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

Re: [Pali] a.t.thahaakaarehi

Expand Messages
  • Bryan Levman
    Dear Nina, Thanks for that reference to ha, which indeed makes more sense in the compound a.t.thahaakaarehi. I started out translating Dharmapala s commentary
    Message 1 of 17 , Jan 5, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      Dear Nina,

      Thanks for that reference to ha, which indeed makes more sense in the compound
      a.t.thahaakaarehi.

      I started out translating Dharmapala's commentary to the Addhaasutta (Itivuttaka
      63), trying to understand why a sutra on time would contain a discourse on
      akkheyya ("what can be expressed" in Bhikkhu Bodhi's translation). Two of the
      three verses in the Addhaasutta appear in the Samiddhisutta, which is why I
      started looking at Buddhaghosa's commentary. I have translated the parts which
      relate to these verses but not the whole thing yet.

      Thanks for your help,

      Metta, Bryan








      ________________________________
      From: Nina van Gorkom <vangorko@...>
      To: pali@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Wed, January 5, 2011 4:49:41 AM
      Subject: [Pali] a.t.thahaakaarehi


      Dear Bryan,

      I saw in Warder more on Junction Consonants (Ch 25): t,d,m,y,r. Like
      in sammadeva. It says that very rarely h appears before e: heva.m,
      but that this may also be the emphatic indeclinable ha, meaning: indeed.
      When looking at a.t.thahaakaarehi I thought it likely that the h
      is a junction consonant, but of course I am always open to corrections.

      What is your project, are you translating the whole commentary of the
      Samiddhi sutta?

      Nina.

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






      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Nina van Gorkom
      Dear Bryan, ... N: In that case you may be interested to see Peter Masefield s transl. The Commentary on the Itivuttaka, vol 2, p. 503. This was a present from
      Message 2 of 17 , Jan 5, 2011
      • 0 Attachment
        Dear Bryan,
        Op 5-jan-2011, om 13:04 heeft Bryan Levman het volgende geschreven:

        > I started out translating Dharmapala's commentary to the
        > Addhaasutta (Itivuttaka
        > 63),
        ------
        N: In that case you may be interested to see Peter Masefield's
        transl. The Commentary on the Itivuttaka, vol 2, p. 503. This was a
        present from the PTS last year.

        Nina.



        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Bryan Levman
        Thanks Nina, I didn t know it had been translated. You mean it is available on line? How do I find it? Thanks, Bryan ________________________________ From:
        Message 3 of 17 , Jan 5, 2011
        • 0 Attachment
          Thanks Nina,

          I didn't know it had been translated. You mean it is available on line? How do I
          find it?

          Thanks, Bryan







          ________________________________
          From: Nina van Gorkom <vangorko@...>
          To: Pali@yahoogroups.com
          Sent: Wed, January 5, 2011 9:30:40 AM
          Subject: Re: [Pali] a.t.thahaakaarehi


          Dear Bryan,
          Op 5-jan-2011, om 13:04 heeft Bryan Levman het volgende geschreven:

          > I started out translating Dharmapala's commentary to the
          > Addhaasutta (Itivuttaka
          > 63),
          ------
          N: In that case you may be interested to see Peter Masefield's
          transl. The Commentary on the Itivuttaka, vol 2, p. 503. This was a
          present from the PTS last year.

          Nina.

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






          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Nina van Gorkom
          Dear Bryan, ... N: The Commentary on the Itivuttaka , translated by Peter Masefield. Translation series 54. It is in 2 volumes, I think only hardcover. You
          Message 4 of 17 , Jan 6, 2011
          • 0 Attachment
            Dear Bryan,
            Op 5-jan-2011, om 20:47 heeft Bryan Levman het volgende geschreven:

            > I didn't know it had been translated. You mean it is available on
            > line? How do I
            > find it?
            ------
            N: "The Commentary on the Itivuttaka", translated by Peter Masefield.
            Translation series 54. It is in 2 volumes, I think only hardcover.
            You could order it from PTS: pts@...
            As a sponsoring member I received this as a present. As a member you
            get reduction from all books you order.

