Comments

Comm. NT: 14.
Rūpakkhandhakathāvaṇṇanā

“Here the first-mentioned characteristic of the eye is described according to the kamma that produces a selfhood, and is common to all of it, and this without touching on differentiation is the cause.
The second is according to the specialized kamma generated thus, “Let my eye be thus.” This is what they say.
But it can be taken that the first-mentioned characteristic is stated as sensitivity’s interest in lighting up its own objective fields, the five senses’ state of sensitivity being taken as a generality;
and that the second is stated as the seeing that is due to the particular division of its own cause, the sensitivities’ cause as the state of kamma being taken as a generality or as a unity.
The same method applies to the ear and so on.

Rūpakkhandhakathāvaṇṇanā

“Here it may be asked, ‘Is the arising of the faculties of the eye, etc., due to kamma that is one or to kamma that is different?’
Now, the Ancients say, “In both ways.”
Herein, firstly, in the case of the arising of an eye, etc., due to kamma that is different there is nothing to be explained since the cause is divided up.
But when their arising is due to kamma that is one, how does there come to be differentiation among them?
It is due to dividedness in the cause too.
For it is craving, in the form of longing for this or that kind of becoming that, itself having specific forms owing to hankering after the sense-bases included in some kind of becoming or other, contrives, acting as decisive- support, the specific divisions in the kamma that generates such a kind of becoming.
As soon as the kamma has acquired the differentiation induced by that [hankering] it generates through effort consisting in appropriate ability a multiple fruit with differentiated individual essences, as though it had itself taken on a multiple form.
And the ability here need not be understood as anything other than the able state; for it is simply the effort of producing fruit that is differentiated by the differentiation due to the differentiation in its cause.
And the fact of this differentiating effort on the part of kamma that is one being the cause of the multiple faculties will be dealt with below as to logic and texts (note 21).
Besides, it is told how one kind of consciousness only is the cause of the generation of the sixteen kinds of resultant consciousness and so on;
and in the world it is also found that a single paddy seed is the cause of the generation of the ripe, the unripe, the husked, and the unhusked fruit. But what is the use of logical thinking?
For the eye, etc., are the fruit of kamma; and kamma-result is exclusively the province of a Buddha’s knowledge” (Vism-mhṭ 444).

15. Āviñjana—“picking up”: see āvijjhati in PED.

пали	433.Tattha rūpābhighātārahatappasādalakkhaṇaṃ daṭṭhukāmatānidānakammasamuṭṭhānabhūtappasādalakkhaṇaṃ vā cakkhu, rūpesu āviñchanarasaṃ, cakkhuviññāṇassa ādhārabhāvapaccupaṭṭhānaṃ, daṭṭhukāmatānidānakammajabhūtapadaṭṭhānaṃ.
khantibalo	В них характеристикой органа зрения является чувствительность к первоэлементам, готовая к воздействию образов, или его характеристикой является чувствительность первоэлементов, произошедшая от каммы, исходящей от желания видеть. Его функцией является выхватывать объект из образов. Он проявляется как основа для зрительного сознания. Его производящей причиной являются первоэлементы, произошедшие от каммы, исходящей от желания видеть.
Nyanamoli thera	37. 1. Herein, the eye’s characteristic is sensitivity of primary elements that is ready for the impact of visible data; or its characteristic is sensitivity of primary elements originated by kamma sourcing from desire to see. 14 Its function is to pick up [an object]15 among visible data. It is manifested as the footing of eye- consciousness. Its proximate cause is primary elements born of kamma sourcing from desire to see.