Difference between revisions of "Phagguna Sutta"
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | {{DisplayImages|{{Random number}}}}{{Centre|{{Big2x|To Phagguna | + | {{DisplayImages|{{Random number}}}} |
| + | {{Centre|{{Big2x|To Phagguna}}<br/> | ||
| + | translated from the [[Pali]] by<br/> | ||
| + | [[Nyanaponika Thera]]}}<br/><br/> | ||
| − | + | "There are, O [[monks]], four [[nutriments]] for the [[sustenance]] of [[beings]] born, and for the support of [[beings]] seeking [[birth]]. What are the four? Edible [[food]], coarse and fine; secondly, sense-impression; thirdly, [[volitional]] [[thought]]; fourthly, [[consciousness]]." | |
| − | + | After these words, the [[venerable]] Moliya-Phagguna addressed the [[Exalted One]] as follows: | |
| − | " | + | "Who, O [[Lord]], consumes[1] the nutriment [[consciousness]]?" |
| − | + | "The question is not correct," said the [[Exalted One]]. "I do not say that 'he consumes.'[2] If I had said so, then the question 'Who consumes?' would be appropriate. But since I did not speak thus, the correct way to ask the question will be: 'For what is the nutriment [[consciousness]] (the [[condition]])?'[3] And to that the correct reply is: 'The nutriment [[consciousness]][4] is a [[condition]] for the {{Wiki|future}} [[arising]] of a renewed [[existence]];[5] when that has come into being, there is (also) the sixfold sense-base; and [[conditioned]] by the sixfold sense-base is sense-impression.'"[6] | |
| − | "Who, O Lord, | + | "Who, O [[Lord]], has a sense-impression?" |
| − | "The question is not correct," said the Exalted One | + | "The question is not correct," said the [[Exalted One]]. |
| − | "Who | + | "I do not say that 'he has a sense-impression.' Had I said so, then the question 'Who has a sense-impression?' would be appropriate. But since I did not speak thus, the correct way to ask the question will be 'What is the [[condition]] of sense-impression?' And to that the correct reply is: 'The sixfold sense-base is a [[condition]] of sense-impression, and sense-impression is the [[condition]] of [[feeling]].'" |
| − | " | + | "Who, O [[Lord]], [[feels]]?" |
| − | "I do not say that 'he | + | "The question is not correct," said the [[Exalted One]]. "I do not say that 'he [[feels]].' Had I said so, then the question 'Who [[feels]]?' would be appropriate. But since I did not speak thus, the correct way to ask the question will be 'What is the [[condition]] of [[feeling]]?' And to that the correct reply is: 'sense-impression is the [[condition]] of [[feeling]]; and [[feeling]] is the [[condition]] of [[craving]].'" |
| − | "Who, O Lord, | + | "Who, O [[Lord]], craves?" |
| − | "The question is not correct," said the Exalted One. "I do not say that 'he | + | "The question is not correct," said the [[Exalted One]]. "I do not say that 'he craves.' Had I said so, then the question 'Who craves?' would be appropriate. But since I did not speak thus, the correct way to ask the question will be 'What is the [[condition]] of [[craving]]?' And to that the correct reply is: '[[Feeling]] is the [[condition]] of [[craving]], and [[craving]] is the [[condition]] of [[clinging]].'" |
| − | "Who, O Lord, | + | "Who, O [[Lord]], clings?" |
| − | "The question is not correct," said the Exalted One | + | "The question is not correct," said the [[Exalted One]], "I do not say that 'he clings.' Had I said so, then the question 'Who clings?' would be appropriate. But since I did not speak thus, the correct way to ask the question will be 'What is the [[condition]] of [[clinging]]?' And to that the correct reply is: '[[Craving]] is the [[condition]] of [[clinging]]; and [[clinging]] is the [[condition]] of the process of becoming.' Such is the origin of this [[entire mass of suffering]].[7] |
| − | + | "Through the complete fading away and [[cessation]] of even these [[six bases]] of sense-impression, sense-impression ceases;[8] through the [[cessation]] of sense-impression, [[feeling]] ceases; through the [[cessation]] of [[feeling]], [[craving]] ceases; through the [[cessation]] of [[craving]], [[clinging]] ceases; through the [[cessation]] of [[clinging]], the process of becoming ceases; through the [[cessation]] of the process of becoming, [[birth]] ceases; through the [[cessation]] of [[birth]], [[old age]], [[death]], [[sorrow]], [[lamentation]], [[pain]], [[grief]] and {{Wiki|despair}} cease. Such is the [[cessation]] of this [[entire mass of suffering]]." | |
