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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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.