Bhante Yuttadhammo,

> For myself, rather than say things like "Jesus is NOT the only way to God",
> I would say, "Yes, Jesus is the only way to God"; but do you know what is
> Jesus?  Do you know what is God?  Then there is no need to be sectarian.

Yeah, there is indeed a skilful question of what is 'sati'.

For the discussion of that question let me again recommend you the book
"The Buddhist Path to Awakening" by Rupert Gethin.

With metta, Dmytro

Dear list,

Talking about Buddhist stand on other religions, do any of you know if
the Japanese concepts of shakubuku and shoju (proselytizing by
confrontation and proselytizing by example) have a history going back to
Sanskrit or Pali concepts? In other words, do these concepts only exist
within Nichiren Buddhism, do they flow around in other Mahayaana schools
or do they even go back to Theravaada concepts?

all the best,
Mikael



--
Mikael Aktor, Assistant Lecturer, PhD
Department of Religious Studies
University of Southern Denmark
Campusvej 55, DK-5230 Odense M, Denmark

Phone +45 6550 3318 / +45 3696 9054
Mobile +45 2830 7394
Web http://www.humaniora.sdu.dk/nywebX/inc/show.php?full=478 (in Danish)

Dear Piya, Gunnar, etc.,

and on an even lighter note, did you know that one of the most famous
meditation mantras in the Christian tradition is the Aramaic
phrase: 'maranatha'. I shouldn't have to tell those on the list what
this means: 'Satan is Lord'.

Bhante Sujato

At 08:57 03.05.2005 +0000, you wrote:
>Dear Piya, Gunnar, etc.,
>
>and on an even lighter note, did you know that one of the most famous
>meditation mantras in the Christian tradition is the Aramaic
>phrase: 'maranatha'. I shouldn't have to tell those on the list what
>this means: 'Satan is Lord'.
>
>Bhante Sujato

On an equally light note, the god Sakka once told the Buddha how those
other religions arose. In Sakkapanhasutta (Walshe's translation, p. 331)
Sakka says:

Lord, I went to those I considered to be ascetics and Brahmins because of
their solitary life in the woods, and I put those questions to them. But
instead of giving me a proper answer, they asked me in return: "Who are
you, Venerable Sir?" I replied that I was Sakka, ruler of the gods, and
they asked me what had brought me there. Then I taught them the Dhamma as
far as I had heard it and practised it. But they were very pleased with
even that much, and they said: "We have seen Sakka, the ruler of the gods,
and he has answered the questions we put to him!" And they became my pupils
instead of my becoming theirs.

So now we know what really happened to those prophets who claim to have
received revelations from a god. What really happened, was that a poor,
bewildered god was out there, looking for answers and explanations. And the
"prophets" just misunderstood the whole situation!

Afterwards Sakka of course declares himself to be a disciple of the Buddha.

So the theists of the world are disciples of god, and god is a disciple of
the Buddha ..... :-)))))

I can't help feeling that the story in the Sakkapanhasutta was told as a
joke, although a joke with a deeper and more serious meaning.

Best regards,

Kåre A. Lie
http://www.lienet.no

Hello Ven,


> Though it's true that the word micchaadhamma, shorn of any
> context, might mean just about anything, nevertheless, when
> it is used in combination with adhammaraaga and visamalobha,
> one would reasonably expect that some sort of concupiscence
> is being indicated.

One might; but then again, one might not. And if some kind of sexual
transgression is intended, this says nothing about whether this is
homosexuality.

And the atthakathaa to this sutta (DA. iii. 853)
> identifies it with homosexuality:

As is well known. The question is whether the sutta intends this.
Since there is precisely no evidence that homosexuality was
considered a moral vice in sutta, vinaya, or abhidhamma; and since
we know that in at least some later Buddhist cultures homosexuality
did come to be seen as a vice; then it is reasonable to assume that
the commentary is reflecting such cultural values.

>
> The Vinaya is not concerned with making evaluations of this
> sort. The viniitavatthu and anaapatti sections of each rule
> do no more than delineate the range of actions that fall
> into each class of offence. As far as Vinaya is concerned,
> all actions that fall within a given class are equal
> inasmuch as they all entail the same penalty. A more refined
> analysis of their blameworthiness, kammic weight etc. belongs
> in the domain of Sutta and Abhidhamma.

That's true, generally speaking, which is why i started my comments
by clarifying the evidence of the Suttas. I was merely establishing
that the Vinaya did not contradict the evidence of the Suttas, which
i agree is primary, and which nowhere suggest that homosexuality is
an issue. The most important thing about the Vinaya is that it shows
that homosexual acts were well known, so it rules out the
possibility that the omission in the suttas is because of
prudishness, or because there was no homosexuality.

>
> But for the remaining classes (i.e. maaturakkhitaa
> piturakkhitaa ... &c.) it seems that the chief intent has
> more to do with the maintenance of public order. In a
> society where most women are "protected" (i.e. under guard),
> having intercourse with a protected woman brings dishonour
> and humiliation upon those whose duty it is to protect her.
> This will not infrequently give rise to a vendetta cycle
> between rival families and clans, as the humiliated
> protectors seek vengeance on the man whom they believe
> has dishonoured them.

I still see such things as in the realm of trust: there is an
implicit (or explicit) social contract which has been broken.

there ought be a presumption
> in favour of whatever happen to be the longstanding norms
> and usages of that society, except where these have clearly
> proven to be dysfunctional.
>

Certainly the exact interpretation of the third precept must be to
some degree modified according to prevailing social norms.

> As a matter of history, this seems to have been exactly what
> has happened. Unlike with the other four precepts, there
> seem to be no two Buddhist countries where the third precept
> is interpreted in precisely the same way (at least not as
> far as popular understanding and popular preaching goes).

I'm not really sure about this, but it seems likely enough. In
Thailand, homosexuality is seen as an eccentricity rather than a
perversion. I have never heard of any Buddhist countries where gays
are treated as cruelly as in monotheistic cultures, although there
are certainly anti-gay statements to be found in various Buddhist
cultural contexts.

>
> Perhaps you meant to say that the presence or absence of an
> intention to procreate is not a material factor in defining
> transgression of the third precept.

Yes.

