English
, you surpass the ocean in qualities; you are equal, but the difference is, in your invisible body. 245. He gives an example with "gambhīra" etc. You are equal to the ocean in qualities, in depth, unreachableness, being distinguished in intention, and greatness, vastness, the greatness of qualities, that etc., from helpfulness etc. "You are. The similarity is stated, established by the word "like." The difference is shown with "but the difference," etc. But the difference, the distinction, is due to your body, beautiful, visible, with hands and feet, along with the ocean, which is similar in appearance, and not otherwise, because such a body is not found in it. With the similarity established, this is a single contrast, because the difference of the Jina and the ocean, which are the object of comparison and the standard of comparison, is understood as existing in one Jina. 245. Now he gives an example of that, beginning with "deep," etc. O Jina, you are equal to the ocean in qualities such as depth and greatness. With this sentence, the similarity of the Jina and the ocean, both expressed by the word, is stated. But the difference, the distinction of you from the ocean, is due to your body, which has such visible limbs as hands and feet, because of the body. Having stated the similarity of the two objects, with this sentence, "because of such a body," by stating the distinction in the single object of the Jina, since the object of the Jina is distinguished from the ocean, when the similarity is expressed by the word, this is called a single contrast. And the state of being deep, of the ocean or of the Jina, who is endowed with the quality of depth, or of the Jina who possesses deep intentions, and the state of being great, of the ocean which is naturally great, or of the Jina who is great in qualities, and depth and greatness, and that which is the beginning of that, such as helpfulness, and that which is that quality, is the sentence. Double Contrast Expressed by Words 246. The ocean and the Sugata are both very deep, of great being; The ocean is like collyrium, the Jina has the splendor of gold. 246. "Great," etc. The ocean and the Sugata, both are great beings, the ocean in which there are makaras, etc., or the Sugata whose great being is right effort, and very deep, exceedingly unfathomable. He states the similarity and difference with "the ocean," etc. The ocean is like collyrium, equal to collyrium, it is said to be black. But the Jina has the splendor of gold, the beauty of gold, therefore he has the splendor of gold. The similarity is expressed in words. This is a mutual distinction, because the difference between the simile and the object of comparison is understood through a quality present in both. 246. "Great," etc. The ocean and the Sugata, these two great beings, respectively, are great beings such as timi, timingala, etc., and are endowed with a similarity consisting of greatness, etc., because they are uniquely unshared in gain, loss, etc., and both are very profound because they are difficult to fathom, and because of the depth of their inclinations. Among them, the ocean is like collyrium, and the Victor is endowed with a golden radiance, a luster like gold. Here, having stated the similarity of two things in the first half, and having distinguished those two from each other by a specific quality present in both things in the second half, this is called a mutual distinction, even when the similarity is to be stated explicitly. The sentence is: "In the ocean where there are great beings, fish, turtles, etc.," or "The Sugata whose state is equal to a great being," and "Exceedingly profound," and "Similar to collyrium," and "Whose radiance is like that of gold." Implied Single Distinction 247. The eyes of a deer do not dispel heat, nor do they grant desires; But the pair of eyes of the Lord of Sages are adorned with those qualities. 247. "Not," etc. The eye of a deer does not dispel, does not harm, heat, the torment of defilements, so it is not a dispeller of heat. Nor does it give the desired attainment of heaven and liberation, so it is not a granter of desires. But the pair of eyes of you, the Lord of Sages, are adorned, embellished, with those qualities as stated, of dispelling heat and granting desires. Here, however, the similarity of the eyes of a deer and the eyes is understood by their length, etc. In the implied similarity, this is a single distinction, as stated. 