Chapter Twenty-Three: Analysis of Error/Misconception
It is taught that desire, anger, and stupor/ignorance
Originate in dependence on thought. Their arising depends On the attractive, unattractive, and mistaken. [23.1] That which originates in dependence On the attractive, unattractive, and mistaken Cannot be due to its own nature. Hence, the afflictions are not real. [23.2] The existence or nonexistence of the self Is not established in any way. How can the existence or nonexistence Of the afflictions be established without it? [23.3] The one to which the afflictions belong Is not in any way established. When they do not pertain to anything at all, the afflictions cannot exist in any way either. [23.4] As in the case of the view regarding one’s body, The afflictions are absent in the afflicted in five ways As in the case of the view of one’s body, The afflicted is absent in the afflictions in five ways. [23.5] If the attractive, unattractive, and mistaken Are not due to their own nature, Then what are those afflictions that depend On the attractive, unattractive, and mistaken? [23.6] Form, sound, taste, tactility, smell, And phenomena - these six Are believed to be the bases For desire, anger, and stupor. [23.7] Form, sound, taste, tactility, smell, And phenomena are all without exception Like a city of scent-eaters, Like an optical illusion, like a dream. [23.8] They resemble an illusory person And are similar to reflections. How could there be any real element Of the attractive or unattractive in them? [23.9] The unattractive upon which The designation “attractive” depends Does not exist independently of the attractive. Hence, the attractive does not make sense. [23.10] The attractive upon which The designation “unattractive” depends Does not exist independently of the unattractive. Hence, the unattractive does not make sense. [23.11] When there is nothing attractive, How could there possibly be desire? When there is nothing unattractive, How could there possibly be anger? [23.12] If thinking the impermanent To be permanent is an error, Then why, since the empty is not impermanent, Would that thought be in error? [23.13] If thinking that which is not permanent To be permanent is an error, Then why would thinking the empty To be impermanent not also be in error? [23.14] The means for apprehending, the apprehension, That which apprehends, and what is apprehended Are all completely pacified. Hence, there is no apprehending. [23.15] Given that there is neither mistaken Nor unmistaken apprehension, Who could be in error? Who could be correct? [23.16] The mistaken cannot Become mistaken, Nor can the unmistaken Become mistaken [23.17] That which is becoming mistaken Cannot become mistaken either. Where is error possible? Investigate that. [23.18] Since they have not arisen, How could there be errors? Given that no error has occurred, How could there be one that is mistaken? [23.19] Things do not arise from themselves, Nor do they arise from anything else. As things do not arise from self and not from other either, How could there be one that is mistaken? [23.20] If there is a self, something clean, Something permanent, and something delightful, The apprehending of self, clean, permanent, and delightful Are not mistakes [23.21] If there is no self, nothing clean, Nothing permanent, and nothing delightful, There cannot be any absence of self, anything unclean, impermanent, and painful. [23.22] As error in this way ceases, Ignorance comes to an end. As ignorance ceases, Formation and so forth end. [23.23] If someone’s afflictions Are existent by nature, How can they be eliminated? Who can eliminate the existent? [23.24] If someone’s afflictions Are nonexistent by nature, How can they be eliminated? Who can eliminate the nonexistent? [23.25] <- Prev Next -> |
19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25
Internet Teaching | Prayer Book
|