English
Therefore it is said, “the act of tasting is understood by the word ‘tongue’.” And it will be said, “it calls forth life, thus ‘tongue’” (VibhA. 154). “Source” means place of origin. Because the sensitive body is the support for bodily pains and pleasures, and the proximate cause for others, it is said, “the source of suffering, suffering due to change, and suffering due to formation.” “By pervasion” means in the state of pervasion, or by means of pervasion. “State of sensitive body” means the existence of the sensitive body. “Because of being permeated” means because of being connected, or mixed. Therefore, because as much as there is appropriated and arisen in this body, the body-base is everywhere, like oil in a cotton cloth, it is said. The sensitive faculties, being of a clear nature, are like those that illuminate the object that has come into range, by being a cause for the arising of consciousness. Thus their function of illuminating the object is stated. “Of those with the same support” means of those with a single support. For in the unseparated forms, flavors, etc., the form that has a certain support, the flavors, etc., also have that same support. “By not entering into each other’s nature” means the absence of confusion of characteristics. Since the eye-sensitivity operates only when accompanied by other conditions, and not when devoid of them, whether there is impact with form or not, that form-element is of such a nature. To show this, it is said, “fit for impact with form,” just as “wholesome and unwholesome actions are of a nature fit for ripening.” The mutual facing of object and subject is like an impact, thus “impact.” This occurs in form for the eye, or in the eye for form. Thus it is said, “impact in form, or of form.” Therefore it is said, “in which "In the eye, which is invisible and with impact, a visible form with impact is struck," (Dhs. 597) and "The eye, which is invisible and with impact, is struck in a visible form with impact," (Dhs. 598) and so on. Here, the former characteristic of the eye is stated in terms of the common kamma that produces existence for one who has not abandoned craving for the eye and so on, due to their aspiration for various existences. The latter is stated in terms of unique kamma, produced so that the eye may be capable of grasping even very distant and subtle forms. The same method applies to the others. Alternatively, even with the commonality of the five sense faculties being sensitive, the former is stated in terms of the function of sensitivity, which is the manifestation of its own object, while the latter is stated in terms of showing the distinction due to the distinction of its own cause, even with the commonality of the cause being kamma. "Craving for sensual pleasures" means craving for existence in the sensual realm. Similarly, "craving for form" should be understood. The craving, which is the root cause of each existence, can also be an object of the sense bases, which are suitable for arising in that particular existence. Thus, the suitability of craving for sensual pleasures and so on to be referred to as "desire to see" and so on, is stated. For "desire to see" means the wish to see, which is craving for form. The same applies to the others. Here, regarding the desire to see and so on, if there was a prior arising at the moment of accumulating kamma that produces those various existences, there is nothing to say. Even if there was no such prior arising, it should be understood as a cause simply by its not being uprooted by the path. For that which is not cut off by the path, when it obtains a cause, having arisen, it becomes a cause for its own result. Thus, it is said to be "existing" in terms of "having arisen" and "being present" in passages such as: "One who cultivates the noble eightfold path, one who makes the noble eightfold path abundant, causes evil unwholesome states that have arisen to disappear completely" (Saṃ. Ni. 5.157), and "He understands: 'I have internal sensual desire' when it is present internally" (Dī. Ni. 2.382; Ma. Ni. 1.115) and so on. Here it is said: Of the sense faculties such as the eye Are they born from one kamma, or from many kammas? Both, say the ancients. There, if born from many kammas, there is no need to speak of the distinction of the eye and so on, because the causes are different. But if born from one kamma, how is there a distinction among them? Because the causes are different. For craving, which is the aspiration for a particular existence, being itself varied in nature due to its desire for the sense bases pertaining to that particular existence, by way of a proximate cause, brings about a varied difference in the kamma that produces that particular existence. Because that kamma, endowed with the distinction it has acquired, by virtue of its capacity to be of such a nature, produces a fruit of varied excellent qualities, as if it were of many forms. And