English
they first arise. Having arisen, they grow. When growth is complete, they continue without growing, in a continuous manner, and then they break up. Decay is jarā. It is called jarā because by it they decay, they go to a state of being old. That itself is jaratā (old age). That which does not move, does not tremble, by arising, decay, and dissolution, is permanent, un- conditioned phenomenon. Not permanent, impermanent, a conditioned phenomenon. The state of impermanence is impermanence, dissolution. [183] However, for clarification, It is said, "That which is not to be followed as permanent and stable is impermanent." That is not good. The word "nicca" (permanent) is well-known in the Dispensation and in the world. That very word, with the addition of the negative particle "na," is here called "anicca" (impermanent). That by which these conditioned phenomena are observed, discerned, and distinguished is a characteristic. It means a sign for knowing the nature of conditioned phenomena. As it is said in the Aṅguttara: "Monks, there are these three characteristics of the conditioned. Which three? Arising is evident, passing away is evident, and the alteration of what is present is evident." Is it not true that "jāti" (birth) is mentioned in the Pāḷi? Therefore, it is said that it should also be mentioned here, as "jātirūpameva" (the form of birth) and so on. Here, in the enumeration of forms. Generation, manifestation, is birth. Or that by which these arise is birth, also called accumulation and continuity. The meaning is that it is connected with the difference in states. For it first causes the rebirth-linking forms to manifest. Then it completes the imperfect sense-bases. And having completed them, it causes them to continue and to be connected for a long time without interruption. "One, even ten-fold" means that by virtue of being the great elements, it is one, but by way of bringing about, it is ten-fold. How can it be twenty-eight kinds in terms of its nature? Having asked this, it should be understood that by "bhūtappasāda visayātiādinā" (by way of elements, sense-faculties, objects, etc.), the ten-fold nature is shown in its essence, and the included distinctions are very clear from what was said before. Therefore, it is said, "eighteen kinds." The four elements, the five sense-faculties (by not taking what is already taken), the four objects. Two kinds of existence. One heart-base. Thus, these sixteen kinds of form, together with the life-faculty and nutriment forms, become eighteen kinds. Similarly, one delimitation. Two kinds of intimation. Three kinds of alteration (by not taking what is already taken). And four kinds of characteristics. Thus, the ten non-produced forms. This is the connection that form is twenty-eight kinds in its nature. And here, the last ten forms are inherent. because of not being found, the forms produced by conditions are not, thus they are called unproduced. But here, even in the Abhidhamma, these, specifically enumerated and defined, cannot be said to be not found in their own nature, or to be non-existent in the ultimate sense. Because they are found by means of the ultimate characteristic established by the pure course of phenomena, surpassing mere conventional existence. Otherwise, unconditioned Nibbāna, devoid of the characteristic of production, would also be not found in its own nature and non-existent in the ultimate sense. Therefore, it is appropriate to say that these are called unproduced precisely because they are devoid of the characteristic of production, not because they are not found in their own nature. [Summary of Form] 157. In the division of form, all this twenty-eightfold form, as enumerated, is of one kind due to being uncaused. It is not of two kinds as caused and uncaused. Similarly, it is of one kind due to being conditioned. It is not of two kinds as conditioned and unconditioned. Thus, to show this single-kind method that proceeds in this way, the phrase "all this" and so on is begun. [184] However, in the Vibhāvanī, it is said, "because the division of form is also a single-kind method, it is said, 'to show the single-kind and other methods of the enumerated forms, all this and so on is stated'." That does not fit. For it will be said: They divide into internal and other distinctions, as is appropriate. By this, it is understood that the division into internal and other distinctions is indeed the division of form. There, all form is uncaused, due to the absence of connection with causes; nothing is caused. The intention is that there is such a division as some being uncaused. The reading is: conditioned, with taints, compounded, worldly. But it is more appropriate to say: conditioned, compounded, worldly, with taints. Because it is seen so in the Pāḷi, and because of the possibility of similar pairs. The others, even if not in the Pāḷi order, are appropriate in terms of division due to being similar pairs. There, it exists