2.

Pairs on Aggregates

1.

Explanation of the Concept Synopsis Section

1. Now, having collected by way of aggregates the very same wholesome and other mental states taught in the Mūla-yamaka, there is the commentary on the Khandha-yamaka taught immediately after the Mūla-yamaka. Therein, the determination of the text should first be understood thus - For in this Khandha-yamaka there are three major sections - the section on description, the section on occurrence, and the section on full understanding. Among those, the section on description is called the section on description because it has proceeded solely by way of purifying the name and appellation of the aggregates. The section on occurrence has proceeded purifying the occurrence of the aggregates whose name and appellation have been purified by that, by way of arising and cessation; therefore it is called the section on occurrence. The section on full understanding has proceeded explaining in brief only the three full understandings of the aggregates occurring in this order; therefore it is called the section on full understanding. Therein, the section on description is defined in two ways by way of synopsis and analytic explanation. In the others there is no separate synopsis section. From the beginning they are defined in one way by way of question and answer. Therein, beginning with the term "five aggregates" up to the term "not aggregates, not activities," the synopsis section of the section on description should be understood. The section on questions is also a name for that very same one. Therein, "five aggregates" - this is the synopsis of the aggregates to be questioned by way of pairs. The aggregate of matter, etc. The aggregate of consciousness - this is the defining of names of those very same by way of classification.

2-3. Now, by way of these aggregates, there are four method sections: the term-purification section, the term-purification-root-wheel section, the pure-aggregate section, and the pure-aggregate-root-wheel section. Therein, that which has proceeded by purifying only the terms by the method beginning with "matter is the aggregate of matter, the aggregate of matter is matter" is called the term-purification section. That is twofold by way of conformity and reverse order. Therein, in the conformity section, there are five pairs beginning with "matter is the aggregate of matter, the aggregate of matter is matter." In the reverse order section too, "what is not matter is not the aggregate of matter; what is not the aggregate of matter is not matter" - and so on, just five. Thereafter, having combined those very aggregates purified in the term-purification section into four wheels each with each aggregate as root, by the method beginning with "matter is the aggregate of matter, aggregates are the aggregate of feeling," because of the existence of wheels rooted in term-purification, it is called the term-purification-root-wheel section. That too is twofold by way of conformity and reverse order. Therein, in the conformity section, making four each with each aggregate as root, beginning with "matter is the aggregate of matter, aggregates are the aggregate of feeling," there are twenty pairs. In the reverse order section too, "what is not matter is not the aggregate of matter; what is not aggregates is not the aggregate of feeling" - and so on, just twenty.

Thereafter, that which has proceeded by way of pure aggregates alone, by the method beginning with "matter is an aggregate, aggregates are matter," is called the pure-aggregate section. Therein, in such passages as "aggregates are matter" and so on, the meaning should be taken as "aggregates are the aggregate of matter, aggregates are the aggregate of feeling." Why? Because it is so analysed in the detailed exposition section. For therein, "Is matter an aggregate? Yes." "Are aggregates the aggregate of matter?" - "The aggregate of matter is both an aggregate and the aggregate of matter; the remaining aggregates are not the aggregate of matter." Thus, the meaning of "aggregates are matter" and so on has been analysed by extracting the term by the method beginning with "aggregates are the aggregate of matter." And for that very reason this is called the pure-aggregate section. For here, as in the purification of expression, the expression is not the measure. But in whatever way pure aggregates are obtained, in that way the meaning alone is the measure. In the Āyatana-yamaka and so on that follow, this same method applies. This pure-aggregate section too is twofold by way of conformity and reverse order. Therein, in the conformity section, there are five pairs beginning with "matter is an aggregate, aggregates are matter." In the reverse order section too, "what is not matter is not an aggregate, what is not aggregates is not matter" - and so on, just five.