            He also translated the Udana commentary, I think only in hardcover.
            In 2 volumes, rather big ones.

            http://www.bookfinder.com/dir/i/The_Udana_Commentary/0860133168/

            His translations are very good.
            -------
            Bryan: I started out translating Dharmapala's commentary to the
            Addhaasutta (Itivuttaka
            63), trying to understand why a sutra on time would contain a
            discourse on
            akkheyya ("what can be expressed" in Bhikkhu Bodhi's translation).
            -------
            N: Masefield: As regards the verses: perceiving that which is capable
            of expression (akkheyyasa~n~nino): in this connection, it is that
            which is capable of expression (akkheya) since it is expressed
            (akkhaayati), talked about, defined, a basis for talk, being, as to
            sense, the five khandhas of material form and so on. For there is
            said, "One might talk concerning the period that is is past... or
            that has yet to come... or else one might talk concerning the period
            that is present..."
            The notion addha interests me, and the Tika to the Visuddhimagga Ch
            XIV, 187 goes into it deeply:

            <The Tiika to Vis. 187 adds that extent, addhaa can also be used in
            the ultimate sense (paramatthato) with the meaning of moment (kha.na).
            The Diigha Nikaaya, Sangiiti Sutta, the threes, XXIV, states:
            <Three periods, to wit, past, future, present.>
            The word addhaa is used here. The Co. to this passage explains that
            there is the Suttanta method and the Abhidhamma method of
            explanation. In the Suttanta method past, future and present periods
            are used in conventional sense, as lifespan. In the Abhidhamma
            method, addhaa is used in the sense of moment.>
            I can quote more if you like, or it may be too much? I studied this
            tika.
            --------
            Nina.




            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • Bryan Levman
            Dear Nina, Thanks Nina, I will look up Peter Masefield s translation and see how mine compares. I was most interested in the Buddha s statement re: akkheyya
            Message 5 of 17 , Jan 6, 2011
            • 0 Attachment
              Dear Nina,

              Thanks Nina,

              I will look up Peter Masefield's translation and see how mine compares. I was
              most interested in the Buddha's statement re: akkheyya "what can be expressed".


              In Bodhi's translation:

              Beings who perceive what can be expressed
              Become established (pati.t.thitaa; I would translate "fixed") in what can be
              expressed.
              Not fully understanding what can be expressed
              They come under the yoke of Death.

              But having fully understood what can be expressed
              One does not conceive 'one who expresses'.
              For that does not exist for him
              By which one could describe him.

              This reminds me of the Muulapariyaaya sutta (MN 1) where the puthujjano

              pa.thavi.m pa.thavito sa~njaanaati. Pa.thavi.m pa.thavito sa~n~natvaa
              pa.thavi.m ma~n~nati pa.thaviyaa ma~n~nati pa.thavito ma~n~nati pa.thavi.m me'ti
              ma~n~nati.
              Pa.thavi.m abhinandati.


              which I would translate as

              …from a perception of ‘earth’ he/she is aware of ‘earth’. Being aware of earth
              from the
              percept, he/she deems the percept ‘earth’. He/she supposes separation from earth
              (pa,thavito);
              he/she imagines ‘with reference to earth’; he/she thinks of earth as ‘mine’.
              He/she delights in earth.

              but the arahant who has destroyed his/her passions, fully knows the earth,

              Pa.thavi.m pa.thavito abhi~n~naaya pa.thavi.m na ma~n~nati pa.thaviyaa na
              ma~n~nati pa.thavito na ma~n~nati pa.thavi.m me'ti na ma~n~nati. Pa.thavi.m
              naabhinandati.

              After fully knowing the earth from a percept he/she does not judge earth, nor
              does hs/she conceive with reference to earth or separate from earth or ‘earth is
              mine’; he/she does not find pleasure in earth.

              Here the Buddha seems to be saying that the very structure of language and
              syntax (which reflects the dualistic structure of the mind) causes us to view
              things as outside of ourselves (which we get fixed or established in, per the
              Addhaasutta), but once we fully understand them we realize that there is not
              really a speaker (akkaataara.m na ma~n~nati in the Addhaasutta) and are no
              longer stuck in concepts (Ireland translates the third verse which is not in the
              Samiddhisutta, "He freely makes use of concepts, but no more enters into
              concept's range."


              sa"nkhaya sevii dhamma.t.tho sa"nkhyam nopeti vedagu.

              This half-verse recurs in Sutta Nipaata 749, where Norman translates "The
              practicing [bhikkhu] having reflected, standing [firm] in the doctrine, having
              knowledge is not counted [in any category]." The notion seems to be that we
              transcend the duality of language and its syntactical and semantic structure.

              Now I have not examined all the commentary on these passages, but I'm wondering
              if you've come across in your studies any such-like statements in the canon or
              commentary which might shed some light on the above.


