Other Translations: Deutsch , Srpski
From: ,
Saṁyutta Nikāya 22.62 Linked Discourses 22.62
6. Upayavagga 6. Involvement
Niruttipathasutta The Scope of Definition
Sāvatthinidānaṁ. At Sāvatthī.
“Tayome, bhikkhave, niruttipathā adhivacanapathā paññattipathā asaṅkiṇṇā asaṅkiṇṇapubbā, na saṅkīyanti, na saṅkīyissanti, appaṭikuṭṭhā samaṇehi brāhmaṇehi viññūhi. “Mendicants, there are these three scopes of definition, labeling, and description. They’re uncorrupted, as they have been since the beginning. They’re not being corrupted now, nor will they be. Sensible ascetics and brahmins don’t look down on them. The three “scopes” or “ranges” (patha) are the past, present, and future, each of which is indicated by the appropriate grammatical tense. | Nirutti means the “clear expression” or “definition” of a word. In the pre-Buddhist literature, that which is “undefined” is the mystical truth to be muttered under the breath, whereas that which is “defined” is clearly expressed in language. A list of such definitions is a nirukti, a glossary or dictionary. See DN 15:32.11, MN 139:13.55, and AN 5.169:3.6.
Katame tayo? What three?
Yaṁ, bhikkhave, rūpaṁ atītaṁ niruddhaṁ vipariṇataṁ ‘ahosī’ti tassa saṅkhā, ‘ahosī’ti tassa samaññā, ‘ahosī’ti tassa paññatti; When form has passed, ceased, and perished, its designation, label, and description is ‘was’.
na tassa saṅkhā ‘atthī’ti, na tassa saṅkhā ‘bhavissatī’ti. It’s not ‘is’ or ‘will be’. The purpose of this argument is to rebut the idea that “being” or “existence” is eternal, and change an illusion. The Buddha points out that ordinary usage describes things that exist as impermanent, and thus the eternalist thesis contradicts the commonly-agreed truth. This passage is cited in Kv 1.7 against the Sarvāstivādin thesis that all phenomena of past, present, and future, exist (also discussed at Kv 1.6 and Kv 1.8).
Yā vedanā atītā niruddhā vipariṇatā ‘ahosī’ti tassā saṅkhā, ‘ahosī’ti tassā samaññā, ‘ahosī’ti tassā paññatti; When feeling …
na tassā saṅkhā ‘atthī’ti, na tassā saṅkhā ‘bhavissatī’ti.
Yā saññā … perception …
ye saṅkhārā atītā niruddhā vipariṇatā ‘ahesun’ti tesaṁ saṅkhā, ‘ahesun’ti tesaṁ samaññā, ‘ahesun’ti tesaṁ paññatti; choices …
na tesaṁ saṅkhā ‘atthī’ti, na tesaṁ saṅkhā ‘bhavissantī’ti.
Yaṁ viññāṇaṁ atītaṁ niruddhaṁ vipariṇataṁ, ‘ahosī’ti tassa saṅkhā, ‘ahosī’ti tassa samaññā, ‘ahosī’ti tassa paññatti; consciousness has passed, ceased, and perished, its designation, label, and description is ‘was’.
na tassa saṅkhā ‘atthī’ti, na tassa saṅkhā ‘bhavissatī’ti. It’s not ‘is’ or ‘will be’.
Yaṁ, bhikkhave, rūpaṁ ajātaṁ apātubhūtaṁ, ‘bhavissatī’ti tassa saṅkhā, ‘bhavissatī’ti tassa samaññā, ‘bhavissatī’ti tassa paññatti; When form is not yet born, and has not yet appeared, its designation, label, and description is ‘will be’.
na tassa saṅkhā ‘atthī’ti, na tassa saṅkhā ‘ahosī’ti. It’s not ‘is’ or ‘was’.
Yā vedanā ajātā apātubhūtā, ‘bhavissatī’ti tassā saṅkhā, ‘bhavissatī’ti tassā samaññā, ‘bhavissatī’ti tassā paññatti; When feeling …
na tassā saṅkhā ‘atthī’ti, na tassā saṅkhā ‘ahosī’ti.
Yā saññā … perception …
ye saṅkhārā ajātā apātubhūtā, ‘bhavissantī’ti tesaṁ saṅkhā, ‘bhavissantī’ti tesaṁ samaññā, ‘bhavissantī’ti tesaṁ paññatti; choices …
na tesaṁ saṅkhā ‘atthī’ti, na tesaṁ saṅkhā ‘ahesun’ti.
