Yasmā panetaṃ ubhayampi natthi,
可是这两种都不可能发生，
Ñ(XIV,45): 'But since neither of these
is a fact,
tasmā pahāyetaṃ etesaṃ
nissayabhūtānaṃ visesakappanaṃ,
所以你必须放弃（眼等的差别是）此等所依的大种的差别的说法。
Ñ: you should therefore give up
conjecturing the difference to be in the supporting primary elements.
‘‘yathā avisesepi ekakalāpe
bhūtānaṃ rūparasādayo aññamaññaṃ visadisā honti, evaṃ
cakkhupasādādayo avijjamānepi aññasmiṃ visesakāraṇe’’ti
gahetabbametaṃ.
例如于一色聚的大种虽无差别，但大种的色与味等则互相各别，如是差别，虽无别的原因，但说眼净等（相异）」。
Ñ: Just as the natures of visible
objects, etc., are dissimilar from each other though there is no
difference in the primaries that form a single group, so too are
eye-sensitivity, etc., though no other cause of their difference
exists'. This is how it should be taken.
Kiṃ pana taṃ yaṃ aññamaññassa
asādhāraṇaṃ?
然而那眼耳等怎么会互相的不同？
Ñ: But what is it that is not common to
them all?
Kammameva nesaṃ visesakāraṇaṃ.
只有业是它们的差别的原因。
Ñ: It is the kamma itself that is the
reason for their difference.
Tasmā kammavisesato etesaṃ viseso, na
bhūtavisesato.
因为业的差别，所以有此等（眼、耳等）的差别，并非因大种的差别之故。
Ñ: Therefore their difference is due to
difference of kamma, not to difference of primary elements;
Bhūtavisese hi sati pasādova na
uppajjati. Samānānañhi pasādo, na visamānānanti porāṇā.
即如古人说：「如果大种有差别时，则无净（根）生起，因为净（根的大种）是相等而非相异」。
Ñ: for if there were difference of
primary elements, sensitivity itself would not arise, since the
Ancients have said: 'Sensitivity is of those that are equal, not of
those that are unequal'.
No comments:
Post a Comment