              Metta, Bryan














              ________________________________
              From: Nina van Gorkom <vangorko@...>
              To: Pali@yahoogroups.com
              Sent: Thu, January 6, 2011 10:04:48 AM
              Subject: Re: [Pali] a.t.thahaakaarehi


              Dear Bryan,
              Op 5-jan-2011, om 20:47 heeft Bryan Levman het volgende geschreven:

              > I didn't know it had been translated. You mean it is available on
              > line? How do I
              > find it?
              ------
              N: "The Commentary on the Itivuttaka", translated by Peter Masefield.
              Translation series 54. It is in 2 volumes, I think only hardcover.
              You could order it from PTS: pts@...
              As a sponsoring member I received this as a present. As a member you
              get reduction from all books you order.

              He also translated the Udana commentary, I think only in hardcover.
              In 2 volumes, rather big ones.

              http://www.bookfinder.com/dir/i/The_Udana_Commentary/0860133168/

              His translations are very good.
              -------
              Bryan: I started out translating Dharmapala's commentary to the
              Addhaasutta (Itivuttaka
              63), trying to understand why a sutra on time would contain a
              discourse on
              akkheyya ("what can be expressed" in Bhikkhu Bodhi's translation).
              -------
              N: Masefield: As regards the verses: perceiving that which is capable
              of expression (akkheyyasa~n~nino): in this connection, it is that
              which is capable of expression (akkheya) since it is expressed
              (akkhaayati), talked about, defined, a basis for talk, being, as to
              sense, the five khandhas of material form and so on. For there is
              said, "One might talk concerning the period that is is past... or
              that has yet to come... or else one might talk concerning the period
              that is present..."
              The notion addha interests me, and the Tika to the Visuddhimagga Ch
              XIV, 187 goes into it deeply:

              <The Tiika to Vis. 187 adds that extent, addhaa can also be used in
              the ultimate sense (paramatthato) with the meaning of moment (kha.na).
              The Diigha Nikaaya, Sangiiti Sutta, the threes, XXIV, states:
              <Three periods, to wit, past, future, present.>
              The word addhaa is used here. The Co. to this passage explains that
              there is the Suttanta method and the Abhidhamma method of
              explanation. In the Suttanta method past, future and present periods
              are used in conventional sense, as lifespan. In the Abhidhamma
              method, addhaa is used in the sense of moment.>
              I can quote more if you like, or it may be too much? I studied this
              tika.
              --------
              Nina.

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






              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • Lennart Lopin
              Hi Bryan, It is actually a very intesting passage. Ven. K. Nyanananda has a great passage on this one in his Nibbana sermons regarding the deeper implications
              Message 6 of 17 , Jan 6, 2011
              • 0 Attachment
                Hi Bryan,

                It is actually a very intesting passage. Ven. K. Nyanananda has a great
                passage on this one in his Nibbana sermons regarding the deeper implications
                of this expression:

                ==============

                ...And this is the standard definition of *nàma* in *Abhidhamma* com­pendiums
                and commentaries. The idea of bending towards an object is brought in to
                explain the word *nàma*. It may be that they thought it too simple an
                interpretation to explain *nàma *with reference to `name', particularly
                be­cause it is a term that has to do with deep in­sight. However as far as
                the teachings in the *sut­tas *are concerned, *nàma *still has a great depth
                even when it is understood in the sense of `name'.

                *Nàmaü sabbaü anvabhavi,*

                *nàmà bhiyyo na vijjati,*

                *nàmassa ekadhammassa,*

                *sabbeva vasam­anvagå*.[7]<http://www.beyondthenet.net/calm/nibbana01.htm#_edn7>

                "Name has conquered everything,

                There is nothing greater than name,

                All have gone un­der the sway

                Of this one thing called name."

                Also there is another verse of the same type, but unfortunately its original
                meaning is often ig­nored by the present day com­men­tators:

                *Akkheyyasaññino sattà,*

                *akkheyyasmiṃ patiṭṭhità,*

                *akkhey­yaü apariññàya,*

                *yogam àyanti maccuno**.(*[8]<http://www.beyondthenet.net/calm/nibbana01.htm#_ednref8>
                S
                I 11, *Samiddhisutta*.)

                "Beings are conscious of what can be named,

                They are estab­lished on the nameable,

                By not comprehending the nameable things,

                They come under the yoke of death."

                All this shows that the word *nàma* has a deep significance even when it is
                taken in the sense of `name'.

                But now let us see whether there is something wrong in ren­dering *nàma* by
                `name' in the case of the term *nàma-råpa*. To begin with, let us turn to
                the definition of *nàma-råpa* as given by the Venerable *Sàriputta* in the*
                Sammàdiññhisutta* of the *Majjhima Nikàya*.