Thereafter, having combined those very pure aggregates into four wheels each with each aggregate as root, by the method beginning with "matter is an aggregate, aggregates are feeling," because of the existence of wheels rooted in pure aggregates, it is called the pure-aggregate-root-wheel section. Therein, in such passages as "aggregates are feeling" and so on, the meaning should be understood by the method beginning with "aggregates are the aggregate of feeling." Otherwise, there would be a contradiction with the detailed exposition section. That too is twofold by way of conformity and reverse order. Therein, in the conformity section, making four each with each aggregate as root, beginning with "matter is an aggregate, aggregates are feeling," there are twenty pairs. In the reverse order section too, "what is not matter is not an aggregate, what is not aggregates is not feeling" - and so on, just twenty. Thus, for now, the synopsis section of the section on description should be understood as adorned with one hundred pairs, two hundred questions, making two meanings each for each question by way of ascertainment and doubt, and four hundred meanings.

Explanation of the Concept Synopsis Section.

1.

Explanation of the Concept Detailed Exposition Section

26. Now, the section on the detailed exposition has been commenced by the method beginning with "Is matter the aggregate of matter?" Therein, "Is matter the aggregate of matter?" means whatever is called matter. It asks for the purpose of purifying the expression: is all that matter the aggregate of matter? "What has a dear nature and a pleasant nature is matter, not the aggregate of matter" - the meaning is that what is stated as "matter" in "what has a dear nature and a pleasant nature" is matter only, not the aggregate of matter. "The aggregate of matter is both matter and the aggregate of matter" - the meaning is that whatever is the aggregate of matter, it is proper to call it both "matter" and "the aggregate of matter." Regarding "Is the aggregate of matter matter?" - herein, since the aggregate of matter must by fixed course be called matter. Therefore he said "Yes." By this method, the meaning in all the answers should be understood. But wherever there will be a distinction, that we shall explain accordingly. In the Saññā-yamaka, "perception of view" means the perception of view that has come in such passages as "perceptions of obsession" and so on. In the Saṅkhāra-yamaka, "the remaining activities" means the conditioned phenomena remaining apart from the aggregate of mental activities that have come in such passages as "impermanent indeed are activities" and so on. The same method applies in the reverse order section too.

The term-purification section is completed.

28. In the Root Cycle of Term-Purification, "are aggregates the aggregate of feeling" asks whether whatever aggregates there are, are all of them the aggregate of feeling. The same method applies in the remaining questions too. In the reverse order, "is what is not aggregates not the aggregate of feeling" - here, those phenomena reckoned as concepts and Nibbāna that are not aggregates, since they are also not the aggregate of feeling, therefore he said "Yes." The same method applies in the remaining answers too.

The term-purification-root-wheel section is completed.

38. In the Pure Aggregates Section, "Is matter an aggregate?" - whatever is said as "whatever matter," it asks whether all that is an aggregate. Therein, because whether it be matter reckoned as having a dear nature and a pleasant nature, or primary and derivative materiality, all goes into inclusion in the five aggregates. Therefore he acknowledges "Yes." In the second term, where it should be asked "Are aggregates matter?" - since by the expression "matter" only the aggregate of matter is intended, therefore, not heeding the expression, asking by way of meaning, he said "Are aggregates the aggregate of matter?" By this method the meaning should be understood in all terms. In the sections on the detailed exposition of the Āyatana-yamaka and so on that follow too, this same method applies. Regarding "Is perception an aggregate?" - here too, whether it be perception of view or perception itself, because all of it has the nature of an aggregate, "Yes" was said. In the term "Are activities an aggregate?" too, the same method applies. For there is no such thing as an activity released from the aggregates.

39. In the reverse order, "is what is not matter not an aggregate" - it asks whether that phenomenon which is not matter is also not an aggregate. In the answer, however, "setting aside matter, the remaining aggregates are not matter, but are aggregates" means that the aggregates other than matter, namely feeling and so on, are indeed not matter, but they are aggregates - this is the meaning. "Setting aside matter and the aggregates, the remainder" means Nibbāna, which is free from the five aggregates, and concept. The same method applies in the subsequent passages with the term "remainder" as well.

