English
Therefore, because the truths and so on were stated as causes of inclusion, not as the included, and only the aggregates and so on were stated as the included, therefore. Why are the truths and so on not stated here in terms of inclusion? Because such a teaching is impossible. For it is not possible to ask or answer in the manner of including the aggregate of form and so on with the truth of origin and so on, or perception and so on with the faculties and so on. Similarly, concerning the feelings and so on arising in the noble fruits and so on, since they are separate from the truths, it is not possible to ask, “How many truths is the aggregate of feeling included in?” and then define and show the inclusion by saying, “It is included in one truth,” and so on. “As far as possible” means in accordance with what is associated with and what is dissociated from. Form is not dissociated from form or Nibbāna, nor is Nibbāna from form. Why? Because their associated nature is not to be doubted. For there might be a doubt as to whether “it exists or does not exist” with form and Nibbāna, due to the associated nature of the four aggregates with each other. Therefore, their dissociation from the others, and the others’ dissociation from them, is stated. But since there is no association of form with form, or with Nibbāna, or of Nibbāna with form, anywhere, there being no such doubt, the dissociation of form from form and Nibbāna, or of Nibbāna from it, is not stated. But it is stated only with the immaterial aggregates, thus it says, “only with the four,” and so on. Of the non-object, such as the eye-sense-base. “With the non-object and mixed non-object” means with the non-object, such as the ear-sense-base, and with the mixed non-object, such as the mind-object-base. Of the mixed, such as the mind-object-base. It should be connected as: “is not with the non-object and mixed non-object.” To show with what something is associated, it is said, “But of the non-object,” and so on. Just as an object-having phenomenon is not dissociated from a non-object-having phenomenon and disjoined from mixed-with-object, thus it is also with object. By that, it should be understood as for the objectless and the mixed-with-objectless. 4. Commentary on the Matrix of Characteristics 4. A separate application should be made. What is said to be comprised by three and conjoined by four, that is a homogeneous state. And what is said to be not comprised by three and disjoined by four, that is a heterogeneous state. Showing this meaning, it says "comprised...etc....is understood." That phenomenon, like aggregates, which is comprised, is homogeneous. That which is not comprised, is heterogeneous. Similarly, it should be understood in conjunctions. Now, to define and show the aforementioned homogeneity in its own nature, "therein" etc. is said. Therein, sameness of state is homogeneity in comprehension, and co-arising etc. is conjunction. By this, the dissimilar state, averse to affliction etc., is heterogeneity in non-comprehension, and non-co-arising etc. is disjunction. This meaning is established, so it is not stated. 5. Commentary on the External Matrix 5. By this method of placement, not taking it in its own form, but by the aforementioned method of placement, which is the declaration of its matrix-nature here, by a matrix from another treatise. Taking a matrix placed in another treatise, without separation, from behind, is "external placement," it says, "because it is placed externally, at the back." Not placing it here means not stating it in the form of this Dhātukathā. And because it is thus revealed, because it is illuminated as a matrix. For, by the heading of the Dhammasaṅgaṇī, the matrix that came in the Dhammasaṅgaṇī is taken. By which methods the Dhātukathā is designated, in those methods, in the aggregates etc. to be analyzed by them, and in the characteristics of the doors of occurrence of those methods, when these are indicated, what is to be said by way of designation in the Dhātukathā is already said. Having said what is to be said by way of designation, then, in order to show the division into wholesome etc. of the aforementioned aggregates etc., it is said: "The entire Dhammasaṅgaṇī is a matrix for the Dhātukathā." Thus, here, the method of placing the matrix should be understood. "This says 'Gāvī'," here the word 'gāvī' Here, regarding "inclusion, non-inclusion," by the word "thus," which causes a reversal of word-meaning, the word "inclusion-non-inclusion" becomes a word-meaning for the meaning-word, and a meaning-word for the word-meaning. With this intention, it is said: "because only a word of undetermined meaning is stated." Therefore, it shows that it explains the word "inclusion" by extracting its meaning. "Undetermined specific characteristic" means specific characteristics like non-included, genus, species, etc. "To be taken generally" means understood or spoken of in the general sense of being