                *Vedanà, sa¤¤à, cetanà, phasso, manasikàro - idaü vuc­catàvuso,
                nàmaü*; *cattàri
                ca mahà­bhåtàni, catunna¤ca mahà­bhåtànaü upàdàyaråpaü - idaü vuccatàvuso,
                råpaü. Iti ida¤ca nàmaü ida¤ca råpaü - idam vuccatàvuso
                nàma-råpaü.*[9]<http://www.beyondthenet.net/calm/nibbana01.htm#_edn9>
                * *"Feel­ing, perception, inten­tion, contact, attention - this, friend, is
                called `name'. The four great primaries and form dependent on the four great
                pri­maries - this, friend, is called `form'. So this is `name' and this is
                `form' - this, friend, is called `name-and-form'."

                Well, this seems lucid enough as a definition but let us see, whether there
                is any justification for regarding feeling, percep­tion, intention, contact
                and attention as `name'. Suppose there is a little child, a toddler, who is
                still unable to speak or understand language. Someone gives him a rubber
                ball and the child has seen it for the first time. If the child is told that
                it is a rubber ball, he might not under­stand it. How does he get to know
                that ob­ject? He smells it, feels it, and tries to eat it, and finally rolls
                it on the floor. At last he under­stands that it is a plaything. Now the
                child has recog­nised the rubber ball not by the name that the world has
                given it, but by those factors included un­der `name' in *nàma-råpa*, namely
                feeling, perception, intention, contact and at­tention.

                This shows that the definition of *nàma* in *nàma-råpa* takes us back to the
                most fundamental no­tion of `name', to something like its prototype. The
                world gives a name to an object for pur­poses of easy communication. When it
                gets the sanction of oth­ers, it becomes a convention.

                ====

                From: Nibbana Sermon 1, link: http://www.beyondthenet.net/calm/nibbana01.htm

                metta,

                Lennart


                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • Bryan Levman
                Hi Lennart, Thanks very much for the references. Yes I think naama is extremely basic as the passage from the SN says; indeed, name has conquered everything
                Message 7 of 17 , Jan 6, 2011
                • 0 Attachment
                  Hi Lennart,

                  Thanks very much for the references. Yes I think naama is extremely basic as the
                  passage from the SN says; indeed, "name has conquered everything" and we are
                  always getting caught up in our names, making them permanent, serious and
                  suffering because of them (look what some political and religious "names" have
                  done to the world). And often they refer to something which doesn't even exist.

                  The logical conclusion to this is that without naming, there would be no
                  feel­ing, perception, inten­tion, contact or attention to get caught up in.
                  Presumably one would use names and concepts, but not be manipulated by them -
                  the state of an arhant or what the Buddha meant by santo santipade rato ("the
                  peaceful one delights in the peaceful state) in Itivuttaka 63

                  Metta,

                  Bryan







                  ________________________________
                  From: Lennart Lopin <novalis78@...>
                  To: Pali@yahoogroups.com
                  Sent: Thu, January 6, 2011 12:25:04 PM
                  Subject: Re: [Pali] a.t.thahaakaarehi


                  Hi Bryan,

                  It is actually a very intesting passage. Ven. K. Nyanananda has a great
                  passage on this one in his Nibbana sermons regarding the deeper implications
                  of this expression:

                  ==============

                  ...And this is the standard definition of *nàma* in *Abhidhamma* com­pendiums
                  and commentaries. The idea of bending towards an object is brought in to
                  explain the word *nàma*. It may be that they thought it too simple an
                  interpretation to explain *nàma *with reference to `name', particularly
                  be­cause it is a term that has to do with deep in­sight. However as far as
                  the teachings in the *sut­tas *are concerned, *nàma *still has a great depth
                  even when it is understood in the sense of `name'.

                  *Nàmaü sabbaü anvabhavi,*

                  *nàmà bhiyyo na vijjati,*

                  *nàmassa ekadhammassa,*

                  *sabbeva vasam­anvagå*.[7]<http://www.beyondthenet.net/calm/nibbana01.htm#_edn7>

                  "Name has conquered everything,

                  There is nothing greater than name,

                  All have gone un­der the sway

                  Of this one thing called name."

                  Also there is another verse of the same type, but unfortunately its original
                  meaning is often ig­nored by the present day com­men­tators:

                  *Akkheyyasaññino sattà,*

                  *akkheyyasmiṃ patiṭṭhità,*

                  *akkhey­yaü apariññàya,*

                  *yogam àyanti
                  maccuno**.(*[8]<http://www.beyondthenet.net/calm/nibbana01.htm#_ednref8>
                  S
                  I 11, *Samiddhisutta*.)

                  "Beings are conscious of what can be named,

                  They are estab­lished on the nameable,

                  By not comprehending the nameable things,

                  They come under the yoke of death."

