English
by the meaning of "it burns, it consumes," has the characteristic of heat. If that is so, a thing touched by blue color becomes blue. Touched by yellow, it becomes yellow. If blue and yellow also are called "burning" that thing. There is no such thing as being touched by blue color. Likewise by yellow. Why? Because derivative forms like blue, etc., have no function of touching. It is called "mixed." And it does not burn merely by mixing. Only that which touches burns. Even for earth and wind elements that touch, there is no burning function. The meaning is, there is no function of ripening. If there is expansion in a dense, solid stone pillar, the entire stone pillar would become loose and light like a ball of cotton. But it does not. Therefore, with the intention that there is no expansion there, he objects, "But it is not found in dense, solid stone pillars, etc." But showing that expansion, if found there, is not found excessively, but is found only as the support of co-arisen elements, he says "no" and then says "for there," etc. There, "it carries" means it carries the function of hardness and roughness. Regarding the sensitive forms. "Even and uneven" means an even place and an uneven place, an even region and an uneven region, an even path and an uneven path, and so on, "even and uneven." "It reveals" means like revealing, that knowing function it brings about. Therefore it is said, "It is the root of one who knows the even and the uneven." "By not rejecting" means by not refusing. "That" means form. People hear. They are heard by people. Thus in "they smell," etc. "Cause of life" means the cause of the arising of life. "By inclination" means by inclination to become object and subject. "Because it brings about the function of life" means by the arising of various kinds of speech and verbal action, this is the intention. These five, the eye-sensitivities, etc., is the connection. "Desire to see" is called form-craving. By the word "etc." are included desire to hear, desire to smell, desire to taste, and desire to touch. In meaning, they are sound-craving, smell-craving, taste-craving, and touch-craving. "Source" means cause. Desire to see, etc., is the source of it, is the analysis. Skillful and unskillful action. It arises from this, therefore it is a source. Action itself. Action whose source is desire to see, etc., is the compound. Earth, etc., are elements. Sensitivity is their characteristic, is the analysis. In the second alternative. That which is worthy of impact by the five objects of form, etc., is that which is worthy of impact by form, etc. Sensitivity of elements is element-sensitivity. That is their characteristic, is the analysis. The eye is located in the visible disk the size of a louse's head, is the connection. "In the visible disk" means in the clear disk seen by ordinary people with the natural eye. The comparison is like oil pervading seven layers of cotton. "Ear-hole" is the ear-cavity. "Finger-ring" is a finger-ring. "Accumulated, thin, reddish hair" means accumulated, sparse, reddish-copper-colored, and soft hair. Accumulated, thin, reddish hair is here, is the analysis. "Goat's-foot-shaped" means having the shape of a footprint made by a goat's foot. "Lotus petal" is a lotus leaf. Having the shape of the tip of a lotus petal. "Wick" here means an elongated mass shaped like a human body. "Excluding dry skins" is the connection. They But the five sensitivities. Stirring is wavering. "As it is" – what is that like? These sensitivities are varied, "How are they varied?" he says, "They are dissimilar to each other." "How are they dissimilar?" he says, "By those," and so on. In the sense-objects. "Particular color" means for the sake of particular color. It is said to be a change in color. A state that has gone to the heart, that has occurred, is a heart-felt state. "State" is also said to mean intention. It reveals that, because by seeing a change in color on the face, one knows, "This one is pleased with me, this one likes me, this one is angry with me, this one is joyful, this one is sorrowful." "Even naturally" means even without undergoing a particular color. "Whatever substance" means a conscious object. Even and uneven has been explained before. Or it declares that meaning, because by hearing it, one knows that meaning. Or it declares its own object, because by hearing it, one knows even that object. "It indicates its own object" here means it reveals that this thing exists. "It is touched" means it is known by touching. "That" is touching. "Of that" means of the water element. "Or fluidity" means wetness or internal moisture. It is grasped by touching, and that might be the water element, it is urged. The refutation is stated. But it is not accepted thus, therefore it is only the fire element. Not water. Here, even if it is not accepted thus, coldness is only water, not fire. Why? Because water also can be of two kinds, cold and hot. For in