English
"They" are the aggregates. "Should be distinguished" means by taking the phrase "aggregates are the form aggregate" and showing by distinction, "the form aggregate is both an aggregate and a form aggregate, the remaining aggregates are not form aggregates," and so on. In "the specification of aggregates by form... ...doubt arises," is there any other feeling apart from the aggregate, from which feeling, being separated, becomes a specification of the aggregate? And are all aggregates to be specified by feeling which is a specification of the aggregate? Thus the explanation should be understood. "Some" means types like experiencing, etc. "By some characteristic" means by a characteristic like feeling, etc. And here, the designation of form and so on, and the designation of aggregates, such as "form is an aggregate, aggregates are the aggregate of form," occurring separately and together, in the sense of being broken up, etc., sometimes occurs as a part, sometimes as a whole. But when its manner of occurrence is determined thus, since the aggregates of form and so on are purified in terms of word and meaning, by dispelling doubt concerning them, therefore, by the first method, proceeding with "Is the aggregate of form both form and the aggregate of form? Is the aggregate of form form? Yes," and so on, by the part-terms like form and so on, the meaning of the whole is also stated, just like the meaning of the part. And similarly by the whole-terms, this meaning is shown. But by the second method, proceeding with "Form is the aggregate of form, aggregates are the aggregate of feeling," and so on, by the part-terms like form and so on, which are general but also specific to each, like a specific designator, that specific meaning of the whole is stated, not all; this meaning is shown. Since there is no intended meaning apart from the aggregates, even though form is just an aggregate, yet it is not all form, but only a part of it. And similarly with feeling and so on; this meaning is shown by the third method, proceeding with "Form is an aggregate, aggregates are form," and so on. But by the fourth method, proceeding with "Form is an aggregate, aggregates are the aggregate of feeling," and so on, when it is determined that form is an aggregate by "form is an aggregate," this aggregate is not merely form, but also feeling and so on. In declaring the aggregate-nature of feeling and so on, not all aggregates possess the characteristic of feeling and so on, but only some are spoken of in that way by that specific characteristic; this meaning is shown. And this Pāli text, showing thus, serves for the determination of the true nature of the aggregates, by way of purifying their aforementioned designations. And showing that this is solely for the purpose of determining their arising and so on, (it says) "Thus for whom... etc.... should be understood." He said. Even in a single part, the collective usage is seen, just as "the cloth is burnt," "the ocean is seen." Therefore, he said, "Because they are parts of a wheel, they are called 'wheels' (yamaka)." "Having bound" means having bound in the manner of a pair, or by the fundamental nature of a pair. Taking it by its fundamental nature is the state of connection, and that connection of the root words, etc., should be seen as similar to the navel, etc. Because there is nothing unprecedented or unsaid, the teaching here is not connected in a circular manner. Therefore, he said, "because it is not connected in a circular manner." Although there is nothing unprecedented in the root of the form aggregate, in the roots of the feeling aggregate, etc., the teaching proceeds through perception, etc., and would be connected in a circular manner as if unprecedented. But the text does not proceed that way. Therefore, he said, "by the connection of the feeling aggregate...etc." Indeed, the non-connection of the latter with the former is the purification below. "Taking only the pure attainment of aggregates" means taking only the meaning of "aggregate" which is obtained by the word "khandhā" in "khandhā rūpa" (aggregates are form), unmixed with form, etc., as a mere designation. Although in the designation, the specific aggregates like form, etc., are taken as "khandhā rūpa" (aggregates are form), meaning only pure form, etc., nevertheless, since there is no generality without specific characteristics, it does not stand there as mere pure form, etc. "Called the state of being a qualifier of aggregates" means to show the meaning of the qualifier, such as "being afflicted," which is stated as a qualifier of the aggregates as understood. Not taking that alone, but combining it with the word "khandha"...etc... because it is divided, it is called the "chapter on pure aggregates" – this is the explanation. The explanation of the Designation Chapter is finished. 