If so, then I agree with
> your premise, but I'm baffled as to how you get from there to
> the conclusion:
>
> > This being so, it would seem clear that same sex couples, if
> > in a caring, committed relationship, should be treated as no
> > different from man-woman relationships.
>
> Would you care to elaborate?
>
I'm not sure what you're baffled about. Since there is no
prohibition against same-sex couples in either Sutta or Vinaya (or
even Abhidhamma), and the rationale justifying such prohibition
(that is, a pro-fecundist ideology) is completely alien to Buddhism,
why should same-sex couples be treated any different to man-woman
couples?

I repeat my motivation for speaking out on this issue, which i have
done often before, and will continue to do. I have many Dhamma-
friends, both monastic and lay, who are gay or lesbian. They have
been excluded and ostracized from monotheistic religions due to
their sexual orientation, regardless of how sincere and committed
they are to a spiritual path. They find in Buddhism a refreshing
lack of prejudice and a compassion for their circumstances, which
almost always is a source of great suffering for them. Buddhism has
no 'Sodom & Gomorrah', and no justification for treating such people
with anything less than full dignity and respect, including
respecting their right to embark on sexual relationships in a
trusting and caring manner.

in Dhamma


Bhante Sujato

Dear Kåre



>
> I can't help feeling that the story in the Sakkapanhasutta was
told as a
> joke, although a joke with a deeper and more serious meaning.
>

Yes, the humor in the Pali canon is really delightful - very gentle,
yet with a serious sting in the tail...Most characteristically used
in just such contexts - to take the micky out of God.

I think there is something very insightful going on here. Using
humor in such contexts undercuts a key aspect of religions, their
solemnity. This is crucial to the religions being able to impress
their truths on an audience. It is part of the whole creation of
charisma and authority. Since religions as a rule cannot rely on
evidence to back their claims, they must induce faith through
overawing the devotees. Pricking this pomosity is a remarkably
effective way of disempowering a religion's claim to authority.

Buddhism, incidentally, is not excluded!


in Dhamma

Bhante Sujato

At 09:42 03.05.2005 +0000, you wrote:
>Dear Kåre
>
>
>
> >
> > I can't help feeling that the story in the Sakkapanhasutta was
>told as a
> > joke, although a joke with a deeper and more serious meaning.
> >
>
>Yes, the humor in the Pali canon is really delightful - very gentle,
>yet with a serious sting in the tail...Most characteristically used
>in just such contexts - to take the micky out of God.
>
>I think there is something very insightful going on here. Using
>humor in such contexts undercuts a key aspect of religions, their
>solemnity. This is crucial to the religions being able to impress
>their truths on an audience. It is part of the whole creation of
>charisma and authority. Since religions as a rule cannot rely on
>evidence to back their claims, they must induce faith through
>overawing the devotees. Pricking this pomosity is a remarkably
>effective way of disempowering a religion's claim to authority.

Some episodes with a similar use of humor:

The Kevaddhasutta, where god admits his ignorance ".... but don't tell
anyone, please! All those others believe that I'm omniscient!"

The Brahmajalasutta, where god misunderstands the situation and thinks he
has created the world.

The Tevijjasutta, where the path to god is explained by giving only the
elementary aspects of buddhist teachings, omitting the higher aspects.

There are also episodes where the brahmins are the "victims" of the humor,
like for instance the Kutadantasutta, where a prominent brahmin says that
he does not know how to perform a grand sacrifice (which was the speciality
of the brahmins), and asks the Buddha for advice on how to do it (a samana,
who was not even allowed to study the texts to be recited at the
sacrifice!). Just the thought of this - a samana teaching a brahmana how to
perform a sacrifice - must have caused wild and uncontrolled giggles among
the listeners.

Has anyone noted other and similar episodes?

Yours,

Kåre A. Lie
http://www.lienet.no

Hi Paul,


Because of this Dmytro would be correct
> in proposing that evidence of other word use from the Diigha and
> Majjhima carried the most weight.

Although it is not an easy matter to argue, i have come to disgree
with the idea that the Digha and Majjhima constitute the oldest
strata of texts. It is, on the face of it, a slightly odd claim, for
the usual trend of Buddhist literature is to get longer, so we might
be inclined to seek in the shorter discourses. I think the claim of
the primacy of the Digha originates with Rhys-Davies, and i suspect,
with all due respect to that great savant, that his agenda had more
than a little to do with the fact that the Digha attacks the pride
of the Brahmans with such skill, at a time when Rhys-Davies was
trying to rescue Buddhist studies from the shadow of Hinduism.

Although i think it is obvious that we can't say 'this one is old,
this one is late', my personal belief, following Yin Shun, is that
the Samyutta constitutes the earliest strata of canonized texts.

Leaving this difficult issue aside, however, i still would not
prefer to give precednce to the Majjhima occurence of 'ekaayana'
over the Samyutta. The Samyutta references occur straightforwardly
in the context of satipatthana and obviously mean exactly the same
as 'the' Satipatthana Sutta. Furthermore, there are far more of
them. Since we know from the Sanskrit, Jataka, etc., references that
ekaayana can have different meanings in different contexts, we
should look for the closest context to see what the implications
are.

The reason why the Samyutta reference has been relatively neglected
is part of a general tendency to sideline the Samyutta in
discussions of satipatthana, in the assumption that 'the'
Satipatthana Sutta is the last word on the subject. But the samyutta
comes right out and tells us that this phrase was at least echoed
and amplified by Brahma, and this must surely be taken as
an 'olaarika nimitta' that we are to look in the Brahmanical context
for an explanation.


> This leads in to the proposal by Bhante Sujato that the text
should
> be seen as a clear allusion to Sanskrit texts of Buddha's time.
> This is intriguing but perhaps the connection hasn't been fully
made.

Alas, sadly true. I have tried to do the issues justice in a short
space, but really it requires a full-scale study (which i've been
doing for the last three years!). Certainly, Gethin's work should be
consulted. He mentions the Upanishadic context i quoted earlier, but
did not give it full justice.

  Perhaps if we
> studied Pali at the same university we would be thinking more
> alike :)

O how dull! Then we'd have nothing to learn from each other.

in Dhamma

Bhante Sujato

Hi Paul,


Because of this Dmytro would be correct
> in proposing that evidence of other word use from the Diigha and
> Majjhima carried the most weight.