The pure-aggregate section is completed.

40-44. In the section on the wheel of pure aggregate roots, the meaning of "Is matter an aggregate?" and so on should be understood in the same manner as stated above.

The pure-aggregate-root-wheel section is completed.

Explanation of the Concept Detailed Exposition Section.

2. Commentary on the Occurrence Section

50-205. Now, the section on occurrence has been commenced by the method beginning with "for whom the aggregate of matter." But why is the synopsis section not stated here? Because the method has been shown above. For in the section on description, the method was shown in the synopsis section. But since by that method it can be known even though not stated here, without stating that, only the analytic explanation section was commenced. But in this great section termed the section on occurrence, there are three sub-sections: the arising section, the cessation section, and the arising-cessation section. Among those, the first is called the arising section because it illustrates the characteristic of arising of phenomena. The second is called the cessation section because it illustrates the characteristic of cessation of those very same phenomena. The third is called the arising-cessation section because it illustrates both characteristics. And here, by the arising section, only the mode of arising of phenomena is illustrated. By the cessation section, the impermanence of those very same phenomena is illustrated as "there is nothing that has arisen that is permanent." By the arising-cessation section, both of those.

Therein, in the arising section, by way of three periods of time, there are six divisions of time - present, past, future, present with past, present with future, and past with future. Among those, "for whom the aggregate of matter arises" should be known as the present by way of the present designation. That is stated first because it is very easily understood, since present phenomena are to be apprehended directly. "For whom the aggregate of matter arose" should be known as the past by way of the past designation. That is stated second because, through inference from past phenomena previously experienced directly, it is more easily understood than the future. "For whom the aggregate of matter will arise" should be known as the future by way of the future designation. That is stated third because it is to be apprehended by inference from phenomena apprehended both directly and by way of what was previously experienced, as "in the future too, phenomena of such a nature will arise."

"For whom the aggregate of matter arises, did the aggregate of feeling arise for that one" should be known as the present with past by way of the past designation together with the present. That is stated fourth because it is more easily understood among the three mixed ones. "For whom the aggregate of matter arises, will the aggregate of feeling arise for that one" should be known as the present with future by way of the future designation together with the present. That is stated fifth because it is more easily understood in meaning due to the existence of phenomena to be apprehended directly. "For whom the aggregate of matter arose, will the aggregate of feeling arise for that one" should be known as the past with future by way of the future designation together with the past. That is stated sixth because it is difficult to understand compared to the former ones.

Thus, among these six divisions of time, as regards this first one, the present, therein there are three sections: by way of person, by way of location, and by way of person and location. Among those, "for whom" is the person section, illustrating the arising of aggregates by way of person. "Where" is the location section, illustrating the arising of aggregates by way of location. "For whom where" is the person-location section, illustrating the arising of aggregates by way of person and location. But these three sections too were first described by the forward method and afterwards described by the reverse method. Among those, because of the expressions "arises," "arose," "will arise," the forward method illustrates arising. Because of the expressions "does not arise," "did not arise," "will not arise," the reverse method illustrates non-arising.

Therein, in the present time, firstly, in the conformity method of the person section, "for whom the aggregate of matter arises, does the aggregate of feeling arise for that one. Or else, for whom the aggregate of feeling arises, does the aggregate of matter arise for that one. For whom the aggregate of matter arises, does the aggregate of perception, the aggregate of mental activities, the aggregate of consciousness, arise for that one. Or else, for whom the aggregate of consciousness arises, does the aggregate of matter arise for that one" - thus there are four pairs rooted in the aggregate of matter; By the method beginning with "for whom the aggregate of feeling arises, does the aggregate of perception arise for that one," three rooted in the aggregate of feeling; Two rooted in the aggregate of perception; One rooted in the aggregate of mental activities - by the taking up of what was not taken up, there are ten pairs.

