Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: SV: [Pali] Guhat.t.haka from the Mahaaniddesa

Expand Messages
  • Ong Yong Peng
    Dear Ole, Nina and Keren, Ole is right that this niddesa talks about guhaa. As for the title, guhat.t.hakasuttaniddesa, it is a four-part compound meaning the
    Message 1 of 21 , Feb 7, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      Dear Ole, Nina and Keren,

      Ole is right that this niddesa talks about guhaa.

      As for the title, guhat.t.hakasuttaniddesa, it is a four-part compound
      meaning "the 'niddesa' of 'eight' 'suttas' on 'guhaa'", as Nina explained.


      metta,
      Yong Peng.

      --- In Pali@yahoogroups.com, Ole Holten Pind wrote:

      The first verse of the Guha.t.thaka-sutta explains this compound. It
      denotes someone standing in a cave guhaa.

      > I cannot find the word guhat.t.haka in the dictionary. Can anyone
      help me understand this word/compound?
    • Ole Holten Pind
      Dear Keren, It is not at all clear whether guhaa denotes the body in this verse. The old commentary thinks so, but I am sceptical about whether or not this is
      Message 2 of 21 , Feb 7, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        Dear Keren,

        It is not at all clear whether guhaa denotes the body in this verse. The old
        commentary thinks so, but I am sceptical about whether or not this is true.
        In fact, there is no passage in the canon that would support the view that
        the body is like a cave. In addition, many of the verses of the Suttanipata
        are peculiar and have no parallels in the canon as such. The
        interpretatition is therefore dubious.

        The one who is confined to a cave does not see the light i.e. the dhamma.
        This in my view explains the metaphor, because it is, evidently a metaphor.

        Regards
        Ole Holten Pind





        _____

        Fra: Pali@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Pali@yahoogroups.com] På vegne af
        keren_arbel
        Sendt: 6. februar 2007 14:47
        Til: Pali@yahoogroups.com
        Emne: Re: SV: [Pali] Guhat.t.haka from the Mahaaniddesa



        Dear Ole Holten Pind,

        Can you make sense of this metaphor, of the cave as the body (as
        Norman add in his translation)? Why is the body a cave?
        In the rest of the verse it is said that this same man is "covered
        with many [defilements]" and not that inside the cave there are
        defilements. I just don't get this simile...

        Thanks for any explanaation,
        Mettacittena,
        Keren.






        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • keren_arbel
        dear Ole Holten Pind, I tend to accept your explanation, since the body as a cave doesn t seem correct. Thanks, Keren.
        Message 3 of 21 , Feb 7, 2007
        • 0 Attachment
          dear Ole Holten Pind,

          I tend to accept your explanation, since the body as a cave doesn't
          seem correct.

          Thanks,
          Keren.
        • Nina van Gorkom
          Dear Keren and Ole, It depends on your attitude towards the Commentaries. The Commentary explains it as a room. a dwelling for kilesas. Personally I like this.
          Message 4 of 21 , Feb 8, 2007
          • 0 Attachment
            Dear Keren and Ole,
            It depends on your attitude towards the Commentaries. The Commentary
            explains it as a room. a dwelling for kilesas. Personally I like this.
            Nina.
            Op 8-feb-2007, om 7:45 heeft keren_arbel het volgende geschreven:

            > I tend to accept your explanation, since the body as a cave doesn't
            > seem correct.



            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • Piya Tan
            Sutta Nipata Commentary (SnA) actually says to the cave means to the body (guhaayan ti kaaye) (SnA 2:514). Further down, SnA continues by repeating the
            Message 5 of 21 , Feb 8, 2007
            • 0 Attachment
              Sutta Nipata Commentary (SnA) actually says "to the cave" means "to the
              body" (guhaayan ti kaaye) (SnA 2:514). Further down, SnA continues by
              repeating the gloss and then says, "The body is called 'a cave' because it
              is an opening and a dwelling for wild beasts such as lust and so on" (kaayo
              hi raagaadiina.m vaa.lana.m vasanokaasato guhaa ti vuccati." (SnA 2:515).

