575. Saddabhedatoti paṭiccasaddo ca panāyaṃ samāne kattari pubbakāle payujjamāno atthasiddhikaro hoti.
（4）「破坏语法故」，这里的「缘」（paṭicca）（由于缘）字是结合于过去时（pubbakāle），[PTS 520] 对于同一主词而完成其意义（与动词起字的作用相同）。
Ñ(XVII,12): (4) It is ungrammatical: [520] this word paṭicca (lit. 'having depended'; freely 'due to', 'dependent'), [being a gerund of the verb paṭi + eti, to go back to], establishes a meaning [in a formula of establishment by verb] when it is construed as past with the same subject [as that of the principal verb],
Seyyathidaṃ, ‘‘cakkhuñca paṭicca rūpe ca uppajjati cakkhuviññāṇa’’nti (saṃ. ni. 2.43).
例如：「由于眼与诸色的缘而起（uppajjati）眼识」。
Ñ: as in the sentence 'Having depended on (paṭicca = 'due to') the eye and visible objects, eye-consciousness arises (uppajjati)' (S.ii,72).
Idha pana bhāvasādhanena uppādasaddena saddhiṃ payujjamāno samānassa kattu abhāvato saddabhedaṃ gacchati, na ca kiñci atthaṃ sādhetīti saddabhedatopi na uppādamattaṃ paṭiccasamuppādoti.
如果这里与动名词的「起」（uppāda）结合，则因为缺乏（两个动词）同一主词之故，便破坏了语法，还能够完成些什么意义呢？所以说因为破坏语法之故，不可仅以生起为缘起。
Ñ: But if it is construed here with the word uppāda (arising), [which is a noun], in a formula of establishment by noun, there is a breach of grammar, because there is no shared subject [as there is in the above-quoted sentence], and so it does not establish any meaning at all. So the dependent origination is not simple arising because that is ungrammatical.
No comments:
Post a Comment