English
of the sequence of phenomena. This method has twenty-two terms by way of the words “matter is a phenomenon-base,” and so on. The explanation of the term “not included by the fifth method” is finished. 6. The sixth method: Explanation of the terms “associated” and “dissociated.” 228. By “therein,” the term “associated and dissociated” is divided in “dividing the term ‘associated and dissociated’.” And to show that what is referred to as principal for explanation is the term “associated and dissociated,” not the terms “material aggregate,” and so on, he first said, “what is obtained… is to be known,” and then he explains that meaning by “for in the material aggregate,” and so on. “Therein, it is not obtained” means it is not obtained to take it as “associated” or “dissociated,” even if not obtained, it is taken in the question to be answered by negation. For negation is also an answer to a question. Thus, in the Yamaka (Yama. 1. Khandha Yamaka. 59-61), to the question, “For whom the material aggregate did not arise, for him the feeling aggregate did not arise?” it was answered, “No.” Therefore, here it is shown that the meaning of association is not obtained in material phenomena. Even if not obtained, the term “associated” is taken. is the connection. Everywhere means in the aggregate of form, the aggregate of feeling, and so on. Of these means of form and Nibbāna. Disparity means not having that nature. For, the state of arising together and so on is similarity in association, not similarity of nature as in collection. Therefore, that state of arising together and so on, which is absent in form and Nibbāna, is called disparity. Due to its absence means due to the absence of that disparity, that state of arising together and so on. Disassociation is also prevented. This meaning is stated as "disparate existence is disassociation." By "in the four" and so on, the meaning already stated is made clearer. There, "of them by them" refers only to the immaterial aggregates. And there is disparity because it is not found in form and Nibbāna. That is the meaning. Therefore, it says, "not of a part of form" and so on. By that very reason means by the very reason of having the nature of the four aggregates. By the three consciousness elements means by the nose, tongue, and body consciousness elements. It points out the states that are disassociated, mixed with non-objects, and mixed with form states. The connection is "form existence." By the five means by the five consciousness elements such as eye-consciousness. By the one mind-element. Not associated means not only associated. For it is said, "if disassociated, they are not, or if associated, they are seven." By that means by the rejection of disassociation. By them means by the seven consciousness elements. Pointing out the associated means pointing out only the associated, and the emphasis "only associated" should not be taken. This method applies to the rest as well. The associated means feeling and so on. It should not be said by states of association and disassociation, that very set of seven consciousness elements. Not to be said by the state of association are the associated not-to-be-said, those of different continuities, and also the immaterial states of different moments. The states that are mixed with non-objects and all consciousness elements and their associated states should be pointed out by terms like "sense-base of states." The consciousness elements that are mixed with non-objects should be pointed out by terms like "non-mental factors." The totality of both should be pointed out by terms like "truth of suffering," this should be understood. If so means if the disassociated states of those mixed with non-objects... There is no connection. The states that are unobjectified, mixed, and both are the elements of all consciousness together with form and Nibbāna, and the states associated with them. By aggregates and so on means by aggregates, sense bases, and elements, not merely by formless aggregates. But it is said, referring to the formless aggregates, “the states that are disjoined from these states,” so this is not a fault, he shows. A part of that whole means a part of the collection of states mentioned by “mixed with the unobjectified” and so on. A collection of other parts of that whole means being a part of that very collection as stated, and being a collection of other components such as the form aggregate. Due to the absence of division means due to the absence of distinction. Here, by distinction, absolute distinction is intended. For there is no absolute distinction between a whole and its parts, like between general and specific characteristics, because they are characterized by both distinction and non-distinction. It is precisely referring to their absolute non-distinction that it is said in the Compendium: “There is no division of parts included within a whole.” By that means by the existence of non-division, due to the absence of homogeneous and heterogeneous qualities. Of these means of the elements of all consciousness mixed with the unobjectified and so on. And these are unwholesome and indeterminate. Of these means of wholesome, unwholesome, and indeterminate states. Therefore means because there is no whole-part relationship for those whose nature is distinguished, therefore. But since wholesome and so on are aggregates and so on, by touching upon aggregates and so on, the whole-part relationship is indeed attained, and thus there is no disjunction according to the stated method, therefore, avoiding that, he says, “without touching upon aggregates and so on.” Of these means of wholesome and so on. Mutual disjunction is stated by “the states that are disjoined from wholesome states” and so on. In all means in all the second and subsequent questions. In the thirty-six back-duka sections, twenty duka terms are found in this method, and the remaining sixteen, so he says, “sixteen should be said.” From that very reason, in “one hundred and twenty-three terms,” this “twenty-three” should be understood as “twenty-one.” In all means in all questions. A collection of many states that are of a single moment and a single continuum, and of different moments and different continua. "Non-existent are the aggregates of formations, sense bases, and elements of phenomena." Thus he said, "time-continuum... and elements." "Mixed in part" means: the bases of psychic power, etc., are mixed with other aggregates, etc., by their own part, such as the base of psychic power of mind, etc., but are not mixed with form and Nibbāna, which are not objects. "By those of the same time-continuum" means: by those of a single time-continuum, devoid of distinctions in time-continuum, by other parts, by other parts of the aggregate of formations, etc., by specific parts of the aggregate of formations, etc., such as the aggregate of perception, the foundations of mindfulness, the right efforts, etc., the truths of origination, etc., are indeed distinguished by way of association and dissociation, and the aggregates of form, etc., are taken by way of dissociation. This is the connection. By those truths of origination, etc. Those aggregates of perception, etc., are distinguished by some other parts that are worthy of co-arising. For even though the truths of origination, etc., are included in the aggregate of formations, etc., they do not attain association with the truths of the path, etc. "Of those" refers to the aggregates of feeling, perception, etc. "Of single arising... and dissimilarity" means: similarity and dissimilarity, as appropriate, reckoned as single arising, etc. Therefore, by the aforementioned reason, association and dissociation are obtained. The arising of co-arisen things of different times is the co-arising of different times. And existing, each phenomenon exists in a single continuum. Therefore, because it is just this, therefore. Because there is no part to be distinguished of those aggregates of feeling, etc. The faculty of pleasure, etc., are also parts of the aggregate of feeling. By that non-distinction. If, due to the absence of a distinguishable part of the same time, the eye-consciousness element, etc., do not make a distinction of the aggregate of consciousness, then why is it said, "the eye-consciousness element... the mind-consciousness element is dissociated from sixteen elements"? Having considered this objection, he said: "It is said to be dissociated from aggregates, sense bases..." Just so, just as consciousness is distinguished by the division of elements, just so. 235. "Association with them" means association with those aggregates. Just as Indeed, with the aggregates of feeling, perception, and consciousness, which are continuities of the same time, arisen in a single thought-moment, there is association with the truth of origin. Thus, with them, when continuities are different and times are different, there is disassociation from it. Therefore it is said: "Thus, that state of disassociation... (etc.)... is not stated." Because of the absence of dissimilarity, by the absence of division, by those three undivided aggregates. By "indeed, in division" and so on, that very meaning is made clearer. By "devoid of division" means: with continuities of the same time, because of being arisen in a single thought-moment, with the undivided aggregate of feeling and so on, it is not proper to say "disassociated." Therefore it is said: "by existing ones... (etc.)... because of existence." Therein, the meaning is: "of an existing, similar, same-kind thing." For existing form and formless are indeed dissimilar to each other. By "as if unarisen phenomena," this is a showing of a dissimilar example. Just as by "unarisen phenomena" the future time is spoken of, a distinction of touched time, thus, the meaning is that which is not a distinction of touched time. What is to be extracted