              This analogy is easily understood and accepted by Buddhist practitioners as
              an example of illustrative or conventional language. In fact, much of the
              early texts (such as those of Sn) have this poetical and figurative approach
              to esp the higher aspects of the Dharma.

              Very often we find an interesting conjunction between what the scholars and
              what the Commentaries say, and when the practitioners agree, too, we have
              all the planets in wondrous alignment.

              Otherwise, it is still all right to have private understanding as long as it
              is not motivated by greed, hate or delusion. (This last root is very tricky,
              indeed. That's where a living transmission from a living Buddhist master or
              practitioner is much more help than all the dukedom of a library).

              May we enter the stream in this life itself.

              Piya Tan


              On 2/8/07, Nina van Gorkom <vangorko@...> wrote:
              >
              > Dear Keren and Ole,
              > It depends on your attitude towards the Commentaries. The Commentary
              > explains it as a room. a dwelling for kilesas. Personally I like this.
              > Nina.
              > Op 8-feb-2007, om 7:45 heeft keren_arbel het volgende geschreven:
              >
              > > I tend to accept your explanation, since the body as a cave doesn't
              > > seem correct.
              >
              > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              >
              >
              >


              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • Ong Yong Peng
              Dear Piya, Nina, Ole and Keren, I tend to agree with Piya and Nina. As for what Piya said about living tradition and living master, let s not forget about
              Message 6 of 21 , Feb 8, 2007
              • 0 Attachment
                Dear Piya, Nina, Ole and Keren,

                I tend to agree with Piya and Nina. As for what Piya said about living
                tradition and living master, let's not forget about living language,
                which is the main objective of this group!

                Here is my attempt on the English translation:

                Tainted by many in the cave, remaining attached,
                engrossed in temptation, so deeply the man;
                indeed, from detachment he is,
                renounces not thus, the sensual desires easily in this world.

                satto guhaaya.m bahunaabhichanno,
                attached, in the cave, covered with much,

                * satta [=laggo (comm)] (adj) attached.
                * guhaa (f) cave.
                * bahunaabhichanna = covered with much.
                - bahu (adj) much.
                - abhicchanna (adj) covered with.

                ti.t.tha.m naro mohanasmi.m pagaa.lho;
                standing, the man, immersed in enticement;

                * ti.t.thanta (ppr of ti.t.thati) standing.
                * nara (m) man.
                * mohana (n) making dull or stupid, infatuation, enticement, allurement.
                * pagaa.lha (pp of pagaahati) sunk into, immersed in.

                duure vivekaa hi tathaavidho so,
                remote indeed, from detachment he (is) so.

                * duura (adj) distant, remote.
                * viveka (m) detachment.
                * hi (indec) indeed.
                * tathaavidha (adv) [see tathaa] such like, so.

                kaamaa hi loke na hi suppahaayaa.
                sensual desires indeed, in this world indeed, not easily renounced.

                * kaama (m, n) sensual desire.
                * loka (m) world.
                * na (neg) not.
                * suppahaaya = having renounced easily.
                - pahaaya (ger of pajahati) having renounced.

                Please correct me if there is any mistake.


                metta,
                Yong Peng.



                --- In Pali@yahoogroups.com, Piya Tan wrote:

                Sutta Nipata Commentary (SnA) actually says "to the cave" means "to
                the body" (guhaayan ti kaaye) (SnA 2:514). Further down, SnA continues
                by repeating the gloss and then says, "The body is called 'a cave'
                because it is an opening and a dwelling for wild beasts such as lust
                and so on" (kaayo hi raagaadiina.m vaa.lana.m vasanokaasato guhaa ti
                vuccati." (SnA 2:515).