Although it is not an easy matter to argue, i have come to disgree
with the idea that the Digha and Majjhima constitute the oldest
strata of texts. It is, on the face of it, a slightly odd claim, for
the usual trend of Buddhist literature is to get longer, so we might
be inclined to seek in the shorter discourses. I think the claim of
the primacy of the Digha originates with Rhys-Davies, and i suspect,
with all due respect to that great savant, that his agenda had more
than a little to do with the fact that the Digha attacks the pride
of the Brahmans with such skill, at a time when Rhys-Davies was
trying to rescue Buddhist studies from the shadow of Hinduism.

Although i think it is obvious that we can't say 'this one is old,
this one is late', my personal belief, following Yin Shun, is that
the Samyutta constitutes the earliest strata of canonized texts.

Leaving this difficult issue aside, however, i still would not
prefer to give precednce to the Majjhima occurence of 'ekaayana'
over the Samyutta. The Samyutta references occur straightforwardly
in the context of satipatthana and obviously mean exactly the same
as 'the' Satipatthana Sutta. Furthermore, there are far more of
them. Since we know from the Sanskrit, Jataka, etc., references that
ekaayana can have different meanings in different contexts, we
should look for the closest context to see what the implications
are.

The reason why the Samyutta reference has been relatively neglected
is part of a general tendency to sideline the Samyutta in
discussions of satipatthana, in the assumption that 'the'
Satipatthana Sutta is the last word on the subject. But the samyutta
comes right out and tells us that this phrase was at least echoed
and amplified by Brahma, and this must surely be taken as
an 'olaarika nimitta' that we are to look in the Brahmanical context
for an explanation.


> This leads in to the proposal by Bhante Sujato that the text
should
> be seen as a clear allusion to Sanskrit texts of Buddha's time.
> This is intriguing but perhaps the connection hasn't been fully
made.

Alas, sadly true. I have tried to do the issues justice in a short
space, but really it requires a full-scale study (which i've been
doing for the last three years!). Certainly, Gethin's work should be
consulted. He mentions the Upanishadic context i quoted earlier, but
did not give it full justice.

  Perhaps if we
> studied Pali at the same university we would be thinking more
> alike :)

O how dull! Then we'd have nothing to learn from each other.

in Dhamma

Bhante Sujato

Hi Paul,

If i had to chose between Mylius and Franke i'd definitely stick to Mylius. His
translation is lucid, clear, using a modern wording (Franke's book is about 100
years old i guess) - being an anthology you get a big picture from all different
pali texts.

There are lots of other modern translations available in German but none of them
can be compared to Karl Eugen Neumann's translations. He is sometimes called the
Buddhist "Martin Luther" - although his writings are as old as Franke's they
resemble the Pali spirit closer than any other translation i ever encountered
(though they might contain a few error here and there).

If you want to be on the safe side, try a translation from Ven. Nyanatiloka or
Ven Nyanaponika. Their translations are very authentic, sticking closely to the
pali, modern German syntax & vocabular and have lot of footnotes on commentarial
explanations...

mettâya,

Lennart
   ----- Original Message -----
   From: paulocuana
   To: Pali@yahoogroups.com
   Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2005 2:53 AM
   Subject: [Pali] Die Vier Edlen Wahrheiten


   Hallo,

   I've decided to learn how to read German and would like to get some
   advice from our German speaking members.  One book of German translated
   from the Pali available to me is "Die Vier Edlen Wahrheiten" and the
   translator is Klaus Mylius.
   Another book available to me is the "Diighanikaaya" translated by Otto
   Franke and published in 1913.

   I had heard some criticism of Dr. Franke's work.  Any advice would be
   appreciated including suggestions for a different book entirely :)

   With Metta,
   Paul





   - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
   [Homepage] http://www.tipitaka.net
   [Files] http://www.geocities.com/paligroup/
   [Send Message] pali@yahoogroups.com
   Paaliga.na - a community for Pali students
   Yahoo! Groups members can set their delivery options to daily digest or web
only.



------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Yahoo! Groups Links

     a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
     http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Pali/

     b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
     Pali-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

     c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- Bhante Sujato <sujato@...> skrev::
> Dear Piya, Gunnar, etc.,
>
> and on an even lighter note, did you know that one
> of the most famous
> meditation mantras in the Christian tradition is the
> Aramaic
> phrase: 'maranatha'. I shouldn't have to tell those
> on the list what
> this means: 'Satan is Lord'.

In the 1960:s, a group of Scandinavian Pentecostalists
broke out of their main community under just that name
(actually meaning, I think, "O Lord, Come!" or
something similar); unfortunately, however, they
pronounced it just as it would be with the Pali
meaning, stressing the penultimate. I think the
correct Aramaic pronounciation should stress the last
syllable. (Kåre will remember their late leader Arne
Imsen, no doubt.)

Gunnar

gunnargallmo@...

--- "Kåre A. Lie" <alberlie@...> skrev::
>
> Has anyone noted other and similar episodes?

I don't remember where it is, but I think there is
some story about the Buddha converting a vampire, who
promptly starts a new, and socially useful, career.

As a tax collector.

And don't forget the frequent coupling of the words
"raajaa" and "cora"...

Gunnar



gunnargallmo@...

--- Ong Yong Peng <yongpeng.ong@...> wrote:

> I should have made it clearer, but I really don't
> want to make it
> lengthy. Many religious and political idealisms from
> the West, such
> as Catholicism and Communism, believe in
> 'homogeneity'. We see
> Crusades, Jihads, ethnic cleansing, inquisitions,
> secret police,
> thought crimes, conspiracies, torture and terror,
> all done in that
> name of the "greater good", be it religious or
> political. I know
> people would say I am not fair to put Catholicism
> and Communism side
> by side, but from my personal view, they are two
> sides of the same
> coin.

You might mention some other churches as well. Stalin
got his only higher education when studying at a
Georgian-Orthodox priest seminary...

> And each represent the wider spectrum of
> similar "idealisms"
> they belong to. While both sides may never admit,
> they really have
> more in common than they are different.

Indeed.

> I can recount a solidly good incident
> which give our an
> idea how the Buddha wants us to treat other
> religions.
>
> It was said that on one occassion a lay-disciple
> came to the Buddha,
> and asked Him how he should treat his former
> religious teachers. In
> India, most religious teachers collect alms for
> food. The Buddha
> replied that he should continue giving food to his
> former teachers as
> he previously did, and should treat them with
> respect.

