Re: Vin. Mv. 1:6 (...continued)

80s I procured with some difficulty a copy of H. Smith's romanized
edition
in six volumes and to me it is the most comprehensive and
authoritatve Pali
grammar available (recently reprinted by the PTS). The beginner might
find
the work quite incomprehensible without some understanding of the
traditional Indian system of language description. To understand the
system
I studied Panini's A.s.taadhyaayii (for Sanskrit) which is available
in an
English translation with copious notes (S.C. Vasu's ed.). I have found
comparing Pali with Sanskrit to be quite helpful in clarifying the
many
ambiguities of Pali.

--> Dan: At this point, Warder is plenty incomprehensible for me! I
do very much appreciate your expertise and am impressed by how
helpful your comments have been to me so far. I also notice how much
the others here and at dsg appreciate and respect your work. Thanks!

<snip>

> D: 2. Also, "dukkhanirodhagaaminii"...
>
> J: The translation that I made using "by developing" was not one I
> agreed
> with. I was only rewording ~Nm's in order to make it more
> intelligible. I
> think his "maintaining" might have something to do
with "anurakkhanaa"
> as found in the last of the 4 right efforts (sammappadhaana-
> s). "pa.tipadaa"
> (the way) would be the accusative object of "developing" just like
> "maintaining" but "pa.tipadaa" happens to be in the nom. sing. fem.
> "dukkhanirodhagaaminii" translates into "leading to (gaaminii) the
> cessation
> (nirodha) of suffering (dukkha).
>
> D: Hmmmm... I can see that. I'm a little skeptical of mixing
> the teachings in translations, though, because the teaching often
> seems to take similar ideas and expresses them in different ways or
> emphasizes different aspects, apparently tailored to meet the needs
> of the listener at that time. For example, paticca samuppada, the
> five aggregates, and the elements and bases in a lot of ways seem to
> be just different formulations for the same general phenomena. I
find
> that mixing the metaphors is dangerous. Better to understand each as
> it is? I think so. The words mean somewhat different things in the
> different contexts.

J: I'm puzzled by what you say here as I don't see where there has
been a
mixing of the teachings or metaphors in the translation under
discussion. My
disagreement is over ~Naa.namoli's translation of "bhaavetabba.m"
because he
is reading into it meanings that aren't really there. Although the
penetration of the truths is found in the teachings it is best
considered in
texts that contain such words as pa.tivedha, pa.tivijjhati, etc.
along with
sacca. It's much better to study the teachings in Pali as so much can
get
lost or distorted in the translation.

--> Dan: I was just echoing your comments as I understand them, viz.
~Nm seems to be reading into the passage meanings that aren't there
(but may well be there in other parts of the teaching). I too think
this sort of thing is common in translations, which is one of the
main reasons I want to study Pali. (The other main reason is to read
things that haven't been translated, e.g. Yamaka, much of the Sutta
commentaries.)

<snip -- study and store your comments>

Dan