[161] How does one define the eye internally? One defines: "The eye has come into being from ignorance (avijjā)"; one defines: "The eye has come into being from craving (taṇhā)"; one defines: "The eye has come into being from kamma"; one defines: "The eye has come into being from nutriment (āhāra)"; one defines: "The eye is derived from the four great elements (mahābhūta)"; one defines: "The eye has arisen"; one defines: "The eye has come together"; one defines: "The eye, not having been, has come to be; having been, it will not be"; one defines the eye as finite; one defines: "The eye is unstable, not eternal, subject to change"; one defines: "The eye is impermanent, conditioned, dependently arisen, subject to destruction, subject to vanishing, subject to fading away, subject to cessation."
One defines the eye as impermanent, not as permanent; one defines it as suffering (dukkha), not as pleasant; one defines it as not-self, not as self. One becomes disenchanted, does not delight; one becomes dispassionate, is not impassioned; one causes cessation (nirodha), does not cause origination; one relinquishes, does not grasp. Defining it as impermanent, one abandons the perception of permanence; defining it as suffering, one abandons the perception of pleasure; defining it as not-self, one abandons the perception of self; becoming disenchanted, one abandons delight; becoming dispassionate, one abandons lust; causing cessation, one abandons origin; relinquishing, one abandons grasping. Thus one defines the eye internally.
English translation from the Pali (Siam Raṭṭha edition) — under review, not for citation.