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

Re: [Pali] a.t.thahaakaarehi

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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 11 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.