Re: correction subcom (AN I.49)

Dear Nina,

My apology for taking so long in replying to your message. There was
so much in it for me to study and to think about before I could respond.

> > 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?

I'm not sure how to answer. I think "how is it possible that...how can
it be that.." would be expressed in some other way with the atthi in the
optative "siyaa". I really don't know off-hand exactly how this type of
question is handled in Pali. I couldn't find anything in Warder on this. The
PED on "ki.m pana" has: ki.m pana = nonne: ki.m pana bhante addasa? "Have
you not seen?" D II.132; ki.m pana tva.m ma~n~naasi what then do you think =
do you think then, that? . . . J I.171; and for "kin nu kho": why, but why,
why in the world? The "ki.m" in our sentence functions as an interrogative
adverb and not as a pronoun. To find out more on the usage of "ki.m pana"
one could look at some other passages where it occurs. I glanced at a few
and saw some that have categorical natthi/atthi answers and some that don't.
At DN II 82 there are several "ki.m pana" questions posed by the Buddha to
Sariputta whose answer each time was a categorical "no h'eta.m". I'm afraid
I don't know much about the different ways in which Pali interrogative
sentences are constructed. I'm not saying that the use of "how" is
incorrect, just not sure. Also, later on in the .tikaa we find another "ki.m
pana" question & answer:

Mp-p.t> ki.m pana bhava"ngacitta.m nirupakkilesanti? aama sabhaavato
nirupakkilesa.m, aagantukaupakkilesavasena pana siyaa upakkili.t.tha.m.

But in this case both you and Suan use a "why" instead of a "how". I think
this question can be stated quite well without it: eg. "But is the
bhavangacitta without defilement? Yes, regarding its own nature it is
without defilement; however, it can be defiled by way of the oncoming
defilements."

> 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?)

Locative singular.  -dhaatu.m is the accusative sg. form.

  labbhanakavisesaa , the case of visesaa. ,
> after the labbhanaka.

Nominative plural. It goes with "pabhassarataadayo" -- luminosity and so on
are distinctions to be found in the colour element. I do not see
"labbhanaka" in any of my dictionaries. 'labbhana' could be taken as a
future passive participle similar to the 'vi~n~naa.na' (cognizable, it can
be cognized) in the verse about nibbaana we touched on earlier. I
found "va.n.nadhaatu" in a verse in the Bhikkhuniisa.myutta and in another
one in the Petavatthu which Masefield translates as "complexion" (colour of
the skin). It is also found in The Dispeller of Delusion, vol. 2, no. 2129:
". . . which has as its object the colour element of beings that pass away
and reappear. . ." (dibbacakkhu knowledge).

> Ahaa:  sometimes I do not know whether this refers to the preceding or the
> following.

Look for the quote that matches the same words in the a.t.thakathaa. It
would refer to the following if you see "aaha -- . . ." or the preceding if
it ends in a period eg. ". . . tiaadimaaha."

> 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?

"itaro" in the following is problematic for me:

Mp-p.t> itaro aruupataaya 'natthii'ti pa.tikkhipitvaa pariyaayakathaa aya.m
taadisassa cittassa parisuddhabhaavanaadiipanaayaati dassento
'niilaadiinan'tiaadimaaha.

I don't yet know what "itaro" here is referring to. The sentence makes more
sense without it. I take the subject of "dassento" to be the commentator
although one might wonder if "itaro" (the other or following one) could be
the subject. panaayaati is not pana aya.m ti.
parisuddhabhaavanaadiipanaayaati = parisuddha-bhaavanaa-diipanaayaa ti. I'm
not sure whether "diipanaaya" is fem. (diipanaa in the sing. of one of five
cases) or neut. (diipana.m). My preliminary translation of the passage w/o
the itaro (for now) is: After having rejected in this way: "there isn't"
owing to the immateriality (of consciousness) and showing that this
roundabout talk is for illustrating the completely pure development of
suchlike consciousness, he said: "beginning with blue" and so on. I'm hardly
clear on the meaning of "pariyaayakathaa". "pariyaaya" here seems to fit
def. 5 in PED. I have also seen "suttantadesanaa naama pariyaayakathaa" in
Sv-p.t and there is also a "nippariyaayakathaa" in some places. So perhaps
the difference between the two is along the lines of a conventional teaching
in contrast to a paramatttha teaching.

> paccakkhabhaavato: I understood: evident, clear, different from Suan.

That's sort of how I understand it, something like: from being directly
perceptible.

> paccaamanasana: paccaa: a contraction of pa.ti? It could mean: again.

paccaa = pa.ti + aa.  So "paccaamasana" (touching on again) is pa.ti + aa +
masana.

> upecca: having approached?

That's how I understand it. 'upecca' is the absolutive (or gerund) of the
verb 'upeti'. It's similar to 'pa.ticca' in having the same absolutive affix
'ya' (like the -tvaa) at the end. (upa + i + t + ya > upetya > upecca)

> caati: is this ca ti?

Correct, although 'ti' is originally 'iti'. So it's probably more accurate
to put it as 'ca iti'.

> I could not get this.
> grammar of pariyaayo; in the first case?.

Not sure which part you're referring to. The only 'pariyaayo' I found is in
the compound 'upakkili.t.thataapariyaayo' which is in the nominative sing.
I'll look at the grammar later on.

> Grammar at the end: iriyaaya loke gaarayhataa dissati: it is shown, but
> not sure about the case of iriyaaya: ablative?

Not sure, will look into it.

> I feel I am getting very involved in this text.

Same here.

> 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?

I think the commentator is saying that 'kileso' is the cause or reason of
existence or being. 'avayavaani' means: members, consituents, components,
parts. This is how I take this line (roughly): "Therein, 'bhava"ngaani': --
a kilesa is a factor, a cause of existence; (both) the cycle of kamma and
the cycle of vipaaka are (each) a member, component called existence."
'sa"nkhaata' (called, named) is not the same as 'sa"nkhata' (conditioned). I
quoted this line from the Nettivibhaavinii to show the meanings of 'anga'
ie. kaara.na and avayava which are also included in the meanings given in
the Abhidhaanappadiipikaa (verse 956) although there hetu is given instead
of kaara.na. So from this it seems that one has to consider two distinct
types of compounds depending on whether reference is being made to kilesa,
or kamma and vipaaka. Incidentally, I see that there is also a
'kilesava.t.ta'.

> 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.

I understand that the 19 types of pa.tisandhicittas are the same as the 19
types of bhavangacittas, but in different functions. I thought that these
are included in the 3rd link along with the other remaining worldly types.
The term 'bhavanga' is found in the Pa.t.thaana, Petakopadesa, Netti, and
Milindapa~nha but not in any other Tipitaka text. The meaning of the term
has long puzzled me and it seems that a close study of the way the term is
used in the Netti and its commentaries could shed some light on it although
there it is used in a more generalized application.

Will work through your translation but this might take some time.

Best wishes,
Jim


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