| пали | Nyanamoli thera - english
|
Комментарии |
|
Gamanīyadīpanāyaṃ codako āha – "buddhaṃ saraṇaṃ gacchāmī"ti ettha yo buddhaṃ saraṇaṃ gacchati, esa buddhaṃ vā gaccheyya saraṇaṃ vā, ubhayathāpi ca ekassa vacanaṃ niratthakaṃ.
|
25. As regards the explanation of ‘ what must be gone [to] ’, an objector said: Now, as to [the phrase] Buddham (acc.) saranam (acc.) gacchami ( ' I go (to) the Buddha (for) refuge ’), should one who goes to the Buddha (for) refuge go to the Buddha ( buddham ) or to the refuge ( saranam )? And in either case the mention of one of the two is meaningless.
|
|
|
Kasmā?
|
—Why so?
|
|
|
Gamanakiriyāya kammadvayābhāvato.
|
—Because the verb ‘ to go ’ does not have two objects (take a double accusative);
|
|
|
Na hettha "ajaṃ gāmaṃ netī"tiādīsu viya dvikammakattaṃ akkharacintakā icchanti.
|
for the grammarians do not require two passive objects (double accusative) here as they do in such phrases as ajam (acc.) gamam (acc.) neti (‘ he leads the goat (to) the village ’), 19
|
|
|
"Gacchateva pubbaṃ disaṃ, gacchati pacchimaṃ disa"ntiādīsu (saṃ. ni. 1.159; 3.87) viya sātthakamevāti ce?
|
and it has meaning only in such phrases as gacchat’eva pubbam disam gacchati pacchimam disam (‘ he goes (to) the east direction, he goes (to) the west direction S.i.122).
|
|
|
Na, buddhasaraṇānaṃ samānādhikaraṇabhāvassānadhippetato.
|
26. —That is not so, because identical causativity is not intended of the words ‘ Buddha ’ and 'sarana'.
|
|
|
Etesañhi samānādhikaraṇabhāve adhippete paṭihatacittopi buddhaṃ upasaṅkamanto buddhaṃ saraṇaṃ gato siyā.
|
For if identical causativity were intended of them, then even one who had lost his wits would, on approaching the Buddha, be gone to the Buddha (for) refuge (Buddham saranam gato)
|
|
|
Yañhi taṃ buddhoti visesitaṃ saraṇaṃ, tamevesa gatoti.
|
since he would have [literally] gone to the refuge, itself [merely nominally] distinguished as ‘ the Buddha
|
|
|
"Etaṃ kho saraṇaṃ khemaṃ, etaṃ saraṇamuttama"nti (dha. pa. 192) vacanato samānādhikaraṇattamevāti ce?
|
27. —But is there [not] identical causativity nevertheless, because of the words ‘ This is the refuge that is safe, This is the ultimate refuge ’ (Dh.192)?
|
|
|
Na, tattheva tabbhāvato.
|
No. That state [of identical causativity applies] only in that instance.
|
|
|
Tattheva hi gāthāpade etaṃ buddhādiratanattayaṃ saraṇagatānaṃ bhayaharaṇattasaṅkhāte saraṇabhāve abyabhicaraṇato "khemamuttamañca saraṇa"nti ayaṃ samānādhikaraṇabhāvo adhippeto, aññattha tu gamisambandhe sati saraṇagamanassa appasiddhito anadhippetoti asādhakametaṃ.
|
That state of identical causativity is intended only there in those lines [and is intended there] in this way: ‘ The refuge is safe and ultimate because of absence of any exception 20 in the refuge-state, in other words, in the abolition of fear in those who have gone for refuge to the three Jewels beginning with the Buddha but it is not intended anywhere else, because even when there is connexion with something gone to,21 that is inadequate to establish the the going was for refuge. So [that argument] is unestablished.
|
|
|
"Etaṃ saraṇamāgamma, sabbadukkhā pamuccatī"ti ettha gamisambandhepi saraṇagamanapasiddhito samānādhikaraṇattamevāti ce?
