Pheṇa­piṇḍ­ūpama
Sutta

 

 

 

 

 

SN 22.95

SA 265 泡沫

PALI

 

 

 

On one occasion the Blessed One was dwelling at Ayojjha on the bank of the river Ganges. There the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus thus:

Thus have I heard. At one time the Buddha was staying in Ayojjhā, on the bank of the river Ganges.
At that time the Blessed One said to the monks:

Ekaṃ samayaṃ bhagavā ayujjhāyaṃ viharati gaṅgāya nadiyā tīre. Tatra kho bhagavā bhikkhū āmantesi:

Bhikkhus, suppose that this river Ganges was carrying along a great lump of foam. A man with good sight would inspect it, ponder it, and carefully investigate it, and it would appear to him to be void, hollow, insubstantial. For what substance could there be in a lump of foam?

 

It is just as if a mass of foam drifts on a great wave that has risen on the river Ganges, and a clear-sighted person carefully examines and analyses it. At the time of carefully examining and analysing, he finds that there is nothing in it, nothing stable, nothing substantial, it has no solidity. Why is that? It is because there is nothing solid or substantial in a mass of foam.

 

Seyyathāpi, bhikkhave, ayaṃ gaṅgā nadī mahantaṃ pheṇapiṇḍaṃ āvaheyya. Tamenaṃ cakkhumā puriso passeyya nijjhāyeyya yoniso upaparikkheyya. Tassa taṃ passato nijjhāyato yoniso upaparikkhato rittakaññeva khāyeyya, tucchakaññeva khāyeyya, asārakaññeva khāyeyya. Kiñhi siyā, bhikkhave, pheṇapiṇḍe sāro?

So too, bhikkhus, whatever kind of form there is, whether past, future, or present, internal or external, gross or subtle, inferior or superior, far or near: a bhikkhu inspects it, ponders it, and carefully investigates it, and it would appear to him to be void, hollow, insubstantial. For what substance could there be in form?

In the same way, on carefully examining, attending to, and analysing whatever bodily form, past, future, or present, internal or external, gross or subtle, sublime or repugnant, far or near, a monk finds that there is nothing in it, nothing stable, nothing substantial, it has no solidity; it is like a disease, like a carbuncle, like a thorn, like a killer, it is impermanent, dukkha, empty, and not self. Why is that? It is because there is nothing solid or substantial in bodily form.

Evameva kho, bhikkhave, yaṃ kiñci rūpaṃ atītānāgatapaccuppannaṃ … pe … yaṃ dūre santike vā taṃ bhikkhu passati nijjhāyati yoniso upaparikkhati. Tassa taṃ passato nijjhāyato yoniso upaparikkhato rittakaññeva khāyati, tucchakaññeva khāyati, asārakaññeva khāyati. Kiñhi siyā, bhikkhave, rūpe sāro?

Suppose, bhikkhus, that in the autumn, when it is raining and big rain drops are falling, a water bubble arises and bursts on the surface of the water. A man with good sight would inspect it, ponder it, and carefully investigate it, and it would appear to him to be void, hollow, insubstantial. For what substance could there be in a water bubble?

Monks, it is just as when during a great rain there are bubbles on the surface of water, arising and ceasing one after another, and a clear-sighted person carefully examines, attends to, and analyses them. At the time of carefully examining, attending to, and analysing them, he finds that there is nothing in them, nothing stable, nothing substantial, they have no solidity. Why is that? Because there is nothing solid or substantial in water bubbles.

Seyyathāpi, bhikkhave, saradasamaye thullaphusitake deve vassante udake udakapubbuḷaṃ uppajjati ceva nirujjhati ca. Tamenaṃ cakkhumā puriso passeyya nijjhāyeyya yoniso upaparikkheyya. Tassa taṃ passato nijjhāyato yoniso upaparikkhato rittakaññeva khāyeyya, tucchakaññeva khāyeyya, asārakaññeva khāyeyya. Kiñhi siyā, bhikkhave, udakapubbuḷe sāro?

So too, bhikkhus, whatever kind of feeling there is, whether past, future, or present, internal or external, gross or subtle, inferior or superior, far or near: a bhikkhu inspects it, ponders it, and carefully investigates it, and it would appear to him to be void, hollow, insubstantial. For what substance could there be in feeling?

