English
are to be understood as forms and so on, characterized by impingement on the eye and so on. 'Woman' is said to be the five aggregates arranged in an unclear form. And by the power of which phenomenon it thus settles and proceeds. That is the state of being a woman, 'itthatta'. 'Man' is said to be arranged in a clear form. The five aggregates. The rest is just as stated. Therein, the cause-state and characteristic of female gender, female sign, female action, and female deportment is femaleness. The cause-state and characteristic of male gender, male sign, male action, and male deportment is maleness. Therein, 'gender' means the main, large bodily form. 'Sign' means the secondary, small bodily form. 'Action' means a special kind of activity like playing. 'Deportment' means a change in manner, like walking. All these are just specific modes of manifestation of the five aggregates. Which are called 'gender' in grammar. And by means of which people perceive: "This is a female, not a male. This is a male, not a female." Because here, the indistinct state of forms etc., is in essence femaleness or maleness. And the state beyond both of these is neuterness. And this is appropriately observed in words and word-meanings, which are reckoned as letters and words. Therefore, the establishment of femaleness, maleness, and neuterness should be understood by implication even in places without faculties, and in word-meanings like trees. [178] But what is to be explained: "The female organ is female gender" - as it is said. That is not good. For nowhere in the Pāli texts or commentaries is the word 'gender' clearly seen to mean 'organ', as the word 'sign' is. [179] And what is said there: "Female form is female deportment." That too is not good. For the word 'deportment' is not clearly seen to mean 'form', as the word 'gender' is. But whatever else is said there, even if it does not fully agree with the commentary, it is still applicable by implication. 'Being' means that by this, words and thoughts arise and proceed in the aggregate-continuum associated with it, such as "This is a female, this is a male"; or 'being' means that genders etc. arise and appear in the aggregate-continuum associated with it when this is present. That very form is 'form of being'. 'Heart' means that by this, beings fill various meanings, whether beneficial or harmful. Or 'heart' means that from this, beings cast off or release various thoughts. Or they carry... Beings cherish it like life, they pity it, they protect it – thus, heart. Mind and mental states dwell, reside here – thus, base. That which is heart and base – thus, heart-base. The base-form is characterized by reliance on two elements. It should be known that it pervades about half a *pasata* of blood within the heart-sac. In the Dhammasaṅgaṇī, however, to preserve the distinction of teachings, it was not mentioned, but it was stated in the Paṭṭhāna. As it says: "The base is a condition by way of support for wholesome aggregates. The base is a condition by way of support for unwholesome aggregates," and so on. And here, there is no other thing called 'base' besides the six bases. Among these, the first five are not supports for wholesome states, etc. Therefore, it is concluded that the 'base' mentioned there, as a support for them, is indeed a distinct single base-form. [180] In the Vibhāvanī, however, Because the phrase "depending on which form" was extracted, the implication of 'form in general' arises; to clarify this, a reasoning was stated. But in the Paṭṭhāna, because it is stated with the specific name 'base' in many unique places, that implication does not arise at all – this should be understood. That by which co-arisen phenomena live – thus, life. That which makes itself a lord, a master among them, by way of dominant condition in their living – thus, faculty. That which is life and faculty – thus, life-faculty. The life-faculty is characterized by sustaining co-arisen phenomena. Just as lotuses, etc., born from seeds, even when the seeds are destroyed, sustained by water, live for a long time. Even so, kamma-born forms, born from kamma that has ceased, even when kamma is absent, sustained by life, continue to live for a hundred years, a thousand years, a kappa, or sixteen thousand kappas, by way of continuity. Indeed, other forms, devoid of life, do not truly live. For they arise by that one mind, or by season, or by food. When that ceases, they cease; they cannot maintain their continuity even for a moment beyond. Among these, the mind-born forms, their continuity... [The present moment] of mind-and-matter is delimited by one thought-process, one impulsion-moment, one attainment-moment. And that born of season and nutriment is delimited by homogeneous season and nutriment. But for kamma-born forms, there is no separate serial present moment. For them, the present moment is delimited by one existence, the duration-present moment. If so, how