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | "Through the complete fading away and cessation of even these six bases of sense-impression, sense-impression ceases;[8] through the cessation of sense-impression, feeling ceases; through the cessation of feeling, craving ceases; through the cessation of craving, clinging ceases; through the cessation of clinging, the process of becoming ceases; through the cessation of the process of becoming, birth ceases; through the cessation of birth, old age, death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief and despair cease. Such is the cessation of this entire mass of suffering." | ||
==Notes== | ==Notes== | ||
| − | 1. Consumes or eats (aaharati) — The commentators say that this monk believed that he understood the three other kinds of nutriment but concerning consciousness he had conceived the notion that there was a "being" (satta) that takes consciousness onto himself as nutriment. | + | 1. Consumes or eats (aaharati) — The commentators say that this [[monk]] believed that he understood the three other kinds of nutriment but concerning [[consciousness]] he had conceived the notion that there was a "being" ([[satta]]) that takes [[consciousness]] onto himself as nutriment. |
| − | 2. Comy: "I do not say that there is any being or person that consumes (or eats)." | + | 2. Comy: "I do not say that there is any being or [[person]] that consumes (or eats)." |
| − | 3. Comy: "That means: 'For what (impersonal) state (or thing; katamassa dhammassa) is the nutriment consciousness a condition (paccaya)?'" The term dhamma, in the sense of an impersonal factor of existence, is here contrasted with the questioner's assumption of a being or person performing the respective function. By re-formulating the question, the Buddha wanted to point out that there is no reason for assuming that the nutriment consciousness "feeds" or conditions any separate person hovering behind it; but that consciousness constitutes just one link in a chain of processes indicated by the Buddha in the following. | + | 3. Comy: "That means: 'For what (impersonal) state (or thing; katamassa dhammassa) is the nutriment [[consciousness]] a [[condition]] ([[paccaya]])?'" The term [[dhamma]], in the [[sense]] of an impersonal factor of [[existence]], is here contrasted with the questioner's assumption of a being or [[person]] performing the respective [[function]]. By re-formulating the question, the [[Buddha]] wanted to point out that there is no [[reason]] for assuming that the nutriment [[consciousness]] "feeds" or [[conditions]] any separate [[person]] hovering behind it; but that [[consciousness]] constitutes just one link in a chain of {{Wiki|processes}} indicated by the [[Buddha]] in the following. |
| − | 4. The nutriment consciousness signifies here the rebirth-consciousness. | + | 4. The nutriment [[consciousness]] {{Wiki|signifies}} here the [[rebirth-consciousness]]. |
| − | 5. aayatim punabbhavaabhinibbatti; Comy: "This is the mind-and-body (naama-ruupa) conascent with that very (rebirth) consciousness." This refers to the third link of the dependent origination: "Through (rebirth) consciousness conditioned is mind-and-body" (viññaa.na-paccayaa naama-ruupam). | + | 5. aayatim punabbhavaabhinibbatti; Comy: "This is the mind-and-body (naama-ruupa) conascent with that very ([[rebirth]]) [[consciousness]]." This refers to the third link of the [[dependent origination]]: "Through ([[rebirth]]) [[consciousness]] [[conditioned]] is mind-and-body" (viññaa.na-paccayaa naama-ruupam). |
| − | 6. Comy: "The Exalted One said this for giving to the monk an opening for a further question." | + | 6. Comy: "The [[Exalted One]] said this for giving to the [[monk]] an opening for a further question." |