Therein, among the four rooted in the aggregate of matter, only the first from the beginning was answered. The remaining ones, since they have similar answers, were abbreviated by the text for the purpose of brevity. In those rooted in the aggregate of feeling and so on too, "yes" is the one similar answer only. Therefore those too were abbreviated by the text for the purpose of brevity - thus it should be understood that these ten pairs in the present time, in the person section, in the conformity method, are answered by the answer of just one pair alone. And just as ten in the person section, so ten in the location section, ten in the person-location section - thus in the present time, in the three sections, in the conformity method, there are thirty pairs. And just as in the conformity method, so too in the reverse method - thus altogether in the present time there are sixty pairs. Among those, it should be understood that there are two thousand questions and two hundred and forty meanings. Thus in the remaining five time-divisions too, by way of the classification into person and so on, by way of the conformity and reverse methods, there are six sections each. Making ten in each section, sixty pairs each - three hundred pairs. Those together with the former ones make three hundred and sixty pairs, seven hundred and twenty questions, and one thousand four hundred and forty meanings. This, for now, is the determination of the text in the arising section. And just as in the arising section, so too in the cessation section and in the arising-cessation section - thus in the entire occurrence major section, it should be understood that there are one thousand and eighty pairs, two thousand six hundred questions, and four thousand three hundred and twenty meanings.

But the text in the arising section and the cessation section, in the three unmixed time-divisions, was abbreviated by answering only one pair in each respective section. In the three mixed time-divisions, by the method beginning with "for whom the aggregate of feeling arises, did the aggregate of perception arise for that one," one pair was answered in those rooted in the aggregate of feeling and so on too. But in the arising-cessation section, in all six time-divisions, that same was answered. The remaining ones were abbreviated because of having the same answer. This is the determination of the text in the entire occurrence major section.

But for the purpose of determining the meaning, this characteristic should be understood - For in this occurrence major section, the determination of meaning should be understood by placing the five answers of the four questions into twenty-seven positions. Therein, the prior question, the subsequent question, the complete question, and the empty question - these are the four questions by name. For in each pair there are two questions. In each question too there are two terms. Therein, in whichever question, in the answer, the arising or the cessation of the aggregate taken by just one term is obtained, this is called the prior question. But in whichever question, in the answer, the arising or the cessation of the aggregates taken by both terms is obtained, this is called the subsequent question. But in whichever question, in the answer, the arising or the cessation of the aggregate taken by even one term and of the aggregates taken by both terms is obtained, this is called the complete question. But in whichever question, in the answer, a rejecting or a negation is obtained, this is called the empty question. But since this, when not shown, cannot be known, therefore we shall show it.

In the question "Where the aggregate of matter does not arise, does the aggregate of feeling not arise there?", to begin with, in this answer "arises", the arising of the aggregate of feeling grasped by just one term is obtained. Thus this and any other such question should be known as a prior question. But in the question "For whom the aggregate of matter arose, did the aggregate of feeling arise for that one?", in this answer "Yes", the arising in the past of the aggregates of matter and feeling grasped by two terms is obtained for whatever being. Thus this and any other such question should be known as a subsequent question.

But in this first question "For whom the aggregate of matter arises, does the aggregate of feeling arise for that one?", in this answer beginning with "for those being reborn in the non-percipient being realm", in this portion "for those being reborn in the non-percipient being realm, for them the aggregate of matter arises, but the aggregate of feeling does not arise for them", the arising of the aggregate of matter grasped by just one term is also obtained. In this portion "for those being reborn in the five-aggregate constituent realm, for them both the aggregate of matter arises and the aggregate of feeling arises", the arising of the aggregates of matter and feeling included by both terms is also obtained. Thus this and any other such question should be known as a complete question. "Prior-and-subsequent question" is also a name for this very same. For in the answer to this, in the first portion, the arising of only the aggregate of matter included by one term is shown. In the second portion, of the aggregates of matter and feeling included by two terms. And by this very characteristic, where the arising or cessation of an aggregate included by one term is obtained, that is called a prior question. Where the arising or cessation of aggregates included by both terms is obtained, that is called a subsequent question.