                > It depends on your attitude towards the Commentaries. The
                > Commentary explains it as a room. a dwelling for kilesas.
              • Ole Holten Pind
                The text addresses the fate of someone who remains stuck in the cave immersed in delusion. It seems to me that guhaa is used as metaphor for mohana. I am not
                Message 7 of 21 , Feb 9, 2007
                • 0 Attachment
                  The text addresses the fate of someone who remains stuck in the cave
                  immersed in delusion. It seems to me that guhaa is used as metaphor for
                  mohana. I am not aware of any passage describing the being attached (satta)
                  to the body (as a cave). I may be wrong, though. However, this remains the
                  only example in the canon of the use of guhaa to denote the body,
                  metaphorically or otherwise. Mahaaniddesa and PJ I, of course, takes it to
                  stand for the body. I wonder if this is an example of commentarial
                  ingenuity.

                  With best wishes,
                  Ole Holten Pind

                  _____

                  Fra: Pali@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Pali@yahoogroups.com] På vegne af Piya Tan
                  Sendt: 8. februar 2007 15:36
                  Til: Pali@yahoogroups.com
                  Emne: Re: SV: SV: [Pali] Guhat.t.haka from the Mahaaniddesa



                  Sutta Nipata Commentary (SnA) actually says "to the cave" means "to the
                  body" (guhaayan ti kaaye) (SnA 2:514). Further down, SnA continues by
                  repeating the gloss and then says, "The body is called 'a cave' because it
                  is an opening and a dwelling for wild beasts such as lust and so on" (kaayo
                  hi raagaadiina.m vaa.lana.m vasanokaasato guhaa ti vuccati." (SnA 2:515).

                  This analogy is easily understood and accepted by Buddhist practitioners as
                  an example of illustrative or conventional language. In fact, much of the
                  early texts (such as those of Sn) have this poetical and figurative approach
                  to esp the higher aspects of the Dharma.

                  Very often we find an interesting conjunction between what the scholars and
                  what the Commentaries say, and when the practitioners agree, too, we have
                  all the planets in wondrous alignment.

                  Otherwise, it is still all right to have private understanding as long as it
                  is not motivated by greed, hate or delusion. (This last root is very tricky,
                  indeed. That's where a living transmission from a living Buddhist master or
                  practitioner is much more help than all the dukedom of a library).

                  May we enter the stream in this life itself.

                  Piya Tan

                  On 2/8/07, Nina van Gorkom <vangorko@xs4all. <mailto:vangorko%40xs4all.nl>
                  nl> wrote:
                  >
                  > Dear Keren and Ole,
                  > It depends on your attitude towards the Commentaries. The Commentary
                  > explains it as a room. a dwelling for kilesas. Personally I like this.
                  > Nina.
                  > Op 8-feb-2007, om 7:45 heeft keren_arbel het volgende geschreven:
                  >
                  > > I tend to accept your explanation, since the body as a cave doesn't
                  > > seem correct.
                  >
                  > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  >
                  >
                  >

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






                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • Ong Yong Peng
                  Dear friends, I have reworked the verse, now with the trilinear: satto guhaaya.m bahunaabhichanno, attached / in the cave / covered with much Attached, tainted
                  Message 8 of 21 , Feb 9, 2007
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Dear friends,

                    I have reworked the verse, now with the trilinear:

                    satto guhaaya.m bahunaabhichanno,
                    attached / in the cave / covered with much
                    Attached, tainted by many in the cave,

                    ti.t.tha.m naro mohanasmi.m pagaa.lho;
                    standing / man / immersed in enticement
                    the man, remaining engrossed in temptation;

                    duure vivekaa hi tathaavidho so
                    in deep / from detachment / indeed / such like / he
                    In deep (allurement), from detachment, indeed, such he (is) like,

                    kaamaa hi loke na hi suppahaayaa
                    sensual desires / alas / in world / not / indeed / having renounced easily
                    alas, renounces easily not indeed, the sensual desires in the world.

                    metta,
                    Yong Peng.


                    --- In Pali@yahoogroups.com, Ong Yong Peng wrote:

                    Tainted by many in the cave, remaining attached,
                    engrossed in temptation, so deeply the man;
                    indeed, from detachment he is,
                    renounces not thus, the sensual desires easily in this world.
                  • Ong Yong Peng
                    Dear friends, the commentary recommends the third line to be read as: duure vivekaa hi tathaavidho so in remote / from detachment / indeed / such like / he In
                    Message 9 of 21 , Feb 9, 2007
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Dear friends,

                      the commentary recommends the third line to be read as:

                      duure vivekaa hi tathaavidho so
                      in remote / from detachment / indeed / such like / he
                      In (allurement) remote from detachment, indeed, such he (is) like,

                      metta,
                      Yong Peng.


