English
Or, mutuality and dependence is mutual dependence. If there is mutual dependence among the touchable and untouchable elements without the state of being touchable, and the nature of hardness etc. of earth etc. is indeed the state of being touchable, then how, in its absence, can they be dependent on the water element? He says, "among those whose occurrences are inseparable," and so on. By "among those that are mutually conditioned," he excludes derived matter. Or, having previously stood by the commentary's intention and stated the specific mutual dependence of the touchable and untouchable elements, now standing by his own intention, showing it without distinction, he says, "among those whose occurrences are inseparable," and so on. Making that very undifferentiated mutual dependence firm and showing it, he says, "nor among the co-arisen," and so on. Therein, non-touching, first, because of being in one atomic unit, should not be investigated. But how about touching? Because of being in one atomic unit itself. For only of the sense-object great elements that are separately established, in those that are the basis for body-sensitivity, is touching seen. "It burns" means it ripens. Regarding "not being hot," by taking its meaning as "being of hot nature," it is said, "he rejects the very nature of fire." Because cold is the opposite of heat, in the rejection of heat, there might be a suspicion of coldness. Thus he says, "he does not admit coldness." Or, to show the very nature of fire even in coldness, it is said, "he does not admit coldness." Therefore he says, "for fire itself is cold." For in a weak state of heat, there is the perception of coldness, thus, fire itself is cold. But how is this understood? From the unsettled nature of the perception of coldness, like across a river. For example, for those who, having stood in the sun, enter the shade, there is a perception of coldness; right there, from the womb of the earth, emerging... their perception of heat. If coolness were just heat, then coolness would be found in the same cluster as heat. Thus it is said: "Of cold and hot," and so on. In clusters of hot and cold, cold and hot do not arise. Of two... (etc.) ... it is fitting, not of the water element or the wind element being cool, this is the intention. For if the water element or the wind element were cool, then coolness would be found in the same cluster as heat, but it is not found. Nor can it be understood that coolness is in a cluster where the water element or the wind element predominates, because coolness is not found in any such cluster. The change of state is when a composite of elements predominantly characterized by hardness, etc., comes to be predominantly characterized by fluidity, etc. To show how that happens, it is said: "arising... (etc.) ... arising." 652. "Solely not mind-originated," etc. By the word "etc.," it includes solely not clung-to, not clinging-to, etc. "Of the former ones too" means, according to the passage "or whatever else," of the former not clung-to ones, such as the sound sense-field, body-intimation, etc., which are not mind-originated, and of the eye sense-field, ear sense-field, etc. "Not lacking in being karma-owned," etc. means not lacking in being karma-owned, not being mind-originated, and so on. "In solely not karma-born," etc. By the word "etc.," solely not mind-born is included. These are decay and impermanence. "Not included in the non-exclusive" means that having been included in the solely not karma-born, such as the sound sense-field, and in the solely not mind-born, such as the eye sense-field, they are not included in the non-exclusive ones, such as the form sense-field, because these are four-originated. This is the meaning. 666. "Because of not being produced" means not being established by nature without depending on anything else. "Of that" means of the two intimations. The explanation of the section on what is not to be classified as clinging is finished. The explanation of the section on dyads is finished. The explanation of the section on tetrads 966. If, according to the passage "All form is known by the mind," what is seen, etc., is not different from what is known, then why was the question "What is that form that is seen?" etc., not asked? Having considered this objection as to how there can be a tetrad, it is said: "seeing, etc." from the specific grasping of. Seeing, hearing, knowing by measuring, and understanding— from this specific grasping of seeing and so on. By this distinction of the grasper, he shows the distinction of what is to be grasped. Now, to show that the distinction of what is to be grasped is also obtained directly, it is said: “seen… and so on… because of the nature.” Description of the Section on the Five 969. This method of guidance is applied to the three collections, such as the sixfold and so on. Description of Miscellaneous Topics 975. To show that torpor, being an impediment