Dear Ven. Jayarava,

In the commentary to the AN passage Buddhaghoṣa says


sa.mkiṇṇaparikhotisaṃsaaraparikha.msaṃkiritvaavinaasetvaa.thito.

which I believe means, "having filled in the moat of saṃsara, (having scattered
it;), having destroyed it (vināsetvā), he abides/is at rest.

sa.mki.n.na is past participle of sa.mkirati which seems ordinarily to have the
meaning of "mix together", or "pour together" (per MW, but in Apte has the
meaning of "to scatter about"), but here seems to mean "fill up", "fill in" or
"destroy" judging by the vinaasetvaa gloss. I take this to mean that an arhant
has destroyed the moat, which "guards" the ego. With ego gone, he no longer
comes into being.

Metta,

Bryan



________________________________
From: jayarava <jayarava@...>
To: Pali@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tue, October 19, 2010 10:47:53 AM
Subject: [Pali] sa"nki.n.naparikhaa


Hi All,

I'm trying to understand this epithet of an arahant, towards the end of the
Alagadduupama Sutta: sa"nki.n.naparikho, or perhaps sa"nki.n.naparikkho (there
seems to be some confusion in the spelling).

PED and most translators translate sa"nki.n.naparikho as "one with trenches
filled" which puzzles me. Parikhaa could be a trench, but can sa"nki.n.na really
mean 'filled'? In both Sanskrit and Paali it appears to mean 'mixed, blended,
impure, confused'.


PED et al. seem to be following an allegorical story at AA iii.263 which weaves
all of the epithets into a story about a warrior cleansing a thieves' town - and
filling in the moat of the town is the applicable image. But in the commentary
to the Alagadduupama itself there is this:

MA 2.115 So hi punappuna.m uppattikara.navasena parikkhipitvaa .thitattaa
parikkhaati vuccati, tenesa tassaa sa.mki.n.nattaa viki.n.nattaa
sa.mki.n.naparikkho’ti vutto.

Could someone have a crack at this, and let me know what they make of it?

At AA iii.263 the allegory is preceded by: Sa.mki.m.maparikho’ti
sa.msaara-parikha.m sa.mkiritvaa vinaasetvaa .thito.

Again I struggle to understand this in terms of dictionary definitions. If the
allegory is right this seems to be a horrible mixed metaphor - the ditch is both
mixed or filled; and destroyed; but he? remains.

The text explains a couple of paragraphs after the introduction of the term
that:


M i.139 Katha~nca, bhikkhave, bhikkhu sa.mki.n.naparikkho hoti? Idha, bhikkhave,
bhikkhuno ponobbhaviko jaatisa.msaaro pahiino hoti.
And how, monks, is a monk one who is sa.mki.n.naparikkho? Here, monks, that monk
has rejected the cycles of birth leading to rebirth.

Which isn't very illuminating except that it relates sa.mki.n.naparikkho to
rebirth.

I've read much about towns with walls in India (and even visited a couple of
them) but not about moats! I suppose it could just be a a defensive ditch. Is
the metaphor about not needing a defensive ditch? How does it sound to others?

Any insights appreciated.
Jayarava

(Paali is from Cha.t.tha Sa"ngaaya CD)






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