But in this question "For whom the aggregate of matter had not arisen, had the aggregate of feeling not arisen for that one?", in this answer "there is not", rejecting is obtained. In the question "For whom the aggregate of matter arises, does the aggregate of feeling cease for that one?", in this answer "no", negation is obtained. Therefore this twofold and any other such question should be known as an empty question. It is also called a hollow question. Thus, for now, four questions should be known.

Answer by way of the Pāḷi text, answer by reply, answer by showing in its own form, answer by rejecting, and answer by negation - these are the five answers. Therein, whatever answer resolves the meaning by being itself a Pāḷi term, this is called an answer by way of the Pāḷi text. That is obtained in the prior question. For in the question "Where the aggregate of matter does not arise, does the aggregate of feeling not arise there?", this answer "arises", being itself a Pāḷi term, has proceeded resolving the meaning; therefore in such cases, an answer by way of the Pāḷi text should be known. But whatever answer resolves the meaning by way of a reply, this is called an answer by reply. That is obtained in the subsequent question. For in the question "For whom the aggregate of matter arose, did the aggregate of feeling arise for that one?", this answer "Yes" has proceeded resolving the meaning by way of reply only; therefore in such cases, an answer by reply should be known. Whatever answer resolves the meaning by showing in its own form; this is called an answer by showing in its own form. That is obtained in the complete question. "For whom the aggregate of matter arises; does the aggregate of feeling arise for that one?" - for in this question, this answer "for those being reborn in the non-percipient being realm" has proceeded resolving the meaning by showing in its own form thus: "for these the aggregate of matter arises, but not the aggregate of feeling; for these both the aggregate of matter arises and the aggregate of feeling." Therefore in such cases, an answer by showing in its own form should be known. But whatever answer resolves the question by rejecting the meaning because of the non-existence of such a meaning, this is called an answer by rejecting. Whatever answer resolves the question by negating the meaning because of the non-obtainability of such a meaning at one moment, this is called an answer by negation. That is obtained in the empty question. For in the question "For whom the aggregate of matter had not arisen, had the aggregate of feeling not arisen for that one?", this answer "there is not"; has proceeded resolving the question by rejecting the meaning, that there is no such being; therefore in such cases, an answer by rejecting should be known. But in the question "For whom the aggregate of matter arises, does the aggregate of feeling cease for that one?", this answer "no" has proceeded resolving the question by negating the meaning, that at one moment of conception, cessation together with arising is not obtained; therefore in such cases, an answer by negation should be known.

Now, these four questions and these five answers should be placed in the twenty-seven states, and they should be understood thus - "those being reborn in the non-percipient being realm" is one state, "in the non-percipient being realm there" is one, "of the non-percipient beings" is one; "those passing away from the non-percipient being realm" is one; "those being reborn in the immaterial realm" is one, "in the immaterial realm there" is one, "of the immaterial realm" is one, "those passing away from the immaterial realm" is one, "those in their last existence in the immaterial realm" is one, "those attaining final nibbana in the immaterial realm" is one; "and those who, having been reborn in the immaterial realm, will attain final nibbāna" is one; "those being reborn in the five-aggregate constituent realm" is one, "in the five-aggregate constituent realm there" is one, "of the five-aggregate constituent realm" is one, "those passing away from the five-aggregate constituent realm" is one, "those in their last existence in the five-aggregate constituent realm" is one, "those attaining final nibbana in the five-aggregate constituent realm" is one; "those being reborn in the Pure Abodes" is one, "in the Pure Abodes there" is one, "of the Pure Abodes" is one, "those attaining final nibbana in the Pure Abodes" is one; "of all those being reborn" is one, "of all those passing away" is one; "those in their last existence as common to all" is one, "those attaining final nibbana" is one, "those being reborn in the four-aggregate constituent realm or the five-aggregate constituent realm" is one, "those passing away" is one. Thus, having placed these five answers of these four questions in these twenty-seven states, the determination of meaning in this major section on occurrence should be understood. For having understood thus, one who answers the question has answered it well, and one who determines the meaning has determined it well.

