English
" Moreover, its designation as "rooted" is indeed obtained due to the presence of the root condition. Therefore, it is said, "nor as in the pair of rooted...pe...made un-designatable." Here, "herein" means in this pair of one-rooted. "By way of connection or non-connection with the root condition" means by way of the presence or absence of the root condition. It obtains only the designation "rooted" due to the presence of roots as conditions. Others, however, say, "although matter originating from a rooted mind is included by this statement 'rootless, undetermined,' it cannot be said 'not one-rooted with the undetermined root' because it has roots. And even if it has roots, it is not rooted in an absolute sense, so it cannot be said 'one-rooted with the undetermined root.' Therefore, 'rootless, undetermined, is not one-rooted with the undetermined root; rooted, undetermined, is with the undetermined root." "one root" is said to be not applicable due to its non-inclusion in both terms. That is merely their opinion, because in the commentary it is established that "rupa originating from rooted-indeterminate has one root with the indeterminate root." Therefore, the meaning here should be understood in the way stated. 86-97. He says that the determination of formless phenomena by the specific characteristic of bending and inclining, from the heap of wholesome, unwholesome, and indeterminate, is called "determination of names." By this, he states their abundance because they are understood and not limited by the context. If so, why is the term "name" used in the alternative reading "rootless name, rooted name"? He says, "for the sake of clarity." The intention is, what should be said when it is made clear? The commentary on the Section of Exposition is finished. The commentary on the Root-Pair is finished. 2. The Pair of Aggregates 1. The Section on Designation Commentary on the Section of Outline 2-3. In the Pair of Aggregates... (etc.)... "and full understanding should be spoken of" - this shows what should be spoken of as primary. For Abhidhamma is a discourse on what is to be fully known. And that is only for full understanding. Among full understandings, there is no abandoning-understanding without discerning-understanding. And discerning, because it aims at complete support for others, occurs exceptionally through the division of time, persons, and places, by grasping the characteristics of the aggregates' arising and ceasing, separately and together. Not otherwise. Showing this meaning, he extracts the primary statement: "in the six divisions of time... (etc.)... and full understanding should be spoken of." However, just as there is no abandoning-understanding without discerning-understanding, so there is no discerning-understanding without known-understanding. And that is rooted in knowledge gained from hearing. Therefore, the Teacher, skilled in exposition, wishing to reveal the varieties of full understanding in the aggregates, by showing the divisions of aggregates, components, meanings of terms, etc., both by way of agreement and disagreement, began the exposition with "the five aggregates," etc. Thus, showing this, he says, "those aggregates," etc. "By five terms" means by five aggregate terms. Therein, In those terms of whole and part. "Dhamma" means the knowable phenomenon, such as "being oppressed." "Of the term 'whole'" means of the term 'whole' like the aggregate of form, etc. Although in ultimate reality there is no whole separate from its parts, just as a part is not the whole, so too the whole is not a part. Even though there is a distinction between whole and part, because the two terms are in apposition, there is indeed non-difference. Thus, there might be a doubt about the two terms having the same meaning. So he says, "in this place of doubt." In phrases like "the eye-base goes into the reckoning of the aggregate of form, the aggregate of consciousness is the mind-consciousness element arising from it," a part is stated as the meaning of the term "whole." But in phrases like "whatever form... this is called the aggregate of form" (Vibh. 2), the whole is stated. So he says, "the meaning of form etc. (is the whole)." Here, the meaning of the term "whole" is stated for the terms "part" because they are in apposition, referring to the same thing, as qualifier and qualified. For this very reason, the meaning of the term "part" is also stated for the terms "whole." For the meanings of qualifier and qualified are not desired to be absolutely distinct or absolutely non-distinct. Rather, they are both distinct and non-distinct. Therefore, the first method is stated by way of showing non-distinction, and the second method by way of showing distinction. Indeed, that meaning of "aggregate," characterized by "being oppressed" etc., which is stated by distinguishing it as qualifier and qualified through the part-terms "form" etc. and the term "aggregate," that very meaning, "being