thus it will be said: “Kamma itself is the cause of their distinction.” And here, by the distinction of the cause, nothing else should be understood as capacity, because there is no capacity to produce a distinguished fruit from a distinction acquired. For thus, the connection of even one kamma with the distinction of being the cause of many faculties, even one kamma, and so on, will be explained by reasoning and by scripture later on. And thus, the cause of the production of sixteen or more resultant consciousnesses from a single wholesome consciousness is spoken of. In the world too, the cause of the production of full and incomplete rice grain fruits from a single rice seed is seen. Or why this deliberation on reasoning? This should not be deliberated upon at all. For kamma-result, the eye and so on, and kamma-result in all its aspects, is the domain only of the Buddhas, who are endowed with the fruit of the knowledge of kamma-result, not of others, because it is beyond the scope of thought. And for this very reason, the Blessed One, showing the danger, forbade it, saying: “Kamma-result is unthinkable, it should not be thought about. Whoever thinks about it will be a partaker of madness and vexation.” “Drawing” is the cause of a person or consciousness attaining the state of being inclined towards it. Not knowing the specific meaning of the word “all,” which is obtained from the context or by elimination, he takes the meaning according to the literal sense and challenges, saying, “What is the distinction here?” and so on. The other, just as in the case of the predominance of fire and so on individually, also in the case of the predominance of two or three, Since it is understood that even with a deficiency, obtained by a single element, etc., due to the aforementioned excess, body-sensitivity does not arise. Therefore, from the context or by elimination, the meaning that the body exists with an equal proportion of all four elements is established. To show that the word "sabba" (all) here indicates equal proportion, it begins with "but this," etc. And it shows that this meaning is obtained by the aforementioned method from the phrase "of all," not that it is its direct meaning. Therefore, it says, "spoken in the sense of following...etc." Indeed, by preventing the excess of one part, the prevention of the deficiency of one part is also understood. One part is a component. For the sensitivity dependent on the aggregate of the four elements, the excess of one element is the excess of a component. "The first two debaters here are from other schools," they say. With the intention that it is their doctrine that the eye, etc., accompanied by co-operating causes like light, are capable of illuminating forms, etc., and that space being a support for ear-consciousness is a quality, it is said "by the qualities of those elements," etc. Since space is not an element like fire, etc., it is said "as appropriate." Or, showing the intention of others that space is also a quality of an element like forms, etc., it says "by the qualities of those elements." It might be said "by the qualities of those elements as appropriate" with reference to this meaning: for fire, in the form of light; for space, called vivara, by sound; for wind, by smell; for water, by taste; for earth, by touch. "In the apprehension of forms, etc." means that eye-consciousness, etc., should be produced in the sphere of forms, etc. "To be assisted" means that the eye, etc., are to be assisted in performing their functions by the aforementioned elemental qualities which are co-operating causes. "Heard naturally" is said because it is obtained as if not uttered by anyone. But without impact, there is no sound of wind either. Or, it should be understood that it is also his doctrine that sound is heard naturally in the wind, and taste is sweet. The second debater also faces refutation. because of holding such a view, that forms and so on are qualities of fire and so on. By special qualities of forms and so on: meaning, endowed with special qualities of forms and so on. By fire… and so on… by winds: by the atoms of fire and so on, together with space. Different from cotton: the meaning is, different from the earth of cotton, endowed with special qualities, endowed with greater power than that. Of that very same: of the earth of cotton itself. Because it, though existing, overwhelms those non-special qualities, making them impossible to grasp as existing, therefore, its scent would be greater, is the meaning. And all this latter part, is stated in the commentary (DhsA. 600) by "due to the greater presence of that particular element" and so on, and is spoken according to Kaṇāda, who accepts the doctrine of the Tathāgatas. "But according to their own view, Kaṇāda, Kapila, and others hold the doctrine that earth and other substances are merely such and such. This is the doctrine of some who are devoted to Kaṇāda's teaching