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

Re: [Pali] a.t.thahaakaarehi

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