1. The Chapter on Concepts Explanation of the Description Chapter 26. "Thus said" means thus said by way of dividing the phenomena that arise through the doors, together with the door-objects. "Of a pleasing nature," "of a pleasing kind," as in "How, friend, by form?" etc., form is said to be by the meaning of "pleasing nature," not by the meaning of "being afflicted." Thus it is said, "pleasing form...etc...form is not the form aggregate." By the meaning of "being afflicted," the form aggregate is described as... Even what is known, the pleasant nature of the eye and so on, enters into the pleasant form itself by the wish for words, not into the aggregate of form. Thus it is said: “pleasant nature… not the aggregate of form.” The word “distinction” which was stated as “what distinction is there here?” is not continued, with this intention it is said: “the remainder of the word.” For there is no need to supply what is obtained from the context. Or this should be understood as an extraction of the words “view and perception.” Its distinctness is evident from the declaration: “I will describe the distinction.” The same method applies to “the remaining formations.” Perception is a view because one knows and clings by way of fetters. Thus it is said: “perception is indeed view.” And by the word “and view,” it gathers the remaining proliferation. For in “proliferation, perception, and formation,” it is said in the Papañcasūdanī: “or the proliferations themselves are stated by the name of perception.” 28. In the direct statement: “The aggregates are the aggregate of feeling,” just as the explanation is obtained by showing the true nature, it is not so in the reverse: “Not the aggregates, not the aggregate of feeling.” Here, however, the explanation is by a rejoinder. Explaining its meaning, he says: “And in the absence of the word ‘aggregate,’ there is also the absence of the word ‘aggregate of feeling.’” Thereby he shows that this “not” is a negation of existence. And the taking of words here is done with reference to the similarity of words in designation, because designation is based on words. For this is a purification of designation. Thus he says: “It only performs a purification of designation.” Thereby he shows the absence of another phenomenon to be determined. For it is said: “The existence of another phenomenon is not the measure here.” And having done so, and so on, he supports the aforementioned meaning with another reading. Even if in some cases there are aggregates, there is no aggregate of feeling. But there is no feeling whose nature is not an aggregate. Thus it is said: “Not aggregates, not aggregate of feeling? Yes.” Or it should be seen in this way. Thus it is said in the commentary: “called designation, Nibbāna,” and so on. 9. In “other than form,” just as the element of dependent origination, so too the nature of what is dear is taken by the commonality of being denoted by the word “form,” thus it says, “supramundane feelings and so forth are to be understood.” Merely non-occurrence— this refers to the absence of the occurrence of the word “aggregate” and the absence of the occurrence of the word “form,” and speaks only with reference to the purification of designation. Thus it says, “and having done so,” and so on. By this it shows— just as, since all existent phenomena other than the eye are taken by the grasping of sense-bases, there is nothing that is free from both of these, and merely to show that non-existence for the sake of purifying designation, it is said, “excluding the eye and the sense-bases, the remainder is neither eye nor sense-base.” Similarly here, for that very purpose, to show the non-existence of what is free from both, it is said, “excluding form and the aggregates, the remainder is neither form nor aggregates.” The fifty is uneven. In “excluding the eye and the sense-bases,” it is possible to say that there is nothing taken by the grasping of the remainder, due to the non-existence of existent phenomena free from sense-bases. Thus it says, “if there were.” But in “excluding form and the aggregates,” it is not possible to say so, due to the existence of existent phenomena free from aggregates. If, however, it were said that there is no such class of phenomena that falls within the aggregates, then this would be appropriate. Thus, in “but in the commentary,” and so on, only the grasping of designation is extracted. And the object of craving would not be what is taken by the grasping of the remainder— this is brought in and connected. And there would be an aggregate—this is the construction. The explanation of the Section on Exposition is finished. 2. Explanation of the Section on Occurrence 50-205. In the mixed time divisions, in the pairs of words, since the words have different times, there might be a special meaning, thus it says, “due to the absence of special meaning in the sections of unmixed time divisions.” Now it explains that very meaning with “for of the former,” and so on. By that—by the absence of special meaning. Here—in this text of the section on occurrence,