English
is called the impact of objects and faculties. That by which the forms characterized by affliction experience affliction, agitation, impact, oppression, breaking, etc., is called the mutual impact of the great elements. That which exists with impact is 'sappaṭighaṃ' (with impact). [187] However, in the Vibhāvaniya, "That which is the confrontation, the mutual falling upon, of those (objects) that have arrived and those that have not arrived, by way of their support, is like impact, thus it is impact. Just as when there is an impact, the weak (object) moves, similarly, when there is a mutual confrontation, the weak bhavanga, being formless, moves." Thus, making the impact of the great elements merely an analogy, only the impact of objects and faculties is taken. That is not appropriate. For if this were the case, the impacts seen in the internal and external continuums in the world, by which forms mutually adhere, bind, stiffen, hold, move, etc., or grow, diminish, cut, break, dissolve, scatter, etc., would not be included here. Nor can these be of any other kind than the impact, called the confluence of elements, which occurs by way of support and destruction. The other sixteen kinds are subtle form, distant form, and form without impact, by way of the opposite of what has been stated. 'Upādinnarūpaṃ' (grasped form) is sometimes said to be any form existing in the body. Sometimes it is only that which arises from kamma. Both of these are called 'upādinnaṃ' (grasped) because they are grasped and clung to by craving and views. But in the ultimate sense, only that which arises from kamma is 'upādinnaṃ' (grasped). Why? Because it is grasped, taken, and clung to in an exceptional and intense way, by its constant occurrence in the continuum of beings. "Impossible to arise" is said of form born of kamma, grasped. "This is mine," and so on, by craving and views, it is strongly grasped, thus "grasped." In the Commentary, however, it shows this meaning: "grasped" or "taken" as its own fruit by kamma accompanied by craving and views. With showing, it is "with showing." "Showing" is said to be the state of being seen by eye-consciousness. Though not different in reality, it is treated as if different. For in this way, a special understanding of the meaning arises. Or "showing" is said to be the function of eye-consciousness. "It occurs with that," thus "with showing" is also fitting. The pair of eye and so on grasps its object by non-contact. The trio of nose and so on grasps its object by contact. Thus, the five kinds of object-grasping form is the explanation. There, an object that has arisen clinging and sticking to the sensitive faculty is called "contacted." An object that has arisen even letting go by a hair's breadth is called "non-contacted." Why here does the pair of eye and so on grasp only non-contacted? And the trio of nose and so on only contacted? Due to specific conditions. Light, indeed, is a condition for the eye in grasping form. And space for the ear in grasping sound. When eye and form arise clinging to each other, there is no room for the surrounding light. Similarly, for ear and sound, for the surrounding space. Wind, water, and earth, however, are conditions for the trio of nose and so on in grasping smell and so forth. There, "wind" means the nasal wind that draws in smell, and that is a condition only for the contacted. "Water" means the water that moistens the tongue, and that is also a condition only for the contacted. For taste does not spread on a dry tongue. And earth is a condition for impact. For light or dust, though falling on the body, supported by weak earth, does not impact the sensitive faculty. Thus, due to specific conditions, there is a difference in their grasping by contact or non-contact. There, the eye's grasping by non-contact is evident. For it does not see its own eye-color or the root of its eyebrow when near. But at a distance, it sees a great moon disc or something hidden by crystal, etc. or sees this color. And its distinction of direction and place is known. But how is it for the ear? There, indeed, a sound far away is heard after a long time. Even a sound arising in the western quarter, if obstructed by a great shrine or the like in between, is heard from the southern side. Or from the northern side. Or it is not heard at all. It is said: A sound-aggregate that has arisen, for those standing near, becomes manifest gradually from beginning to end. And the impact and friction are strong. The thought-processes of 'I hear' proceed swiftly, as if continuously. But for those standing far away, the impact and friction are weaker. It is not manifest from the beginning. It becomes manifest in a mass, either in the middle or at the end. The thought-processes proceed slowly, later. Therefore, for them, 'Heard quickly' or 'Heard after a long time' is an overestimation. Moreover, sound, by means of a succession of supporting elements, travels