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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 21 , Feb 7, 2007
      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 2 of 21 , Feb 7, 2007
        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 3 of 21 , Feb 8, 2007
          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 4 of 21 , Feb 8, 2007
            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 5 of 21 , Feb 8, 2007
              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 6 of 21 , Feb 9, 2007
                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 7 of 21 , Feb 9, 2007
                  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 8 of 21 , Feb 9, 2007
                    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 9 of 21 , Feb 9, 2007
                      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 10 of 21 , Feb 10, 2007
                        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 11 of 21 , Feb 10, 2007
                          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 12 of 21 , Feb 11, 2007
                            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 13 of 21 , Feb 13, 2007
                              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.