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

Re: [Pali] a.t.thahaakaarehi

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 17 , Jan 5 11:47 AM
      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 2 of 17 , Jan 6 7:04 AM
        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 3 of 17 , Jan 6 9:03 AM
          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 4 of 17 , Jan 6 9:25 AM
            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 5 of 17 , Jan 6 3:38 PM
              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 6 of 17 , Jan 7 7:21 AM
                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 7 of 17 , Jan 7 7:22 AM
                  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 8 of 17 , Jan 7 8:18 AM
                    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 9 of 17 , Jan 8 6:45 AM
                      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 10 of 17 , Jan 8 2:52 PM
                        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 11 of 17 , Jan 9 1:45 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]
                        • 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 12 of 17 , Jan 9 5:25 AM
                            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 13 of 17 , Jan 10 9:12 AM
                              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 14 of 17 , Jan 11 4:11 AM
                                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.