In the same way, a monk carefully examines, attends to, and analyses whatever feeling, past, future, or present, internal or external, gross or subtle, sublime or repugnant, far or near. When carefully examining, attending to, and analysing it, the monk finds that there is nothing in it, nothing stable, nothing substantial, it has no solidity; it is like a disease, like a carbuncle, like a thorn, like a killer, it is impermanent, dukkha, empty, and not self. Why is that? It is because there is nothing solid or substantial in feeling.

Evameva kho, bhikkhave, yā kāci vedanā atītānāgatapaccuppannā … pe … yā dūre santike vā taṃ bhikkhu passati nijjhāyati yoniso upaparikkhati. Tassa taṃ passato nijjhāyato yoniso upaparikkhato rittakaññeva khāyati, tucchakaññeva khāyati, asārakaññeva khāyati. Kiñhi siyā, bhikkhave, vedanāya sāro?

Suppose, bhikkhus, that in the last month of the hot season, at high noon, a shimmering mirage appears. A man with good sight would inspect it, ponder it, and carefully investigate it, and it would appear to him to be void, hollow, insubstantial. For what substance could there be in a mirage?

So too, bhikkhus, whatever kind of perception there is, whether past, future, or present, internal or external, gross or subtle, inferior or superior, far or near: a bhikkhu inspects it, ponders it, and carefully investigates it, and it would appear to him to be void, hollow, insubstantial. For what substance could there be in perception?

Monks, it is just as when towards the end of spring or the beginning of summer, in the middle of the day when the sun is strong and there are no clouds and no rain, a shimmering mirage appears, and a clear-sighted person carefully examines, attends to, and analyses it. At the time of carefully examining, attending to, and analysing it, he finds that there is nothing in it, nothing stable, nothing substantial, it has no solidity. Why is that? It is because there is nothing solid or substantial in a mirage.

In the same way, a monk carefully examines, attends to, and analyses whatever perception, past, future, or present, internal or external, gross or subtle, sublime or repugnant, far or near. When carefully examining, attending to, and analysing it, the monk finds that there is nothing in it, nothing stable, nothing substantial, it has no solidity; it is like a disease, like a carbuncle, like a thorn, like a killer, it is impermanent, dukkha, empty, and not self. Why is that? It is because there is nothing solid or substantial in perception.

Seyyathāpi, bhikkhave, gimhānaṃ pacchime māse ṭhite majjhanhike kāle marīcikā phandati. Tamenaṃ cakkhumā puriso passeyya nijjhāyeyya yoniso upaparikkheyya. Tassa taṃ passato nijjhāyato yoniso upaparikkhato rittakaññeva khāyeyya, tucchakaññeva khāyeyya … pe … kiñhi siyā, bhikkhave, marīcikāya sāro?

Evameva kho, bhikkhave, yā kāci saññā … pe ….

Suppose, bhikkhus, that a man needing heartwood, seeking heartwood, wandering in search of heartwood, would take a sharp axe and enter a forest. There he would see the trunk of a large plantain tree, straight, fresh, without a fruit-bud core. He would cut it down at the root, cut off the crown, and unroll the coil. As he unrolls the coil, he would not find even softwood, let alone heartwood. A man with good sight would inspect it, ponder it, and carefully investigate it, and it would appear to him to be void, hollow, insubstantial. For what substance could there be in the trunk of a plantain tree?



 

Monks, it is just as if a clear-sighted person in need of heartwood takes hold of a sharp axe and enters a mountain forest, where he sees a large plantain tree that is thick, straight, and tall. He cuts it down at the root, chops off the treetop and gradually takes off sheath after sheath, all of which are without solid core, and he carefully examines, attends to, and analyses them. At the time of carefully examining, attending to, and analysing them, he finds that there is nothing in them, nothing stable, nothing substantial, they have no solidity. Why is that? It is because there is nothing solid or substantial in a plantain tree.

