Выбрать перевод / язык

Not Yours

Перевод: Бхиккху Суджато

sn / sn12

Linked Discourses 12.37 · 4. Kaḷāra the Aristocrat

At Sāvatthī.

“Mendicants, this body doesn’t belong to you or to anyone else.

It’s old deeds, and should be seen as produced by choices and intentions, as something to be felt. ^[1]

A learned noble disciple carefully and rationally applies the mind to dependent origination itself:

‘When this exists, this comes to be; due to the arising of this, this arises. ^[2]

When this doesn’t exist, this doesn’t come to be; due to the cessation of this, this ceases. That is: ^[3]

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] That is to say, the body we bear in this life was created by our intentional deeds or moral choices in a past life, which we experience the result of in this life (see SN 12.19:1.2). Treated in more detail in SN 35.146.

[2] This abstract principle of dependent origination sometimes precedes or stands for the full set of twelve links. It supplies the verbs that are missing from the bare nouns in the standard sequence: hoti (“is” or “comes to be”) and uppajjati (“arises”). The two phrases use complementary ways of specifying a causal relationship: the first employs the locative absolute to emphasize the presence of the antecedent condition; the second the ablative to emphasize the derivation of the subsequent condition. These two linguistic forms are also used for the twelve links themselves: the normal sequence, as here, uses the ablative form; sometimes we find the locative absolute form (eg. SN 12.49); sometimes both (eg. SN 12.4:15.2).

Later, the abstract principle was sometimes referred to as “specific conditionality” in contrast to the twelve links which are “dependent origination”. While this is a handy distinction, it is not found in the Suttas, where the two terms are synonymous.

[3] In translation, it is conventional to differentiate the pronouns for comprehensibility. However, while Pali can readily distinguish “this” from “that”, here we have different forms of the same pronoun idaṁ, chosen to indicate something present. In Upaniṣadic language, the use of repeated demonstrative pronouns asserts absolute identity, which the Buddha subverts (see notes at SN 12.17:5.1, MN 22:15.10, MN 38:2.2, DN 6:15.5). “This”, it turns out, is a constant state of coming into being and disappearing, “arising as one thing and ceasing as another” (aññadeva uppajjati aññaṁ nirujjhati, SN 12.61:4.1).