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

SV: [Pali] Stanz of SN 1.3.1

Expand Messages
  • Ole Holten Pind
    The it refers to paapam evil action of the next verse. Phusati occurs in a similar context with paapam as subject at It IV 10 verse four: tam eva paapa.m
    Message 1 of 10 , Aug 2, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      The "it" refers to paapam "evil action" of the next verse.
      Phusati occurs in a similar context with paapam as subject at It IV 10 verse
      four: tam eva paapa.m phusse/ati.

      Best,
      Ole Pind

      -----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
      Fra: Pali@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Pali@yahoogroups.com] På vegne af Nina van
      Gorkom
      Sendt: 1. august 2005 19:56
      Til: Pali@yahoogroups.com
      Emne: Re: [Pali] Stanz of SN 1.3.1

      Hi Yifer,
      op 31-07-2005 14:46 schreef yifertw op yifertw@...:
      > The first verse of SN 1.3.1 is:
      > Naaphusanta.m phusati ca, phusanta~nca tato phuse;
      > tasmaa phusanta.m phusati, appadu.t.thapadosinan.
      > Ven. Bodhi's translation is:
      > [It does not touch one who does not touch,
      > But then will touch the one who touches.
      > Therefore it touches the one who touches,
      > The one who wrongs an innocent man.]

      > My questions are:
      > 1. There are two "it" in this verse, what does it stand for?
      > Does it stand for "kamma" or these to sentence just to
      > convince readers not to act that way?
      > 2. There are 6 "touch" in this verse, what does it stand for
      > respectively?
      -----
      PTS footnote: two meanings of touch, an active one (performing kamma) and a
      passive one: receiving the result of kamma, thus, vipaaka.
      1: vipaaka will not come to (touch) the person who 2.does not commit kamma.
      (touch, makes feel, commit kamma)
      3. But then will touch (vipaaka will touch), 4 the one who touches (who
      commits kamma)
      5 Therefore it touches the one (vipaaka touches), 6 who touches (who commits
      kamma).
      First part of your Q. may also be solved now.
      Nina.



      - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
      [Homepage] http://www.tipitaka.net
      [Files] http://www.geocities.com/paligroup/
      [Send Message] pali@yahoogroups.com
      Paaliga.na - a community for Pali students
      Yahoo! Groups members can set their delivery options to daily digest or web
      only.
      Yahoo! Groups Links
    • Sitala (Zorigto)
      Dear Nina van Gorkom Here are our trying of analysing the verse. ... It (the object) does not touch (give effect/wavering) one who does not touch (who takes
      Message 2 of 10 , Aug 2, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        Dear Nina van Gorkom
        Here are our trying of analysing the verse.

        The first verse of SN 1.3.1 is:
        > Naaphusanta.m phusati ca, phusanta~nca tato phuse;
        > tasmaa phusanta.m phusati, appadu.t.thapadosinan.
        > Ven. Bodhi's translation is:
        > [It does not touch one who does not touch,
        It (the object) does not touch (give effect/wavering)
        one who does not touch (who takes object as it is
        without craving/clinging)
        > But then will touch the one who touches.
        But then will touch (gives effect/wavering) the one
        who touches (who is not taking an object as it is,
        takes with craving/clinging)
        > Therefore it touches the one who touches,
        Therefore it (the object) touches (gives rise to
        wavering/suffering in) the one who touches (who does
        take an object with craving/clinging)
        > The one who wrongs an innocent man.
        The one (an object) wrongs (ruins) an innocent man
        (unprotected from desires man).

        Could this be possible meaning of this text? We tried
        to analyse it according to the position of Phassa -
        cakkhupasadassa phasso, etc., (as in the link of Law
        of Dependent Originations) contact based on the
        eye-basement, and accordingly eye-object will take
        place of "It". And so on, for all objects.
        In the last sentence, "the one" might be the object
        again, not a person, for it says that it
        wrongs/harms/ruins/distructs "an innocent man", in
        here We used unprotected man + from desires, for only
        a man who is not guarding his sense-faculties will
        fail to protect oneself from desires/defilements to
        arrise.

        The questions you raised will remain partly not
        answered, but what we think, is : "it"s stand for
        something that causes an action of touching. Therefore
        we assume it to be an object of contemplation. "The
        one" in the last sentence is assumed as in explanation
        above.
        If We are wrong, waiting for corrections.





        Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
      • yifertw
        Dear Nina: As I am reading SN Sagathavagga against Chinese SA with Ven. Bodhi s translation, I found appadu.t.thapadosinan of Stanza SN 1.3.1 had been
        Message 3 of 10 , Aug 2, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          Dear Nina:
          As I am reading SN Sagathavagga against Chinese SA with Ven.
          Bodhi's translation, I found "appadu.t.thapadosinan" of Stanza
          SN 1.3.1 had been translated into Chinese as "Not offending against
          others will not receive hatred from the others". This translation
          had been done at the year of A.C. 443. It sounds the original
          translator (Ven. Gunabhadra) treated "appadu.t.tha" as "not offending
          against" and "dosa" as "hatred".
          Could you help me to offer the grammatical analysis
          of "appadu.t.thapadosinan"?
          Yifer