|
28. - But there is [not] identical causativity nevertheless since there is establishment that the going is for refuge when there is its connexion with something gone to in the passage ‘ On coming to this refuge, he from every suffering is freed ’ (Dh 192)?
|
|
|
Na pubbe vuttadosappasaṅgato.
|
—No, because of [that argument’s falling still within] the scope of the flaw mentioned earlier.
|
|
|
Tatrāpi hi samānādhikaraṇabhāve sati etaṃ buddhadhammasaṅghasaraṇaṃ paṭihatacittopi āgamma sabbadukkhā pamucceyyāti evaṃ pubbe vuttadosappasaṅgo eva siyā, na ca no dosena atthi atthoti asādhakametaṃ.
|
For there [it was shown that] if there were identical causativity, then even one who had lost his wits would, on coming to this refuge consisting of the Buddha, the Dhamma, and the Sangha, be [automatically] freed from all suffering; thus there would be here too the flaw already mentioned; and owing to the flaw, that does not help us. So that [argument too remains] unestablished.
|
|
|
Yathā "mamañhi, ānanda, kalyāṇamittaṃ āgamma jātidhammā sattā jātiyā parimuccantī"ti (saṃ. ni. 1.129) ettha bhagavato kalyāṇamittassa ānubhāvena parimuccamānā sattā "kalyāṇamittaṃ āgamma parimuccantī"ti vuttā.
|
Just as, in the passage ‘ On coming to me as the good friend, Ananda, creatures [normally] inseparable from the idea of birth are freed from birth ’ (S. i. 88) [it is of] creatures being freed by the might of the Blessed One as the Good Friend that it is said that On coming to... the good friend ’ they ‘ are freed',
|
|
|
Evamidhāpi buddhadhammasaṅghassa saraṇassānubhāvena muccamāno "etaṃ saraṇamāgamma, sabbadukkhā pamuccatī"ti vuttoti evamettha adhippāyo veditabbo.
|
so too there [in the passage ‘ on coming to this refuge.’it is of] one being freed by the might of the refuge consisting of the Buddha, the Dhamma, and the Sangha, that it is said ‘ On coming to this refuge, he from every suffering is freed ’. That is how the intention should be understood there.
|
|
|
Evaṃ sabbathāpi na buddhassa gamanīyattaṃ yujjati, na saraṇassa, na ubhayesaṃ, icchitabbañca gacchāmīti niddiṭṭhassa gamakassa gamanīyaṃ, tato vattabbā ettha yuttīti.
|
29. —So then in any case it is illogical to predicate either of the Buddha that he ‘ must be gone (to) ’ or of the refuge or of both tamth at: and accordingly [the sense of] the [phrase] must be gone (to) ’ requires [on the contrary that it is predicated] of the goer demonstrated by the word gacchdmi ( ' I go ’), the logic of which still remains to be stated.
|
|
|
Vuccate –
|
—[As to that] it may be stated as follows:
|
|
|
Buddhoyevettha gamanīyo, gamanākāradassanatthaṃ tu taṃ saraṇavacanaṃ, buddhaṃ saraṇanti gacchāmi.
|
What ‘ must be gone (to) ’ here is always the Buddha. But the mention of him as the refuge is for the purpose of showing the mode of going: ‘ I go (to) the Buddha as refuge (Buddham saranan ti gacchdmi ),
|
|
|
Esa me saraṇaṃ, esa me parāyaṇaṃ, aghassa, tātā, hitassa ca vidhātāti iminā adhippāyena etaṃ gacchāmi bhajāmi sevāmi payirupāsāmi, evaṃ vā jānāmi bujjhāmīti.
|
for me he is the highest value, the eliminator of the abyss, the provider of welfare, and it is with this intention that I go to him, frequent, wait upon and reverence him’, or ‘that is how I know, how I have discovered ( bujjhdmi ) ’;
|
|
|
Yesañhi dhātūnaṃ gatiattho buddhipi tesaṃ atthoti.
