"Äìèò?èé Èâàõíåíêî (Dimitry Ivakhnenko)" wrote:

> Talking about commentaries, we step on the shaky ground. In the
> interview you said that you rely mostly on first Nikayas.

As far as the book in question is concerned, I did rely mainly on material found in the
first four Nikayas; but it has to be acknowledged that our knowledge of the language--and
contents--of the canon is heavily dependent on the commentaries, if only for the simple
fact that the various dictionaries at our disposal base the meanings they give for a
particular term largely on the explanation(s) given in the commentary.

However, as I am sure you are aware, the book concerned, published in 1986, is simply the
publication of a doctoral thesis submitted many years previously.

Since 1975, my main contribution to Buddhism and Pali Studies has been to produce
translations for the Pali Text Society of two canonical texts, viz. the Udaana (1994) and
the Itivuttaka (2000); and of four major commentaries by Dhammapaala, viz. the
Petavatthu-a.t.thakathaa (1980), the Vimaanavatthu-a.t.thakathaa (1989), the
Udaana-a.t.thakathaa (1994, 1995) and the Itivuttaka-a.t.thakathaa (presently being revised
for publication).

> PM> In fact, the texts (and their commentaries and sub-commentaries) distinguish two
> PM> means of acquring right view, namely that of (1) the parato ghosa, or sound from
> PM> beyond/another person; and (2) that of yonisomanasikaara, or paying methodical
> PM> attention (M I 294; A I 87). According to the commentaries, the former applies in
> PM> the case of Buddhas and Paccekabuddhas, since there is for them no parato ghosa, the
> PM> latter applying in the case of saavakas (literally, hearers).
>
> Even on this shaky ground I would like to point out that nobody was
> able then to read the suttas, thus naturally they were hearers.

Please note that I subsequently sent a further email correcting the error contained in the
above paragraph: yonisomanasikaara is in fact the method for Buddhas and Paccekabuddhas,
the parato ghosa being that for saavakas.

Since the whole point of the book was to provide an extended study of the saavakasa"ngha,
or ariyasa"ngha, it naturally addresses the question as to what is meant by the term
saavaka which, far from simply denoting anyone who hears, is a highly technical term. This
point should be clear to anyone who has, for instance, read the Lotus Suutra, in which it
is the "sraavakayaana that is repeatedly criticised as a hiinayaana, and not the Theravaada
per se.

> PM> Agreed; but note that the original Pali (M III 72) uses the term dvaya.m, twofold,
> PM> or forming a pair, depending upon whether sammaadi.t.thi is lokiya (mundane) or
> PM> lokuttara (supermundane). But only twofold, and at that mutually opposed to each
> PM> other. To see these as degrees (of one and the same thing) seems quite wrong to me,
> PM> and is not the way of the texts.
>
> I see them as initial level and perfect level. Why do you think it is
> quite wrong?

Because they deal with completely different subjects, as the sutta clearly demostrates.
The lokiya (mundane)/lokuttara (supermundane) distinction, which is also dealt with at
length in the book, is not one of levels.

I think therefore that at this point any further discussion should be postponed at least
until you have actually read the book whose contents you are seemingly criticising. It is
not a good idea to rely wholly on allusions made, during the course of an interview for a
popular magazine aimed at the general reader, to a book containing detailed arguments all
of which are supported by copious qutations from the texts.

Nonetheless, I thank you for your interest, and send you my best wishes for your Pali
Studies. If it helps, saa, in "saa chavi.m chindeyya", at A IV 129, is neither an adjective
nor an ablative. Rather it is the third person feminine singular pronoun saa, referring
back to the feminine substantive rajju (rope) in the preceding clause, viz. da.lhaaya
vaalarajjuyaa (feminine isntrumental: with a strong rope made of (?horse) hair).

Peter Masefield.