Seyyathāpi, bhikkhave, puriso sāratthiko sāragavesī sārapariyesanaṃ caramāno tiṇhaṃ kuṭhāriṃ ādāya vanaṃ paviseyya. So tattha passeyya mahantaṃ kadalikkhandhaṃ ujuṃ navaṃ akukkukajātaṃ. Tamenaṃ mūle chindeyya; mūle chetvā agge chindeyya, agge chetvā pattavaṭṭiṃ vinibbhujeyya. So tassa pattavaṭṭiṃ vinibbhujanto pheggumpi nādhigaccheyya, kuto sāraṃ. Tamenaṃ cakkhumā puriso passeyya nijjhāyeyya yoniso upaparikkheyya. Tassa taṃ passato nijjhāyato yoniso upaparikkhato rittakaññeva khāyeyya, tucchakaññeva khāyeyya, asārakaññeva khāyeyya. Kiñhi siyā, bhikkhave, kadalikkhandhe sāro?



 

So too, bhikkhus, whatever kind of volitional formations there are, whether past, future, or present, internal or external, gross or subtle, inferior or superior, far or near: a bhikkhu inspects them, ponders them, and carefully investigates them. As he investigates them, they appear to him to be void, hollow, insubstantial. For what substance could there be in volitional formations?

In the same way, a monk carefully examines, attends to, and analyses whatever formations, past, future, or present, internal or external, gross or subtle, sublime or repugnant, far or near. When carefully examining, attending to, and analysing them, the monk finds that there is nothing in them, nothing stable, nothing substantial, they have no solidity; they are like a disease, like a carbuncle, like a thorn, like a killer, they are impermanent, dukkha, empty, and not self. Why is that? It is because there is nothing solid or substantial in formations.

Evameva kho, bhikkhave, ye keci saṅkhārā atītānāgatapaccuppannā … pe … ye dūre santike vā taṃ bhikkhu passati nijjhāyati yoniso upaparikkhati. Tassa taṃ passato nijjhāyato yoniso upaparikkhato rittakaññeva khāyati, tucchakaññeva khāyati, asārakaññeva khāyati. Kiñhi siyā, bhikkhave, saṅkhāresu sāro?

Suppose, bhikkhus, that a magician or a magician’s apprentice would display a magical illusion at a crossroads. A man with good sight would inspect it, ponder it, and carefully investigate it, and it would appear to him to be void, hollow, insubstantial. For what substance could there be in a magical illusion?

Monks, it is just as if a master magician or the disciple of a master magician at a crossroads creates the magical illusion of an elephant troop, a horse troop, a chariot troop, and an infantry troop, and a clear-sighted person carefully examines, attends to, and analyses it. At the time of carefully examining, attending to, and analysing it, he finds that there is nothing in it, nothing stable, nothing substantial, it has no solidity. Why is that? It is because there is nothing solid or substantial in a magical illusion.

Seyyathāpi, bhikkhave, māyākāro vā māyākārantevāsī vā catumahāpathe māyaṃ vidaṃseyya. Tamenaṃ cakkhumā puriso passeyya nijjhāyeyya yoniso upaparikkheyya. Tassa taṃ passato nijjhāyato yoniso upaparikkhato rittakaññeva khāyeyya, tucchakaññeva khāyeyya, asārakaññeva khāyeyya. Kiñhi siyā, bhikkhave, māyāya sāro?

So too, bhikkhus, whatever kind of consciousness there is, whether past, future, or present, internal or external, gross or subtle, inferior or superior, far or near: a bhikkhu inspects it, ponders it, and carefully investigates it, and it would appear to him to be void, hollow, insubstantial. For what substance could there be in consciousness?

In the same way, a monk carefully examines, attends to, and analyses whatever consciousness, past, future, or present, internal or external, gross or subtle, sublime or repugnant, far or near. When carefully examining, attending to, and analysing it, the monk finds that there is nothing in it, nothing stable, nothing substantial, it has no solidity; it is like a disease, like a carbuncle, like a thorn, like a killer, it is impermanent, dukkha, empty, and not self. Why is that? It is because there is nothing solid or substantial in consciousness.”

Evameva kho, bhikkhave, yaṃ kiñci viññāṇaṃ atītānāgatapaccuppannaṃ … pe … yaṃ dūre santike vā, taṃ bhikkhu passati nijjhāyati yoniso upaparikkhati. Tassa taṃ passato nijjhāyato yoniso upaparikkhato rittakaññeva khāyati, tucchakaññeva khāyati, asārakaññeva khāyati. Kiñhi siyā, bhikkhave, viññāṇe sāro?

