Comments

Comm. NT: 14.
Indriyasaṃvarasīlavaṇṇanā

“‘On seeing a visible object with the eye”: if the eye were to see the visible object, then (organs) belonging to other kinds of consciousness would see too; but that is not so. Why?
Because the eye has no thought (acetanattā).
And then, were consciousness itself to see a visible object, it would see it even behind a wall because of being independent of sense resistance (appaṭighabhāvato); but that is not so either because there is no seeing in all kinds of consciousness.
And herein, it is consciousness dependent on the eye that sees, not just any kind.
And that does not arise with respect to what is enclosed by walls, etc., where light is excluded.
But where there is no exclusion of light, as in the case of a crystal or a mass of cloud, there it does arise even with respect to what is enclosed by them.
So it is as a basis of consciousness that the eye sees.

Indriyasaṃvarasīlavaṇṇanā

“‘When there is the impingement of door and object’: what is intended is: when a visible datum as object has come into the eye’s focus.
‘One sees’: one looks (oloketi);
for when the consciousness that has eye-sensitivity as its material support is disclosing (obhāsente) by means of the special quality of its support a visible datum as object that is assisted by light (āloka), then it is said that a person possessed of that sees the visible datum.
And here the illuminating is the revealing of the visible datum according to its individual essence, in other words, the apprehending of it experientially (paccakkhato).

Indriyasaṃvarasīlavaṇṇanā

“Here it is the ‘sign of woman’ because it is the cause of perceiving as ‘woman’ all such things as the shape that is grasped under the heading of the visible data (materiality) invariably found in a female continuity, the un-clear-cut-ness (avisadatā) of the flesh of the breasts, the beardlessness of the face, the use of cloth to bind the hair, the un-clear-cut stance, walk, and so on.
The ‘sign of man’ is in the opposite sense.
“‘The sign of beauty’ here is the aspect of woman that is the cause for the arising of lust.
By the word ‘etc.’ the sign of resentment (paṭigha), etc., are included,
which should be understood as the undesired aspect that is the cause for the arising of hate.
And here admittedly only covetousness and grief are specified in the text but the sign of equanimity needs to be included too; since there is non-restraint in the delusion that arises due to overlooking,
or since ‘forgetfulness of unknowing’ is said below (§57).
And here the ‘sign of equanimity’ should be understood as an object that is the basis for the kind of equanimity associated with unknowing through overlooking it.
So ‘the sign of beauty, etc.’ given in brief thus is actually the cause of greed, hate, and delusion.
“‘He stops at what is merely seen’: according to the Sutta method, ‘The seen shall be merely seen’ (Ud 8). As soon as the colour basis has been apprehended by the consciousnesses of the cognitive series with eye-consciousness he stops; he does not fancy any aspect of beauty, etc., beyond that….
In one who fancies as beautiful, etc., the limbs of the opposite sex, defilements arisen with respect to them successively become particularized, which is why they are called ‘particulars.’
But these are simply modes of interpreting (sannivesākāra) the kinds of materiality derived from the (four) primaries that are interpreted (sanniviṭṭha) in such and such wise;
for apart from that there is in the ultimate sense no such thing as a hand and so on”

пали	Īdisī panesā 'dhanunā vijjhatī'tiādīsu viya sasambhārakathā nāma hoti, tasmā cakkhuviññāṇena rūpaṃ disvāti ayamevettha attho"ti.
khantibalo	Эта идиома называется ... подобно тому как "он сразил его своим луком". Поэтому смысл здесь: "Видя образное с помощью зрительного сознания"".
Nyanamoli thera	Now, (an idiom) such as this is called an ‘accessory locution’ (sasambhārakathā), like ‘He shot him with his bow,’ and so on.So the meaning here is this: ‘On seeing a visible object with eye-consciousness.’”14