I have been under the impression that he did so out of
compassion for those non-Buddhist ascetics, not
because he embraced or respected their views - which,
in some cases at least, he most emphatically didn't.

> Otherwise, besides being critical, from the Buddha's
> viewpoint, we
> should also respect all religions as He instructed
> Sigala in another
> sutta.

I think we should give our respect and compassion to
the *followers* of all religions. I don't think we
should respect, for example, a religious doctrine
demanding animal sacrifice.

> A more proactive approach, however, which
> some of you
> might take, is to engage in dialogs with members of
> other faiths in
> your community.

I agree fully. I think we shouldn't overestimate the
importance of the top-shots - a pope is cheered when
presented, and mourned when buried, but not
necessarily obeyed in between. If their holinesses
Benedict and Dalai Lama are nice to each other, that's
good; but for me personally, its more important that I
have a reasonably good relation to my Protestant
brother and Catholic sister, and to my friends of
quite a range of different opinions. I don't think I
must respect every single one of their ideas, though.

Gunnar


gunnargallmo@...

--- Dhammanando Bhikkhu <dhammanando@...>
skrev:
>
> while the latter is formed: mahaa + isi = mahesii

So it's the same word as Sanskrit "mahaa-.r.si" and
Hindi "mahe.s"; anyone remembering the Beatles' old
guru Maharishi Mahesh Yogi? He obviously repeated
himself, at least in his name...

Gunnar



gunnargallmo@...

Dear Gunnar, Yong Peng, etc.,

Gunnar said:
>for me personally, its more important that I
> have a reasonably good relation to my Protestant
> brother and Catholic sister, and to my friends of
> quite a range of different opinions. I don't think I
> must respect every single one of their ideas, though.
>

We must distinguish between a person and their ideas - but even if
we wish to refute their ideas, this must be done with compassion.

I believe it is a subtle form of disrespect to refuse to engage in
religious debate. The implication is that if we disagree, we'll have
to end up fighting each other, so best pretend we really all agree.
Surely it is a sign of maturity that people can have different
opinions, discuss them honestly, agree to disagree, and still
respect each other - as we do often on this list!

Once when i was staying at Wat Nanachat we were visited by a
wonderful Sikh teacher - totally warm, totally outrageous. He walked
into the sala saying, 'We are all brothers! We must looooove each
other!' He told us that if we want to meditate, first we must, you
know, go with our wife, then we can sit and meditate. One of the
monks mentioned that the Buddha said we must let go of that kind of
thing. He replied: 'Yes, you are right! I am right, too - Everybody
is right!'

Yours in abslolute agreement with everybody and everything,

Bhante Sujato

Dear Bhante and others

I would like to point out that one ancient Chinese counterpart of S 46:18
supports the translation of the term ¡¥ekaayano maggo¡¦ as ¡¥the only way¡¦.
Both in the prose and verse portion of that Chinese version, the parallel of the
Pali term ¡¥ekaayano maggo¡¦ is translated as ¡¥¡¦there is only one way¡¦ (Wei
Yo Yi Dao, °ß¦³¤@¹D)(Taisho vol. 2: 410b).

With metta

Tzung-Kuen


May you be free from mental and physical suffering
May you be peaceful and happy.



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Dear Ven. Sujato, Gunnar and friends,

thanks again.

Gunnar, I know what you mean, with family members of different
religious background, it is more important than ever to maintain and
cherish the bonds. For one thing, I do not know if that's exactly
what the Buddha meant.

As much as I understand, religions known to the Buddha is different
from what we know about religions today. During Buddha's time, the
social system in India is such that there is a priestly class, that
is the brahmins. These priests perform rituals and are also educators
and learners of the vedic literature. They had a high social status.
More importantly, the education and rituals they perform are highly
regarded, and the Buddha himself no doubt benefited from them.
Therefore, they should be respected, in that aspect.

Then, of course, we have the samanas or ascetics. Like the Buddha,
these people gave up their worldly life in search of the solutions to
human suffering. They live the lives of beggars, asking for food,
sleeping under trees and in graveyards, etc. I agree that these
ascetics can have very bizarre practices and beliefs, not only by
today's standards but by Buddha's standards too. However, for their
high aspirations, they should be respected. In fact, the Buddha even
said, they should be offered food and not deprived of it.

Many of the religions that we know today can be considered even more
bizarrrre by the Buddha if only He is around. But, I think we can
fairly well extend our compassion to these people. By "these people",
I mean the "clergy" of religions in this very context, not
the "laity" or the followers of any religion.

There are exceptions, though, as I mentioned in my previous mail
about a "use your brain or lose it" case. I think compassion has to
work in hand with wisdom, or it will reduce to blind compassion.

As for the relationships with "other people", the Buddha has advices
in other parts of the Tipitaka too. I think that is what you are
trying to discuss. We can also extend the concept of "embrace and
respect" to them, but it would NOT be giving away your money to them!
And it doesn't mean you have to agree with all of their ideas. It was
not what I intended, neither was it the Buddha's intention.

I think nowadays people do not really respect each other, so much so
that the word has erroded, and to 'respect' (verb) someone means you
have to treat him to high tea? or to agree with him on everything?.
To me, it is very simple, to respect is not to disrespect. With this
simple definition, you can respect everyone on the street. There is
no need to pretend or put on a show, Buddhists are not good actors.

As for your family, I think it is definitely more than respect, there
is almost love, family bonds and so on involved. Even for friends,
friendship is more than just respect. I am not going further into
this.

Bhante: I do not agree with what the Sikh say. If I happen to see
him, I promise to disagree with him with respect. :-)


metta,
Yong Peng.


--- In Pali@yahoogroups.com, Bhante Sujato wrote:

> for me personally, its more important that I
> have a reasonably good relation to my Protestant
> brother and Catholic sister, and to my friends of
> quite a range of different opinions. I don't think I
> must respect every single one of their ideas, though.

We must distinguish between a person and their ideas - but even if we
wish to refute their ideas, this must be done with compassion.

I believe it is a subtle form of disrespect to refuse to engage in
religious debate. The implication is that if we disagree, we'll have
to end up fighting each other, so best pretend we really all agree.
Surely it is a sign of maturity that people can have different
opinions, discuss them honestly, agree to disagree, and still respect
each other - as we do often on this list!