exclusively, is grasped by the statement “there are no impediments,” it is said: “even of torpor, which is an impediment.” And the body is not to be abandoned, because direct abandonment is intended here. Here, some say: “Torpor is of two kinds, due to the nature of mental illness and physical illness. Of these, the former is spoken of by the statement ‘impediments,’ the latter is the nature of form.” There, that torpor which is conceived as other than non-form, even that is an impediment, just like other torpor due to the nature of torpor. Thus, it is not possible to deny the nature of impediment even for the conceived torpor. Showing the contradiction of their statement with the statement about abandoning impediments, he says: “and not the body…” and so on. Or else, referring to the view that there is a form of torpor due to the sleeping nature of Arahants, and because sleep is caused by torpor, he gives the answer: “and not the illness of the physical body…” and so on. There, it is not intended to emphasize that torpor alone is the cause of sleep, but rather that torpor is indeed a cause of sleep. Thus, there are other causes of sleep besides torpor. What are they? The illness of the physical body. And not the form… and so on… the connection should be understood as “because of the statement.” By “vocal sound and so on,” the word “and so on” includes sounds like humming. Sounds like snapping fingers are merely climate-originated, but there is a mind-condition. “Merely the nature of form”— these are merely the nature of forms that have the nature of decay and death. Therefore, they do not possess qualities like birth and so on. Thus, he says: “they do not have their own nature.” Just as decay and impermanence are merely the nature of form, so too is birth. Thus, birth is merely the nature of form. The word "tathā" is used in the sense of bringing together. Of those material phenomena. Just as the word "saṅkhāta" (conditioned) and so on, the word "abhinibbattita" (produced) can also be present-tense, thus it is said: "at the moment of the phenomenon being produced." Even so, even if the phenomena whose nature is aging and breaking up, due to the absence of their aging and so on at the moment of the generative and conditioning causes' activity, do not obtain the designation of being their condition or the designation of production, even so, their being grasped is to be stated—this is the connection. The phrase "dependent on aging and death" reveals its indirectness by saying "when there is their arising" and so on. If it is so, if birth and so on are dependent on a support, then in that case. By the saying "derived materiality of the great elements," the designation "upādāya" (derived) is solely for those dependent on the elements, so those dependent on the derived are also to be specified by another word "upādāya"— with this intention, it is said: "the state of derived-derived comes to be." Even in the cause of a cause, there is a designation as in the cause, as in "the village was burnt by thieves"— showing this, it is said: "bhūta...pe...ttanato" (from being an element). Now, to show the element-dependent nature of arising and so on, without a sequence, directly, with an illustration, he said: "api cā" (and moreover) and so on. Even modifications and distinctions, in their state of being modifications of derived materiality and so on, due to the non-deviation from their element-dependent nature, and because in one kalāpa there is only one of each modification and so on, and like the life faculty, they sustain the kalāpa and are modifications of the kalāpa, they are called "upādāyarūpāni" (derived materialities)— thus he says: "evaṃ vikā...pe...yojetabbānī" (thus modifications...pe...are to be applied). The statement of "parinipannatā" (completeness) is to prevent the state of unconditionedness. This is said to avert the apprehension that something like a hare's horn, due to its unproduced nature and non-observability, is not conditioned by anything, and thus would be unconditioned. Or else, the completeness, established by the fact of dependent origination, which is proven by the fact that just as the state of materiality exists when there is materiality and does not exist when there is no materiality, due to the state of being modifications of materiality and so on— this completeness, proving their conditioned nature, prevents the unconditioned. It is said that it arises for the purpose of preventing existence: "Completion is stated for the purpose of preventing unconditioned existence." The commentary on miscellaneous topics is finished. The commentary on the section on form is finished. 3. The Section on Summary Commentary on the Summary of Triads 985. Because some dhammas are devoid of the functions of the group beginning with the fifth (factor) of contact as stated, and for the purpose of including unstated particulars such as good speech, or because of the disposition of the trainees,