Therein, this is the method - "For whom the aggregate of matter arises" means for whichever person the aggregate of matter arises by being endowed with the moment of arising. "Does the aggregate of feeling arise for that one" - it asks whether the aggregate of feeling also arises for that one at that very moment. "Those being reborn in the non-percipient being realm" means for those being reborn in the non-percipient being existence by way of consciousness-less rebirth-linking. "For them the aggregate of matter arises" means for them the aggregate of matter certainly arises indeed. During occurrence, for those who have arisen, the aggregate of matter both arises and ceases; therefore, without saying "of the non-percipient beings," it was said "those being reborn in the non-percipient being realm." "But the aggregate of feeling does not arise for them" - however, because of being without consciousness, the aggregate of feeling does not arise for them at all. This is the answer by showing the actual form in the first portion of the complete question at the first state among the twenty-seven states. "Those being reborn in the five-aggregate constituent realm" means for those being reborn in the five-aggregate constituent existence by way of rebirth-linking that is a mixture of material and immaterial. "For them both the aggregate of matter arises and the aggregate of feeling" means for them certainly both aggregates, reckoned as the aggregate of matter and the aggregate of feeling, do indeed arise. However, during occurrence, for those who have arisen there, those aggregates both arise and cease; therefore, without saying "of the five-aggregate constituent realm," it was said "those being reborn in the five-aggregate constituent realm." This is the answer by showing the actual form in the latter portion of the complete question at the state of "those being reborn in the five-aggregate constituent realm." By this method, all answers should be understood.

Now, here is the defining characteristic regarding arising and cessation - For indeed, in this entire Khandha-yamaka, even though there exist unlimited arisings and cessations of aggregates for those who have arisen here and there during occurrence until death, since it is not easy to show arising and cessation by making a distinction among phenomena that change rapidly, without touching upon arising and cessation during occurrence, since it is easy to show the arising of rebirth-linking aggregates produced by various actions bringing about a new round of results, the arising section was stated by way of arising at the time of rebirth-linking alone. However, since it is easy to show cessation at the conclusion of the arisen round of results, the cessation section was stated by way of cessation at the time of death.

But what is the evidence here for the state of not being touched upon of arising and cessation during occurrence? The canonical text itself. For in the canonical text, specifically in the future time section of the arising section, this passage "for those in their last existence, for them both the aggregate of matter will not arise and the aggregate of feeling will not arise" is exceedingly strong evidence. For although material and immaterial phenomena are fit to arise during occurrence for those in their last existence, it should be understood that arising during occurrence was not taken, because it was stated having made the conclusion that "the aggregate of matter will not arise and the aggregate of feeling will not arise." But this passage "for those attaining final nibbana in the Pure Abodes, for them there the aggregate of perception had not ceased, but the aggregate of feeling does cease for them there" is exceedingly strong evidence for the state of cessation not being touched upon during occurrence. For those attaining final nibbana in the Pure Abodes, standing at the dissolution moment of the death consciousness, there is no counting of the aggregates of perception that have arisen and ceased during occurrence beginning from rebirth-linking. It should be understood that cessation during occurrence was not taken, because it was stated having made the conclusion that "even this being so, for them there the aggregate of perception had not ceased."

Thus, having understood the defining characteristic of the procedure regarding arising and cessation here, having taken only the arising at conception and only the cessation at death, the determination of meaning of the answers that have come at those various places should be understood. But since that can be known everywhere by the method stated in the first answer, it has not been expanded upon in the order of answers. But whoever cannot know the determination of meaning of these even by the method thus given, by him it should be known by having attended upon teachers and having listened well.

Commentary on the Great Section on Occurrence.