Seeing thus, bhikkhus, the instructed noble disciple experiences revulsion towards form, revulsion towards feeling, revulsion towards perception, revulsion towards volitional formations, revulsion towards consciousness. Experiencing revulsion, he becomes dispassionate. Through dispassion his mind is liberated. When it is liberated there comes the knowledge: ‘It’s liberated.’ He understands: ‘Destroyed is birth, the holy life has been lived, what had to be done has been done, there is no more for this state of being.’”



This is what the Blessed One said. Having said this, the Fortunate One, the Teacher, further said this:

At that time the Blessed One, wishing to emphasize the significance of what he had declared, spoke these stanzas:

Evaṃ passaṃ, bhikkhave, sutavā ariyasāvako rūpasmimpi nibbindati, vedanāyapi … saññāyapi … saṅkhāresupi … viññāṇasmimpi nibbindati. Nibbindaṃ virajjati; virāgā vimuccati. Vimuttasmiṃ vimuttamiti ñāṇaṃ hoti … pe … nāparaṃ itthattāyāti pajānāti”.



Idamavoca bhagavā. Idaṃ vatvāna sugato athāparaṃ etadavoca satthā:

 

Form is like a lump of foam,

Feeling like a water bubble;

Perception is like a mirage,

Volitions like a plantain trunk,

And consciousness like an illusion,

So explained the Kinsman of the Sun.

Contemplate bodily form as a mass of foam,

feelings like bubbles on water,

perception like a glare in spring time,

formations like a plantain,

and the nature of any consciousness like a magical illusion,

as the Kinsman of the Sun has explained.

Pheṇapiṇḍūpamaṃ rūpaṃ,

vedanā bubbuḷūpamā;

Marīcikūpamā saññā,

saṅkhārā kadalūpamā;

Māyūpamañca viññāṇaṃ,

desitādiccabandhunā.

However one may ponder it

And carefully investigate it,

It appears but hollow and void

When one views it carefully.

Carefully attending to it from all sides,

with right mindfulness examining it well,

it is found to be insubstantial and without solidity,

there is no a self or what belongs to a self

in this bodily aggregate, which is dukkha.

Yathā yathā nijjhāyati,

yoniso upaparikkhati;

Rittakaṃ tucchakaṃ hoti,

yo naṃ passati yoniso.

With reference to this body

The One of Broad Wisdom has taught

That with the abandoning of three things

One sees this form discarded.

The Greatly Wise One has analyzed and explained that,

bereft of three things,

the body will become a thing that is abandoned:

Imañca kāyaṃ ārabbha,

bhūripaññena desitaṃ;

Pahānaṃ tiṇṇaṃ dhammānaṃ,

rūpaṃ passatha chaḍḍitaṃ.

When vitality, heat, and consciousness

Depart from this physical body,

Then it lies there cast away:

Food for others, without volition.

Vitality, heat and any consciousness,

bereft of these, the remaining body falls apart

and will forever be discarded inside a tomb,

like a log, without conscious perceptions.

Āyu usmā ca viññāṇaṃ,

yadā kāyaṃ jahantimaṃ;

Apaviddho tadā seti,

parabhattaṃ acetanaṃ.

Such is this continuum,

This illusion, beguiler of fools.

It is taught to be a murderer;

Here no substance can be found.

This body is always in this way

illusory and false, enticing foolish people.

It is like a killer, like a poisonous thorn,

being without any solidity.

Etādisāyaṃ santāno,

māyāyaṃ bālalāpinī;

Vadhako esa akkhāto,

sāro ettha na vijjati.

A bhikkhu with energy aroused

Should look upon the aggregates thus,

Whether by day or at night,

Comprehending, ever mindful.

For a monk who energetically cultivates

contemplation of this bodily form aggregate,

day and night constantly engaging in it

with right comprehension and collected mindfulness established,

Evaṃ khandhe avekkheyya,

bhikkhu āraddhavīriyo;

Divā vā yadi vā rattiṃ,

sampajāno paṭissato.

He should discard all the fetters

And make a refuge for himself;

Let him fare as with head ablaze,

Yearning for the imperishable state.”

conditioned formations will be appeased

and he forever attains the cool place.”



Then the monks, hearing what the Buddha had said, were delighted and received it respectfully.

Jaheyya sabbasaṃyogaṃ,

kareyya saraṇattano;

Careyyādittasīsova,

patthayaṃ accutaṃ padan”ti.

 

________

*

 



Created: 20/08/2016
Changed: 20/08/2016
Visits: 180
Online: 0