together with its generating condition, thus it is conditioned. It is made by coming together with conditions. is conditioned. That which is included in the world, which consists of the five aggregates of clinging, is worldly. That which exists together with the defilements that arise with reference to oneself is with defilements. Even form that belongs to the Akaniṭṭha Brahma realm, because it is included in the sphere of sensual craving, is of the sensual realm. That which has no object whatsoever grasped by itself is without object. A phenomenon that, even if abandoned by another effort, is not abandoned if the abandonment of its origin is absent, because it will certainly arise again. And even if not abandoned, it is abandoned if that [abandonment of origin] is present, because it will not arise again. Such a phenomenon, because it is not a basis for the effort of abandoning, is called not to be abandoned. Form is also of this kind, thus it is said, "not to be abandoned." The meaning is that it does not deserve the effort of abandoning because it is not a basis. Or, the meaning is that it cannot be abandoned without the abandonment of its origin. If so, how is it said, "Form, monks, is not yours. Abandon it. When abandoned, it will be for your long-term welfare, benefit, and happiness"? That too should be understood as said with reference to the abandonment of the craving that pertains to it. As it is said: "Whatever desire, Rādhā, whatever lust, whatever delight, whatever craving there is in form, abandon that. Thus, that form will be abandoned, uprooted, made like a palm-stump, made non-existent, not liable to arise in the future." This method should be understood in the case of other phenomena that are not to be abandoned, such as wholesome states. And the word "eva" here should be connected with the preceding terms as well. The word "iti" has the meaning of "etc." or "kind." Thereby, it includes what is stated in the Pāli, "not a cause, not dissociated from a cause," etc. The collection of phenomena included in the individual existence of each person is called internal. And among these, where there is a stronger, firmer grasp by craving, that six-fold phenomenon, such as the eye, together with consciousness, is called internal. Because it is known and manifest internally. Indeed, it is also called "internal of the internal." Other phenomena, however, such as form and contact, are called external due to the weakness of the grasp of craving that depends on them. Just as in the world, jewels or gold or silver are placed and kept outside the house. Or a basket, or a winnowing basket, or a pot, or a bowl is placed inside the house. There, even discarding the latter, they protect the former. Therefore, those very things, due to the strength of craving's grasp, are called 'internal objects of enjoyment'. But the latter are called 'external objects of enjoyment'. This comparison should be understood thus. Here too, if one could, even discarding all forms and so on, and contacts and so on, they would certainly protect the six kinds of eye and so on. Thus, the internal and external nature of these two is stated solely by the strength and weakness of craving's grasp. It should be concluded here that it is not by the place of occurrence. [185] But what is to be clarified: "Internal form, existing as one's own being, arises with reference to oneself, for oneself. Indeed, there are other things born internally. But by common usage, only the eye and so on are internal" - this is said. That is not good. [186] And what is there: "The mind, which is called self, arises as its door, thus it is internal. That alone is internal" - this is said. That too is not good. For if that meaning holds, the internality of the mind is not established. And there would be no distinction between internal phenomena and internal objects. But what is there: "Or, as if saying, 'If we were not, you would be like a log of wood,' because they are exceedingly beneficial to one's own existence, the eye and so on are specifically internal" - this is said. That is more appropriate. For it is precisely due to their exceeding benefit that beings have a strong grasp on them. There are seven kinds of door-form. Respectively, they are the gateways for the occurrence of process-consciousness and actions like taking life. Among these, the five kinds of sensitive form are called 'origin-doors'. The two kinds of intimation are called 'action-doors'. Gross form, by nature, is coarse. And its function, which is called impingement, is gross. Subtle form is far... because it is capable of being grasped by wisdom more quickly than what is occurring. And regarding 'sappaṭigharūpaṃ' (form with impact), here 'paṭigha' is impact. It is twofold: the impact of objects and faculties, and the mutual impact of the great elements. Among these, that impact by which there is a change in the sense-door consciousnesses and the bhavanga (life-continuum)