that molten iron, heat is hot water; in cold objects, coldness is cold water, if one says. But if that is so, then there is no such thing as the fire element, this is the refutation. "Because of not occurring together" means because of not occurring at the same time. "Like near and far banks" means in a river, there is no fixed rule that this is the near bank and that is the far bank. Where one stands oneself, that is called the near bank, and the other is called the far bank. Thus, there is no fixed position for near and far banks. And here, by "because of cold and heat not occurring together," if they were to occur together. There, cold They might say: "Coldness is called water, Heat is called fire." But they do not arise together, Therefore, it shows that they should not be called that. No, they should not be called that. Why? Water, when conjoined with heat-fire, Goes to the state of heat. Similarly, earth and wind, When conjoined with heat-fire, Go to the state of heat. Therefore, they do not arise together. Even if they do not arise together, In other cold objects, Coldness is called water, This is a challenge. If this were so, In that molten iron, All material phenomena Go to the state of heat, And all attain the state of fire. "Fire has the characteristic of heat," it is said. And if there were a state of coldness in cold objects, There too, all material phenomena, When conjoined with it, Would go to the state of coldness. There too, by your opinion, All would attain the state of water. But it is not possible for it to be so. For there is no such change of characteristic for them. There is only a change of state. Here, "change of characteristic" means Earth goes to the state of water, Water goes to the state of earth, and so on. "Change of state" means Earth is sometimes hard, Sometimes soft. Water is sometimes merely binding, Sometimes flowing. Fire is sometimes hot, Sometimes cold. Wind is sometimes merely supporting, Sometimes stirring. Thus, for each element, There is a transition of action According to sharp, dull, slight, or intense. Therefore, what was said: "Water, when conjoined with heat-fire, Goes to the state of heat, Similarly, earth and wind, When conjoined with heat-fire, Go to the state of heat." That is a statement of change of characteristic. It is not appropriate. For not all these phenomena, When conjoined with heat-fire, Go to the state of heat. They do not abandon their own nature. Thus, in that boiling, heated molten iron, The state does not go to heat. It does not abandon its nature of binding Or its nature of flowing. If it were to go to heat, It would abandon that nature. If this were so, in that molten iron, the binding aspect or the flowing aspect would not be perceived. All material phenomena would scatter. Having scattered, they would disappear. Nor is it not perceived. Nor do they scatter. Nor does the binding aspect there become heat. Indeed, different is the binding aspect, different is heat. The binding aspect is water, heat is fire. Therein, in earth and wind too, is the same method. Therefore, what was said: "If they were to arise together, there coldness would be called water, heat would be called fire. But they do not arise together. Therefore, it shows that they should not be called thus," that should be seen as well-said. By this, "due to their instability," if those cold and hot were stable, then at all times, coldness would be called water, heat would be called fire. But they are not stable. They are indeed unstable. Therefore, it shows that they should not be called thus. And here, if they are unstable, if they were to say, "coldness is water, heat is fire," if this were so, water and fire would also be unstable. What is now water, that same would be fire in another moment. Or what is now fire, that same would be water in another moment, they would conclude. And it is not possible for it to be so, because, if there is no difference in characteristics, then a difference in designation is also impossible. Therefore it was said: "And it is understood from their instability, like those on this and that side." There, "it is understood" means that coldness itself is fire, not water, it is understood. In "Now then," etc.: What was said previously by the other, "Is not fluidity perceived by touch?" To investigate that, "Now then," etc., was said. There, "Now then" means "if it is perceived, if this were so." If this were so, it would indeed be an object of perception, is the connection. This indeed is the intention here: If water, being a state of fluidity, were perceived by touch, if this were so, water, being merely a binding aspect in iron balls, etc., would also have to be perceived by touch. Why? Because of its oneness with the nature of water. If that is so, in those iron balls and so on, that water, for one touching or striking them with hand or foot, without the other great elements, would be a causal condition for the objective basis of