Bryan & Pali Friends,
My usual approach is to apply Occam's razor, and take the simplest reading of the passage. I ask "What does this passage really mean?"
I think we can simply read this line to mean:
“Amongst these (disciples), Anāthapiṇḍika, that one day, was not the first (pubba) to ask the Buddha any (Dhamma) question.”
This seems to fit the context of the passage, which continues, "Anathapindika, we are told, refrained from asking questions by reason of .... ".
We see the phrase pubba,bhāsī, "the first to speak, the first to greet," at D 5,7(18) (SD 22.8); D 4,6
(SD 30.5); SD 45.16 (2.5.3(2)).
SD = Sutta Discovery at http://dharmafarer.org, see under "Sutta Discovery."
We could, of course, accept Burlingame's translation as is, taking the line salus granis to accomodate commentarial hyperbolism. Anyway, Anathapindika was not in the HABIT of asking the Buddha questions for the Buddhaghosa's reason mentioned in DhA 1:5.
Maybe someone else has a better translation.
With metta,
Piya
hp (65) 8211 0879
The Minding Centre
Shenton House
The Minding Centre
Shenton House
3 Shenton Way, #03-06 B
Singapore 068805
Meditation courses & therapy: http:// themindingcentre.org
Sutta translation: http:// dharmafarer.org
Singapore 068805
Meditation courses & therapy: http:// themindingcentre.org
Sutta translation: http:// dharmafarer.org
On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 3:32 AM, Bryan Levman bryan.levman@... [Pali] <Pali@yahoogroups.com> wrote:Dear Pāli friends,
In the commentary to Dhp 1, there is the following sentence,
tesu anāthapiṇḍikena ekadivasampi satthā pañhaṃ na pucchitapubbo. (Burmese)
which I tentatively translated as , “Amongst these (disciples), for only one day, Anāthapiṇḍika did not ask the Buddha a question.” Literally, “On just one day the teacher was not accompanied by a question from Anāthapiṇdika,” taking pubba in final compound to mean “accompanied by” as per Childers and MW s.v. pūrva. Or, “On one day however (pi), Anāthapiṇḍika did not ask the Buddha a question as before,” taking pubbo to mean “before” or “previously.” As you know pi can mean several things: “only”, “merely”, “also”, “even”, “however”, “just”, etc.,
However Burlingame (1928) translates, “Not a single day had Anāthapiṇḍika asked the Teacher a question,” taking pi in the sense of “even” I believe.
Burlingame’s interpretation is followed by the Sinhalese translations and the DPPN (sv Anāthapiṇḍika) which paraphrases, "But we are told that he never asked a question of the Buddha lest he should weary him." Yet as we learn in the preceding paragraph of the commentary, the Buddha spent 19 rains at the Jetvanamahavihara that Anāthapiṇḍika made for him, and it seems inconceivable that he never asked the Buddha a question. Plus we have the record of the suttas, where he in fact did ask the Buddha questions (see DPPN: "There is, however, at least one sutta taught as a result of a question put by Anāthapiṇḍika himself regarding gifts and those who are worthy to receive them (AN 1, 62-63) and we also find him consulting the Buddha regarding the marriage of his daughter, Cūḷa Subhaddā,” DhA 3, 466), and there are lots of suttas where the Buddha is teaching the dhamma to Anāthapiṇḍika as the only interlocutor in the AN.So what is the correct reading? Did Anāthapiṇḍika never ask the Buddha a question? or on just this one day did he not ask a question, as he had previously done?The PTS edition adds the word eva after ekam which is obviously to clarify what the editor thinks is the correct interpretation:Tesu Anāthapiṇḍikenba ekam eva divasam pi Satthā pañha apucchitapubbobut this is not in the Sinhalese, Burmese or Cambodian recensions, so appears to be a late addition. There are several variants listed in the PTS (page 5, footnote 7) which also indicates that everyone was confused about this line.Your interpretation(s) would be welcome,Mettā,Bryan
So what is the correct reading? Did Anāthapiṇḍika never ask the Buddha a question? or on just this one day did he not ask a question, as he had previously done.The PTS edition adds the word eva after ekam which is obviously to clarify what the editor thinks is the correct interpretation:Tesu Anāthapiṇḍikenba ekam eva divasam pi Satthā pañha apucchitapubbobut this is not in the Sinhalese, Burmese or Cambodian recensions, so appears to be a late addition. There are several variants listed in the PTS (page 5, footnote 7) which also indicates that everyone was confused about this line.Your interpretation(s) would be welcome,Mettā,Bryan