3. Commentary on the Section on Full Understanding

206-208. In the immediately following section on full understanding too, there are only six divisions of time. From the forward and reverse order, there are only two methods. Among these three - the person section, the location section, and the person-location section - only the person section is obtained, not the other two. Why? Because of the similarity of the answers. For whatever person, in whatever place, if he fully understands the aggregate of material body, he also fully understands the aggregate of feeling. If he fully understands the aggregate of feeling, he also fully understands the aggregate of material body. If he does not fully understand the aggregate of material body, he also does not fully understand the aggregate of feeling. If he does not fully understand the aggregate of feeling, he also does not fully understand the aggregate of material body. Therefore, in those too, having made the question by way of beginning with "where he fully understands the aggregate of material body, does he fully understand the aggregate of feeling there," the answer should be given as just "Yes." "It may be" means because of the similarity of the answers, those are not obtained here - this should be understood.

Or alternatively, the function of full understanding belongs only to a person, not to a location; only a person is able to fully understand, not a location - thus only the person section is taken here, not the location section. But because of its not being taken, the immediately following person-location section, even though obtainable, was not taken. As for this person section that was taken, therein, in the present time, four rooted in the aggregate of material body, three rooted in the aggregate of feeling, two rooted in the aggregate of perception, one rooted in the aggregate of mental activities - by the method already stated above, in the conformity method, by the taking up of what was not taken up, there are ten pairs. Ten in the reverse method - thus twenty. "Likewise in the remaining ones too" - making twenty in each and every time, in the six times there are twenty hundred pairs, two hundred and forty questions, and four hundred and eighty meanings - this is the determination of the text here.

But in the determination of meaning here, the three periods termed past, future, and present are not obtained by way of death and rebirth-linking as in the occurrence section. They are obtained only by way of mind-moments during occurrence. For that very reason, here in the questions beginning with "whoever fully understands the aggregate of material body, does he fully understand the aggregate of feeling," the answer "Yes" was given. For at the moment of the supramundane path, through consciousness having Nibbāna as its object, because of the accomplishment of the function of full understanding regarding the five aggregates, one who fully understands any one aggregate is said to fully understand the other also. Thus here, in the questions "does he fully understand," in the conformity method, it should be understood that "Yes" was said with reference to the possessor of the highest path who has reached the summit of the function of full understanding. But in the reverse method, in the questions "does he not fully understand," "Yes" was said with reference to worldlings and so on. But in this past time section, "had fully understood" - even one established in the highest fruition immediately following the path, because of the completion of the function of full understanding, is indeed called one who had fully understood.

209. By the question "Whoever fully understands the aggregate of material body, did he fully understand the aggregate of feeling?" it asks about the possessor of the highest path. But because he indeed fully understands the five aggregates, the function of full understanding is not yet completed; therefore the negation "no" was made. But in the second question, by "did he fully understand" it asks about the Worthy One. But because he has completed the function of full understanding. There is nothing to be fully understood for him; therefore the negation "no" was made. But here, in the answer by the reverse method, "a Worthy One does not fully understand the aggregate of material body" was said because of the absence of full understanding for the Worthy One. "The possessor of the highest path did not fully understand the aggregate of feeling" was said because of the incompleteness of the function of full understanding for one standing on the path of arahantship. And not only the aggregate of feeling, he did not fully understand even a single phenomenon. But this was said by way of the question. "But not the aggregate of material body" - this too was said only by way of the question. But he also fully understands the other aggregate.

210-211. "Whoever fully understands the aggregate of material body, will he fully understand the aggregate of feeling?" - here, because a person standing on the path is lasting one mind-moment, therefore "he will fully understand" does not go under that reckoning. Therefore it is said "no." "They did not fully understand the aggregate of material body" is said in conformity with the question, but the meaning here is "they did not fully understand." By this method, the determination of meaning should be understood everywhere.

Commentary on the Section on Full Understanding.

The Commentary on the Pairs of Aggregates is concluded.