English
all individuals remaining from that one endowed with the highest path. However, avoiding this fault as explained, they say, “referring to ordinary people and so on.” The explanation of the Chapter on Full Understanding is finished. The explanation of the Book of Aggregates is finished. 3. The Book of Sense Bases 1. The Section on Designations Explanation of the Summary Section 1-9. In the manner stated: in the manner stated, “a part or the whole meaning of compound words is expressed by component words, but what is expressed by compound words is exclusively the meaning of component words,” and so on. By this, it shows that the meaning should be understood appropriately in all sections on designations and so on, by showing the method of explaining the meaning as stated. The explanation of the Summary Section is finished. Explanation of the Detailed Exposition Section 10-17. Spreading is pervading its own sphere and operating. This, just as it is found in the sense base of smell, is also found in virtue and so on. Thus, in the Pāli, “the fragrance of virtue” and so on is said, taking “virtue itself is fragrance.” Therefore, the commentary says, “the fragrance of virtue…etc…are names.” However, since pervading its own sphere, being diffused there, being manifest, or it is; therefore it is said, "by way of spreading or by way of manifestness." The indication or the weaving of one's own object. In "assemblies of divine beings" and "conventional phenomena," etc., the words *kāya* and *dhamma* appear even in collective designations, so it is specified as "with its own nature." By the word *kāya*... (the rest is omitted)... there is not; this is said with reference to the word *dhamma* here in "not *dhamma* nor *āyatana*" as signifying all phenomena with their own nature, which are excluded, and it should be understood as not signifying the specific phenomenon called *dhammāyatana*. The description of the Niddesa section is finished. 2. Description of the Pavatti section 18-21. In this Pavatti section. By merely obtaining the question, it indicates the absence of a futile question. Each one, such as "for whom the eye-base arises, for him the sound-base arises." Five, such as "for whom the sound-base arises, for him the smell-base arises," and so on, five. Allowing for inclusion by merely obtaining the question, he says, "they are to be omitted by way of answering." By "he will state," etc., he supports the aforementioned meaning with the commentary. Similar answer: the general statement is indeed invested with a specific meaning; showing that specific meaning, he says, "it is said with reference to the individual section only," and since its similar answering is not pervasive, showing that it is answered even where it is similar, he says, "but in the occasion section... (the rest is omitted)... it is answered." There, that is the second. Even in the individual section: where the answer is similar, it is answered even in the individual section, let alone in the occasion section, is the intention. Of one whose desire-karma is detached and produced: desire is detached by the power of development, hence detached desire, which is rūpāvacara karma, produced from that. Rebirth itself is the seed, the rebirth-seed, of that. By "being of such a nature," it shows that the nose, etc., are exclusively caused by karma rooted in sensual craving. And smells, etc., do not exist, so completely of those i refers to absence. What needs to be said there has already been said below. "True" should be taken according to what has been said, accepting the meaning stated by the questioner. Then, to show the intention with which those pairs have similar answers, "as indeed" and so on was said. Here is the summary of the meaning: Just as in the cases rooted in the eye-base, the pairs related to the nose-base, with phrases like "for those who are with eyes but without noses, when arising," and so on, have similar answers to the pairs related to the tongue and body bases, so too here, in the cases rooted in the nose-base, the pairs related to the nose-base, with phrases like "For whom does the nose-base arise, for him does the tongue-base arise? Yes," and so on, have similar answers to those pairs related to the tongue and body bases. Thus, it is said here that both have similar answers to each other separately, not that they have similar answers to each other collectively. Therefore, it is said, "Hence, the reason for the similar answers not being included in the Pāli text is that they are similar in those specific places." If this is the case, what is the purpose of taking the eye-base as the root? He says, "by way of example," and so on. Here, "by way of example" means by way of being an example, which is the state of having similar answers to each other as examples, and not that they are entirely similar in answers to what is being exemplified. "Mostly" was said to show the majority, and "for in them" and