The text addresses the fate of someone who remains stuck in the cave
immersed in delusion. It seems to me that guhaa is used as metaphor for
mohana. I am not aware of any passage describing the being attached (satta)
to the body (as a cave). I may be wrong, though. However, this remains the
only example in the canon of the use of guhaa to denote the body,
metaphorically or otherwise. Mahaaniddesa and PJ I, of course, takes it to
stand for the body. I wonder if this is an example of commentarial
ingenuity.
With best wishes,
Ole Holten Pind
_____
Fra:
Pali@yahoogroups.com [mailto:
Pali@yahoogroups.com] På vegne af Piya Tan
Sendt: 8. februar 2007 15:36
Til:
Pali@yahoogroups.com
Emne: Re: SV: SV: [Pali] Guhat.t.haka from the Mahaaniddesa
Sutta Nipata Commentary (SnA) actually says "to the cave" means "to the
body" (guhaayan ti kaaye) (SnA 2:514). Further down, SnA continues by
repeating the gloss and then says, "The body is called 'a cave' because it
is an opening and a dwelling for wild beasts such as lust and so on" (kaayo
hi raagaadiina.m vaa.lana.m vasanokaasato guhaa ti vuccati." (SnA 2:515).
This analogy is easily understood and accepted by Buddhist practitioners as
an example of illustrative or conventional language. In fact, much of the
early texts (such as those of Sn) have this poetical and figurative approach
to esp the higher aspects of the Dharma.
Very often we find an interesting conjunction between what the scholars and
what the Commentaries say, and when the practitioners agree, too, we have
all the planets in wondrous alignment.
Otherwise, it is still all right to have private understanding as long as it
is not motivated by greed, hate or delusion. (This last root is very tricky,
indeed. That's where a living transmission from a living Buddhist master or
practitioner is much more help than all the dukedom of a library).
May we enter the stream in this life itself.
Piya Tan
On 2/8/07, Nina van Gorkom <vangorko@... <mailto:vangorko%40xs4all.nl>
nl> wrote:
>
> Dear Keren and Ole,
> It depends on your attitude towards the Commentaries. The Commentary
> explains it as a room. a dwelling for kilesas. Personally I like this.
> Nina.
> Op 8-feb-2007, om 7:45 heeft keren_arbel het volgende geschreven:
>
> > I tend to accept your explanation, since the body as a cave doesn't
> > seem correct.
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]