Печать

[Вирагананда (Virāgānanda)]

Навеяно темой http://dharma.org.ru/board/topic6947.html
В Махапаранибана сутте фраза: Ākaṅkhamāno, ānanda, saṅgho mamaccayena khuddānukhuddakāni sikkhāpadāni samūhanatu" переводится как "По кончине моей, Ананда, Сангха, если пожелает, может отменять все малые и неважные предписания." http://dhamma.ru/canon/dn/dn16.htm
Хотел бы уточнить точный перевод данной фразы, а именно, используется ли на пали в данной фразе слово "все". Потому что по английскому переводу: "If it is desired, Ananda, the Sangha may, when I am gone, abolish the lesser and minor rules." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.16.1-6.vaji.html я не вижу, чтобы было указание на возможность отмены всех малых и незначительных правил.
По пословному переводу с пали я тоже не вижу явного указания на возможность отмены всех малых и незначительных правил:
Ākaṅkhamāno - (сущ.) нуждающийся, желающий, если бы пожелал, при нужде (при необходимости)
ānanda - Ананда
saṅgho - Сангха
mamaccayena - (нареч.) после кончины
khuddānukhuddakāni - (прилаг.) малый, незначительный
sikkhāpadāni - (сущ.) обет, предписание
samūhanatu= sam+åhana+tu = удалить или отменить
В таком случае, можно данную фразу перевести и как: "По кончине моей, Ананда, Сангха, если пожелает, может отменять некоторые малые и незначительные предписания."

[Ассаджи]

Хотел бы уточнить точный перевод данной фразы, а именно, используется ли на пали в данной фразе слово "все".

Да, действительно, не используется.

В таком случае, можно данную фразу перевести и как: "По кончине моей, Ананда, Сангха, если пожелает, может отменять некоторые малые и незначительные предписания."

Слова "некоторые" тоже нет.

К сожалению, Ананда не уточнил, о каких именно правилах сказал Будда.

В самой Винае такого раздела нет, а в Подкомментариях термин "кхуддака-ватта" определяется по-разному. Досточтимый Паютто пишет:

In order to clarify this matter of religious observances, we can arrange them in the following outline:

There are two main groups of observances (vatta). The second group is subdivided, resulting effectively in three groups:

1. Training observances (sekhiya-vatta), which are found in the Pāṭimokkha. These are training rules or observances pertaining to basic etiquette around visiting laypeople’s homes, receiving and eating almsfood, teaching the Dhamma, etc. All together they comprise seventy-five rules (there are related, refined observances in the following groups).
...

 2. Sectional observances (khandhaka-vatta): observances in the section on disciplinary rules, i.e., observances found outside of the Pāṭimokkha. These are divided into two groups:

A) Major observances (mahā-vatta; crucial observances)
...
B) Minor observances (khuddaka-vatta): the sub-commentaries, which established this term, explain that these are minor observances because they pertain to specific occasions and circumstances. They need not be observed regularly by all bhikkhus, as is the case with the ‘major’ observances. These minor observances refer to those eighty-two (or occasionally eighty) practices of acknowledging one’s faults and following through with specific penalties in order to be re-accepted by the sangha. They are divided into two sub-groups:

1) Observances kept by those bhikkhus seeking a method of rehabilitation (vuṭṭhāna-vidhi) in order to be released from offences entailing an initial and subsequent meeting of the sangha (saṅghādisesa), i.e., the seventy-one observances of probation (pārivāsika-vatta) and observances of penance (mānatta-vatta), e.g.: one should not welcome gestures of honour and the paying of respects by ordinary bhikkhus; one should refrain from walking or sitting in front of, living under one roof with, or using the same seat as ordinary bhikkhus.