                  All this shows that the word *nàma* has a deep significance even when it is
                  taken in the sense of `name'.

                  But now let us see whether there is something wrong in ren­dering *nàma* by
                  `name' in the case of the term *nàma-råpa*. To begin with, let us turn to
                  the definition of *nàma-råpa* as given by the Venerable *Sàriputta* in the*
                  Sammàdiññhisutta* of the *Majjhima Nikàya*.

                  *Vedanà, sa¤¤à, cetanà, phasso, manasikàro - idaü vuc­catàvuso,
                  nàmaü*; *cattàri
                  ca mahà­bhåtàni, catunna¤ca mahà­bhåtànaü upàdàyaråpaü - idaü vuccatàvuso,
                  råpaü. Iti ida¤ca nàmaü ida¤ca råpaü - idam vuccatàvuso
                  nàma-råpaü.*[9]<http://www.beyondthenet.net/calm/nibbana01.htm#_edn9>
                  * *"Feel­ing, perception, inten­tion, contact, attention - this, friend, is
                  called `name'. The four great primaries and form dependent on the four great
                  pri­maries - this, friend, is called `form'. So this is `name' and this is
                  `form' - this, friend, is called `name-and-form'."

                  Well, this seems lucid enough as a definition but let us see, whether there
                  is any justification for regarding feeling, percep­tion, intention, contact
                  and attention as `name'. Suppose there is a little child, a toddler, who is
                  still unable to speak or understand language. Someone gives him a rubber
                  ball and the child has seen it for the first time. If the child is told that
                  it is a rubber ball, he might not under­stand it. How does he get to know
                  that ob­ject? He smells it, feels it, and tries to eat it, and finally rolls
                  it on the floor. At last he under­stands that it is a plaything. Now the
                  child has recog­nised the rubber ball not by the name that the world has
                  given it, but by those factors included un­der `name' in *nàma-råpa*, namely
                  feeling, perception, intention, contact and at­tention.

                  This shows that the definition of *nàma* in *nàma-råpa* takes us back to the
                  most fundamental no­tion of `name', to something like its prototype. The
                  world gives a name to an object for pur­poses of easy communication. When it
                  gets the sanction of oth­ers, it becomes a convention.

                  ====

                  From: Nibbana Sermon 1, link: http://www.beyondthenet.net/calm/nibbana01.htm

                  metta,

                  Lennart

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






                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • Nina van Gorkom
                  Dear Lennart, ... N: Naama can have two meanings, name and also mental phenomenon, namely citta and cetasika. Also nibbaana is naama, an unconditioned naama.
                  Message 8 of 17 , Jan 7, 2011
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Dear Lennart,
                    Op 6-jan-2011, om 18:25 heeft Lennart Lopin het volgende geschreven:

                    > But now let us see whether there is something wrong in rendering
                    > *nàma* by
                    > `name' in the case of the term *nàma-råpa*. To begin with, let us
                    > turn to
                    > the definition of *nàma-råpa* as given by the Venerable *Sàriputta*
                    > in the*
                    > Sammàdi.t.thisutta* of the *Majjhima Nikàya*.
                    -------
                    N: Naama can have two meanings, 'name' and also mental phenomenon,
                    namely citta and cetasika. Also nibbaana is naama, an unconditioned
                    naama.
                    We have to look at the context to know in which sense naama is used.

                    Naama and ruupa are often translated as name and form, but this seems
                    to me confusing.
                    Naama and ruupa are paramattha dhammas, ultimate realities. They are
                    different from conventional truth such as a table or person. They
                    each have their own characteristics that can be directly experienced
                    and that cannot be altered. For instance, anger is always anger, even
                    if we give it another name. It has its own characteristic. We should
                    not cling to the name anger but rather investigate its characteristic
                    so that it can be known as non-self, not my anger.
                    A name can denote something that is not real in the ultimate sense or
                    it can denote a paramattha dhamma. Vipassanaa is being developed
                    through direct awareness of naama and ruupa and there is no need to
                    lable or name naama and ruupa. Their characteristics are experienced.
                    The aim is to directly know their true nature of impermanent, dukkha,
                    anattaa.

                    -------
                    Nina.