oppressed" etc., is essentially regarded as the aggregate. Just as the meaning of the term "whole" is expressed even by terms for parts, so too the meaning of the term "part" is expressed even by terms for wholes. Showing that a "word-purification" is done by phrases like: "Is the aggregate of form both form and the aggregate of form? Is the aggregate of form form? Yes, it is," he says, "the section on word-purification by terms for parts like form etc. is stated." There, due to some part-term being used elsewhere, there might be indefiniteness regarding the meaning of the part-term being the meaning of the whole-term. But for the whole-term, that is not the case. Hence, there is deviation regarding the meaning of the whole-term being the meaning of the part-term. The meaning of "Is the aggregate of form form? Yes," is revealed by the Pāli text, and it is said, "to show form, etc." In "aggregate of form," etc., because the meaning of aggregate is to be qualified, it is said, "of the principal word 'aggregate'." And because the meaning of the secondary words like feeling is possible, in "aggregate of feeling," etc. The state of being the aggregate of form is the meaning of aggregate, which is expressed by the word "form" as a part, that is, as a qualifying word, by the word "part" meaning form. Therefore, it is said, "Is the aggregate of form form? Yes." There, in that word "aggregate of form." The question is, does the meaning of "being crushed," which is expressed by the word "part of aggregate" because it is to be qualified by the principal, become the aggregate of feeling, etc.? The intention is, when there is a common meaning of being expressed by a part-word, why is the meaning understood by the non-principal word not understood by the principal word? The dharma expressed by the word "part of aggregate" refers to the meaning of accumulation. There, some, that is, the meaning of being crushed. By some compound word, that is, by the word "aggregate of form," not by the word "aggregate of feeling," etc. Therefore, it is said, "not all by all." This method applies to the aggregate of feeling, etc. This is the root chapter of the purification of words, where the Pāli usage, proceeding in terms of the four aggregates, is based on the purification of words through the purification of compound words like "form" and "aggregate of form" as parts. And by showing thus, it refers to that specific meaning which is shown by the part-words like "form" and by the compound words like "aggregate of form." The state of being a qualifier is due to its distinguishing nature, its general delimiting function; the state of being qualified is due to its not being cut off from other distinctions by a non-distinguishing connection; the state of being in apposition is due to these distinctions and non-distinctions resting on a single object. Therefore, by the aforementioned state of qualifier and qualified. Here, in this apposition. Or, therefore, by the state of apposition. Here, in the word "aggregate of form." Just as in the word "blue lotus," the blue, which qualifies the lotus, is specific, not just anything, so too here, the form, which qualifies the aggregate, is also specific. showing that it would be so, he said, "What from the aggregate... ...is it?" Likewise, "form and it is an aggregate" by way of being in apposition, whatever is form, that is an aggregate. Whatever is an aggregate, that is form. This too is implied, so he said, "all... ...should be specified." And by specification, it should be of a determined nature, as it is a differentiator, not of an undetermined nature, so he said, "But what is that?" and so on, meaning that it is taken as that, not as dear form, pleasant form. For that is not taken as a specification of an aggregate; the answer is given for that very thing, so it is connected. "There is no other form apart from the aggregate" this is said by taking "form" as "that which is afflicted," for it does not exist apart from the aggregate. For that very reason, because of the non-existence of form as described, which is separate from the aggregate. "Dear form, pleasant form, showing little," and so on, since the word "form" with a different meaning is found in these, it is said by specifying "by that word 'form'." The class of phenomena, even if it is a distinction, is being spoken of as derived from the elements. "Purely" means solely, meaning even without the word "form." This is said with reference to being delimited by the context and so on, or by apposition. For the word "aggregate" which is in apposition with the word "form," by that, the meaning is indeed spoken of, just as by the word "form" as described. Therefore he said, "aggregates are the form aggregate." Although the form as described is indeed an aggregate, yet an aggregate is not only form, so he said, "and not all... ...should be specified." For that very reason, because of the existence of an aggregate whose nature is formless.