Re: correction subcom

op 25-01-2002 02:44 schreef Jim Anderson op jimanderson_on@...
>
> Dear Nina,
> Mp> ki.m pana cittassa va.n.no naama atthiiti? natthi.
>
> N: But how does there exist indeed a colour of citta? No, there is not.
> S: How is there such a thing as the color of the mind? There isn't.
>
J > I find the use of "how" in both translations questionable. As far as I
know,
> a "how" (by what means? in what way?) question requires an explanatory
> answer. But we have a categorical  "natthi" answer, not an explanation. So
> I think the "how" should probably be avoided and  "ki.m" to be taken as an
> introduction to a question and left untranslated as in "But does there
> exist...".

Dear Jim, I was thinking of: how is it possible that...how can it be that..
But, this may be too strong. If the Pali had: kin nu kho, it is stronger,
but this is kim only. Is that right?
Since the text is very much in my mind I want to write down all my <trouble
spots>, but these do not have to be corrected now.
va.n.nadhaatuya.m (accusative?) labbhanakavisesaa , the case of visesaa. ,
after the labbhanaka.
Ahaa:  sometimes I do not know whether this refers to the preceding or the
following.

itaro: another said... and then: what belongs to what: dassento: is the
subject the commentator or is it the pariyaayakathaa?
panaayaati, is this: pana aya.m ti? There is the first aya.m, where does
this belong?
paccakkhabhaavato: I understood: evident, clear, different from Suan.

paccaamanasana: paccaa: a contraction of pa.ti? It could mean: again.
upecca: having approached? caati: is this ca ti? I could not get this.
grammar of pariyaayo; in the first case?.
Grammar at the end: iriyaaya loke gaarayhataa dissati: it is shown, but not
sure about the case of iriyaaya: ablative?
I feel I am getting very involved in this text.

Jim> I did some
> searching and found a few interesting explanations in the Netti
> commenataries and also in ~Naa.namoli's translation of the
> Nettippakara.na (The Guide, p. 49 fn 165/1) where he translates
> bhavanga as 'factor of being'. The Nettivibhaavinii has this helpful
> bit: 'tattha bhava"ngaani kileso bhavassa anga.m kaara.na.m
> kammava.t.tavipaakava.t.taani bhavasa"nkhaataani a"ngaani
avayavaani.'

N> I could not make this out: the kileso: where does it belong. There is the
cycle of kamma and of vipaaka, but what is: avayavaani? bhavasankhaataani:
conditioned birth?

J> ~Naa.namoli says that its meaning in the Netti differs from that in
> the Abhidhamma. The Netti seems to be using it in a wider sense by
> calling each of the 12 constituents of pa.ticcasamuppaada a
bhavanga.
> I thought that perhaps bhavangacitta could refer to the third
> constituent 'vi~n~naa.na' which happens to include the 19
> bhavangacittas according to my reading at Vism. XVII.120.

N>I think that - the Vis. refers to  the 19 types of rebirth-consciousness,
but vi~n~naana  also refers to vipaaka like seeing and hearing, arising
during life. As I understand it, bhavangacitta is not a constituent of the
Pa.ticcasamuppada, but as bhavanga is used in a wider sense in the Netti,
just bhavanga could be a name for each of the 12 constituents, since they
are a condition for life to continue in samsara.
I find this text interesting but I regret it that I only understand part of
this Pali.
Best wishes, Nina.


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