                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  • Nina van Gorkom
                    Dear Bryan, ... N: Ven. Bodhi translated this sutta and commentary: The discourse on the Root of Existence . BPS.
                    Message 9 of 17 , Jan 7, 2011
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Dear Bryan,

                      Op 6-jan-2011, om 18:03 heeft Bryan Levman het volgende geschreven:

                      > pa.thavi.m pa.thavito sa~njaanaati. Pa.thavi.m pa.thavito sa~n~natvaa
                      > pa.thavi.m ma~n~nati pa.thaviyaa ma~n~nati pa.thavito ma~n~nati
                      > pa.thavi.m me'ti
                      > ma~n~nati.
                      > Pa.thavi.m abhinandati.
                      >
                      > which I would translate as
                      >
                      > �from a perception of �earth� he/she is aware of �earth�. Being
                      > aware of earth
                      > from the
                      > percept, he/she deems the percept �earth�. He/she supposes
                      > separation from earth
                      > (pa,thavito);
                      > he/she imagines �with reference to earth�; he/she thinks of earth
                      > as �mine�.
                      > He/she delights in earth.
                      -------
                      N: Ven. Bodhi translated this sutta and commentary: "The discourse on
                      the Root of Existence". BPS.
                      <Having perceived earth as earth, he conceives (himself as ) earth;
                      he conceives (himself) in earth; he conceives (himself apart) from
                      earth; he conceives 'earth is mine'...>
                      These are actually the four ways of sakkaya di.t.thi pertaining to
                      each of the five khandhas: thus, believing himself to be identical
                      with the khandhas, as being contained in them, to be independent from
                      them, to be their owner.
                      ------
                      Nina.


                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    • Bryan Levman
                      Hi Nina, Thanks for this reference. I had not connected this with the four sakkaaya di.t.thi as the grammatical structure is somewhat different. In the
                      Message 10 of 17 , Jan 7, 2011
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Hi Nina,

                        Thanks for this reference. I had not connected this with the four sakkaaya
                        di.t.thi as the grammatical structure is somewhat different.

                        In the sakkaaya di.t.thi,

                        ruupa.m attato samanupassati, ruupavanta.m vaa attaana.m, attani vaa ruupa.m,
                        ruupasmi.m vaa attaana.m. (MN 1, 300)

                        we have genitive, accusative, and two locatives whereas in MN 1 there is an
                        accus., locative, ablative and accus. + gen. (pa.thavi.m ma~n~nati, pa.thaviyaa
                        ma~n~nati, pa.thavito ma~n~nati, pa.thavi.m me'ti ma~n~nati) and no mention of
                        the self which is interpolated by Venerable Bodhi in his translation.

                        Thanks for pointing out these correspondences to me

                        Metta, Bryan




                        ________________________________
                        From: Nina van Gorkom <vangorko@...>
                        To: Pali@yahoogroups.com
                        Sent: Fri, January 7, 2011 10:22:41 AM
                        Subject: Re: [Pali] a.t.thahaakaarehi

                        Dear Bryan,

                        Op 6-jan-2011, om 18:03 heeft Bryan Levman het volgende geschreven:

                        > pa.thavi.m pa.thavito sa~njaanaati. Pa.thavi.m pa.thavito sa~n~natvaa
                        > pa.thavi.m ma~n~nati pa.thaviyaa ma~n~nati pa.thavito ma~n~nati
                        > pa.thavi.m me'ti
                        > ma~n~nati.
                        > Pa.thavi.m abhinandati.
                        >
                        > which I would translate as
                        >
                        > …from a perception of ‘earth’ he/she is aware of ‘earth’. Being
                        > aware of earth
                        > from the
                        > percept, he/she deems the percept ‘earth’. He/she supposes
                        > separation from earth
                        > (pa,thavito);
                        > he/she imagines ‘with reference to earth’; he/she thinks of earth
                        > as ‘mine’.
                        > He/she delights in earth.
                        -------
                        N: Ven. Bodhi translated this sutta and commentary: "The discourse on
                        the Root of Existence". BPS.
                        <Having perceived earth as earth, he conceives (himself as ) earth;
                        he conceives (himself) in earth; he conceives (himself apart) from
                        earth; he conceives 'earth is mine'...>
                        These are actually the four ways of sakkaya di.t.thi pertaining to
                        each of the five khandhas: thus, believing himself to be identical
                        with the khandhas, as being contained in them, to be independent from
                        them, to be their owner.
                        ------
                        Nina.