even to a distant place. And traveling thus, staying in each place it reaches, it strikes even a thousand ears of those standing within hearing range. But if obstructed by a great shrine or the like, since the space is openly clear, from there, it strikes the ear from the southern side or from the northern side, from the place it has reached. But a weaker sound is also not heard. And traveling thus, as long as it does not arise by adhering to the ear-sensitivity, so long it is not yet reached. But that which arises by adhering, that is called 'reached'. That is not heard. If, however, the ear were a sphere of contact, just as a smell inside the belly is not smelled outside, so too, a sound inside the belly would not be heard outside. And there would be no distinction of direction and place like that of smell. [188] But in the Vibhāvanīya: "If it goes to that sphere of objects, and grasps by pervading, then even in the manner of a basis, that would be its range." Thus it has been considered. That is not good. For there is no going out to the sphere of objects for the pair of eye and so on. Range It grasps the suitable, thus it is a receiver of objects. Being like a clear disk, it accepts the object-sign that comes into its range. That is the meaning. In the Vibhāvanī, however, it is said: "Being supported by consciousness, it has the nature of grasping various objects." 'Color' is the name for the object of sight. 'Nutriment' refers to the nutriment-rupa. 'Is distinguished' means 'distinction'. It means it is distinguished separately by place, by region, by cause of origin. 'Not distinguished' means 'indistinguishable'. That very rupa is 'indistinguishable rupa'. However, the Elder Ācariya Ānanda here desired five kinds of indistinguishable rupa, saying that scent, taste, and nutriment are sometimes seen to be distinguished. That will come later. [Division of Rupa]. 158. 'Kamma' is just one volition. For it is said in the Paṭṭhāna as a kamma-condition of various moments. As it is said: "Volitions, wholesome and unwholesome, of various moments, are a condition by way of kamma-condition for the resultant aggregates and for kamma-born rupas." 'Citta', however, is intended to mean consciousness together with its associated states. For in the Paṭṭhāna, mental states are also said to be producers of rupa. As it is said: "Causes are a condition by way of cause-condition for the states associated with causes and for the rupas arisen from them," and so on. 'Heat' is just fire-element. For it causes to arise, brings forth, generates, and increases the entire space-world by way of establishing eons, and the entire body of rupa-form, the world of beings, by way of establishing various bodies, and the entire conditioned world by way of establishing various trees, grasses, cloud-layers, rain, water, fire, wind, and so on. Therefore, it is called 'heat'. Some also say 'heat' because it moves, goes, and proceeds. 'Nutriment' is just essence. It is said that the twenty-five kinds of kamma-born rupa do not generate the formless wholesome kamma which is the development of dispassion for rupa. 'Atisaṅkhata' means that it generates rupa in the past, in a previous time, and thus it is especially well-made. 'Ajjhattikasanta' is said, but it should be 'ajjhattasanta'. The meaning of the suffix 'ika' is 'ajjhattameva ajjhattika'. It is to be understood. "From rebirth-linking" means: taking the moment of the arising of the rebirth-linking consciousness. "Moment by moment" means: in each of the three moments of each consciousness. But the Elder Ācariya Ānanda said that for all forms arisen from four causes, their arising is at the moment of the arising of each consciousness, and their cessation is at the moment of cessation. But my intention is this: all forms arisen from four causes arise at the moment of the arising of consciousness, not at the moment of cessation. As it is said – "Or, for whom the truth of origin ceases, for him the truth of suffering arises." Not so. Similarly, they cease at the moment of the cessation of consciousness. Not at the moment of arising. As it is said – "For whom wholesome states or unwholesome states arise, for him indeterminate states cease." Not so. These two pairs (of statements) were spoken with reference to the formless existence. But if forms arise even at the moment of the cessation of consciousness, and cease even at the moment of arising (of consciousness), then no. If it were so – "Or, for whom the truth of origin ceases, for him the truth of suffering arises." In the formless realm, at the moment of the cessation of craving, their truth of origin ceases. But their truth of suffering does not arise. And in the five-constituent realm, at the moment of the cessation of craving, their truth of origin ceases, and their truth of suffering arises. And elsewhere: In the formless realm, at the moment of the arising of wholesome states, their wholesome states arise.