English
is to be taught by exposition, thus it is said. Only of an existing thing is there association with an existing thing. And only of that fit for association is there disassociation. Because of reliance on existence, association and disassociation, thus it is said: "relying on present existence." Therefore it is also said: "of a non-existing thing" and so on. And that is an extraction. By "devoid of division" means: because of the absence of dissimilarity, by the undivided ones. By "distinction of untouched time" means: a specific untouched time. "Of a non-existing thing... (etc.)... there is no association," by this, by implication, association of an existing thing with an existing thing is shown. When taken in a division that shows non-existence, in the phenomena as understood, showing the non-existence of those disassociated from them, in their very specific instances, as when it is taken: "the formless existence is disassociated from one aggregate, ten sense-bases, sixteen elements" and so on (Dhatu. 246), by that very division of 'being crushed' and so on, their dissimilarity to each other is also indeed taken. Thus, the connection is that disassociation occurs. But when division is not taken, by that very taking of each one, thus, as stated. They, not having grasped the distinctions or dissimilarities that indicate non-existence, say, “Feeling, perception, and the aggregate of formations are associated with three aggregates, one sense-base, and seven elements.” By such a grasping, which indicates similarity, dissimilarity is not grasped, so there is only similarity. And if there is similarity, what similarity is there here? He says, “by existence… and so on… it is.” Of that: of similarity. Therefore: because dissimilarity is not obtained, and similarity is obtained. 262. Like initial application: like initial application in thought-originations with initial and sustained application. For it, being without initial application, is merely sustained application. Therefore he says, “not clinging to thought-originations in the intermediate sections.” For that reason, it is secondary; the states of the second jhāna are primary here, so he says, “which are primary.” For that very reason: because initial application in thought-originations with initial and sustained application is not grasped here by the grasping of merely initial application and sustained application, and because only the second group in the triad of initial application is intended. In the immediately preceding method: in the explanation of terms associated and dissociated. Having the same course as the truth of origin: having a similar occurrence. Thus: for this reason. Those states of merely initial application and sustained application are not grasped; they are not included in the teaching like the truth of origin. The connection is: they do not have the same course as those with initial and sustained application. For if they had the same course as those with initial and sustained application, it would have to be said, “The states that are associated with those states of merely initial application and sustained application, and the states that are dissociated from those states, are dissociated from no aggregates, from no sense-bases, and from one element.” But because they have the same course as the truth of origin, just as it is not possible to speak of dissociation from anything for those who are dissociated from the truth of origin, so it is with these. Thus he will say, “the truth of origin, etc.” The tenth… and so on… said: here, in the tenth method, the dissociation from sixteen elements is said for those who are dissociated from those merely initial application and sustained application, and the remainder. And it is said that they are included in the eighteen elements, being disjoined from them. Therefore, it shows that they are not of the same nature as those with initial application and sustained application. "In those accompanied by initial application" means with initial application. "In those" means in those that are merely without initial application and with sustained application, in the states of the second jhāna that are accompanied by initial application, in those referred to as "merely without initial application and with sustained application," this is the meaning of what is said. "All of them" means the states of the second jhāna and initial application, all these states can be spoken of. For in the explanation of terms for conjunction and disjunction, it is said: "States that are merely without initial application and with sustained application are conjoined with one aggregate, with one sense-base, with one element, with some." There, "with one aggregate" means with the aggregate of formations. For it is a collection, the collection of states referred to as "states that are merely without initial application and with sustained application." If it is asked, "Is not initial application included among these states, and is it not conjoined with something other than sustained application?" referring to this objection, he says: "For it is not that a part of it...pe... it is." By "just as" and so on, he clarifies that very point with the example of the bases of power. Its meaning is: just as the conjunction of the individual parts of the collection of bases of power, such as the base of power of desire, is said to be with three aggregates, but this is not true for the collection itself; similarly here, the conjunction of initial application with others is not true for the collection of merely without initial application and with sustained application. If so, should it not be said: "The base of power is conjoined with two aggregates," and so on? No, it should be said, showing this, he says: "Just as, however," and so on. There, "in those" means in the bases of power. "Of the collection" means of the collection of bases of power. Their conjunction with the aggregate of feeling and so on is stated as "the base of power is conjoined with two aggregates," and so on. "By that" means by sustained application. By "for it is not" and so on, he clarifies the non-necessity of stating the conjunction of the states understood in this way, by means of an example. Some doubt, and those accompanied by it, except for delusion, are conjoined with delusion; some are not conjoined. "With delusion" refers only to the delusion accompanied by doubt. Thus, for this reason, the collection is not conjoined with that delusion. And No dhamma is a cause, nor does it exist, by which cause that is called a cause to be abandoned by seeing, the origin. Thus, by this method, it should be shown that it is not to be said that "development... and also associated" is not to be said. Thus, just as the association of the origin, a cause to be abandoned by seeing, is not to be said, so too, that by which dhamma without initial thought... may be, that does not exist. Therefore, since among those without initial thought and only with sustained thought, none is unassociated with sustained thought, therefore. Those are the dhammas without initial thought and only with sustained thought. Even in one dhamma... made, just as "unconditioned dhammas are uncompounded dhammas." The explanation of the terms of association and dissociation of the sixth method is finished. 7. The seventh method: Explanation of the terms associated and dissociated. 306. Even when there is association with the three aggregates or a part of an aggregate, etc., among those origins, etc., and even when there are other dhammas dissociated from the associated ones, such as form and Nibbāna, there is no dissociation. To show the briefly stated meaning in detail, "for not" etc. is said. From that mind-moment accompanied by greed, there is no dissociation of any of the remaining dhammas, the wholesome, unwholesome, and indeterminate dhammas, from the aggregates, etc., because they encompass the five aggregates, etc. Those very mind-moments are those mind-moments accompanied by greed. And of other dhammas: the elision of the word "pi" (also) should be understood. Thus, by this, it concludes the meaning that those very dhammas are not the one and a half sense-bases and elements, but rather those and others from them. Now, since dissociation of others from them is established by the very fact of their being other, he says, "and not" etc. By other origins: other dhammas accompanied by greed are not dissociated from other origins, from that mind-moment accompanied by greed. Why? Because there is no dissociation in the origin... Its meaning is: because there is no dissociation of the parts, the dhammas accompanied by greed, from the mass of other dhammas accompanied by greed in the origin, and similarly, those which are parts of other constituents... Being a collection, and there is no separation from that collection. By this collection, it shows that there is no separation of a part from the collection, nor of the collection from a part, but rather of a part from a part itself. "This method" means the procedure stated in the truth of origin; it shows that this is the same for the path-truth, the faculty of pleasure, and so on, because they are parts of the immaterial aggregates. "In all without remainder" means in thoughts not excluded. For thought is not excluded from the collection. The method stated, beginning with "That indeed is the collection," is obtained, thus it says, "No reason for non-inclusion is seen." It should be understood that the explanation applies to other truths of origin, etc., because the truth of origin, etc., is not taken here—this is the intention. Since the context is "associated," the word "by another" refers to something other than the associated, thus it says, "The meaning is unmixed with the unassociated." Now, to establish that meaning also by exclusion, it is said, "neither painful nor pleasant... are taken.