                      --- In Pali@yahoogroups.com, Ong Yong Peng wrote:

                      duure vivekaa hi tathaavidho so
                      in deep / from detachment / indeed / such like / he
                      In deep (allurement), from detachment, indeed, such he (is) like,
                    • Ong Yong Peng
                      Dear Ole, I think the key is probably satta , which have several meanings, another of which is also suitable for this verse: creature, sentient being. For
                      Message 10 of 21 , Feb 9, 2007
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Dear Ole,

                        I think the key is probably 'satta', which have several meanings,
                        another of which is also suitable for this verse: creature, sentient
                        being.

                        For example, the first two lines according to the commentary are:

                        satto guhaaya.m bahunaabhichanno,
                        ti.t.tha.m naro mohanasmi.m pagaa.lho;

                        Attached, tainted by many in the cave,
                        the man, remaining engrossed in temptation;

                        Here, the commentary suggests that 'cave' is a metaphor for 'body'. It
                        further comments that just like the cave is a dwelling space for wild
                        beasts, the body is a dwelling space for lust and so on.

                        All in all, the commentary explains the first two line as "the man,
                        remaining immersed in allurement, is attached to and tainted by
                        defilements in himself (the body)".

                        However, if we take satta as 'sentient being', we get:

                        The being, tainted by many in the cave,
                        the man, remaining engrossed in temptation;

                        Here, we see a simile of a man remaining engrossed in temptation to be
                        like a being covered by weeds and vermin in the cave.

                        It is very unlikely the verse literally refers to a person remaining
                        stuck in a cave. The reason the commentator picked the first
                        explanation is probably that it suits meditation as an inward-looking
                        practice.

                        metta,
                        Yong Peng.


                        --- In Pali@yahoogroups.com, Ole Holten Pind wrote:

                        The text addresses the fate of someone who remains stuck in the cave
                        immersed in delusion. It seems to me that guhaa is used as metaphor
                        for mohana. I am not aware of any passage describing the being
                        attached (satta) to the body (as a cave). I may be wrong, though.
                        However, this remains the only example in the canon of the use of
                        guhaa to denote the body, metaphorically or otherwise. Mahaaniddesa
                        and PJ I, of course, takes it to stand for the body. I wonder if this
                        is an example of commentarial ingenuity.
                      • Ole Holten Pind
                        Dear Ong Yong Peng, I have to admit that the verse puzzles me. There is not a single passage in the canon in which guhaa is used metaphorically of the body.
                        Message 11 of 21 , Feb 10, 2007
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Dear Ong Yong Peng,

                          I have to admit that the verse puzzles me. There is not a single passage in
                          the canon in which guhaa is used metaphorically of the body. The few
                          occurrences are invariably to caves. In addition, abhi(c)channo can only
                          mean covered, and it is constructed with instr. of the thing
                          something/someone is covered with. However, what does covered with many
                          refer to? The idea of someone covered with all the kilesas seems to me very
                          unlikely. It probably refers to his clothing and jewelry or the like, all of
                          them objects of sensuous desire (kaamaa) that should be transcended.

                          Regards,
                          Ole Holten Pind

                          _____

                          Fra: Pali@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Pali@yahoogroups.com] På vegne af Ong Yong
                          Peng
                          Sendt: 10. februar 2007 02:07
                          Til: Pali@yahoogroups.com
                          Emne: Re: SV: SV: SV: [Pali] Guhat.t.haka from the Mahaaniddesa



                          Dear Ole,

                          I think the key is probably 'satta', which have several meanings,
                          another of which is also suitable for this verse: creature, sentient
                          being.