Once when i was staying at Wat Nanachat we were visited by a
wonderful Sikh teacher - totally warm, totally outrageous. He walked
into the sala saying, 'We are all brothers! We must looooove each
other!' He told us that if we want to meditate, first we must, you
know, go with our wife, then we can sit and meditate. One of the
monks mentioned that the Buddha said we must let go of that kind of
thing. He replied: 'Yes, you are right! I am right, too - Everybody
is right!'

Bhante and friends,

Pardon me for digressing. Reading about practice (satipatthana) reminds me also
of
non-practice.

Seneviratne (The Work of Kings) and other thinking Buddhists have voiced their
concern over the worldliness and spiritual materialism of some Sinhalese monks.

I have often noticed some younger (and not so young) Sinhalese monks keep their
hair
unshaven so that they look like laymen.

Could Bhante or anyone  please refresh my memory regarding a monk's shaving
their
head. Is this once a month or when the hair is two fingers' breadth. Also it
would be
good if you could let me have the citation.

Namakkara.m & sukhi,

Piya

Bhante Sujato wrote:

> Hi Paul,
>
> Because of this Dmytro would be correct
> > in proposing that evidence of other word use from the Diigha and
> > Majjhima carried the most weight.
>
> Although it is not an easy matter to argue, i have come to disgree
> with the idea that the Digha and Majjhima constitute the oldest
> strata of texts. It is, on the face of it, a slightly odd claim, for
> the usual trend of Buddhist literature is to get longer, so we might
> be inclined to seek in the shorter discourses. I think the claim of
> the primacy of the Digha originates with Rhys-Davies, and i suspect,
> with all due respect to that great savant, that his agenda had more
> than a little to do with the fact that the Digha attacks the pride
> of the Brahmans with such skill, at a time when Rhys-Davies was
> trying to rescue Buddhist studies from the shadow of Hinduism.
>
> Although i think it is obvious that we can't say 'this one is old,
> this one is late', my personal belief, following Yin Shun, is that
> the Samyutta constitutes the earliest strata of canonized texts.
>
> Leaving this difficult issue aside, however, i still would not
> prefer to give precednce to the Majjhima occurence of 'ekaayana'
> over the Samyutta. The Samyutta references occur straightforwardly
> in the context of satipatthana and obviously mean exactly the same
> as 'the' Satipatthana Sutta. Furthermore, there are far more of
> them. Since we know from the Sanskrit, Jataka, etc., references that
> ekaayana can have different meanings in different contexts, we
> should look for the closest context to see what the implications
> are.
>
> The reason why the Samyutta reference has been relatively neglected
> is part of a general tendency to sideline the Samyutta in
> discussions of satipatthana, in the assumption that 'the'
> Satipatthana Sutta is the last word on the subject. But the samyutta
> comes right out and tells us that this phrase was at least echoed
> and amplified by Brahma, and this must surely be taken as
> an 'olaarika nimitta' that we are to look in the Brahmanical context
> for an explanation.
>  
>
> > This leads in to the proposal by Bhante Sujato that the text
> should
> > be seen as a clear allusion to Sanskrit texts of Buddha's time.
> > This is intriguing but perhaps the connection hasn't been fully
> made.
>
> Alas, sadly true. I have tried to do the issues justice in a short
> space, but really it requires a full-scale study (which i've been
> doing for the last three years!). Certainly, Gethin's work should be
> consulted. He mentions the Upanishadic context i quoted earlier, but
> did not give it full justice.
>
>  Perhaps if we
> > studied Pali at the same university we would be thinking more
> > alike :)
>
> O how dull! Then we'd have nothing to learn from each other.
>
> in Dhamma
>
> Bhante Sujato
>
>
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> [Homepage] http://www.tipitaka.net
> [Files] http://www.geocities.com/paligroup/
> [Send Message] pali@yahoogroups.com
> Paaliga.na - a community for Pali students
> Yahoo! Groups members can set their delivery options to daily digest or web
only.
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>  

Hi,

Sakkapanha Sutta is available here:
http://www.buddhistinformation.com/ida_b_wells_memorial_sutra_library/sakkapanha\
_sutta.htm

> So now we know what really happened to those prophets who claim to have
received revelations from a god. What really happened, was that a poor,
bewildered god was out there, looking for answers and explanations. And the
"prophets" just misunderstood the whole situation!<

1. The sutta did not say "those prophets" but "other priests and
contemplatives".

2. Sakka said, "So I taught them the Dhamma as far as I had heard and mastered
it...." The sutta also said Sakka claimed to be a "stream-winner"

I have several questions:

a. What does it mean by "Dhamma" here? I doubt that it refered to Buddha's
dhamma. It says "as far as I had heard and mastered it"   If not, Sakka wouldn't
be asking those questions to the Buddha.

b. Did Sakka become Sakka after asking the Buddha those questions or before? My
guess is after having asked those questions. If he was already a stream-winner,
I don't see why he have to asked those questions.

3. The "prophets" that came after Buddha ie. Jesus, Muhammad etc. definitely did
not received revelation from Sakka. A possibility is that they received it from
other gods. (In Islam, Jesus is considered a prophet, whereas in Christianity,
Jesus is God Himself [son of God]) then, of course there is a question whether
they really did received revelation. And if they received, what is revealed and
how much is added? See
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/denis_giron/multiple.html

>So the theists of the world are disciples of god, and god is a disciple of the
Buddha ..... :-)))))<

So, I think the "theist of the world" is not so correct. The god that gave
revelations to those prophets might not be A Buddhist in the first place.

>I can't help feeling that the story in the Sakkapanhasutta was told as a joke,
although a joke with a deeper and more serious meaning.<

I don't think it's a joke.

Best wishes,

Rahula








---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
  Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Dear Ven. Dhammanando, Gunnar and friends,

thanks again. I shall reflect the changes in the solutions.

I have a further question. bya~njana is a neuter noun, if lokahita
applies to bya~njana, it should have been bya~njana.m lokahita.m, am
I correct?


metta,
Yong Peng.

--- In Pali@yahoogroups.com, Dhammanando Bhikkhu wrote:

> Therefore, the sentence would be:
> "Attha.m hi naatho sara.na.m avoca."
> "The meaning (is) truly the refuge," spoke the Protector.