247. "Not," etc. The eyes of a deer, a pair of eyes of a young deer, are not dispellers of the heat of defilements. They are not givers of desired worldly and supramundane things desired by people. But the pair of eyes of you, O Lord of Sages, are adorned with those qualities as stated, such as dispelling the heat of people, Because, by way of prohibiting things like heat-removal, it powerfully reveals the similar qualities, such as length and breadth, of the objects consisting of the two eyes that are the standard and the non-standard, and because the Jina's eyes are distinguished due to the qualities of heat-removal etc. that have been transgressed, when similarity is understood, this is called "single exclusion." The sentence is: "It removes heat," and "It gives what is desired," and "Those, and those qualities," and "Adorned by those." Implied Double Exclusion 248. The lotus and the face of the Sage, Such is their dissimilarity; The face gives well-spoken nectar, The lotus does not give such. 248. "Muninda" etc. The objects, the face of the Sage and the lotus, which are similar in meaning because they are understood by loveliness etc., such is their dissimilarity. How? The face gives well-spoken nectar, the nectar of the good Dhamma, but the lotus does not give such. Because of this difference, because their similarity is transgressed, it is said "such" etc. Because they are similar in what is understood, in implied similarity, this is a double exclusion in the manner stated. 248. "Muninda" etc. Such is the dissimilarity of these two, the face of the Sage and the lotus. How is it? Of these two, the face gives well-spoken nectar, the giver of the nectar of the good Dhamma called "well-spoken" because it is well-spoken, but the lotus is not such, it is not like that, it does not give such Dhamma-nectar, is the meaning. Because it is understood by the statement "such is their dissimilarity" that there is no difference in qualities such as fragrance and loveliness, having revealed that, and because the lotus is distinguished from the face, and the face from the lotus, due to what has been transgressed, when similarity is understood, this is called "double exclusion." The sentence is: "The nature of various kinds," and "Well-spoken," and "That itself is nectar," and "That gives it well by morality." 249. Where a well-known cause, Having prevented another cause; Or naturalness, Is distinguished, that is Vibhāvanā. 249. Vibhāvanā makes clear, by "well-known" etc. Where, in an embellishment, a well-known, world-accepted cause is removed, rejected, and another cause, a different reason from the known cause, is distinguished, understood. Where there is no other cause, what is the way? He says, "naturalness," etc. Or, in another view, naturalness, established by the nature of things, its state is naturalness, to be distinguished; such a distinguishing should be understood, it is distinguished, another cause or naturalness is revealed by this, or by this. 249. Now he shows the vibhāvana, "well-known," etc. Where, in an embellishment, a well-known, world-accepted cause, the means of accomplishing various qualities, is removed, rejected, another cause, a different cause from the world-accepted cause, or if another cause is not obtainable from the well-known cause, naturalness, a quality established by the nature of things, is to be distinguished, to be revealed, that is called vibhāvana, the distinguishing of another cause and the distinguishing of naturalness, these are two kinds, is the meaning. And "another cause," and "the state of oneself," and "arisen from that," and "the state of that," and "another cause or naturalness is distinguished by this vibhāvana," and "in this vibhāvana," are the interpretations. Distinguishing Another Cause 250. Unanointed, dark the eye, the lip, unanointed, red; Equal, too, the brow, conquered, unbent, are yours. 250. He gives an example, "unanointed," etc. Jina, your eye, unanointed, untouched by the collyrium stick, is dark, black, and the lip, unanointed, is red, ruddy, and this brow, unbent, unbent by effort, equal, equal, well-bent, therefore all is worldly for you. Here, the well-known cause is anointing, etc., even with the removal of that, another cause is understood from the meaning, etc., and that is action, because the effect is not the cause, this is the distinguishing of another cause. 250. Now an example. It takes away, by "without ointment," etc. O Jina, your eyes, naturally sweet, a pair of eyes, and without ointment, not anointed with commonly known collyriums for the purpose of making the eyes dark; being naturally dark, they are blue by the power of meritorious deeds accomplished in a previous existence; and your lip, without being reddened by any dye, is naturally red, like the color of dawn; and these eyebrows, without being bent by any effort, being naturally even, are beautifully curved. Here, by denying the commonly known collyriums as the cause for achieving the qualities of darkness, redness, and curvature of the eyes, lips, and eyebrows, and by merely stating the dark color, etc., of the eyes, etc., since an effect without a cause is non-existent in the world, it is understood from the context, etc., that the cause of the dark color, etc.