                          For example, the first two lines according to the commentary are:

                          satto guhaaya.m bahunaabhichanno,
                          ti.t.tha.m naro mohanasmi.m pagaa.lho;

                          Attached, tainted by many in the cave,
                          the man, remaining engrossed in temptation;

                          Here, the commentary suggests that 'cave' is a metaphor for 'body'. It
                          further comments that just like the cave is a dwelling space for wild
                          beasts, the body is a dwelling space for lust and so on.

                          All in all, the commentary explains the first two line as "the man,
                          remaining immersed in allurement, is attached to and tainted by
                          defilements in himself (the body)".

                          However, if we take satta as 'sentient being', we get:

                          The being, tainted by many in the cave,
                          the man, remaining engrossed in temptation;

                          Here, we see a simile of a man remaining engrossed in temptation to be
                          like a being covered by weeds and vermin in the cave.

                          It is very unlikely the verse literally refers to a person remaining
                          stuck in a cave. The reason the commentator picked the first
                          explanation is probably that it suits meditation as an inward-looking
                          practice.

                          metta,
                          Yong Peng.

                          --- In Pali@yahoogroups. <mailto:Pali%40yahoogroups.com> com, Ole Holten
                          Pind wrote:

                          The text addresses the fate of someone who remains stuck in the cave
                          immersed in delusion. It seems to me that guhaa is used as metaphor
                          for mohana. I am not aware of any passage describing the being
                          attached (satta) to the body (as a cave). I may be wrong, though.
                          However, this remains the only example in the canon of the use of
                          guhaa to denote the body, metaphorically or otherwise. Mahaaniddesa
                          and PJ I, of course, takes it to stand for the body. I wonder if this
                          is an example of commentarial ingenuity.






                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        • Ong Yong Peng
                          Dear Ole, thanks for the information. I agree that (simply) covered with kilesas does not make much Buddhist philosophical sense. Referencing the commentary
                          Message 12 of 21 , Feb 10, 2007
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Dear Ole,

                            thanks for the information. I agree that "(simply) covered with
                            kilesas" does not make much Buddhist philosophical sense. Referencing
                            the commentary (again), I think it is more appropriate in today's
                            language to say "tainted with kilesas/defilements". :-)

                            However, I do agree that 'bahu' can refer to anything because of the
                            liberal construct. I think your interpretation, though unconventional,
                            is another alternative way of understanding the verse.

                            metta,
                            Yong Peng.


                            --- In Pali@yahoogroups.com, Ole Holten Pind wrote:

                            There is not a single passage in the canon in which guhaa is used
                            metaphorically of the body. The few occurrences are invariably to
                            caves. In addition, abhi(c)channo can only mean covered, and it is
                            constructed with instr. of the thing something/someone is covered
                            with. However, what does covered with many refer to? The idea of
                            someone covered with all the kilesas seems to me very unlikely. It
                            probably refers to his clothing and jewelry or the like, all of them
                            objects of sensuous desire (kaamaa) that should be transcended.
                          • Ole Holten Pind
                            Dear Yong Peng, The problem is that the very few recorded instances of abhi(c)channa refer to something that covers something else in the physical sense. I
                            Message 13 of 21 , Feb 11, 2007
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Dear Yong Peng,

                              The problem is that the very few recorded instances of abhi(c)channa refer
                              to something that covers something else in the physical sense. I think the
                              verse makes perfect sense when interpreted in the light of the early
                              Buddhists' attitude towards wearing fancy clothing, jewelry, garlands etc.
                              Take, for instance, the description found in Brahmajalasuttanta and compare
                              it to the rules of the patimokkha.

                              Best wishes,
                              Ole Pind



                              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                            • Ong Yong Peng
                              Dear Ole, thanks again. The is the type of information that PaliScope will need. I will put it in when I make an entry for the term. metta, Yong Peng. ... The
                              Message 14 of 21 , Feb 13, 2007
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Dear Ole,

                                thanks again. The is the type of information that PaliScope will need.
                                I will put it in when I make an entry for the term.

                                metta,
                                Yong Peng.


                                --- In Pali@yahoogroups.com, Ole Holten Pind wrote:

                                The problem is that the very few recorded instances of abhi(c)channa
                                refer to something that covers something else in the physical sense.
                              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.