Выбрать перевод / язык

Kaccānagotta

Перевод: Бхиккху Суджато

sn / sn12

Linked Discourses 12.15 · 2. Fuel

At Sāvatthī. ^[1]

Then Venerable Kaccānagotta went up to the Buddha, bowed, sat down to one side, and said to him: ^[2]

“Sir, they speak of this thing called ‘right view’.

How is right view defined?” ^[3]

“Kaccāna, this world mostly relies on the duality of existence and non-existence. ^[4]

But for one who truly sees the origin of the world with right understanding, the concept of non-existence regarding the world does not occur. ^[5]

And for one who truly sees the cessation of the world with right understanding, the concept of existence regarding the world does not occur. ^[6]

This world is for the most part shackled by getting involved, grasping, and insisting. ^[7]

But if—for all that getting involved and grasping, mental fixation, and insistence and underlying tendency—they do not get attracted, grasp, and fixate on the thought, ‘my self’, ^[8]

they’ll have no doubt or uncertainty that what arises is just suffering arising, and what ceases is just suffering ceasing. Their knowledge of this is independent of others. ^[9]

This is how right view is defined.

‘All exists’: this is one extreme. ^[10]

‘All does not exist’: this is the second extreme.

Avoiding these two extremes, the Realized One teaches by the middle way: ^[11]

‘Ignorance is a requirement for choices.

Choices are a requirement for consciousness. …

That is how this entire mass of suffering originates.

When ignorance fades away and ceases with no residue left behind, choices cease.

When choices cease, consciousness ceases. …

That is how this entire mass of suffering ceases.’”

Предыдущая сутта Следующая сутта

Выбрать перевод / язык

[1] This discourse was quoted by Ānanda to Channa at SN 22.90:9.1. It was cited by name in Nāgārjuna’s Mūlamadhyamakakārikā 15.7: “In the Advice to Kātyāyana, both ‘exists’ and ‘does not exist’ are denied by the Buddha, expert in being and non-being.” Nāgārjuna’s text, an important Buddhist philosophical treatise, is studied extensively to this day.

[2] Called Sandha Kātyāyana in Sanskrit.

[3] Right view is normally defined as understanding the four noble truths (DN 22:21.4, MN 141:24.1, SN 45.8:3.1).

[4] The Buddha is referring to a widely held belief, which can be traced to the saying: “This is twofold, there is no third: truth and falsehood. The gods are truth, humans are falsehood.” (Dvayaṁ vā idaṁ na tṛtīyamasti: satyaṁ caivānṛtaṁ ca. Satyameva devā anṛtam manuṣyā; Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa 1.1.1.4, 3.3.2.2, 3.9.4.1). The word for “truth” here is satya (Pali sacca), which like atthitā (“existence”) is an abstract noun from the root as (“exist”). The word for “falsehood” is anṛta. Pali prefers the simple negative, but satya and anṛta are a standard pair in pre-Buddhist Sanskrit, harking back to Rig Veda 7.49.3. The gods are truly real because they are immortal, whereas transient humans are not truly real. Consider also the hymn of creation at Arthava Veda 10.2.14: “Who placed truth in him, who falsehood, who mortality, who immortality?” This confirms the interpretation of both Nāgārjuna and the Theravāda tradition that existence/non-existence refers to eternalism and annihilationism. See also the discussion of “duality” at SN 35.92:2.2.

[5] To paraphrase, when a person sees that their current actions are generating future lives, it is no longer possible to think that this life is all there is.

The “origin of the world” is the origination sequence of dependent origination (SN 35.107; see too SN 2.26:5.2).

[6] To paraphrase, when a person sees the cessation of the craving and kamma that generate future lives, they realize there is no such thing as an eternal soul.

[7] The three factors here express a gradual process by which one is “shackled” (vinibaddha): attracted, one gets involved (upaya), then one takes up (upādāna), and finally one insists on keeping (abhinivesa). The latter term especially refers to dogmatic insistence on a view, alluding to the Brāhmaṇa text we cited earlier: “This is twofold, there is no third.” In the next sentence, the three factors are expanded with the addition of “mental fixation” (cetaso adhiṭṭhāna) and “underlying tendency” (anusaya). The latter implies that the defilement has become so ingrained that it is no longer conscious, but “underlies” choices conscious or not.

[8] This sentence is grammatically tricky. For tañcāyaṁ read taṁ ce ayaṁ following the Sanskrit etāni ced. Taṁ refers to the several defilements listed (hence the Sanskrit is plural), while ayaṁ is “this (person)”, namely the practitioner. The relation between the verbs and the similar list of nouns is not obvious. I think the sense is that, despite the fact that these defilements are still present, the wise do not fall under their sway.

[9] The final sentence, as well as the absence of doubt, indicates that they have become a stream-enterer, at which stage they have confirmed right view.

[10] Also at SN 12.47:2.2, and said to be the “oldest cosmology” at SN 12.48:2.2.

[11] This “teaching by the middle way” (majjhena dhammadesanā) is the philosophical counterpart of the “middle way of practice” (majjhimā paṭipadā, SN 56.11:2.4).