Robert, you wrote:

> Thanks for checking. I have just been looking at ~Naa.namoli's earlier
> translation of the same passage in his BPS booklet on mindfulness of
> breathing. Here he translates the passage in the same way, but adds a
> footnote indicating that he is following the reading given in the
> Papa~ncasuudanii's commentary to the Satipa.t.thaana Sutta. Here the
> phrase is also given as "sabbabuddhapaccekabuddhabuddhasaavakaana.m".
>
> But do you think "of all Buddhas, [some] Paccekabuddhas and [some]
> Buddhas's disciples" could be a correct translation even of this version
> (just confining ourselves to the question of grammar for now) ?

From what I've seen so far, I think this translation is probably correct.
See below for my comments.

> Assuming that buddhapaccekabuddhabuddhasaavakaa = buddhaa ca

paccekabuddhaa

> ca buddhassa saavakaa ca, then wouldn't the prefix sabba qualify every

item

> in the compound, not just the first one? I had always supposed this to be
> the case when sabba, a~n~natara, ekacca etc. are prefixed to a
> dvanda-samaasa.

There is still an awful lot I don't know about compounds (especially the
bahubbiihi ones!). I wonder if the application of 'sabba' depends on the
compound type. If you apply 'sabba' to each of the three main members of the
compound as you have done wouldn't that make it a kammadhaaraya?

sabba + buddhapaccekabuddhabuddhasaavakaana.m (pron.adj. before a dvanda
compound) meaning "for all buddhas, all paccekabuddhas, and all buddhas'
disciples" or more simply put: "for all buddhas, paccekabuddhas, and
buddhas' disciples"; whereas in a dvanda compound the 'sabba' applies to the
first member only as follows:

sabbabuddha + paccekabuddha + buddhasaavakaana.m = "for all buddhas and
some paccekabuddhas and buddhas' disciples".

This is the one I'm in agreement with.

> I don't remember if this question is addressed in the grammars, but I
> vaguely recall being taught that such phrases as "all X's and some Y's"

and

> "these X's and those Y's" are not conjoined in samaasaa, because of the
> needless ambiguity it would generate.
>
> I have been briefly looking for examples to check this matter, but haven't
> found very much so far. In the Milindapa~nhaa there is the phrase
> "sabbapaa.nabhuutapuggalaana.m hitaanukampinaa". Here it would seem
> reasonable to translate "with compassion for the welfare of all creatures
> and all persons" (not "all creatures and *some* persons"!). Admittedly,

not

> much can be concluded from just one example. I'll get back to this when
> I've checked further.

I tried looking but didn't come up with any examples, particularly those
with a gloss showing the resolution of the compound.

> >Interestingly, in Dhammapaala's Mahaa.tiikaa one finds the same
> >interpretation of the long compound on both the CSCD and Budsir and in
> >Dr. Rewatadhamma's ed. as follows:
> >
> >sabbesa.m buddhaana.m ekaccaana.m paccekabuddhaana.m
> >buddhasaavakaana~nca
> >
> >"ekaccaana.m" explains where ~Naa.namoli's "[some]" comes from.
>
> I had noticed this comment by Dhammapaala, but was uncertain whether it

was

> relevant, since it is a gloss on
> visesaadhigama-di.t.thadhamma-sukhavihaara-pada.t.thaana.m, not
> sabba~n~nubuddha-paccekabuddha-buddhasaavakaana.m.

I have to disagree here as I think it is relevant. This is what Dhammapaala
says:

<< Visesaadhigamadi.t.thadhammasukhavihaarapada.t.thaananti sabbesa.m
buddhaana.m, ekaccaana.m paccekabuddhaana.m, buddhasaavakaana~nca
visesaadhigamassa ceva a~n~nakamma.t.thaanena adhigatavisesaana.m*
di.t.thadhammasukhavihaarassa ca pada.t.thaanabhuuta.m. >> -- Vism-mh.t

Even though "sabbabuddhapaccekabuddhabuddhasaavakaana.m" isn't found before
"Visesaadhigamadi.t.thadhammasukhavihaarapada.t.thaananti" couldn't it be
understood as if it were there on the basis of the gloss that follows?

[*side note: "a~n~nakamma.t.thaanena adhigatavisesaana.m" (of the
distinctions attained to by means of another meditation subject??) is
interesting but I'm not sure how it fits in syntactically.]

> That is to say, if Buddhaghosa was saying that aanaapaanassati is the
> "foremost among the various meditation subjects of *all* Buddhas, *all*
> Pacceka Buddhas and *all* Buddhas' disciples", Dhammapaala would not have
> contradicted him by saying that aanaapaanassati is the "basis for
> attaining distinction and abiding in bliss here and now" of all Buddhas,
> *some* Pacceka Buddhas and *some* Buddhas' disciples. The practice could
> still be viewed as the 'muddha' of all meditation subjects even by those
> Aryans who attain distinction and abide in bliss here and now using some
> other means.

As I indicated earlier I think the meaning that Buddhaghosa intended is the
one understood by ~Naa.namoli and in agreement with Dhammapaala's
gloss. Aanaapaanassati still retains the distinction of being at the top in
the classification of the 38 or 40 meditation subjects as well as of the 14
meditation subjects of kaayaanupassanaa (see Ps i 248 for the latter). It
seems reasonable to me that other meditation subjects could serve equally
well as proximate causes for some individuals.

Best wishes,
Jim



______________________________________________________________________
Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca