| Закладка |
831.
Kiṃ panetāni ete dhamme atītānāgate pajahanti udāhu paccuppanneti. Kiṃ panettha yadi tāva atītānāgate, aphalo vāyāmo āpajjati. Kasmā? Pahātabbānaṃ natthitāya. Atha paccuppanne, tathāpi aphalo, vāyāmena saddhiṃ pahātabbānaṃ atthitāya, saṃkilesikā ca maggabhāvanā āpajjati, vippayuttatā vā kilesānaṃ, na ca paccuppannakileso cittavippayutto nāma atthīti. Nāyaṃ āveṇikā codanā. Pāḷiyaṃyeva hi "svāyaṃ kilese pajahati, atīte kilese pajahati, anāgate kilese pajahati, paccuppanne kilese pajahatī"ti vatvā, puna "hañci atīte kilese pajahati, tenahi khīṇaṃ khepeti, niruddhaṃ nirodheti, vigataṃ vigameti, atthaṅgataṃ atthaṅgameti. Atītaṃ yaṃ natthi, taṃ pajahatī"ti (paṭi. ma. 3.21) ca vatvā, "na atīte kilese pajahatī"ti paṭikkhittaṃ.
|
| пали |
english - Nyanamoli thera |
Комментарии |
|
831.Kiṃ panetāni ete dhamme atītānāgate pajahanti udāhu paccuppanneti.
|
78. 5. The act of the abandoning: but how then? Do these [knowledges] abandon these states when they are past, or when they are future, or when [686] they are present?
|
|
|
Kiṃ panettha yadi tāva atītānāgate, aphalo vāyāmo āpajjati.
|
What is the position here? For, firstly, if [they are said to abandon them] when past or future, it follows that the effort is fruitless.
|
|
|
Kasmā?
|
Why?
|
|
|
Pahātabbānaṃ natthitāya.
|
Because what has to be abandoned is non-existent.
|
|
|
Atha paccuppanne, tathāpi aphalo, vāyāmena saddhiṃ pahātabbānaṃ atthitāya, saṃkilesikā ca maggabhāvanā āpajjati, vippayuttatā vā kilesānaṃ, na ca paccuppannakileso cittavippayutto nāma atthīti.
|
Then if it is when they are present, it is likewise fruitless because the things to be abandoned exist simultaneously with the effort, and it follows that there is development of a path that has defilement, or it follows that defilements are dissociated [from consciousness] though there is no such thing as a present defilement dissociated from consciousness.16
|
Comm. NT: 16.
Все комментарии (1)
|
|
Nāyaṃ āveṇikā codanā.
|
79.That is not an original argument;
|
|
|
Pāḷiyaṃyeva hi "svāyaṃ kilese pajahati, atīte kilese pajahati, anāgate kilese pajahati, paccuppanne kilese pajahatī"ti vatvā, puna "hañci atīte kilese pajahati, tenahi khīṇaṃ khepeti, niruddhaṃ nirodheti, vigataṃ vigameti, atthaṅgataṃ atthaṅgameti.
|
for in the text first the question is put: “When a man abandons defilements, does he abandon past defilements? Does he abandon future defilements? Does he abandon present defilements? ” Then the objection is put in this way: “If he abandons past defilements, he destroys what has already been destroyed, causes to cease what has already ceased, causes to vanish what has already vanished, causes to subside what has already subsided.
|
|
|
Atītaṃ yaṃ natthi, taṃ pajahatī"ti (paṭi. ma. 3.21) ca vatvā, "na atīte kilese pajahatī"ti paṭikkhittaṃ.
|
What is past, which is non-existent, that he abandons.” But this is denied in this way: “He does not abandon past defilements.”
|
|