01. Cāpālavaggo – Phẩm Cāpāla – Cāpāla

Saṃyutta Nikāya (SN) - Tương Ưng Bộ Kinh - The Connected Discourses of the Buddha

[5] Mahāvaggapāḷi - Thiên Đại Phẩm - The Great Book

*****

[07] Iddhipāda Saṃyutta
Tương Ưng Như Ý Túc
Connected Discourses on the Bases for Spiritual Power [254]

01. Cāpālavaggo – Phẩm Cāpāla – Cāpāla

♦ 1. Apārasuttaṃ (SN 51.1) – 1.I. Bờ Bên Kia (Tăng 29. 7 Ðại 2, 658a) (S.v,254) – 1. (1) From the Near Shore

♦ 2. Viraddhasuttaṃ (SN 51.2)2.II. Thối Thất (S.v,254) – 2. (2) Neglected

♦ 3. Ariyasuttaṃ (SN 51.3) – 3.III. Thánh (S.v, 255) – 3. (3) Noble

♦ 4. Nibbidāsuttaṃ (SN 51.4) – 4.IV. Yếm Ly (S.v,255) – 4. (4) Revulsion

♦ 5. Iddhipadesasuttaṃ (SN 51.5) – 5.V. Một Phần (1) (S.v,255) – 5. (5) In Part

♦ 6. Samattasuttaṃ (SN 51.6) – 6.VI. Toàn Diện (S.v,256) – 6. (6) Completely

♦ 7. Bhikkhusuttaṃ (SN 51.7) – 7.VII. Tỷ Kheo (S.v,257) – 7. (7) Bhikkhus

♦ 8. Buddhasuttaṃ (SN 51.8) – 8.VIII. Phật hay A-La-Hán (2) (S.v,257) – 8. (8) Buddha

♦ 9. Ñāṇasuttaṃ (SN 51.9) – 9.IX. Trí (S.v,258) – 9. (9) Knowledge

♦ 10. Cetiyasuttaṃ (SN 51.10) – 10.X. Cetiya (Ðền thờ) (3) (Trường 2, Ðại 1, 15 b-c) (S.v,258) – 10. (10) The Shrine

*****

(1) Bản tiếng Anh của PTS: Partial, nghĩa là Một phần.

(2) Bản tiếng Anh của PTS: Ariyan, nghĩa là Bậc A-la-hán.

(3) Cetiya. Xem D. II. 102, 118. Tham chiếu: Du hành kinh 遊行經(£01. 0001.02. 0011a07).

(4) Đã thiện xảo các tùy pháp từ nơi Chánh pháp.

*****

(246) The formula is analysed below at 51:13. The terms are explained more elaborately, according to the sutta method, at Vibh 216–20. As usual, the Abhidhamma analysis, at Vibh 220–24, treats the iddhipāda as factors of the supramundane paths. Additional explanation is found at Vism 385 (Ppn 12:50–53) and Vibh-a 303–8.

Spk resolves iddhipāda into both iddhiyā pādaṃ, “base for spiritual power,” and iddhibhūtaṃ pādaṃ, “base which is spiritual power.” Iddhi, from the verb ijjhati—to prosper, to succeed, to flourish—originally meant success, but by the time of the Buddha it had already acquired the special nuance of spiritual success or, even more to the point, spiritual power. This can be of two kinds: success in the exercise of the iddhividha, the supernormal powers (as at 51:11, 14, 17), and success in the endeavour to win liberation. The two converge in arahantship, which is both the sixth abhiññā (in continuity with the supernormal powers) and the final fruit of the Noble Eightfold Path. A full treatise on the various kinds of iddhi mentioned in the canon is at Paṭis 205–14.

The analysis at 51:13 makes it clear that an iddhipāda contains three main components: concentration (samādhi), the four volitional formations of striving (padhānasaṅkhārā), and the particular factor responsible for generating concentration-desire (chanda), energy (viriya), mind (citta), and investigation (vīmaṃsā). While concentration and striving are common to all four iddhipāda, it is the lastnamed factors that differentiate them as fourfold.

(247) See n. 175.

