| пали |
english - Nyanamoli thera |
Комментарии |
|
566.Catukkatoti atthi cettha dukkhaṃ na ariyasaccaṃ, atthi ariyasaccaṃ na dukkhaṃ, atthi dukkhañceva ariyasaccañca, atthi neva dukkhaṃ na ariyasaccaṃ.
|
88.12. As to tetrad: (a) there is suffering that is not noble truth, (b) there is noble truth that is not suffering, (c) there is what is both suffering and noble truth, and (d) there is what is neither suffering nor noble truth.
|
|
|
Esa nayo samudayādīsu.
|
So also with origin and the rest.
|
|
|
Tattha maggasampayuttā dhammā sāmaññaphalāni ca "yadaniccaṃ taṃ dukkha"nti (saṃ. ni. 3.15) vacanato saṅkhāradukkhatāya dukkhaṃ, na ariyasaccaṃ.
|
89.Herein, (a) though states associated with the path and the fruits of asceticism are suffering since they are suffering due to formations (see §35) because of the words, “What is impermanent is painful” (S II 53; III 22), still they are not the noble truth [of suffering],
|
|
|
Nirodho ariyasaccaṃ, na dukkhaṃ.
|
(b) Cessation is a noble truth but it is not suffering,
|
|
|
Itaraṃ pana ariyasaccadvayaṃ siyā dukkhaṃ aniccato, na pana yassa pariññāya bhagavati brahmacariyaṃ vussati tathattena.
|
(c) The other two noble truths can be suffering because they are impermanent, but they are not so in the real sense of that for the full-understanding of which (see §28) the life of purity is lived under the Blessed One.
|
|
|
Sabbākārena pana upādānakkhandhapañcakaṃ dukkhañceva ariyasaccañca aññatra taṇhāya.
|
The five aggregates [as objects] of clinging, except craving, are in all aspects both suffering and noble truth.
|
|
|
Maggasampayuttā dhammā sāmaññaphalāni ca yassa pariññatthaṃ bhagavati brahmacariyaṃ vussati tathattena neva dukkhaṃ na ariyasaccaṃ.
|
(d) The states associated with the path and the fruits of asceticism are neither suffering in the real sense of that for the full-understanding of which the life of purity is lived under the Blessed One, nor are they noble truth.
|
|
|
Evaṃ samudayādīsupi yathāyogaṃ yojetvā catukkatopettha vinicchayo veditabbo.
|
Origin, etc., should also be construed in the corresponding way. This is how the exposition should be understood here as to tetrad.
|
|