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

Re: [Pali] nappamajjati - not negligent?

Expand Messages
  • Larry Rosenfeld
    If I may add, to further support the current analysis, one can look at the way this word is used in MN 29 (Mahaasaaropama Sutta). This sutta juxtaposes, in
    Message 1 of 1247 , Jun 30, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      If I may add, to further support the current analysis, one can look at
      the way this word is used in MN 29 (Mahaasaaropama Sutta). This sutta
      juxtaposes, in multiple places, the terms "pamajjati" and "nappamajjati"
      (na+(p)pamajjati), as in the following sentences (based on the SLTP
      redaction at
      http://metta.lk/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/2Majjhima-Nikaya/Majjhima1/029-mahasaropama-p.html):

      * So tena laabhasakkaarasilokena majjati, *pamajjati*, pamaada.m
      aapajjati. Pamatto samaano dukkha.m viharati. (Naa.namoli & Bodhi, 2001,
      p. 286 trans. [in part]: "He becomes intoxicated with that gain,
      honour, and renown, grows negligent, falls into negligence ....")

      * So tena laabhasakkaarasilokena na majjati*nappamajjati *nappamaadaĆ¼
      aapajjati. Appamatto samaano siilasampada.m aaraadheti. (Naa.namoli &
      Bodhi, 2001, p. 287, trans. [in part]: "He does not become intoxicated
      with that gain, honour and reknown; he does not grow negligent and fall
      into negligence....")

      That is, to take it one step further, in this sutta, it does _not_
      juxtapose "appamajjati" with "nappamajjati" (na+appamajjati).

      (As an aside, based on Dr. Friedlander's BodhgayaNews search engine, in
      the first four nikayas, the phrase, "nappama*" only comes up in a few
      suttas:
      http://bodhgayanews.net/pitakaresults.php?title=&start=0&to=10&searchstring=%20nappama
      . Might it be of value to examine the term's use in these as well?)

      Hope this is of use,
      Larry

      On 6/30/2011 3:59 AM, James Whelan wrote:
      >
      > Dear Jayarava,
      >
      > Your last suggestion is right. It is na (p)pamajjati.
      >
      > Noun: (p)pamaado
      >
      > Negated noun: appamaado
      >
      > verb: (p)pamajjati
      >
      > Negated verb: na (p)pamajjati.
      >
      > Metta
      >
      > James Whelan
      >
      > From: Pali@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Pali%40yahoogroups.com>
      > [mailto:Pali@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Pali%40yahoogroups.com>] On Behalf Of
      > jayarava
      > Sent: 28 June 2011 14:41
      > To: Pali@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Pali%40yahoogroups.com>
      > Subject: [Pali] nappamajjati - not negligent?
      >
      > Everyone seems to render nappamajjati (e.g. in Dhp 259) as "not
      > negligent",
      > and commentary seems to support this, but I'm puzzled. If it was na
      > pamajjati, or even appamajjati, OK. But nappamajjati is a double negative
      > surely? I.e. na-appamajjati. Or should we read na(p)pamajjati? Is that
      > possible? How should we parse this?
      >
      > Thanks
      > Jayarava
      >
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >
      >


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Dhivan Thomas Jones
      Hello Jayarava and friends, In Norman s translation of the Dhammapada, in his note for v.259, he directs the reader s attention to verses 8, 128, 168, 172 and
      Message 1247 of 1247 , Jul 4, 2011
      • 0 Attachment
        Hello Jayarava and friends,

        In Norman's translation of the Dhammapada, in his note for v.259, he directs the reader's attention to verses 8, 128, 168, 172 and 177, where there is the same consonant doubling of p before na as in v.259 (pamajjati to nappamajjati) after what he calls the 'proclitic' use of na. So the formation seems to be a regular phonological feature in Pali.

        Dhivan

        www.dhivan.net



        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.