          > Hi Yifer,
          > op 31-07-2005 14:46 schreef yifertw op yifertw@y...:
          > > The first verse of SN 1.3.1 is:
          > > Naaphusanta.m phusati ca, phusanta~nca tato phuse;
          > > tasmaa phusanta.m phusati, appadu.t.thapadosinan.
          > > Ven. Bodhi's translation is:
          > > [It does not touch one who does not touch,
          > > But then will touch the one who touches.
          > > Therefore it touches the one who touches,
          > > The one who wrongs an innocent man.]
          >
          > > My questions are:
          > > 1. There are two "it" in this verse, what does it stand for?
          > > Does it stand for "kamma" or these to sentence just to
          > > convince readers not to act that way?
          > > 2. There are 6 "touch" in this verse, what does it stand for
          > > respectively?
          > -----
          > PTS footnote: two meanings of touch, an active one (performing
          kamma) and a
          > passive one: receiving the result of kamma, thus, vipaaka.
          > 1: vipaaka will not come to (touch) the person who 2.does not
          commit kamma.
          > (touch, makes feel, commit kamma)
          > 3. But then will touch (vipaaka will touch), 4 the one who touches
          (who
          > commits kamma)
          > 5 Therefore it touches the one (vipaaka touches), 6 who touches
          (who commits
          > kamma).
          > First part of your Q. may also be solved now.
          > Nina.
        • Nina van Gorkom
          Dear Sitala, Yifer, Ole. thank you, Sitala. Let us look at what Ole said. See below. ... Ole: The it refers to paapam evil action of the next verse.
          Message 4 of 10 , Aug 3, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            Dear Sitala, Yifer, Ole.
            thank you, Sitala.
            Let us look at what Ole said.
            See below.
            op 02-08-2005 17:55 schreef Sitala (Zorigto) op sitalatwo@...:
            > The first verse of SN 1.3.1 is:
            >> Naaphusanta.m phusati ca, phusanta~nca tato phuse;
            >> tasmaa phusanta.m phusati, appadu.t.thapadosinan.

            >> Ven. Bodhi's translation is:
            >> [It does not touch one who does not touch,
            > It (the object) does not touch (give effect/wavering)
            > one who does not touch (who takes object as it is
            > without craving/clinging)
            >> But then will touch the one who touches.
            > But then will touch (gives effect/wavering) the one
            > who touches (who is not taking an object as it is,
            > takes with craving/clinging)
            >> Therefore it touches the one who touches,
            > Therefore it (the object) touches (gives rise to
            > wavering/suffering in) the one who touches (who does
            > take an object with craving/clinging)
            >> The one who wrongs an innocent man.
            > The one (an object) wrongs (ruins) an innocent man
            > (unprotected from desires man).
            >
            > Could this be possible meaning of this text? We tried
            > to analyse it according to the position of Phassa -
            > cakkhupasadassa phasso, etc., (as in the link of Law
            > of Dependent Originations) contact based on the
            > eye-basement, and accordingly eye-object will take
            > place of "It". And so on, for all objects.
            > In the last sentence, "the one" might be the object
            > again, not a person, for it says that it
            > wrongs/harms/ruins/distructs "an innocent man", in
            > here We used unprotected man + from desires, for only
            > a man who is not guarding his sense-faculties will
            > fail to protect oneself from desires/defilements to
            > arrise.
            >
            > The questions you raised will remain partly not
            > answered, but what we think, is : "it"s stand for
            > something that causes an action of touching. Therefore
            > we assume it to be an object of contemplation. "The
            > one" in the last sentence is assumed as in explanation
            > above.
            > If We are wrong, waiting for corrections.
            >------
            Ole: The "it" refers to paapam "evil action" of the next verse.
            Phusati occurs in a similar context with paapam as subject at It IV 10 verse
            four: tam eva paapa.m phusse/ati.
            ------
            Nina: I followed the Thai and Commentary: Vipaaka will not touch the person
            who does not touch kamma (performs kamma), etc.
            It seems to me that this sutta deals with kamma and vipaaka.
            Nina.
          • Nina van Gorkom
            Dear Yifer, ... N: padussati: offend against. pp: padu.t.tha padosin: abusing. appadu.t.thapadosinan: the person who harms an innocent person. Here: an arahat,
            Message 5 of 10 , Aug 3, 2005
            • 0 Attachment
              Dear Yifer,
              op 03-08-2005 02:00 schreef yifertw op yifertw@...:

              > Dear Nina:
              > As I am reading SN Sagathavagga against Chinese SA with Ven.
              > Bodhi's translation, I found "appadu.t.thapadosinan" of Stanza
              > SN 1.3.1 had been translated into Chinese as "Not offending against
              > others will not receive hatred from the others". This translation
              > had been done at the year of A.C. 443. It sounds the original
              > translator (Ven. Gunabhadra) treated "appadu.t.tha" as "not offending
              > against" and "dosa" as "hatred".
              > Could you help me to offer the grammatical analysis
              > of "appadu.t.thapadosinan"?
              ---
              N: padussati: offend against. pp: padu.t.tha
              padosin: abusing.
              appadu.t.thapadosinan: the person who harms an innocent person. Here: an
              arahat, according to the Co. The Co states that this is the law of kamma and
              vipaaka. He may be reborn in one of the four unhappy planes.
              See the last stanza of this sutta. This is very clear. The evil deed returns
              to the wicked one , like fine dust thrown against the wind.
              Nina.
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.