2) The observances for a bhikkhu who has been penalized by the sangha by way of one of the five kinds of censure (niggaha-kamma): formal reprimand (tajjaniya-kamma); demotion (niyasa-kamma); expulsion (pabbājaniya-kamma); the obligation to ask forgiveness from a layperson whom one has caused harm (paṭisāraṇiya-kamma); and suspension of one’s status (ukkhepaniya-kamma; to forbid someone from associating with the sangha). All together there are eleven of these observances.

In any case, in the final analysis, all of these observances are included in the term sekhiya (‘training’); they are all ‘training rules’ (sekhiya-vatta), because they must all be integrated into one’s spiritual training.

In the second volume of the Vinayamukha, which is used by second level Dhamma scholars (nak tham), Somdet Phra Mahāsamaṇa Chao Krom Phraya Vajirañāṇavarorasa emphasizes a practical or contemporary application of these observances. He selected some of them and matched them with other complementary practices from the Pali Canon, and organized these into three kinds of observances: ‘The description here is of the gist of those observances which should be applied in the present time, for the convenience in practice and for deriving true benefit. Here the classification of observances is into three kinds: duties to be fulfilled (kicca-vatta); matters of etiquette to be practised (cariyā-vatta); and standard observances (vidhi-vatta). (Examples of the first includes those duties to be performed for one’s preceptor; an example of the second is to refrain from stepping on the white cloth laid down at an invitation in a layperson’s home; examples of the third include the ways to wear and fold one’s robe and the way to store one’s bowl.) Those who are interested can look at this material more closely.

As an aside, the commentaries and sub-commentaries establish different headings when classifying these various kinds of observances mentioned above. There is the potential for confusion, however, in that these headings are not always consistent with one another, and in some cases they are even mutually contradictory.

At first I thought that in some cases it was a matter of misspelling, but as I looked more closely into this it became obvious that these headings are truly divergent. It is as if these texts represent different groups or factions (although it even occurs that contradictory terms are used within the same text). For example, those observances described above as minor observances (khuddaka-vatta) are referred to in another text as major observances (mahā-vatta), and vice versa; another text uses the same classification for major observances, but refers to the minor observances here as sectional observances (khandhaka-vatta).

A thorough inspection of these discrepancies results in three main groupings:

• Six texts contain 14 major observances and 82 (or 80) minor observances.
• Eight texts contain 14 major observances and 82 (or 80) sectional observances.
• Seven texts contain 14 sectional observances and 82 (or 80) major observances.

http://www.watnyanaves.net/uploads/File/books/pdf/the-buddhist-discipline-in-relation-to-bhikkhunis-questions-and-answers-phra-payutto-and-dr-martin-seeger.pdf#page=376

[Вирагананда (Virāgānanda)]

Спасибо большое за пояснение!
Получается, что самый правильный перевод будет:
"По кончине моей, Ананда, Сангха, если пожелает, может отменять малые и незначительные предписания." или же:
 "По кончине моей, Ананда, Сангха, при необходимости, может отменять малые и незначительные предписания."
Получается, здесь не совсем ясно, было ли дано разрешение на отмену только некоторых из малых и незначительных правил или же сразу на отмену целых разделов правил.
Предыдущий перевод "По кончине моей, Ананда, Сангха, если пожелает, может отменять все малые и незначительные предписания.", который указывал на возможность отмены целых разделов правил, все-таки оказался не совсем точным.
По вопросу какие же же правила можно считать малыми и незначительными, как я уже писал в другой теме - даже араханты Первого Собора не смогли прийти к единому мнению, поэтому все поздние комментарии и измышления на данную тему я не могу считать достоверными. Поэтому остаюсь при своем мнении, что если на Первом Соборе было решено не отменять ни какие правила, и последующие Соборы не приняли решения об отмене каких либо правил, то решения некоторых местных Никай, местных общин - не легитимны.