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



                        ------------------------------------

                        - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                        Paa.li-Parisaa - The Pali Collective
                        [Homepage] http://www.tipitaka.net
                        [Pali Document Framework] http://www.tipitaka.net/forge/pdf/
                        [Files] http://www.geocities.com/paligroup/
                        [Send Message] pali@yahoogroups.com
                        Yahoo! Groups members can set their delivery options to daily digest or web
                        only.Yahoo! Groups Links





                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      • Nina van Gorkom
                        Dear Bryan, ... N You are right about the grammar. This sutta and commentaries deal with several ways of wrongly conceiving phenomena. One may conceive them
                        Message 11 of 17 , Jan 8, 2011
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Dear Bryan,
                          Op 7-jan-2011, om 17:18 heeft Bryan Levman het volgende geschreven:

                          > Thanks for this reference. I had not connected this with the four
                          > sakkaaya
                          > di.t.thi as the grammatical structure is somewhat different.
                          >
                          > In the sakkaaya di.t.thi,
                          >
                          > ruupa.m attato samanupassati, ruupavanta.m vaa attaana.m, attani
                          > vaa ruupa.m,
                          > ruupasmi.m vaa attaana.m. (MN 1, 300)
                          >
                          > we have genitive, accusative, and two locatives whereas in MN 1
                          > there is an
                          > accus., locative, ablative and accus. + gen. (pa.thavi.m ma~n~nati,
                          > pa.thaviyaa
                          > ma~n~nati, pa.thavito ma~n~nati, pa.thavi.m me'ti ma~n~nati) and no
                          > mention of
                          > the self which is interpolated by Venerable Bodhi in his translation.
                          ------
                          N You are right about the grammar. This sutta and commentaries deal
                          with several ways of wrongly conceiving phenomena. One may conceive
                          them with craving, with conceit and with wrong view. Ven. Bodhi has a
                          long Intro. He translates co. and subco. :
                          <He conceives (himself as ) earth (pa.thavi.m ma~n~nati)
                          Co: Through the three conceivings he conceives "I am earth," "earth
                          is mine", "another is earth", "earth belongs to another". ...>
                          The subco: <..."I am earth": by this he shows the conceiving of views
                          and the conceiving of conceit with an internal object, for this
                          phrase implies adherence to a view of self (attaabhinivesa) or I-
                          making (aha.mkara)....>
                          I did not quote all, it is very long. There are many aspects to
                          wrongly conceiving.

                          ------
                          Nina.



                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        • Bryan Levman
                          Hi Nina, Thanks very much Nina; I must study the commentary, but I don t believe there s any translation of it, so it s on my list of things to do, Metta,
                          Message 12 of 17 , Jan 8, 2011
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Hi Nina,

                            Thanks very much Nina; I must study the commentary, but I don't believe there's any translation of it, so it's on my list of things to do,

                            Metta, Bryan



                            --- On Sat, 1/8/11, Nina van Gorkom <vangorko@...> wrote:

                            From: Nina van Gorkom <vangorko@...>
                            Subject: Re: [Pali] a.t.thahaakaarehi
                            To: Pali@yahoogroups.com
                            Received: Saturday, January 8, 2011, 2:45 PM
















                             









                            Dear Bryan,

                            Op 7-jan-2011, om 17:18 heeft Bryan Levman het volgende geschreven:



                            > Thanks for this reference. I had not connected this with the four

                            > sakkaaya

                            > di.t.thi as the grammatical structure is somewhat different.

                            >

                            > In the sakkaaya di.t.thi,

                            >

                            > ruupa.m attato samanupassati, ruupavanta.m vaa attaana.m, attani

                            > vaa ruupa.m,

                            > ruupasmi.m vaa attaana.m. (MN 1, 300)

                            >

                            > we have genitive, accusative, and two locatives whereas in MN 1

                            > there is an

                            > accus., locative, ablative and accus. + gen. (pa.thavi.m ma~n~nati,

                            > pa.thaviyaa

                            > ma~n~nati, pa.thavito ma~n~nati, pa.thavi.m me'ti ma~n~nati) and no

                            > mention of

                            > the self which is interpolated by Venerable Bodhi in his translation.

                            ------

                            N You are right about the grammar. This sutta and commentaries deal

                            with several ways of wrongly conceiving phenomena. One may conceive

                            them with craving, with conceit and with wrong view. Ven. Bodhi has a

                            long Intro. He translates co. and subco. :

                            <He conceives (himself as ) earth (pa.thavi.m ma~n~nati)

                            Co: Through the three conceivings he conceives "I am earth," "earth

                            is mine", "another is earth", "earth belongs to another". ...>

                            The subco: <..."I am earth": by this he shows the conceiving of views

                            and the conceiving of conceit with an internal object, for this

                            phrase implies adherence to a view of self (attaabhinivesa) or I-

                            making (aha.mkara)....>

                            I did not quote all, it is very long. There are many aspects to

                            wrongly conceiving.



                            ------

                            Nina.