denoted by the word "inclusion." And here, the objection should not be made that generality is of one form only, because it depends on distinctions. For as many specific characteristics as it has, so many are its divisions, depending on them. "By its own genus" is understood, just as when "maternal" is said, it means "beneficial to one's own mother." "Without determining the specific characteristic of phenomena" means without making a distinction for the phenomena to be questioned and answered, such as by inclusion. "Generally" means without specific distinction. "Of phenomena" means of phenomena like aggregates. "The remaining ones, having determined" is the construction: the remaining twelve, such as "included by the non-included," having determined the specific characteristic of the phenomena to be questioned and answered, are the presentation of the method of questioning and answering phenomena. But surely, "included by the non-included" and so on are also a presentation of the method of questioning and answering phenomena generally, without determining the aforementioned specific characteristic? Referring to this objection, it says: "included by the non-included," etc. That whose meaning is known, but whose word is not used, should be understood as elision, or this meaning should be explained by repetition, etc. "By that" means by the elided and indicated word "non-included." "Distinguished by the characteristic of inclusion" means distinguished by the characteristic of inclusion by the eye-base, by the aggregate-inclusion. By that, the specific characteristic of phenomena which is the nature of resistance, like the ear-sensitivity, etc., is not included by being the ear-base, etc. "Dependent on that" means obtained by depending on that specific characteristic of phenomena. "Those phenomena, by how many aggregates... (etc.)... are not included by four aggregates" and so on – the method of questioning and answering, called non-inclusion, being questioned and answered later, is here presented. is seen. By "instrumental case in the qualifier," it clarifies the specific distinction of that dhamma's inclusion, as stated. Thus, it should be understood that the outlines of questions and answers proceed by determining these specific dhammas to be questioned and answered. But isn't this meaning obtained simply by "included by the included, not included by the not included"? No, it is not obtained, because it only points to the dhamma itself. This is an outline of method, not an outline of dhamma. Thus, in the Pāli text, in the explanation of the terms "included by the included" and "not included by the not included," after stating, "Which dhammas, by the eye-base, are included by the aggregate-inclusion, and not included by the base-inclusion… not included by the element-inclusion," it asks, "By how many aggregates… are those dhammas not included?" And then the second term, "not included," is taken, saying, "Those dhammas are not included by four aggregates, by two bases, by eight elements." Otherwise, it should have been stated, "Which dhammas, by the eye-base, are included by the aggregate-inclusion, those dhammas are not included by the base-inclusion, not included by the element-inclusion. Which are these?" "This is the method" —to make the meaning shown by analogy clearer, "even among these" and so on, is said. By "third term" —it refers to the term mentioned, which is to be understood as having an elided designation. The instrumental case in the sense of agent is because the inclusion and non-inclusion of dhammas are stated by those dhammas that are included and not included. Thus, in the Pāli text there, "which dhammas by those dhammas," the inclusion and non-inclusion are stated directly through the dhamma. But in the second and third, the non-inclusion and inclusion of dhammas are stated through the two qualifiers, namely inclusion and non-inclusion. Therefore, it is said there, "instrumental case in the qualifier." Hence, it says, "There, indeed… of another dhamma." There, "by another nature" means by another nature, another aspect, which is called inclusion and non-inclusion. "Of another nature" means of another nature, which is called non-inclusion and inclusion. "Among these" means among the fourth and fifth. Another dhamma distinguishes by another phenomenon. Of another phenomenon, a specification is made of a phenomenon other than that. For there, by 'between', a specific kind is indicated, that a phenomenon is distinguished by a phenomenon itself. By the first word itself, by the first word stated, such as "included". By the others, by the second and third words stated, such as "associated, dissociated". Here, in the four, starting with the eleventh. The instrumental case should be understood as a specification, as in the second and third, not in the sense of an agent, as in the fourth and fifth, this is the intention. By "of questions and answers", that very meaning is clarified.