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

Re: SV: [Pali] Stanz of SN 1.3.1

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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.