Yes, I think this is right. Concerning the first two lines as a
whole, another possibility occurred to me. We could divide them into
two sentences, and take avoca as a predicate that applies to the main
subject of both of them. An ellipsis like this is not uncommon in
Pali verse:

      attha.m hi naatho sara.na.m avoca
      na bya~njana.m lokahito mahesii

"The meaning is truly the refuge," said the Lord; "It is not the
letter that is the benefit for the world," [said] the Great Sage.

Dear  Ven. Pandita & Nina,

Many thanks for your stimulating responses to my questions. Sorry for not
acknowledging them sooner but I wasn't able to access my computer for a
couple of days.

There are many aspects of what you wrote that I would like to consider
carefully but I thought I'd better comment quickly on a couple of things...

<< snip >> not all suttas, or parts of suttas are equally as old, or have
the
> > same degree of authenticity.
> No need to argue against this. But it should be noted that we are
> discussing the doctrinal framework of the whole Theravada school --- not
> a particular manuscript or sutta.

But isn't the bedrock of that school a collection of suttas? Am I overly
naive to think that the ultimate arbiter of what is genuinely Theravadan is
how much it accords with the Tipi.tika? (Which I suppose goes full circle to
my original question about authenticity...)

> > (I wonder what might be the state of Paali studies now if the great
> > machine of the Western universities << snip >> had put their efforts
into Paali.)
> Actually, this is an off-topic subject (That is why you have chosen to
> put it into brackets, I presume) But an interesting one still. So I
> would give my view at length in a later post.

I was musing rather self indulgently, but not too far off topic, I hope 8-)
It does bear on the issue of the state of Pali scholarship. I'd be very
eager to hear your views on this.
>
> > I was interested to hear Prof. Gombrich saying in a talk to << snip >> .
> > suttas, .... were full of contradictions.
<< snip >>
> Prof. Gombrich has failed to mention another part of Pali literature
> that is the "consistency supreme". It is Abhidhamma Pitaka. I don't
> remember the exact words but Mrs. Iggleden, the late President of PTS,
> has remarked in one of her books that such a big work without a single
> contradiction inside should be the work of the Buddha himself (excepting
> Kathaavatthu, of course).

I hope I didn't misrepresent Prof. Gombrich by quoting him out of context. I
would have to listen to the talk again to be certain of not bending his
points but it was within the context of difficulties and the editors maxim
difficile lectior potior, that in having two variants where one was more
difficult, one should prefer that one as being more likely.

He also made the point you do further on about the length & variety of the
Buddha's ministry & how this would lead one to expect variation but also how
where there is evidence of "tidying up" of accounts to make them consistent
(such as the interpolation of large chunks of material) that when one finds
contradictory material it can often be evidence of authenticity, i.e. a part
that failed to be "tidied up".

How this sits with Mrs. Iggleden's comment is rather difficult, in that the
consistency she's admiring might lead one, according to Prof. Gombrich's
method, to feel it less likely to be authentically the word of the Buddha.

> But why has Prof. Gombrich failed to mention it? Probably because he
> cannot say it from his experience.

I have a horrible feeling I may have given an entirely unjustified
impression of Prof. G by my own selective usage of his comments to my own
purpose.

<< big snip >>
> There are various reasons for the neglect of Abhidhamma Pi.taka, and one
> is the seeming lack of historical evidence as regards its authenticity.

As I understand it, the technical nature of it makes it quite difficult
reading which must affect the interest in the West where students grounding
in Pali is probably less thorough.
>
> Now about suttas full of contradictions. I would like to remind you that
<< mega snip >>
> In my opinion, all these contradictions are valid evidence of the
> authenticity of suttas, of the fact that they have been little  affected
> by the tweaking of the posterity

Very well put & this accords with my memory of Prof. G's arguments & I
hadn't meant to imply the opposite in my earlier mail. It does, of course,
also leave Pali scholars fertile material for discussion 8-)

> Then how should they be understood by those of posterity like us?
>
> Here comes in the role of Abhidhamma. If you look at the commentaries,
> whether of Vinaya or Suttanta, you would find that the commentators
> would call  in Abhidhammic concepts whenever really subtle points are to
> be expounded. Moreover,  Abhidhamma is the ultimate arbiter as regards
> all seeming contradictions in suttas; you would find them explained away
> by the commentators using Abhidhamma.

Without being steeped in Abhidhamma but looking at it very much from the
outside couldn't this point to the Abhidhamma being an essentially
commentarial development, i.e. it's very form is determined by the necessity
to explain difficulties?

I know I'm playing devil's (Mara's?) advocate a little here, but these are
interesting questions and whichever way happened to be true, neither would
invalidate the accuracy of Abhidhamma, of course. And this is something we
must ascertain for ourselves in our own practice

<< snip >> ...since we have lost all ancient Sinhala commentaries, on which
> Buddhaghosa and other commentators' works are based.

Does anyone know if there is a realistic chance of any of this material
being discovered?

> Here I must note on the different attitudes of western scholars,
<< snip >> in our case, anything in suttas is authentic unless
> definitely proved to the contrary. The reason is the same as in law.
> Just as law cannot afford to let one innocent person suffer even if ten
> rogues walk free on account of its laxity, we cannot afford to reject
> one authentic idea even if we have to live with ten interpolations.

That is an interesting analogy. It does rather assume that the
interpolations aren't destructive of the whole.

(i.e. if, in certain material, the degree of interpolation, tidying up, or
interpretation is such that the original matter is entirely obscured or
distorted by the well intentioned but unwise, then we could be led away from
the ariyamagga.)
>
<< snip >> , how
> > likely is it to an embellishment by a scribe with an overactive
> > imagination sweating over his palm leave.
>
> If you look for the string "*meru*" on CSCD, you would find that it
> occurs 10 times in the canon, notably once each in Suttanipaata and
> Mijjhimanikaaya. It means that you just cannot reject it out of hand, or
> blame a poor scribe, whether you like it or not.

I'm sorry that I ended on a slightly flippant note, I was trying not to
sound too pompous but probably just succeeded in sounding stupid. I will
have to read up on Mt Meru, but, of course, one could take an example where
there surely must be thousands of references like "deva" which it would be
very tempting to the western mind to gloss over.

