Svabhava-pariksa | Нагарджуна о самосущей природе

[Kungpa]

8. ПРИРОДА (САМОСУЩЕЕ) (svabhava-pariksa)

Опять, все вещи пусты. Почему? Потому что вещи не имеют [собственной] природы. Как написано,

Наблюдая, что признаки изменяются,
Мы узнаем, что все вещи лишены [собственной] природы.
Вещи, которые лишены [собственной] природы, не существуют,
Так что все вещи пусты.

Если вещи имеют [собственную] природу, они не должны меняться. Но мы видим, что все вещи меняются. Поэтому мы признаем, что они лишены природы.

Нагарджуна, "12 Врат".

[Kungpa]

Есть две истины, а именно условная истина и предельная истина. Благодаря условной истине достижима предельная истина. Если не полагаться на условную истину, предельной истины не достичь.

Без постижения предельной истины нирвана недостижима. Если кто-то не знает двух истин, он не может познать свой интерес, интерес других и общий интерес.

Итак, если кто-то знает условную истину, он познает предельную истину, а если кто-то знает предельную истину, он знает условную истину.

Сейчас ты знаешь условную истину и называешь ее предельной истиной, а следовательно гибнешь. Доктрина причинности, данная буддами, зовется глубочайшей истиной. Причинность лишена самосущего, и отсюда я говорю о пустоте.

[Пламен]

MMK of Nagarjuna, Section 15: Svabhava-pariksa
An Analysis of a Self-existent Thing  (being and non-being) In 11 Verses

1.
The production of a self-existent thing by a conditioning cause is not possible,
For, being produced through dependence on a cause, a self-existent thing would be "something which is produced" (krtaka).

2.
How, indeed, will a self-existent thing become "something which is produced"?
Certainly, a self-existent thing by definition is "not-produced" and is independent of anything else.

3.
If there is an absence of a self-existent thing, how will an other-existent thing (parabhava) come into being ?
Certainly the self-existence of an other-existent thing is called ''other-existence."

4.
Further, how can a thing exist without either self-existence or other-existence?
If either self-existence or other existence exist, then an existing thing, indeed, would be proved.

5.
If there is no proof of an existent thing, then a non-existent thing cannot be proved.
Since people call the other-existence of an existent thing a "non-existent thing."

6.
Those who perceive self-existence and other-existence, and an existent thing and a non-existent thing,
Do not perceive the true nature of the Buddha's teaching.

7.
In "The Instruction of Katyayana" both "it is" and "it is not" are opposed
By the Glorious One, who has ascertained the meaning of "existent" and non-existent."

8.
If there would be an existent thing by its own nature, there could not be "non-existence' of that thing.
Certainly an existent thing different from its own nature would never obtain.

9.
An opponent asks:
If there is no basic self-nature (prakti), of what will there be "otherness"?

Nargarjuna answers:
If there is basic self-nature, of what will there be "otherness"?

10.
"It is" is a notion of eternity. "It is not" is a nihilistic view.
Therefore, one who is wise does not have recourse to "being" or "non-being."

11.
That which exists by its own nature is eternal since "it does not not-exist."
If it is maintained: "That which existed before does not exist now," there annihilation would logically follow.

Свабхава здесь переводится как Self-existent Thing.

[Пламен]

What follows is a translation from the Bauddha Bharati 1989 edition of the Sanskrit text of Mulamadhyamaka-karika with the Prasannapada of Candrakirti:

1. Svabhava is not constrained by conditioned grounds (pratyaya-hetu). Because, if created by something causally conditioned, svabhava would be something made.

2. How, again, svabhava will be created, if it is uncreated by, and indifferent to parabhava (other being)?

3. And if svabhava is absent, how will be there a parabhava? In this case svabhava will be referred to as parabhava of the parabhava.

4. Again, how there will be something existent, remembering that there is neither svabhava nor parabhava? So, the existence of a bhava is proved by there being either svabhava or parabhava.

5. When bhava is not established, abhava  also cannot be proved. People talk about abhava as the anyatha-bhava (different being) of the bhava.

6. Those who see svabhava and parabhava as just bhava and abhava, do not see the proper tattva, according to the Buddha's Doctrine.

7. According to the Katyayana-avavada, both asti (is) and nasti (is not) have been opposed by Bhagavan, who knew the difference (vibhava) of bhava and abhava.

8. If prakriti was existent (astitva), then its non-existence (nastita) would not exist. In this case the anyathabhava (the other being) of prakriti will never rise.

9. Granted that prakriti is non-existent, how would this anyathatva (otherness) come into being (bhavisyate)?
- [Nagarjuna: You ask] if prakriti is not existent, how would its otherness come into existence.

10. The [expression] "exists" is pregnant with eternity, while "does not exist" is [proper to] the philosophy of deconstruction (uccheda-darsana).

11. It is said that eternal (sasvata) is what exist by its svabhava, not what does not exist. It is also explained that uccheda (cutting off, eradication, complete deconstruction) is the non-existence of what has existed before.

[Пламен]

Фу, это был очень трудный текст, несмотря на привидно легкие слова. Сейчас можно его обсуждать. Only, please, do not translate it automatically. :-)