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





























                            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          • Nina van Gorkom
                            Dear Bryan, As mentioned, there is Ven. Bodhi translation of this sutta and commentary: The discourse on the Root of Existence . BPS. But I think only in hard
                            Message 13 of 17 , Jan 9, 2011
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Dear Bryan,
                              As mentioned, there is Ven. Bodhi translation of this sutta and
                              commentary: "The discourse on
                              the Root of Existence". BPS. But I think only in hard cover. I found
                              this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhist_Publication_Society

                              Nina.

                              Op 8-jan-2011, om 23:52 heeft Bryan Levman het volgende geschreven:

                              > I must study the commentary, but I don't believe there's any
                              > translation of it, so it's on my list of things to do,



                              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                            • Bryan Levman
                              Dear Nina, Thanks for the reference. We don t have a copy in the library so I ll have to order it, but judging from his previous work I m sure it s very good,
                              Message 14 of 17 , Jan 9, 2011
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Dear Nina,

                                Thanks for the reference. We don't have a copy in the library so I'll have to order it, but judging from his previous work I'm sure it's very good,

                                Metta, Bryan



                                --- On Sun, 1/9/11, Nina van Gorkom <vangorko@...> wrote:

                                From: Nina van Gorkom <vangorko@...>
                                Subject: Re: [Pali] a.t.thahaakaarehi
                                To: Pali@yahoogroups.com
                                Received: Sunday, January 9, 2011, 9:45 AM
















                                 









                                Dear Bryan,

                                As mentioned, there is Ven. Bodhi translation of this sutta and

                                commentary: "The discourse on

                                the Root of Existence". BPS. But I think only in hard cover. I found

                                this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhist_Publication_Society



                                Nina.



                                Op 8-jan-2011, om 23:52 heeft Bryan Levman het volgende geschreven:



                                > I must study the commentary, but I don't believe there's any

                                > translation of it, so it's on my list of things to do,



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





























                                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                              • Randy Graves
                                I believe it s the fourth book at http://www.bps.lk/translationsfrompali.asp (BP-210S) also at
                                Message 15 of 17 , Jan 10, 2011
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  I believe it's the fourth book at
                                  http://www.bps.lk/translationsfrompali.asp (BP-210S)
                                  also at
                                  http://books.google.com/books?printsec=frontcover&id=Mia6JAaSb0AC#v=onepage&q&f=false

                                  Randy Graves

                                  On 1/9/2011 1:45 AM, Nina van Gorkom wrote:
                                  >
                                  > Dear Bryan,
                                  > As mentioned, there is Ven. Bodhi translation of this sutta and
                                  > commentary: "The discourse on
                                  > the Root of Existence". BPS. But I think only in hard cover. I found
                                  > this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhist_Publication_Society
                                  >
                                  > Nina.
                                  >
                                  > Op 8-jan-2011, om 23:52 heeft Bryan Levman het volgende geschreven:
                                  >
                                  > > I must study the commentary, but I don't believe there's any
                                  > > translation of it, so it's on my list of things to do,
                                  >
                                  > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                  >
                                  >


                                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                • Bryan Levman
                                  Dear Randy and Nina, Thank you - I have found the book and ordered it from the Buddhist Publication Society, Metta, Bryan ... From: Randy Graves
                                  Message 16 of 17 , Jan 11, 2011
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    Dear Randy and Nina,

                                    Thank you - I have found the book and ordered it from the Buddhist Publication Society,

                                    Metta, Bryan



                                    --- On Mon, 1/10/11, Randy Graves <rwgraves@...> wrote:

                                    From: Randy Graves <rwgraves@...>
                                    Subject: Re: [Pali] a.t.thahaakaarehi
                                    To: Pali@yahoogroups.com
                                    Cc: "Nina van Gorkom" <vangorko@...>
                                    Received: Monday, January 10, 2011, 5:12 PM
















                                     









                                    I believe it's the fourth book at

                                    http://www.bps.lk/translationsfrompali.asp (BP-210S)

                                    also at

                                    http://books.google.com/books?printsec=frontcover&id=Mia6JAaSb0AC#v=onepage&q&f=false



                                    Randy Graves



                                    On 1/9/2011 1:45 AM, Nina van Gorkom wrote:

                                    >

                                    > Dear Bryan,

                                    > As mentioned, there is Ven. Bodhi translation of this sutta and

                                    > commentary: "The discourse on

                                    > the Root of Existence". BPS. But I think only in hard cover. I found

                                    > this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhist_Publication_Society

                                    >

                                    > Nina.

                                    >

                                    > Op 8-jan-2011, om 23:52 heeft Bryan Levman het volgende geschreven:

                                    >

                                    > > I must study the commentary, but I don't believe there's any

                                    > > translation of it, so it's on my list of things to do,

                                    >

                                    > [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]
                                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.