Dear Mahinda,
Thanks for your take on this. I am most interested in how you view that “atta”
in “.thita-atta” and samk.n.na-atta”. Please see discussion below.
My translation(s) of this passage is as follows. I would appreciate your
comments as per my note to Jayarava below. My question is how do you take
.thitatta and sa.mki.n.natta and viki.n.natta? as nominative singular compounds?
or ablative abstract nouns?
In regard to expressions like “birth and sa.msaara”, both because of birth and
because of wandering about, in this way the cause of the so-called birth
aggregates is the accumulation of karma. Because it (the accumulation of karma)
has gone round and round (encircled) because of causing rebirth again and again,
it is called a steadfast/permanent* (.thitatta, see note below*) moat (lit: a
moat which has a steadfast self); therefore (when) this person’s (esa) self of
the moat (tassaa) has been dispersed/filled in, (when) this self of the moat has
been destroyed (viki.n.natta), he is called a moat which has been filled
in/dispersed/destroyed.
In this translation all the “…attas” are bahuvrihis.
Taking “-attaa” as an ablative ending of an abstract noun , as Jayarava does,
(which, however, it does not appear to be because of PED gloss on .thitatta)
it could be translated, “….again and again, it is called a moat because of its
condition of fixedness/lastingness; therefore this person is called a moat
which has been filled in, because of the condition of filling in the moat
(tassaa) because of the condition of destroying the moat”.
Thanks for your help,
Bryan
Dear Jayarava,
You have raised some very interesting issues. .thitatta, per PED means "self -
controlled, composed, steadfast". PED gives two glosses on it from the Sutta
Nipaata and the Diigha Nikaaya. From verse 370 of the Sn we have lokadhammehi
akampaneyya -citta ( whose mind is not to be shaken by the things of the world)
and from DN i.57 we have suppatiṭṭhitacitto (whose mind is well
established/supported), so it appears here that "atta" is being used as a
synonym of "citta" and comes from the word attan, not from an abstract noun
ending in -tta.m < Skt. tva.m. You are right in that it could be ablative but I
take it as a masculine nom. noun in apposition to parikhaa.
parikhaa is fem. noun, nom. case. and .thitattaa, is therefore in apposition to
parikhaa. If the atta represented a Skt. <tva.m ending, then it would have to be
neuter nom. or atta.m. As I said it could be abl. What makes me think it isn't
is the parallel structures sa.mki.n.natta and viki.n.natta in the next sentence
which look like they are introduced by "esa" which itself is nom. masc. sing.
"Therefore this self of the moat (tassaa) that has been dispersed, destroyed is
known as he whose moat has been dispersed/destroyed/filled in, which is a
bahuvrihi, the fem. noun parikhaa changing to the masc. to modify the masc.
subject ("so") at the beginning of the sentence.
I could be wrong so we should circulate this to the group to get their input.
Best wishes,
Bryan
________________________________
From: Mahinda Palihawadana <
mahipal6@...>
To:
Pali@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Fri, October 29, 2010 4:33:10 AM
Subject: Re: [Pali] Re: sa"nki.n.naparikhaa
Dear Jayarava and others,
This is a very interesting commentary on one of the most fascinating texts
of Theravada Tipi.taka. Obviously there can be no notion of an "enduring
self" in the comment.
I give below my understanding of this intriguing comment, for whatever it is
worth.
The commentator takes up from the main text
*(‘‘Kathañca, bhikkhave, bhikkhu saṃkiṇṇaparikkho hoti? Idha, bhikkhave,
bhikkhuno ponobbhaviko jātisaṃsāro pahīno hoti, ucchinnamūlo tālāvatthukato
anabhāvaṃkato, āyatiṃ anuppādadhammo. Evaṃ kho, bhikkhave, bhikkhu
saṃkiṇṇaparikkho hoti.) *
And says
Ponobbhavikoti punabbhavadāyako. Jātisaṃsārotiādīsu jāyanavasena ceva
saṃsaraṇavasena ca evaṃ laddhanāmānaṃ punabbhavakhandhānaṃ paccayo
kammābhisaṅkhāro. So hi punappunaṃ uppattikaraṇavasena parikkhipitvā
ṭhitattā parikkhāti vuccati, tenesa tassā saṃkiṇṇattā vikiṇṇattā
saṃkiṇṇaparikkhoti vutto.
Which seems to me to mean:
The word ponobbhaviko means “giving re-birth”. Karmic accumulation is the
causative factor of rebirth *khandhas** *which have been so named (i.e.,
named ‘ponobbhavika’), in such (expressions as) “jaati-sa.msaara”, because
of (their) birth and continued movement (in existence). It (karmic
accumulation) is called ‘parikkhaa’ (encirclement) due to the fact that it
”stands encircling”, by way of producing repeated birth.
Hence he (the Arahant) is called “sa.mki.n.n-parikkho”, because of the fact
that it (the parikkhaa or encirclement) has been ‘un-encircled’ , i.e.,
scattered, by him.
I have one doubt. That is the way I translated *jaatisamsaaro aadisu*. Had
it been jaatisamsaaraadisu, there would have been no trouble. So, either my
translation is wrong, or there is a textual error here.
The commentator has given a novel meaning to *parikkhaa*. The word has been
regarded as a variant of *parikhaa* (from the verb *khanati *: to dig),
which means a protective moat round a town or settlement. There is no
conceivable reason why it should have become *parikkhaa. *Without commenting
on the unusual form of the word, the commentator connects its meaning with
the verb *parikkhipati *: encircles. Since a moat also ‘encircles’, no one
can object to this interpretation, although *parikkhaa* can by no means be
derived from *parikkhipati*.
As for the commentator’s “*sa.mki.n.nttaa viki.n.nattaa*”, it seems to me
that the second word is just explanatory of the first. That is, he implies
that ‘*sa.mki.n.nattaa*’ has the force of ‘*viki.n.nattaa*’. This kind of
explaining one word by another is a very common feature in Pali (and
Sanskrit) commentarial texts.
Mahinda
On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 2:17 PM, jayarava <jayarava@...> wrote:
>
>
> Hi Bryan
>
> Very helpful. So you read .thitataa as a bahuvriihii as well, and take it
> to refer to the cycling around? 'An enduring attaa'.
>
> I have been thinking more, and wondered about reading ".thitattaa
> parikkhaati vuccati" as "it is called having a moat in place"? Taking
> .thitattaa as an abstract noun in -tta, in the ablative. In my reading going
> around and around *creates* a moat/trench (or rut even). I'm slightly
> puzzled that the one going around *is* a moat. Presumably this is a
> metaphor?
>
> Again I was reading that sa.mki.n.nattaa as abstract/ablative; literally
> 'from it's filled-in-ness'. "Because the moat is filled and scattered:
> 'filled in moat' is said."
>
> Your translation seems to accept that a being in samsara has an enduring
> attaa, and that the attaa is somehow destroyed with liberation. Would that
> not be an unusual position for Buddhaghosa to take?
>
> Thanks for your help, look forward to getting your response to this.
>
> Jayarava
>
>
> --- In Pali@yahoogroups.com <Pali%40yahoogroups.com>, Bryan Levman
> <bryan.levman@...> wrote:
> >
> > Dear Jayarava
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > For he who again and again is surrounded/encircled by the power of >
> undergoing rebirth has an enduring attaa, he is called a moat; now
> > then the moat's attaa that has been dispersed and and filled up, is
> > known as a filled in/destroyed moat.
> > parikkhaa = moat, sa.mki.n.nparikkho is a bahuvriihii.
> >
> > Hope that helps,
> >
> > Bryan
>
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]