I see I've gone on far longer than I intended but your reply raised so many
important and interesting issues -- My intention in the points I made was
very much in the hope that I might learn more about these by stimulating
some discussion without, I hoped, being overly provocative 8-)

Thanks, nich

> Yeah, there is indeed a skilful question of what is 'sati'.
>
> For the discussion of that question let me again recommend
> you the book "The Buddhist Path to Awakening" by Rupert Gethin.
>
> With metta, Dmytro

Dear Friends in Dhamma,

First, please note, what follows is meant to be heard in a friendly, not
accusatory tone :)

I would like to address the issues that have been raised by noting the
general trend, whether referring to Buddhist doctrine or the verity of
certain teachings, to cite Western or non-Buddhist sources as authority.  I
suppose this could come from not speaking any Asian language for some, but
it still seems strange to me.  I think if I wanted to learn more about sati,
I would go and find a meditation master who practices it.  And I think I
would hesitate to look to Rhys-Davids or A.K. Warder for proof of the age of
any of the parts of the tipitaka, no matter how much I still rely on their
grammar books or translations.  Indeed, the tipitaka is such a jewel, I
would not wish anyone to denegrate of any part of it.  I am not sure what is
implied by the later/earlier idea, but it seems either one of two things:

1) the format (e.g. rhyme, syntax) of the teaching was adapted from the
orginal at various times in history, or

2) the doctrine was "thought up" at various times after the Lord Buddha
passed away.

I've heard an alarming lot of the latter among modern Western scholars who
put notes in claiming that "the Buddha is made to say" this or that.

I suppose I am in no position to say that this has not occurred, especially
in the commentarial stories, but I wonder at how often these claims are
made, along with the differing claims of "later" and "earlier" in regards to
the nikayas.  What is the purpose of this?  Is there something about certain
teachings, or even certain nikayas which seems unhelpful, indeed perhaps
negative in its impact on the rest (usually given as a very paltry set of
two or three "earlier" books) of the texts that leads one to suspect its
authenticity?  It seems that the result is a lopsided version of the
Buddha's teaching (kind of like the blind men and the elephant), but it also
often seems that the original impetus for dissecting the tipitaka in this
way is to prove a lopsided point.  It is strange to me, but then of course
if I asked any of the scholars and meditation teachers here about it, I
think they would tell me Westerners think too much and doubt too much. :)

So, perhaps this comes from living in a very Buddhist society.  You'll have
to excuse me for it... I am still of the opinion that mindfulness is the
only way, and the whole of the tipitaka is equally valid :)

Peace be for all,

Yuttadhammo

> >I think there is something very insightful going on here.
> Using humor
> >in such contexts undercuts a key aspect of religions, their
> solemnity.
> >This is crucial to the religions being able to impress their
> truths on
> >an audience. It is part of the whole creation of charisma and
> >authority. Since religions as a rule cannot rely on evidence to back
> >their claims, they must induce faith through overawing the devotees.
> >Pricking this pomosity is a remarkably effective way of
> disempowering a
> >religion's claim to authority.

Okay, this is interesting, I was just this past day thinking someone should
put together some witty Buddhism stories and make a book out of them.  There
is one book I've been dipping into with stories from various religious
traditions and the only ones that aren't really witty are the early Buddhist
ones - I don't think they chose particularily good ones, and I think they
were retold in a way that they may have lost their original flavour.

Here's a funny one from the Jaataka Commentary:

Sakka steals an ascetic's food, and he calls together his six brother
ascetics, a sister ascetic, a servant and a maid (ascetics needed maids too
it seems...) to find out who is the thief.  The first brother, to prove his
innocence says:

"May horse and kine be his, may silver, gold,
A loving wife, these may he precious hold,
May he have sons and daughters manifold,
Brahmin, who stole thy share of food away!"

The other ascetics all put their hands over their ears, crying, "No, no,
sir, that oath is very heavy!"  And the Bodhisatta (the ascetic whose food
was stolen) says "Brother, your oath is very heavy: you did not eat the
food, sit down on your pallet."

And so on, through the rest of them who recite similar oaths.  Then the
Bodhisatta thinks "Perhaps they imagine I am lying myself, and saying that
the food was not there when it was."  So he makes an oath on his part:

"Who swears the food was gone, if it was not,
Let him enjoy desire and its effect,
May worldly death be at the last his lot.
The same for you, sirs, if you now suspect."

Sakka is confused at these odd oaths and shows up asking:

"What in the world men go a-seeking here
That thing to many lovely is and dear,
Longed-for, delightful in this life; why, then,
Have saints no praise for things desired of men?"

The Bodhisatta replies:

"Desires are deadly blows and chains to bind,
In these both misery and fear we find;
When tempted by disires imperial kings,
Infatuate do vile and sinful things.

These sinners bring forth sin, to hell they go
At dissolution of this mortal frame.
Because the misery of lust they know
Therefore saints praise not lust, but only blame."

Sakka returns the food, asks forgiveness and disappears.

**************

There's loads of wit in the Tipitaka and commentaries - the Paa.tika Sutta
of the Digha, where he can't get off his seat to go debate with the Buddha,
or the Paayaasi Sutta, with the parable of the man carrying dung on his head
in the rain.

There's the stories in the Vinaya too, like the origin story on the ninth
Sanghadisesa where a bad group of monks name a certain cow and a bull couple
after a monk X and nun Y, then when they see the cows copulating, they
spread it around that X and Y have been copulating.

Or the origin of the offence over cutting off one's male member (yes it is
against the vinaya).  The story goes that a monk couldn't bear to put up
with the great lust that had arisen in his mind, so he decided the only
thing to do was to cut off the focus of his attachment, his male member.
Having done so, the Buddha found out and said "This monk has cut off one
thing, when he should have cut off another." (i.e. craving)

Or the story of Jivaka, who tells a merchant he must lie on one side for
seven months to be healed after the world's first successful brain surgery
(no anesthetic is mentioned).  The man can't bear it and after seven days
stops.  Jivaka says, okay if you can't do that, then lie on the other side
for seven months.  Again, after seven days the man sits up.  Jivaka says,
okay lie on your back for seven months.  Again, only seven days.  Jivaka
says "Well done.  twenty-one days was enough, but if I had told you to lie
only seven days on one side, you would have never lasted so long."