about immaterial phenomena? They exist by the connection of the life-faculty. Even so, their serial present moment is seen. It is said: Among immaterial phenomena, the results, first, are similar to kamma-born forms. For they too, in the absence of a thought-process, will continue throughout life as one series. The others, however, arise due to the impingement of a certain object. When that object ceases, even in its absence, many mind-series related to that object continue by the power of pervading the duration of life. Moreover, this meaning should be stated by means of the mind-series that continues uninterruptedly by the connection of immediate condition until the final Nibbāna of the aggregates. For this reason, it is said that ignorance is the head of defilements, and the life-faculty is the head of continuity. [181] In the Vibhāvanī, however, for those born of nutriment, etc., nutriment, etc., is the cause for both their arising and their persistence. Why? Because it exists at that moment. But for those born of kamma, kamma is the cause only for their arising, not for their persistence. Why? Because it is absent at that moment. But their momentary persistence is established by being sustained by the life-faculty. With this intention, what was said: "For even though they last only for a moment, kamma sustains its co-arisen phenomena as a cause for their continuity. For kamma itself is not the cause of their persistence, as nutriment, etc., is for those born of nutriment, etc., because kamma is absent at that moment." That is not correct. For the momentary persistence of phenomena is dependent only on co-arisen conditions within the same kalāpa. It is not dependent on generative conditions in different kalāpas. Otherwise, just as the continuity of growth is obtained at the moment of arising, so too, the arising of decay, which is obtained at the moment of persistence, would have been stated in the Pāḷi as originating from somewhere. Moreover, And, momentary existence is naturally established. For it is not that arisen phenomena, due to a lack of conditions, do not fully exist in their own moments, but break up in between. Nor is it that they exist for an extra moment due to an excess of conditions. Therefore, even though foods and so on support momentary existence, and maintain life, they support and maintain it for the sake of the subsequent continuation of strong and excellent forms. Not for the continuation of momentary existence itself. Thus, it is established that the momentary existence of all things is not dependent on the generating body of existing things, nor on life. If, however, it were said with reference to the continuation of the series, then it would be appropriate. Even in the commentaries, in the explanation of the characteristic of maintenance and so on, in statements like "it maintains those phenomena only for the moment of their existence," the continuation of the series is understood. Thus, it should be considered and understood. This, however, exists pervading the entire body taken up by craving, together with the digestive fire. That which is made into a morsel is "kabaḷīkāra" (morsel-food). That which is brought in, that which is swallowed, is "āhāra" (food). And that morsel-food, that food, is "kabaḷīkārāhāra" (morsel-food as nutriment). "Kabaḷīkāra āhāra" is also a reading. And this should be understood as a statement with a basis. Alternatively, for beings who consume morsel-food, that which greatly carries their existence, that which causes the path to continue, is "āhāra" (food). Food in the form of edibles, chewables, etc., which are morsel-food, is called "kabaḷīkārāhāra" because it is dependent on them and included within them. In this sense, only the generated nutritive essence is understood. However, in meaning, the essence of the sap that pervades every limb, the supporting force, the extremely smooth and oily substance dependent on the elements, is here called "āhāra-rūpa" (form of nutriment). There, regarding "the sap that pervades every limb": food substances, having been swallowed and settled in the stomach, are separated by the digestive fire and undergo a fivefold division into sap and so on. Among these, the refined, smooth, light, oily portion is called "rasa" (sap/essence). Which in the world is called "rasadhātu" (nutrient element). That, by the power of the digestive fire, then rises up and follows the network of nutrient-carrying veins not below, nor above, in the entire body, following limb by limb, pervading limb by limb, is called 'following limb by limb'. Its essential part makes a supporting strength, thus 'making supporting strength'. For it, as soon as it is established in the stomach, generates supporting strength in the elements throughout the entire body. [182] In the Vibhāvanī, however, "Following limb by limb, the essence of the sap" is the reading. That is a wrong reading. That, however, is the form of nutriment