Dear Alan,

The "one" comes from the simple fact that a participle always qualifies an
agent. If you look at the context there is an knowing and seeing agent who
is the subject of the Buddha's enunciation. There really is no problem,
syntactically or otherwise.

Best,

Ole Pind

-----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
Fra: Pali@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Pali@yahoogroups.com] På vegne af Alan
McClure
Sendt: 12. oktober 2005 17:19
Til: Pali@yahoogroups.com
Emne: Re: [Pali] Translation problem SN XII.23

Hello all,

Just to go a little bit further with this one.....

So, I understand that jaanato and passato are present participles (either
dative or genitive) and then in this case Dr. Pind has pointed out that they
are genitive.

"jaanato aha.m, bhikkhave, passato aasavaana.m khaya.m vadaami, no ajaanato
no apassato."

However, as one can see from the above there is no pronoun such as "so" to
imply directly "one."


So my question is, why isn't the translation:

I say, bhikkhus,that the destruction of the corruptions is of knowing and of
seeing and indeed not of not-knowing and not-seeing.

this doesn't sound right, so what if I use dative?

I say, bhikkhus,that the destruction of the corruptions is for knowing and
for seeing and indeed not for not-knowing and not-seeing.

This sounds okay to me.

or maybe it is that the destruction belongs to knownig and seeing in the
sense that a child belongs to a mother. In this case it could be:

I say, bhikkhus, that the destruction of the corruptions comes from knowing
and seeing and indeed not from not-knowing and not-seeing.


Why should it be as Bhikkhu Bodhi has:

Bhikkhus, I say that the destruction of the taints is for one who knows and
sees, not for one who does not know and does not see.


Where is this "one" coming from? This is what is really confusing me. Also
why are present participles translated as "knows" and "sees" when this
doesn't seem like the normal translation.



I looked at all the present participle sections in "Warder", but unless I am
missing something, this issue is not discussed there.

Maybe it is just me, but my preliminary translation and that of Bhikkhu
Bodhi seem radically different, and I'm willing to give the benefit of the
doubt to the Venerable.

Comments to help me out??

Metta,

Alan



Alan McClure wrote:

>Hello all,
>
>Thank you to everyone who suggested possibilities for jaanato and
>passato. The present participle seems so rare that I didn't even think
>about this possibility. In fact, since I am quite a newbie, I don't
>think I've seen this form before. However, I referenced Warder p.169
>and see that I should have known the answer.
>
>

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[Homepage] http://www.tipitaka.net
[Files] http://www.geocities.com/paligroup/
[Send Message] pali@yahoogroups.com
Paaliga.na - a community for Pali students
Yahoo! Groups members can set their delivery options to daily digest or web
only.
Yahoo! Groups Links