomena” means even if there is no difference in their essential nature or meaning. “By the diversity of terms” means by the difference in what various terms denote. This shows that the statement of another pair is dependent on another aspect. For phenomena are of many kinds. Therefore, it is said: “All phenomena, in all their aspects, come within the range of the knowledge of the Blessed Buddha” (Mahaniddesa 156; Cullaniddesa Mogharajamanava (The meaning of) the unasked exposition 85) has been stated. And this meaning should be seen in the triads as well. For those to be trained, for whom penetration occurs when the doctrines are made clear by particular methods, for them the doctrines should be made clear by those specific methods. But for those for whom penetration occurs when made clear by just one method, even having stated that to them, because of being masters of the Dhamma, the making clear of all other methods is also a delightful exposition. Thus it is said: "knowing the method to be expounded," and so on. Is it not that for one who understands by one method, the making clear of other methods is fruitless? It is not, because it is a proximate cause for the divisions of analytical knowledge. Those methods belong to these, hence "tappakārā" (those methods); the state of having those methods is "tappakāratā" (the nature of those methods). By this, it shows that making clear the existing particular method of the doctrines is a delightful exposition. Also elsewhere, in phrases like "phenomena that are uncaused and not causes." Just as by taking a part of the first pair and combining it with the second and third pairs in the manner of the sixth pair, three pairs are obtained, such as "phenomena that are causes are both with causes and without causes," similarly, by taking a part of the second and third pairs and combining it with the first pair, four pairs are obtained: "phenomena with causes are both causes and not causes, phenomena without causes are both causes and not causes, phenomena associated with causes are both causes and not causes, phenomena dissociated from causes are both causes and not causes." But these can be shown in the manner already stated, so they are not shown. Or, because there is no difference from the fourth and fifth pairs mentioned in the Pāḷi and the first two shown in the commentary, these are not mentioned. Only the specific arrangement is the distinction here. Therefore, because of the difference in interpretation, to show that the unstated pairs are included as far as possible in the pairs given in the Pāḷi, in accordance with the pairs determined, it says "among these," and so on. Or, if there is an inclusion of possible pairs like "phenomena that are both causes and uncaused," in the manner to be stated later, "by this way of showing the path," and so on, then these too would be included. From which pair a term is taken, Having determined, another pair is spoken of. Thereby, when there is difference, another pair is taken.