Hi,

I have some trouble understanding the following verse, both doctrinally and
linguistically. Dhammapada 33 verse 1 says:

'anava.t.thitacitassa saddhamma.m avijAnato
pariplavapasAdassa pa^n^nA na paripUrati'

which I translate as

'To the one whose mind has not come to being unrevolved,
who does not know the good dhamma,
to the one whose serenity is drifting,
wisdom cannot accomplish/fulfill (itself)'

Another translation of the first verse may be

The one who does not know the good dhamma
has a mind which is not stopped (from turning),...

It may be an awkward translation but this is the most literal I can get.

Now, my question concerns the first verse:

1) is it implied in this verse that knowing, in the sense 'being aware of
(the existence of) the good dhamma, already serves as a means towards
wisdom? In other words, 'I know there is a dhamma, so my mind is calmed'?

2) a) does 'suddhamma.m' refer to 'a constituent of reality' or to 'the good
teaching'? These possible two readings somehow blur the intended meaning, in
my opinion. If it refers to a constituent, wouldn't it be more practical to
make dhamma.m accusative plural in order to explicitly refer to those
constituents? Maybe for stilistic reasons it has stayed accusative singular?
b) if it refers to the teaching than my first question arises: is merely
being aware of the existence of the teaching a means towards enlightenment?

Thank you for your help,

Stefan



_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail: je gratis e-mail ! http://www.msn.be/hotmail