so on was said. Thus, by this "yes" as a response, it draws out the meaning that the acknowledgment of the answer should be made for the statement as it is. "Sā" is the second question. "By the nose-base pair" means by the nose-base pair in the cases rooted in the eye-base. "The rest" means the rest along with that body-base pair rooted in the nose-base. "Being similar in answers, not included" - here, only "not included" is drawn in by the word "tathā" (similarly), not "being similar in answers," showing this by saying "similarly... and so on... by common designation," and now To show the absence of a similar answer, as in the statement "by reason of common cause," the phrase "as for the eye, tongue, and body sense-bases" was stated. Here, in "those occurring in the non-womb-born," the word "by association" should be brought in and connected, and similarly, "those occurring in the womb-born." The other two pairs, those rooted in the nose sense-base, and the pairs of tongue and body sense-bases, are not answered. And when the pairs rooted in the nose sense-base are answered, the other two pairs, those rooted in the tongue and body sense-bases, are not answered, because there is no difference or little difference. Here, in the pair of body sense-bases, little difference is to be understood by way of the second question, and no difference by way of the other. "Together with the form sense-base and mind sense-base" this is stated by way of the mind sense-base rooted in the form sense-base, as he says, "form sense-base... and so on... is the intention." Therefore, he says, "for in those rooted in the form sense-base..." "Of the pairs" means the pairs of smell, taste, and touch sense-bases rooted in the form sense-base. "Of the second questions" means the second questions of those very pairs as stated. "By the method stated" means by the method stated with "having their own form, being non-mental," and so on. "Of the first questions" means the first questions of those very pairs. "By the lower ones" this word "no difference" also refers to those where a similar answer is possible, as he says, "smell, taste... and so on... is the meaning." In the enumerated phenomena, the statement of a special characteristic obtainable according to the enumeration is an answer. That which is not entirely obtainable there with the quality according to the enumeration, its non-statement is also, in essence, an answer, as he says, "by the very non-answering, by showing its unobtainability, they are said to be answered." Just as one with defective eyes and one with defective ears, so also one with defective eyes and ears is found. And showing that this is included by the word "pi" in the commentary, he says, "even a born-blind person... and so on... is to be understood." "Only a complete sense-base is stated with reference to the spontaneously arisen" here, the word "eva" (only) is used inappropriately, and showing its proper place, having said, "It means 'it has been said'," showing that by that, the inclusion of those with incomplete faculties is established, since for those with complete faculties, it is not fixed there, he said, "Therefore, it is not denied that it was said with reference to those born blind and deaf." Why was it said, "when the individual is not touched by it," since by "he asks about the Brahma-world of form," the sphere itself is touched? Having assented with "Yes," and intending to explain the reason, he raised the objection, "Why is it assented to?" and wishing to show that reason, he said, "Is it not...?" and so on. He said it with reference to one who is in their final existence, who will attain parinibbāna after entering the state of being conceived in a womb. "Of that state" means of the state of the final existence. "Of one who will be" means of one who is future. "Because it is assented to" means because it is assented to as "it will arise." Why then? The brief meaning here is this: If in the question, "For whom will the faculty of form arise, for him will the faculty of eye arise?" it should be assented to by the method stated, then why, for what reason, in the reverse question, "But for whom will the faculty of form not arise, for him will the faculty of eye not arise?" is "Yes" assented to? Is this not contradictory? By "Is it not...?" and so on, the questioner explains that very contradiction. It means, "It will not arise, but it will arise." "In that existence," and so on, is its refutation. There, "in that existence" means in that existence in which "the faculty of form will not arise" is said, because it is occurring, in that existence. "Because it is not spoken of as a future state" means because it is not to be spoken of as a future state, the intention is that it is occurring as a state of having begun to arise. Therefore, he said, "For in another existence," and so on. "But it is not said" is the connection. Having done so, by "And so having done this," and so on,