(248) The incident is included in the Mahāparinibbāna Sutta at DN II 102–7, with Spk here parallel to Sv II 554–58. The passage also occurs at Ud 62–64, commented on at Ud-a 322–30.

(249) Kappaṃ vā tiṭṭheyya kappāvasesaṃ vā. Spk glosses kappa, “aeon,” as āyukappa, “the life aeon,” explained as the full normal life span of human beings at a particular time, presently a hundred years. Kappāvasesaṃ, “the remainder of the aeon,” is explained as a little more than the normal life span of a hundred years. Spk mentions the view of one Mahāsīva Thera, who held that the Buddha could live on for the rest of this bhaddakappa, “excellent cosmic aeon,” only to reject this proposition on the basis of the ancient commentaries. Mil 141 also interprets kappa here as āyukappa, perhaps drawing from the same source as the commentaries. Nevertheless, nowhere else in the Nikāyas is kappa used in the sense of a normal human life span, and there seems to be no valid reason to ascribe to kappa here a different meaning from the usual one, i.e., a cosmic aeon. Whether the present passage is genuine or an interpolation, and whether meditative success can confer such extraordinary powers, are different questions about which conflicting opinions have been voiced.

(250) Yathā taṃ Mārena pariyuṭṭhitacitto. Spk: Māra is able to obsess the mind of anyone who has not entirely abandoned all cognitive distortions (vipallāsa), and Ānanda had not done so (being still a stream-enterer, he was still subject to distortions of mind and perception, though not of views). Māra obsessed his mind by displaying a frightful sight, and when he saw it the elder failed to catch the hint given him by the Buddha.

(251) Interestingly, no such earlier conversation between the Buddha and Māra is recorded elsewhere in the Nikāyas. Among the terms describing the disciples, pattayogakkhemā, “secure from bondage,” is not found in Be nor mentioned in Spk (though all the other terms are glossed), but it does come in Se and Ee. The parallel DN II 104–5 excludes it, but DN III 125,19 has it.

(252) Sappāṭihāriyaṃ dhammaṃ desenti. Spk does not explain the derivation of sappāṭihāriya but paraphrases: “They will teach the Dhamma, having made it emancipating.” Spk-pṭ expands on this: “They will explain the Dhamma with reasons and examples so that it conveys the intended meaning; they will convey the ninefold supramundane Dhamma.”

(253) See 12:65 (II 107,2–4) and II, n. 182.

(254) Āyusaṅkhāraṃ ossaji. Spk: The Blessed One did not relinquish his vital formation in the way one drops a clod of earth with one’s hand, but he made a determination, “I will enter fruition attainment for only three months more, but not beyond that.” Spk does not comment on āyusaṅkhāra, but it is probably identical with jīvitindriya, the life faculty, and with jīvitasaṅkhāra (at 47:9, V 152,29) in its role of maintaining the future continuity of life. Āyusaṅkhārā (plural) occurs at 20:6 (II 266,19), and there is a discussion about the term at MN I 295,36–296,6.

(255) The verse is difficult, especially the first couplet. It is commented on identically by Spk, Sv II 557–58, Mp IV 153–54, and Ud-a 329–30. These commentaries offer two alternative modes of interpretation, one taking tulaṃ and atulaṃ as contrasted opposites, the other taking tulaṃ as a present participle and atulaṃ and sambhavaṃ as the contrasted opposites. I translate from Spk:

“(1) Tulaṃ is tulitaṃ, measured, that is delimited (paricchinnaṃ), because it is directly apparent even to dogs and jackals, etc.; this is sense-sphere kamma. Atulaṃ is what is not measurable (not comparable), because there is no other mundane kamma like it; this is exalted kamma (mahaggatakamma, the kamma of the jhānas and formless attainments). Or else: tulaṃ is sense-sphere and form-sphere kamma, atulaṃ formless-sphere kamma. Or tulaṃ is (kamma) with few results, atulaṃ kamma with many results. ‘Continued existence’ (sambhavaṃ) is the cause of continued existence, meaning the amassment or heaping up (of kamma). ‘The formation of existence’ (bhavasaṅkhāraṃ) is the formation (which engenders) renewed existence.… This is meant: He rejected mundane kamma consisting of the comparable and incomparable (measurable and measureless), which (kamma) is called ‘continued existence’ in the sense that it produces results and ‘the formation of existence’ in the sense that it engenders (future) existence. ‘The sage’ is the Buddha-sage (buddhamuni); ‘self-existence’ (attasambhavaṃ) is the defilements produced within oneself. Like a great warrior at the head of battle, rejoicing within and concentrated, he broke, like a coat of armour, self-existence and the defilements.

