Comprehension by Groups—Application of Text

13. Here is the application of the directions dealing with the aggregates: “Any materiality whatever, (i–iii) whether past, future, or present, (iv–v) internal or external, (vi–vii) gross or subtle, (viii–ix) inferior or superior, (x-xi) far or near—he defines all materiality as impermanent: this is one kind of comprehension. He defines it as painful: [610] this is one kind of comprehension. He defines it as not-self: this is one kind of comprehension” (see §6). At this point this bhikkhu [takes] all materiality, which is described without specifying as “any materiality whatever,” and having delimited it in the eleven instances, namely, with the past triad and with the four dyads beginning with the internal dyad, he “defines all materiality as impermanent,” he comprehends that it is impermanent. How? In the way stated next. For this is said: “Materiality, whether past, future or present, is impermanent in the sense of destruction.”

14. Accordingly, he comprehends the materiality that is past as “impermanent in the sense of destruction” because it was destroyed in the past and did not reach this becoming; and he comprehends the materiality that is future as “impermanent in the sense of destruction” since it will be produced in the next becoming, will be destroyed there too, and will not pass on to a further becoming; and he comprehends the materiality that is present as “impermanent in the sense of destruction” since it is destroyed here and does not pass beyond. And he comprehends the materiality that is internal as “impermanent in the sense of destruction” since it is destroyed as internal and does not pass on to the external state. And he comprehends the materiality that is external … gross … subtle … inferior … superior … far … And he comprehends the materiality that is near as “impermanent in the sense of destruction” since it is destroyed there and does not pass on to the far state. And all this is impermanent in the sense of destruction. Accordingly, there is “one kind of comprehension” in this way;but it is effected in eleven ways.

15. And all that [materiality] is “painful in the sense of terror.” In the sense of terror because of its terrifyingness; for what is impermanent brings terror, as it does to the deities in the Sīhopama Sutta (S III 84). So this is also painful in the sense of terror. Accordingly, there is one kind of comprehension in this way too; but it is effected in eleven ways.

16. And just as it is painful, so too all that [materiality] is “not-self in the sense of having no core.” In the sense of having no core because of the absence of any core of self conceived as a self, an abider, a doer, an experiencer, one who is his own master; for what is impermanent is painful (S III 82), and it is impossible to escape the impermanence, or the rise and fall and oppression, of self, so how could it have the state of a doer, and so on? Hence it is said, “Bhikkhus, were materiality self, it would not lead to affliction” (S III 66), and so on. So this is also not-self in the sense of having no core. Accordingly, there is one kind of comprehension in this way too, but it is effected in eleven ways. [611] The same method applies to feeling, and so on.

17. But what is impermanent is necessarily classed as formed, etc., and so in order to show the synonyms for that [impermanence], or in order to show how the attention given to it occurs in different ways, it is restated in the text thus: “Materiality, whether past, future, or present, is impermanent, formed, dependently arisen, subject to destruction, subject to fall, subject to fading away, subject to cessation” (§7). The same method applies to feeling, and so on.