Or here's a really good one from the commentary of the Sakkapanha sutta: a
famous teacher Mahaasiva was put to shame by an arahant student of his,
because he himself had not attained anything of merit.  Being ashamed, he
left his position and went to practice meditation by himself.  He didn't get
anywhere, so he sat down and started crying.  As he did so, an angel who was
waiting to learn meditation from him, appeared and started crying as well.
The great teacher asked the angel: "why are YOU crying?"  She replied that
she had such faith in him, that when she saw him crying she thought this
must be the way to become enlightened.  This brought the thera to his senses
and he pulled himself together, practiced mindfulness and attained
Arahatship.

Lots more where these came from...

Suma"ngalaani,

Yuttadhammo

> Could Bhante or anyone  please refresh my memory regarding a
> monk's shaving their head. Is this once a month or when the
> hair is two fingers' breadth. Also it would be good if you
> could let me have the citation.

"The hair of the head should not be worn long. Whoever should do so: an
offense of wrong doing. I allow two-month (growth) or two fingerbreadths."
-- Cv.V.2.2

(Trans. Thanissaro Bhikkhu)

If you have more questions like this, it shows that you may not have access
(no pun intended) to the resources at www.accesstoinsight.org , especially
the Buddhist Monastic Code I and II:

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/modern/thanissaro/bmc1/index.html
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/modern/thanissaro/bmc2/index.html

And here's another off-topic link:

"Buddhists Really are Happier"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3047291.stm

Suma"ngalaani,

Yuttadhammo

An Elementary Pali Course
Exercise 19-A: Translate into English.

11. Amhaaka.m sattuno paade maya.m sirasaa avandamhaa.
     our / enemy's / at foot / we / with head / paid homage
     We paid homage at our enemy's foot with head.

12. Tava vacasaa vaa manasaa vaa maa ki~nci paapaka.m kamma.m
     karohi.
     your / with word / or / with mind / or / do not / any /
     wicked / deed / do!
     Do not do any wicked deed with your word(s) or mind.

13. Aya.m naavaa ayasaa kataa.
     this / ship / with iron / was built
     This ship was built with iron.

14. Satta ahaani maya.m ki~nci'pi aahaara.m na abhu~njamhaa.
     seven / throughout seven / we / any-too / food / did not eat
     We did not eat any food throughout seven days.

15. Mayha.m bhaataa gona.m ti.na.m adaa.
     my / brother / to bulls / grass / gave
     My brother gave grass to the bulls.


metta,
Yong Peng.

Venerable Bhante Yuttadhammo ,
I appreciate all your posts and they are well written and considered.
With respect,
Nina.
op 04-05-2005 12:37 schreef Yuttadhammo op buffer@...:

> You'll have
> to excuse me for it... I am still of the opinion that mindfulness is the
> only way, and the whole of the tipitaka is equally valid :)

Nina and others

I have uploaded a new file entitled "Formations of Verbal Stems". It is both
common to conjugated verbs and primary derivatives. However, it is placed in
the chapter of conjugated verbs, so it is missing in the part of primary
derivatives. But it won't be easy to understand primary derivatives without
the concept of verbal stems. So I have uploaded it.

with metta

Ven. Pandita


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Thanks for the response, bhante.

The update access website is a bit too big for my system to download, but I have
ask a student of mine to do so.

Sukhi

Piya

--- Yuttadhammo <buffer@...> wrote:

> > Could Bhante or anyone  please refresh my memory regarding a
> > monk's shaving their head. Is this once a month or when the
> > hair is two fingers' breadth. Also it would be good if you
> > could let me have the citation.
>
> "The hair of the head should not be worn long. Whoever should do so:
> an
> offense of wrong doing. I allow two-month (growth) or two
> fingerbreadths."
> -- Cv.V.2.2
>
> (Trans. Thanissaro Bhikkhu)
>
> If you have more questions like this, it shows that you may not have
> access
> (no pun intended) to the resources at www.accesstoinsight.org ,
> especially
> the Buddhist Monastic Code I and II:
>
> http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/modern/thanissaro/bmc1/index.html
> http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/modern/thanissaro/bmc2/index.html
>
> And here's another off-topic link:
>
> "Buddhists Really are Happier"
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3047291.stm
>
> Suma"ngalaani,
>
> Yuttadhammo
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> --------------------~-->
> In low income neighborhoods, 84% do not own computers.
> At Network for Good, help bridge the Digital Divide!
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/hjtSRD/3MnJAA/i1hLAA/b0VolB/TM
> --------------------------------------------------------------------~->
>
>
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> [Homepage] http://www.tipitaka.net
> [Files] http://www.geocities.com/paligroup/
> [Send Message] pali@yahoogroups.com
> Paaliga.na - a community for Pali students
> Yahoo! Groups members can set their delivery options to daily digest
> or web only.
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Venerable Bhante Pandita,
Thank you very much. I asked Connie to copy it, since I have trouble with
iMac doing this.
I will not react yet with my questions since I am on vacation next week.
I collected many questions on derivatives, but perhaps this file will solve
things partly.
But I lack understanding of some main notions.
With respect,
Nina.

op 04-05-2005 16:31 schreef Ven. Pandita op ashinpan@...:

> Nina and others
>
> I have uploaded a new file entitled "Formations of Verbal Stems".

Dear Yong Peng,

> 11. Amhaaka.m sattuno paade maya.m sirasaa avandamhaa.
>     our / enemy's / at foot / we / with head / paid homage
>     We paid homage at our enemy's foot with head.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and ask whether sattuno should really be
satthuno (a genative of satthu - religious teacher (the Buddha))?  Otherwise
maybe we have some more humour from the tipitaka?

> 14. Satta ahaani maya.m ki~nci'pi aahaara.m na abhu~njamhaa.
>     seven / throughout seven / we / any-too / food / did not eat
>     We did not eat any food throughout seven days.

Seems to be a typographical error in the second line.  I think it should be:

"seven /for days /we /any at all /food /not /ate"

But it's right again in your third line.  I wonder if I am right in thinking
that "api" here means "at all".  Then maybe it is: "We did not eat any food
at all for seven days."  I chose "for" here, because "throughout" might seem
awkward.


Suma"ngalaani,

Yuttadhammo