“(2) Or alternatively: Tulaṃ is (the present participle) tulento, ‘comparing’ = tīrento, ‘scrutinizing.’ ‘The incomparable’ and ‘continued existence’ are, respectively, Nibbāna and existence; ‘the formation of existence’ is kamma leading to existence. ‘The sage relinquished’: comparing the five aggregates as impermanent with Nibbāna, their cessation, as permanent, and having seen the danger in existence and the advantage in Nibbāna, the Buddha-sage relinquished the ‘formation of existence,’ which is the rootcause of the aggregates, by means of the noble path, which effects the destruction of kamma; as it is said, ‘It leads to the destruction of kamma.’”

So the commentary. Initially it seemed to me very unlikely that tulaṃ and atulaṃ should function in grammatically distinct ways, and I therefore inclined to the for-mer interpretation, in principle if not in details. On reflection, however, I now believe that the verse is deliberately playing upon tulaṃ and atulaṃ as different grammatical forms rather than as a pair of opposites. Atulaṃ (or its cognates) occurs elsewhere in the texts: at Sn 85b atulyo describes a teacher of the path (reading maggakkhāyī with Be), probably the Buddha; at Sn 683a, it is used in apposition to the Bodhisatta, the future Buddha; at Thī 201a atuliyaṃ describes the akampitaṃ dhammaṃ, “the unshaken state,” presumably Nibbāna. Nevertheless, though I believe the commentary’s second explanation is correct grammatically, I disagree with its interpretation.

In my understanding, sambhavaṃ here does not mean continued existence in saṃsāra, the cause of which the Buddha had already ended with his attainment of enlightenment forty-five years earlier. Here the word means, rather, the continuation of his present life until the end of the kappa. Bhavasaṅkhāra is not “kamma leading to new existence,” but the vital formation (āyusaṅkhāra) that the Buddha has just rejected. On this interpretation, the meaning that emerges from the verse is perfectly consonant with the preceding prose passage: Having compared the prospect of continuing on until the end of the aeon with the prospect of attaining final Nibbāna, “the incomparable,” the Buddha opted for the latter; and he did so by mindfully relinquishing his vital formation, the same life formation (as jīvitasaṅkhāra) that earlier, during his illness, he had resolved to maintain (see 47:9). Thus by rejecting the bhavasaṅkhāra that might have sustained him until the end of the aeon, the Buddha renounced the extension of his life.

On the second couplet Spk says: “He rejoiced within by way of insight, and was concentrated by way of serenity. Thus, from the preliminary stage onwards, by the power of serenity and insight he broke the entire mass of defilements that had enveloped his whole individual existence like a coat of armour and that was called ‘self-existence’ (attasambhavaṃ) because it originates within oneself. When there are no more defilements, in the absence of rebirth kamma is said to be relinquished; thus he cast off kamma by the abandoning of defilements. Since there is no fear for one who has abandoned defilements, he relinquished his vital formation fearlessly. The Buddha ‘uttered this inspired utterance’ to show his freedom from fear.”

There is also an ancient commentary on this verse at Nett 61. This commentary takes tulaṃ as the saṅkhāradhātu, the totality of conditioned things, and atulaṃ as the nibbānadhātu. Apparently here tulaṃ and atulaṃ are taken as by-forms of tullaṃ and atullaṃ respectively.

*****

Nguồn (Source):
- Pāḷi: digitalpalireader.online
- Vietnamese: (HT. Thích Minh Châu dịch): khemarama.net
- English: (Translated by Bhikkhu Bodhi): en.khemarama.net