| пали |
english - Nyanamoli thera |
Комментарии |
|
576.Yepi maññanti "idappaccayānaṃ bhāvo idappaccayatā, bhāvo ca nāma yo ākāro avijjādīnaṃ saṅkhārādipātubhāve hetu, so.
|
14. And those are wrong who imagine that specific conditionality (idappaccayatā) is the specific conditions’ [abstract] essence—what is called “abstract essence” being a [particular] mode in ignorance, etc., that acts as cause in the manifestation of formations, etc.—
|
|
|
Tasmiñca saṅkhāravikāre paṭiccasamuppādasaññā"ti, tesaṃ taṃ na yujjati.
|
and that the term “dependent origination” is used for an alteration in formations when there is that [particular mode in the way of occurrence of ignorance].
|
|
|
Kasmā?
|
Why are they wrong?
|
|
|
Avijjādīnaṃ hetuvacanato.
|
Because it is ignorance, etc., themselves that are called causes.
|
|
|
Bhagavatā hi "tasmātiha, ānanda, eseva hetu, etaṃ nidānaṃ, esa samudayo, esa paccayo jarāmaraṇassa yadidaṃ jāti - pe - saṅkhārānaṃ, yadidaṃ avijjā"ti (dī. ni. 2.98 ādayo) evaṃ avijjādayova hetūti vuttā, na tesaṃ vikāro.
|
For in the following passage it is ignorance, etc., themselves, not their alteration, that are called the causes [of these states]: “Therefore, Ānanda, just this is the cause, this is the source, this is the origin, this is the condition, for ageing-and-death, that is to say, birth … for formations, that is to say, (ignorance)” (D II 57–63—the last clause is not in the Dīgha text).
|
|
|
Tasmā "paṭiccasamuppādoti paccayadhammā veditabbā"ti iti yaṃ taṃ vuttaṃ, taṃ sammā vuttanti veditabbaṃ.
|
Therefore it is the actual states themselves as conditions that should be understood as “dependent origination. ” So what was said above (§4) can be understood as rightly said.
|
|