|
for these linguistic roots 23 which have the meaning of ‘ travelling ’ (gati, i.e.‘ going ’) have also the meaning of ' discovering ’ ( buddhi ).
|
|
|
Iti-saddassa appayogā ayuttamiti ce?
|
30. —[In that case] is not the non-addition 24 of the word ' as ’ (iti) contrary to the requirements of logic (see § 29)?
|
|
|
Taṃ na.
|
That is not so.
|
|
|
Tattha siyā – yadi cettha evamattho bhaveyya, tato "aniccaṃ rūpaṃ aniccaṃ rūpanti yathābhūtaṃ pajānātī"ti evamādīsu (saṃ. ni. 3.55, 85) viya iti-saddo payutto siyā, na ca payutto, tasmā ayuttametanti.
|
31. Now at this point it may be [objected]: If the meaning there were thus, then the word iti ( ' as ’) ought to be added as is done in such passages as ' He understands impermanent form, in accordance with how it actually is, as “ impermanent form ” ’ (aniccarh ruparh aniccam rupan ti yathdhhutam pajanati: S. iii. 57); but it is not added, therefore that [argument] is stated illogically.
|
|
|
Tañca na, kasmā?
|
—That is not so.25 —Why not?
|
|
|
Tadatthasambhavā.
|
—Because that meaning [of the word ' as ’ (iti)] is implied there.
|
|
|
"Yo ca buddhañca dhammañca saṅghañca saraṇaṃ gato"ti evamādīsu (dha. pa. 190) viya idhāpi iti-saddassa attho sambhavati, na ca vijjamānatthasambhavā iti-saddā sabbattha payujjanti, appayuttassāpettha payuttassa viya iti-saddassa attho viññātabbo aññesu ca evaṃjātikesu, tasmā adoso eva soti.
|
Just as in such passages as ye ca buddhan ca dhamman ca sanghan ca saranam gato ( ' whoever shall have gone (as) refuge to the Buddha and the Dhamma and the Sangha ’: Dh. 190) so here too the meaning of the word iti ( ' as ’) is implied. And the word iti is not always added when its meaning is already actually implicit. And here, as in other similar passages, the meaning of the word iti should be understood as if it were added although it is not.
|
|
|
"Anujānāmi, bhikkhave, tīhi saraṇagamanehi pabbajja"ntiādīsu (mahāva. 34) saraṇasseva gamanīyato yaṃ vuttaṃ "gamanākāradassanatthaṃ tu saraṇavacana"nti, taṃ na yuttamiti ce.
|
32. —Since in such passages as Anujdndmi bhikkhave imehi tihi saranagamanehi pabbajjam (‘ Bhikkhus, I allow the Going Forth with these three refuges’: Vin. i. 22), it is only the refuge that ' must be gone (to) then what was said above, namely, that ' the mention of him as the refuge is for the purpose of showing the mode of going ’ (§ 29) is illogical.
|
|
|
Taṃ nāyuttaṃ.
|
—No. It is logical.
|
|
|
Kasmā?
|
—Why so?
|
|
|
Tadatthasambhavā eva.
|
—Because the meaning of that too is essentially implied;
|
|
|
Tatrāpi hi tassa attho sambhavati, yato pubbasadisameva appayuttopi payutto viya veditabbo.
|
for the meaning of that is actually implied there also, on which account it has to be understood, in the same way as it was earlier, as if it were added although it is not.
|
|
|
Itarathā hi pubbe vuttadosappasaṅgo eva siyā, tasmā yathānusiṭṭhameva gahetabbaṃ.
|
Otherwise 26 [the argument] would fall under the scope of the flaw already mentioned.
|
|
|
Ayaṃ gamanīyadīpanā.
|
This is the explanation of what 4 must be gone [to] ’.
|
|