| − | 7. Comy: "Why does not the monk continue to ask: 'Who becomes?' Because as one cherishing wrong views, he believes that 'A being has become, has come to be.' Hence he does not question further, because it would conflict with his own beliefs. And also the Master terminates here the exposition, thinking: 'However much he questions, he will not be satisfied. He is just asking empty questions.'" | + | 7. Comy: "Why does not the [[monk]] continue to ask: 'Who becomes?' Because as one cherishing [[wrong views]], he believes that 'A being has become, has come to be.' Hence he does not question further, because it would conflict with his own [[beliefs]]. And also the [[Master]] terminates here the [[exposition]], [[thinking]]: 'However much he questions, he will not be satisfied. He is just asking [[empty]] questions.'" |
| − | 8. Comy: "Here the Master takes up that very point from where he started the exposition: 'Through the sixfold sense (organ) base conditioned is sense-impression,' and here he now turns round the exposition (to the cessation of the cycle of dependent origination). | + | 8. Comy: "Here the [[Master]] takes up that very point from where he started the [[exposition]]: 'Through the sixfold [[sense]] ({{Wiki|organ}}) base [[conditioned]] is sense-impression,' and here he now turns round the [[exposition]] (to the [[cessation]] of the cycle of [[dependent origination]]). |
| − | "In this discourse, there is one link (of cause and fruit) between consciousness and mind-and-body; one link (of fruit and cause) between feeling and craving, and one link (of cause and fruit) between the process of becoming and birth." | + | "In this {{Wiki|discourse}}, there is one link (of [[cause]] and fruit) between [[consciousness]] and mind-and-body; one link (of fruit and [[cause]]) between [[feeling]] and [[craving]], and one link (of [[cause]] and fruit) between the process of becoming and [[birth]]." |
| − | Sub-Comy: "Since, in the words of the discourse, 'The nutriment consciousness is a condition for the future arising of a renewed existence,' (consciousness is regarded) as being a condition in a former existence for a future existence, and as being a principal cause (muula-kaarana), therefore the Commentary says that 'there is a link (of cause and fruit) between consciousness and mind-and-body.' Hence it should be understood that by the term consciousness, also the 'kamma-forming consciousness' (abhisa"nkhaara-viññaa.na) is implied" (i.e., apart from being resultant rebirth consciousness). | + | Sub-Comy: "Since, in the words of the {{Wiki|discourse}}, 'The nutriment [[consciousness]] is a [[condition]] for the {{Wiki|future}} [[arising]] of a renewed [[existence]],' ([[consciousness]] is regarded) as being a [[condition]] in a former [[existence]] for a {{Wiki|future}} [[existence]], and as being a [[principal]] [[cause]] (muula-kaarana), therefore the Commentary says that 'there is a link (of [[cause]] and fruit) between [[consciousness]] and mind-and-body.' Hence it should be understood that by the term [[consciousness]], also the 'kamma-forming [[consciousness]]' (abhisa"nkhaara-viññaa.na) is implied" (i.e., apart from being resultant [[rebirth]] [[consciousness]]). |
{{R}} | {{R}} | ||
[http://www.dhammawiki.com/index.php?title=Category:Samyutta_Nikaya dhammawiki.com] | [http://www.dhammawiki.com/index.php?title=Category:Samyutta_Nikaya dhammawiki.com] | ||
[[Category:Saṃyutta Nikāya]] | [[Category:Saṃyutta Nikāya]] | ||
Revision as of 13:25, 3 April 2014
To Phagguna
translated from the Pali by
Nyanaponika Thera
"There are, O monks, four nutriments for the sustenance of beings born, and for the support of beings seeking birth. What are the four? Edible food, coarse and fine; secondly, sense-impression; thirdly, volitional thought; fourthly, consciousness."
After these words, the venerable Moliya-Phagguna addressed the Exalted One as follows:
"Who, O Lord, consumes[1] the nutriment consciousness?"
"The question is not correct," said the Exalted One. "I do not say that 'he consumes.'[2] If I had said so, then the question 'Who consumes?' would be appropriate. But since I did not speak thus, the correct way to ask the question will be: 'For what is the nutriment consciousness (the condition)?'[3] And to that the correct reply is: 'The nutriment consciousness[4] is a condition for the future arising of a renewed existence;[5] when that has come into being, there is (also) the sixfold sense-base; and conditioned by the sixfold sense-base is sense-impression.'"[6]
"Who, O Lord, has a sense-impression?"
"The question is not correct," said the Exalted One.
