Dear Nina,
Thanks Nina,
I will look up Peter Masefield's translation and see how mine compares. I was
most interested in the Buddha's statement re: akkheyya "what can be expressed".
In Bodhi's translation:
Beings who perceive what can be expressed
Become established (pati.t.thitaa; I would translate "fixed") in what can be
expressed.
Not fully understanding what can be expressed
They come under the yoke of Death.
But having fully understood what can be expressed
One does not conceive 'one who expresses'.
For that does not exist for him
By which one could describe him.
This reminds me of the Muulapariyaaya sutta (MN 1) where the puthujjano
pa.thavi.m pa.thavito sa~njaanaati. Pa.thavi.m pa.thavito sa~n~natvaa
pa.thavi.m ma~n~nati pa.thaviyaa ma~n~nati pa.thavito ma~n~nati pa.thavi.m me'ti
ma~n~nati.
Pa.thavi.m abhinandati.
which I would translate as
…from a perception of ‘earth’ he/she is aware of ‘earth’. Being aware of earth
from the
percept, he/she deems the percept ‘earth’. He/she supposes separation from earth
(pa,thavito);
he/she imagines ‘with reference to earth’; he/she thinks of earth as ‘mine’.
He/she delights in earth.
but the arahant who has destroyed his/her passions, fully knows the earth,
Pa.thavi.m pa.thavito abhi~n~naaya pa.thavi.m na ma~n~nati pa.thaviyaa na
ma~n~nati pa.thavito na ma~n~nati pa.thavi.m me'ti na ma~n~nati. Pa.thavi.m
naabhinandati.
After fully knowing the earth from a percept he/she does not judge earth, nor
does hs/she conceive with reference to earth or separate from earth or ‘earth is
mine’; he/she does not find pleasure in earth.
Here the Buddha seems to be saying that the very structure of language and
syntax (which reflects the dualistic structure of the mind) causes us to view
things as outside of ourselves (which we get fixed or established in, per the
Addhaasutta), but once we fully understand them we realize that there is not
really a speaker (akkaataara.m na ma~n~nati in the Addhaasutta) and are no
longer stuck in concepts (Ireland translates the third verse which is not in the
Samiddhisutta, "He freely makes use of concepts, but no more enters into
concept's range."
sa"nkhaya sevii dhamma.t.tho sa"nkhyam nopeti vedagu.
This half-verse recurs in Sutta Nipaata 749, where Norman translates "The
practicing [bhikkhu] having reflected, standing [firm] in the doctrine, having
knowledge is not counted [in any category]." The notion seems to be that we
transcend the duality of language and its syntactical and semantic structure.
Now I have not examined all the commentary on these passages, but I'm wondering
if you've come across in your studies any such-like statements in the canon or
commentary which might shed some light on the above.
Metta, Bryan
________________________________
From: Nina van Gorkom <
vangorko@...>
To:
Pali@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thu, January 6, 2011 10:04:48 AM
Subject: Re: [Pali] a.t.thahaakaarehi
Dear Bryan,
Op 5-jan-2011, om 20:47 heeft Bryan Levman het volgende geschreven:
> I didn't know it had been translated. You mean it is available on
> line? How do I
> find it?
------
N: "The Commentary on the Itivuttaka", translated by Peter Masefield.
Translation series 54. It is in 2 volumes, I think only hardcover.
You could order it from PTS:
pts@...
As a sponsoring member I received this as a present. As a member you
get reduction from all books you order.
He also translated the Udana commentary, I think only in hardcover.
In 2 volumes, rather big ones.
http://www.bookfinder.com/dir/i/The_Udana_Commentary/0860133168/
His translations are very good.
-------
Bryan: I started out translating Dharmapala's commentary to the
Addhaasutta (Itivuttaka
63), trying to understand why a sutra on time would contain a
discourse on
akkheyya ("what can be expressed" in Bhikkhu Bodhi's translation).
-------
N: Masefield: As regards the verses: perceiving that which is capable
of expression (akkheyyasa~n~nino): in this connection, it is that
which is capable of expression (akkheya) since it is expressed
(akkhaayati), talked about, defined, a basis for talk, being, as to
sense, the five khandhas of material form and so on. For there is
said, "One might talk concerning the period that is is past... or
that has yet to come... or else one might talk concerning the period
that is present..."
The notion addha interests me, and the Tika to the Visuddhimagga Ch
XIV, 187 goes into it deeply:
<The Tiika to Vis. 187 adds that extent, addhaa can also be used in
the ultimate sense (paramatthato) with the meaning of moment (kha.na).
The Diigha Nikaaya, Sangiiti Sutta, the threes, XXIV, states:
<Three periods, to wit, past, future, present.>
The word addhaa is used here. The Co. to this passage explains that
there is the Suttanta method and the Abhidhamma method of
explanation. In the Suttanta method past, future and present periods
are used in conventional sense, as lifespan. In the Abhidhamma
method, addhaa is used in the sense of moment.>
I can quote more if you like, or it may be too much? I studied this
tika.
--------
Nina.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]