[Ассаджи]

По вопросу какие же же правила можно считать малыми и незначительными, как я уже писал в другой теме - даже араханты Первого Собора не смогли прийти к единому мнению

Бханте Раудекс привел отрывок из Винаи:

Дабы исключить дальнейшие спекуляции на тему зачем Маха Кассапа на Соборе Пятисот запретил отмены правил (точнее запретил не он, а Собор, проведя процедуру "молчаливого одобрения"). Приведу целиком кусок из Винайи, повествующий о том как было дело:

Then the venerable Ānanda spoke thus to the monks who were elders: “The Lord, honoured sirs, spoke thus to me at the time of his attaining nibbāna: ‘If the Order, Ānanda, after my death is willing, the lesser and minor rules of training may be abolished’.”

“But did you, reverend Ānanda, ask the Lord, saying: ‘But which, Lord, are the lesser and minor rules of training?’”

“No, I, honoured sirs, did not ask the Lord, saying: ‘But which, Lord, are the lesser and minor rules of training?’”

Some elders spoke thus: “Except for the rules for the four offences involving defeat, the rest are lesser and minor rules of training.” Some elders spoke thus: “Except for the rules for the four offences involving defeat, except for the rules for the thirteen offences entailing a Formal Meeting of the Order, the rest are lesser and minor rules of training.” Some elders spoke thus: “Except for the rules for the four offences involving defeat … except for the rules for the two undetermined offences, the rest are lesser and minor rules of training.” Some elders spoke thus: “Except for the rules for the four offences involving defeat … except for the rules for the thirty offences of expiation involving forfeiture, the rest are lesser and minor rules of training.” Some elders spoke thus: “Except for the rules for the four offences involving defeat … except for the rules for the ninety-two offences of expiation, the rest are lesser and minor rules of training.” Some elders spoke thus: “Except for the rules for the four offences involving defeat … except for the rules for the four offences which ought to be confessed, the rest are lesser and minor rules of training.”

Then the venerable Kassapa the Great informed the Order, saying: “Your reverences, let the Order listen to me. There are rules of training for us which affect householders, and householders know concerning us: ‘This is certainly allowable for the recluses, sons of the Sakyans, this is certainly not allowable.’ If we were to abolish the lesser and minor rules of training there would be those who would say: ‘At the time of his cremation a rule of training had been laid down by the recluse Gotama for disciples; while the Teacher was amongst them these trained themselves in the rules of training, but since the Teacher has attained nibbāna among them, they do not now train themselves in the rules of training.’ If it seems right to the Order, the Order should not lay down what has not been laid down, nor should it abolish what has been laid down. It should proceed in conformity with and according to the rules of training that have been laid down. This is the motion. Your reverences, let the Order listen to me. There are rules of training for us … ‘… these do not now train themselves in the rules of training.’ The Order is not laying down what has not been laid down, nor is it abolishing what has been laid down. It is proceeding in conformity with and according to the rules of training that have been laid down. If the not laying down of what has not been laid down, if the not abolishing of what has been laid down, if the proceeding in conformity with and according to the rules of training that have been laid down are pleasing to the venerable ones, they should be silent; he to whom they are not pleasing should speak. The Order is not laying down what has not been laid down, it is not abolishing what has been laid down, it is proceeding in conformity with and according to the rules of training that have been laid down. It is pleasing to the Order, therefore it is silent. Thus do I understand this.”

Как видите мнения разделились что считать khuddānukhuddaka. Были разные мнения. В том числе то, которое озвучил выше Тан Кхеминда, что всё что не параджика то khuddānukhuddaka. Но нам наиболее важны словав Махакассапы, где он приводит основным аргументом отказа от отмены вовсе не непонимание того, что по настоящему является малым и незначительным, пусть мнения и разделились, но, в конце концов, компромисс можно было бы найти. А во главу угла Махакассапа поставил опасения, что если правила отменить, то люди скажут: "Вот! Эти ученики Будды всё соблюдали пока их Учитель был жив, а теперь перестали!"

http://dharma.org.ru/board/post333609.html#333609

[Теги:]

Теги: нравственность