"I do not say that 'he has a sense-impression.' Had I said so, then the question 'Who has a sense-impression?' would be appropriate. But since I did not speak thus, the correct way to ask the question will be 'What is the condition of sense-impression?' And to that the correct reply is: 'The sixfold sense-base is a condition of sense-impression, and sense-impression is the condition of feeling.'"
"The question is not correct," said the Exalted One. "I do not say that 'he feels.' Had I said so, then the question 'Who feels?' would be appropriate. But since I did not speak thus, the correct way to ask the question will be 'What is the condition of feeling?' And to that the correct reply is: 'sense-impression is the condition of feeling; and feeling is the condition of craving.'"
"Who, O Lord, craves?"
"The question is not correct," said the Exalted One. "I do not say that 'he craves.' Had I said so, then the question 'Who craves?' would be appropriate. But since I did not speak thus, the correct way to ask the question will be 'What is the condition of craving?' And to that the correct reply is: 'Feeling is the condition of craving, and craving is the condition of clinging.'"
"Who, O Lord, clings?"
"The question is not correct," said the Exalted One, "I do not say that 'he clings.' Had I said so, then the question 'Who clings?' would be appropriate. But since I did not speak thus, the correct way to ask the question will be 'What is the condition of clinging?' And to that the correct reply is: 'Craving is the condition of clinging; and clinging is the condition of the process of becoming.' Such is the origin of this entire mass of suffering.[7]
"Through the complete fading away and cessation of even these six bases of sense-impression, sense-impression ceases;[8] through the cessation of sense-impression, feeling ceases; through the cessation of feeling, craving ceases; through the cessation of craving, clinging ceases; through the cessation of clinging, the process of becoming ceases; through the cessation of the process of becoming, birth ceases; through the cessation of birth, old age, death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief and despair cease. Such is the cessation of this entire mass of suffering."
Notes
1. Consumes or eats (aaharati) — The commentators say that this monk believed that he understood the three other kinds of nutriment but concerning consciousness he had conceived the notion that there was a "being" (satta) that takes consciousness onto himself as nutriment.
2. Comy: "I do not say that there is any being or person that consumes (or eats)."
3. Comy: "That means: 'For what (impersonal) state (or thing; katamassa dhammassa) is the nutriment consciousness a condition (paccaya)?'" The term dhamma, in the sense of an impersonal factor of existence, is here contrasted with the questioner's assumption of a being or person performing the respective function. By re-formulating the question, the Buddha wanted to point out that there is no reason for assuming that the nutriment consciousness "feeds" or conditions any separate person hovering behind it; but that consciousness constitutes just one link in a chain of processes indicated by the Buddha in the following.
4. The nutriment consciousness signifies here the rebirth-consciousness.
5. aayatim punabbhavaabhinibbatti; Comy: "This is the mind-and-body (naama-ruupa) conascent with that very (rebirth) consciousness." This refers to the third link of the dependent origination: "Through (rebirth) consciousness conditioned is mind-and-body" (viññaa.na-paccayaa naama-ruupam).
6. Comy: "The Exalted One said this for giving to the monk an opening for a further question."
7. Comy: "Why does not the monk continue to ask: 'Who becomes?' Because as one cherishing wrong views, he believes that 'A being has become, has come to be.' Hence he does not question further, because it would conflict with his own beliefs. And also the Master terminates here the exposition, thinking: 'However much he questions, he will not be satisfied. He is just asking empty questions.'"
8. Comy: "Here the Master takes up that very point from where he started the exposition: 'Through the sixfold sense (organ) base conditioned is sense-impression,' and here he now turns round the exposition (to the cessation of the cycle of dependent origination).
"In this discourse, there is one link (of cause and fruit) between consciousness and mind-and-body; one link (of fruit and cause) between feeling and craving, and one link (of cause and fruit) between the process of becoming and birth."
Sub-Comy: "Since, in the words of the discourse, 'The nutriment consciousness is a condition for the future arising of a renewed existence,' (consciousness is regarded) as being a condition in a former existence for a future existence, and as being a principal cause (muula-kaarana), therefore the Commentary says that 'there is a link (of cause and fruit) between consciousness and mind-and-body.' Hence it should be understood that by the term consciousness, also the 'kamma-forming consciousness' (abhisa"nkhaara-viññaa.na) is implied" (i.e., apart from being resultant rebirth consciousness).
