Re: SV: [Pali] Stanz of SN 1.3.1
- Dear Sitala, Yifer, Ole.
thank you, Sitala.
Let us look at what Ole said.
op 02-08-2005 17:55 schreef Sitala (Zorigto) op sitalatwo@...:
> The first verse of SN 1.3.1 is:Ole: The "it" refers to paapam "evil action" of the next verse.
>> 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
> 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
> If We are wrong, waiting for corrections.
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.
- 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
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.