Dear friends,
I too was intrigued by this passage in Anguttara Nikaya (PTS ed.
i.34) and wanted to see what the commentary has to say. It is only
today that I got a copy from a friend. This is what it says: In a
well-proclaimed (i.e. good) religious dispensation (dhamma-vinaya),
the `recipients' (the monks and nuns) should "know the measure".
They should know the donor's wish to give; if the religious need
much, but the donor wants to give little, they should follow the
donor's wish. They also should know how much is available to be
given: if that is little and donor wants to give much, they should
go by the quantity available. Then they should also know their own
physical capacity: if the available quantity is much and the donor
also likes to give much, they should go by how much they can put to
good use. These considerations do not occur in the case of a bad
religious dispensation. Therefore the donor should "know the
measure" and give accordingly. (AN Commentary I, Simon Hewavitharne
Bequest ed, Colombo 1923, p. 261 f.).

I personally think this sort of comment reflects the spirit of the
time when the Buddha's teachings became enmeshed in
organized `Buddhism". Even in the Nikaya texts, there may be much
that derives from that spirit (and therefore not `original'). I
don't see how we can separate what is original from what is not.

Mahipaliha

--- In Pali@yahoogroups.com, Branislav Kovacevic <ja_sam_branko@...>
wrote:

> Dear John,
>
> many thanks for your kindness in translating this passage.
> Let it bring you much happiness.
>
> Metta,
> Branko
>
>
>
> John Kelly <palistudent@...> wrote:

Dear Branko,

>
> I will take a shot at your question about breaking down the

sentence:

> Evameva.n kho, bhikkhave, appakaa te sattaa ye

vavassaggaaramma.na.m

> karitvaa labhanti samadhi.m...
> evameva.n = so too
> kho = indeed
> bhikkhave = bhikkhus
> appakaa = few
> te = those
> sattaa beings
> ye = which
> vavassaggaaramma.na.m = vavassagga + aaramma.na.m (tappurisa

compound)

> vavassagga = relinquishment
> aramma.na.m = support, basis
> karitvaa = having made/done
> labhanti = they gain
> samadhi.m =concentration
>
> "So too, bhikkhus, few are those beings who gain concentration

having

> taken relinquishment as its support ..."
>
> With metta,
> John
> --- In Pali@yahoogroups.com, Branislav Kovacevic <ja_sam_branko@>
> wrote:
> >
> > Dear Yong Peng,
> >
> > of course it's not too late, since you clarified the meaning so
> extensively. Now I'm pretty sure I grasped the right meaning of

that

> passage. Since translation itself is still obscure because of the
> wording, I've added a footnote for the reader.
> >
> > In the meantime, I continued with the same book and in the

fourth

> vagga (AN I.333-334) came upon two compounds whose meaning I

can't

> figure out:
> >
> > 333. Evameva.n kho, bhikkhave, appakaa te sattaa ye
> vavassaggaaramma.na.m karitvaa labhanti samadhi.m...
> > 334. Evameva.m kho, bhikkhave, appakaa te sattaa ye
> annaggarasaggaana.m laabhino...
> >
> > aarammaṇa: a sense-object, but what abut the rest?
> >
> > I've checked your translation and it seems you also had a

problem.

> For "vavassaggaaramma.na.m karitvaa" Nina suggested:
> > "N: I would think: resolution to strive, to reach the goal, to

attain

> > liberation from the cycle."
> > but I'd like to know what are the constituent words for both of
> these expressions.
> >
> > Many thanks,
> > Branko
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with

Yahoo! Search.

>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>