Re: Samyutta nikaya part( iv)salayatanavagga

Dear Robert,

>Dear group,
>here is my first look at three sentences.
>From the samyuttanikaya (vol.iv) salayatana vagga. The pali
>diacrictics are missing.
>5. Dutiya-aparijananasutta

The title in the PTS edition is: Parijaanaana 2. In the uddaana at the end
of the sabbavagga in both editions it reads: parijaanaa (nt. pl.) apare
duve. I think the name of the sutta should properly be called:
parijaanasutta (2). An uddaana is a summary verse giving the names of the
suttas in a vagga.

>27. “Sabba bhikkhave, anabhijana aparijana avirajaya appajaha
>abhabbo dukkhakkhayaya.

With the diacritics and the missing letters added:

Sabbam bhikkhave, anabhijaana.m aparijaana.m aviraajaaya.m appajaha.m
abhabbo dukkhakkhayaaya.

sabba.m (nt. sg. acc.) is the object/patient of the four present participles
beginning with anabhijaana.m (m. sg. nom.) which modify the agent abhabbo
(one who is incapable). I have yet to determing the status of the affix
"aaya" which is included as with dative sing. in Warder's declension table
but does not at all appear in Aggava.msa's table. You will not find
(a)viraajaaya.m (ppr.) in the PED. It belongs to 'viraajeti' which is a
causative verb, I believe. B.Bodhi is obviously taking it as a causative
present participle when he uses 'developing'.

>This is translated (relying On ven. bodhi's translation) as
>Bhikkhus without directly knowing and fully understanding the
>all (sabba), without developing dispassion towards it and
>abandoning it, one is incapable of destroying suffering.

J: Bhikkhus, not clearly understanding the all, not fully understanding the
all, not detaching oneself from the all, not abandoning the all, one is
incapable of destroying suffering.

> Kiñca, bhikkhave, sabba ...?

ki~nca, bhikkhave, sabba.m ... dukkhakkhayaaya?

>And what (kinca), bhikkhus is the all..?

____________
> Yañca, bhikkhave cakkhu, ye ca rupa, yañca cakkhuviññana, ye ca
>cakkhuviññana aviññatabba dhamma…repeats for other senses.

ya~nca, bhikkhave cakkhu, ye ca ruupaa, ya~nca cakkhuvi~n~naa.na.m, ye ca
cakkhuvi~n~naa.navi~n~naatabbaa dhammaa ....

>This is, bhikkhus, the eye and rupa; the eyeconsciousness; and
>dhammas (known, cognised )by eye consciosness.

J: Bhikkhus, whatever is the eye, whatever are visible objects, whatever is
eye-consciousness, whatever mental objects are cognizable by
eye-consciousness ...

'This' seem to be misplaced. It's a very long sentence which starts from
"ya~nca bhikkhave cakkhu" in paragraph 4 (PTS) and ends in paragraph 11
with "dukkhakkhayaaya." The first major part of the sentence contains 24
relative clause each beginning with a relative pronoun: ya.m, ye, yaa, yo.
The second one (the main clause) starts with "Ida.m kho bhikkhave" in
paragraph 11. The summation of all those relative clauses defines: ida.m
sabba.m (this is the all) and is the answer to: what is the all? (ki~nca
sabba.m).

>In the above sentence I wasn't sure of V. bodhi's translation so
>have made my own. What do have Jim?
>In both the PTS edition and VRI edition of the pali they seem to
>be missing the sota (ear). In bodhi's translation he includes
>it.

The clauses pertaining to the ear and the nose are included in the ...pe...
(peyyaala) which require one to fill in the missing parts which is easy for
this passage. Just replace eye with ear or nose.

Best wishes,
Jim


_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com