---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: bh. santi <
bh.santi@...>
Date: 29-Dec-2005 09:05
Subject: Udana verses - are they all supposed to be in verse here?
To:
Pali@yahoogroups.com
Dear friends,
*Last time the Pali in this message was illegible because I put it in with
some diacritical marks, it didn't look so bad when I sent it but here it is
again with the pali more legible hopefully. Last time I put lglg (garu lahu
- long syllable short syllable) under each line and added up the syllables
in each semi line and whole line at the end, but it was too wide for the
page so it got shuffled. This time just the number of syllables in each semi
and full line (two lines of space means next verse). If there are some
conventions on how to lay this kind of thing out clearly that are possible
in email please tell me too.*
* *
*I'm making a new bigger better chanting book for our monastery, I found
this nice udana I think I might like to use. There are some verses, and some
stanzas which are not in verse but I suspect are supposed to be. Here they
are:*
10. Lokasutta.m
30. Eva.m me suta.m– eka.m samaya.m bhagavaa uruvelaaya.m
viharati najjaa nera~njaraaya t_ire bodhirukkhamuule
pa.thamaabhisambuddho.
Tena kho pana samayena bhagavaa sattaaha.m ekapalla*nkena nisinno hoti
vimutti-sukha-pa.tisa.mvedii.
Atha kho bhagavaa tassa sattaahassa accayena tamhaa samaadhimhaa
vu.t.thahitvaa Buddha-cakkhunaa loka.m volokesi. Addasaa kho bhagavaa
Buddha-cakkhunaa volokento satte anekehi santaapehi santappamaane,
anekehi ca pari.laahehi pari.dayhamaane, raagajehipi
dosajehipi mohajehipi.
Atha kho bhagavaa etam-attha.m viditvaa taaya.m velaaya.m ima.m
udaana.mudaanesi–
aya.m loko santaapajaato,
phassapareto roga.m vadati attato;
yena yena hi ma~n~nati, tato ta.m hoti aññathā.
aññathaabhaavii bhavasatto loko,
bhavapareto bhavamevaabhinandati;
yad-abhinandati ta.m bhaya.m, yassa bhaayati ta.m
dukkha.m;
bhava-vippahaanaaya kho pan-ida.m brahmacariya.m vussati".
*This is the part I suspect is supposed to be verse, I've rearranged the
lines so it looks like verse but the metre is so irregular its hardly a
metre. Any suggestions? Or am I barking up the wrong tree? *
"'Ye hi keci sama.naa vaa braahma.naa vaa
5 + 4.5 = 9.5
bhavena bhavassa vippamokkhamaaha.msu,
4 + 5 = 9
sabbe te avippamuttaa bhavasmaa-ti vadaami.
7 + 4.5 = 11.5
'Ye vaa pana keci sama.naa vaa braahma.naa vaa
6.5 + 4.5 = 11
vibhavena bhavassa nissara.namaaha.msu,
4.5 + 5 = 9.5
sabbe te anissa.taa bhavasmaa-ti vadaami.
6 + 4.5 = 10.5
"Upadhiñhi pa.ticca dukkham-ida.m sambhoti,
4.5 + 5 = 9.5
sabb'upaadaanakkhayaa n'atthi dukkhassa sambhavo.
6 + 6.5 = 12.5
Lokam-ima.m passa; puthuu avijjaaya
4.5 + 4.5 =9
paretaa bhuutaa bhuuta-rataa aparimuttaa;
4.5 + 6.5 = 11
ye hi keci bhavaa sabbadhi sabbatthataaya
7 + 4 = 11
sabbe te bhavaa aniccaa dukkhaa vipari.naamadhammaa-ti.
7 + 7 = 14
"Evameta.m yathaabhuuta.m, sammappaññaaya passato;
7 + 7.5 = 11
bhavata.haa pahiiyati, vibhava.m naabhinandati.
5.5 + 5.5 =11
*End of re-versifying attempt.** (This is where the text turns back to verse
in the CSCD, but I notice in John Ireland's trs. he puts the previous three
stanzas in verse, which is why I first wondered if the other stanzas above
were once verse.) *
"Sabbaso ta.nhaana.m khayaa, asesaviraaganirodho nibbaana.m;
tassa nibbutassa bhikkhuno, anupaadaa punabbhavo na hoti.
Abhibhuuto maaro vijitasa*ngaamo, upaccagaa sabbabhavaani
taadii-ti.
dasama.m;
Nandavaggo tatiyo ni.t.thito.
*Thankyou,*
* *
*Bhikkhu Santidhamma.*
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]