Dear Nina,
> Dear Jim, I read with interest the Co. to the sabbasutta and also the
subco.
> It helped me to compare the Thai with the Co. As to the Subco. , there is
> one sentence concerning the ayatanas and vipassana: ``aayatanasabbepi idha
> vipassanupagadhammaava gahetabbaa abhi~n~neyyaniddesavasenapi
> sammasanacaarasseva icchitattaa''ti vadanti.
"sammasanacaara" is a word in the above line that is not quite clear to me.
> I know Robert is interested in this also. I am not quite sure about my
> translation here:
> As regards the <all> of the sensefields, they state that here the dhammmas
> that are on the level of vipassana (have reached vipassana) that should be
> understood (gahetabbaa) and should be realized also by analysis, are
desired
> for the method of thorough comprehension.
I think your "should be realized also by analysis" is incorrect. See below.
"for the method of thorough comprehension" is okay. "method" seems to agree
with the literal rendering of "going about" for -caara.
My translation: In the all of the bases also, only the realities belonging
to insight are to be taken here, and by way of the _Exposition on what
should be clearly understood_ because of (it) being desired for just the
going about of (their) mastery [?].
I'm pretty sure that "abhi~n~neyyaniddesa" is none other than the section
having the same name near the beginning of the ~Naa.nakathaa in the
Pa.tisambhidaamagga where another passage on the "all" is quoted (ie.
sabba.m bhikkhave abhi~n~neyya.m . . .)
> I was surprised at the form gahetabbaa. The first va after
> vipassanupagadhammaava must also be eva, for emphasis.
The "eva" is the right reading. I take it in the restrictive sense
(avadhaara.na) of 'only' or 'alone'. The readings in the Burmese text can be
difficult to follow without the aid of apostrophes that show where a letter
has been elided. I think it would be printed in a PTS edition like
"vipassanupagadhammaa'va".
> At the end: yathaati kaara.navacana"nti, I know that kara.navacana can
mean
> the instrumental case, but here, can it be way of speech? It seems to be
> more in agreement with the context.
No, it can't be "by way of speech". "kaara.navacana" (an expression of cause
or reason) could easily be confused with "kara.navacana" (an expression of
the instrumental) although the instrumental case can be used to express
cause or reason among its other uses. The commentary explains that "yathaa"
is equivalent to "yasmaa" (because) in meaning.
> Some time ago we discussed how as a beginning of a question, and you were
> right. I found in the tika that < katham> is used for <how>, very
> interesting.
The -tha.m affix belongs in the same group that includes -to. The -tha.m
is added to the pronominal base of ki.m > ka and has the meaning of
'pakaara' (way, manner, mode) according to Panini which I assume is the same
with Aggava.msa and others. Hence: in what way or manner (kena pakaarena)?
how? Ittha.m (= in this way) also takes the same affix. The -thaa affix as
in 'yathaa' and 'tathaa' also share this meaning.
I hope you received the co. and subco. on the Siivakasutta I emailed to you
off-list. For the Tipitaka the only complete tika published by the PTS is
the one for the Dighanikaaya, and also the first several volumes of the
Anguttaranikaaya-.tiikaa by Sariputta are available. I have most of the
commentaries published by the PTS but I find some of them not to be all that
reliable and it is worth comparing them with other versions especially when
doing a close study.
I'll be leaving in about 10 days and will probably be gone for about 4
months or so during which time it is unlikely I will be able to contribute
anything to this group. I'm afraid I'm far from finished with the
Pabhassarasutta with its co. and subco. and time is quickly running out --
so it'll just have to wait until I'm back.
Best wishes,
Jim
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com