From: Jim Anderson
Message: 1290
Date: 2002-10-13
> Thanks for checking. I have just been looking at ~Naa.namoli's earlierFrom what I've seen so far, I think this translation is probably correct.
> 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) ?
> Assuming that buddhapaccekabuddhabuddhasaavakaa = buddhaa capaccekabuddhaa
> ca buddhassa saavakaa ca, then wouldn't the prefix sabba qualify everyitem
> in the compound, not just the first one? I had always supposed this to beThere is still an awful lot I don't know about compounds (especially the
> the case when sabba, a~n~natara, ekacca etc. are prefixed to a
> dvanda-samaasa.
> I don't remember if this question is addressed in the grammars, but Iand
> vaguely recall being taught that such phrases as "all X's and some Y's"
> "these X's and those Y's" are not conjoined in samaasaa, because of thenot
> 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,
> much can be concluded from just one example. I'll get back to this whenI tried looking but didn't come up with any examples, particularly those
> I've checked further.
> >Interestingly, in Dhammapaala's Mahaa.tiikaa one finds the samewas
> >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
> relevant, since it is a gloss onI have to disagree here as I think it is relevant. This is what Dhammapaala
> visesaadhigama-di.t.thadhamma-sukhavihaara-pada.t.thaana.m, not
> sabba~n~nubuddha-paccekabuddha-buddhasaavakaana.m.
> That is to say, if Buddhaghosa was saying that aanaapaanassati is theAs I indicated earlier I think the meaning that Buddhaghosa intended 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.