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 affliction are not real. [23.2]

The existence or nonexistence of the self
Is not established in any way.
How can the existence or the 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 mistaken [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 existed 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