Yaṁ viññāṇaṁ ajātaṁ apātubhūtaṁ, ‘bhavissatī’ti tassa saṅkhā, ‘bhavissatī’ti tassa samaññā, ‘bhavissatī’ti tassa paññatti; consciousness is not yet born, and has not yet appeared, its designation, label, and description is ‘will be’.
na tassa saṅkhā ‘atthī’ti, na tassa saṅkhā ‘ahosī’ti. It’s not ‘is’ or ‘was’.
Yaṁ, bhikkhave, rūpaṁ jātaṁ pātubhūtaṁ, ‘atthī’ti tassa saṅkhā, ‘atthī’ti tassa samaññā, ‘atthī’ti tassa paññatti; When form has been born, and has appeared, its designation, label, and description is ‘is’.
na tassa saṅkhā ‘ahosī’ti, na tassa saṅkhā ‘bhavissatī’ti. It’s not ‘was’ or ‘will be’.
Yā vedanā jātā pātubhūtā, ‘atthī’ti tassā saṅkhā, ‘atthī’ti tassā samaññā, ‘atthī’ti tassā paññatti; When feeling …
na tassā saṅkhā ‘ahosī’ti, na tassā saṅkhā ‘bhavissatī’ti.
Yā saññā … perception …
ye saṅkhārā jātā pātubhūtā, ‘atthī’ti tesaṁ saṅkhā, ‘atthī’ti tesaṁ samaññā, ‘atthī’ti tesaṁ paññatti; choices …
na tesaṁ saṅkhā ‘ahesun’ti, na tesaṁ saṅkhā, ‘bhavissantī’ti.
Yaṁ viññāṇaṁ jātaṁ pātubhūtaṁ, ‘atthī’ti tassa saṅkhā, ‘atthī’ti tassa samaññā, ‘atthī’ti tassa paññatti; consciousness has been born, and has appeared, its designation, label, and description is ‘is’.
na tassa saṅkhā ‘ahosī’ti, na tassa saṅkhā ‘bhavissatī’ti. It’s not ‘was’ or ‘will be’.
Ime kho, bhikkhave, tayo niruttipathā adhivacanapathā paññattipathā asaṅkiṇṇā asaṅkiṇṇapubbā, na saṅkīyanti, na saṅkīyissanti, appaṭikuṭṭhā samaṇehi brāhmaṇehi viññūhi. These are the three scopes of definition, labeling, and description. They’re uncorrupted, as they have been since the beginning. They’re not being corrupted now, nor will they be. Sensible ascetics and brahmins don’t look down on them.
Yepi te, bhikkhave, ahesuṁ ukkalā vassabhaññā ahetukavādā akiriyavādā natthikavādā, tepime tayo niruttipathe adhivacanapathe paññattipathe na garahitabbaṁ nappaṭikkositabbaṁ amaññiṁsu. Even those who were loud and bold advocates of the doctrines of no-cause, inaction, and nihilism, didn’t imagine that these three scopes of definition should be criticized or rejected. The phrase ukkalā vassabhaññā occurs regarding different teachings at MN 117:38.1 and SN 22.62:13.2. The commentary says it refers to two individuals named Vassa and Bhañña from a distant land on the Bay of Bengal, Ukkalā (Sanskrit oḍra, modern Odisha). But this seems quite unlikely. Ukkalā was distant and largely unknown, mentioned only once elsewhere in the Pali canon (Kd 1:4.2.1). These teachers with their odd names (“Rain” and “Speak”) appear nowhere else, yet the the phrase yepi te ahesuṁ suggests they were well known; it is elsewhere used only of “those who were” Buddhas of the past. There seems no reason the Buddha should abruptly allude to such obscure figures as if they were an authority. Read ukkalā from root kal (“to sound”) with prefix ud (“up”), “with raised voice” (cf. Sanskrit kalabhāṣin, “with pleasing voice”). Then vassa from vṛṣa (“bull, chief”), for which compare the expression, uḷārā āsabhī vācā bhāsitā, “spoke a lofty bull’s word”, i.e. made a proud and bold statement. Bhañña is used elsewhere of speaking “out of faith” (pasādabhañña, Bu Pj 4:8.11.8) or of the intoned recitation used for Buddhist texts (sarabhañña, Ud 5.6:18.2 = Kd 15:3.2.1, Kd 15:3.2.1, Kd 22:1.10.5). Thus the sense would be, “those who loudly and boldly assert”.
Taṁ kissa hetu? Why is that?
Nindāghaṭṭanabyārosaupārambhabhayā”ti. For fear of being blamed, attacked, provoked, and faulted.”
Majjhimapaṇṇāsakassa upayavaggo paṭhamo.
Tassuddānaṁ
Upayo bījaṁ udānaṁ,
Upādānaparivattaṁ;
Sattaṭṭhānañca sambuddho,
Pañcamahāli ādittā;
Vaggo niruttipathena cāti.