Hi Khristos,
I think the expression amaraavikkhepa.m must be “eel-wriggler” or “endless
equivocation” which is Bikkhu Bodhi’s take on it (in Walshe, DN, page 541). As
I’m sure you’re aware, the phrase occurs 10 times in the Brahmajaala Sutta of
the DN where it is defined as
"santi, bhikkhave, eke sama.nabraahma.naa amaraavikkhepikaa, tattha tattha
pa~nha.m pu.t.thaa samaanaa vaacaavikkhepa.m aapajjanti amaraavikkhepa.m catuuhi
vatthuuhi
“There are monks some ascetics and Brahmins who are Eel-Wrigglers. When asked
about this or that matter, they resort to evasive statements, and they wriggle
like eels on four grounds… (Walshe, page 80).
Eel-wriggler also makes sense in the context.
<ananu~n~naaya .thatvaa anu~n~nampi pa.tikkhipi.>
As for Buddhaghoṣa’s last sentence, the meaning turns on what anuñña means and
I’m not sure what it means in this context. You have the first part correct,
although I think I would translate sukha as “ease” – i. e. “…let’s not give him
an easy way out”, the Buddha thought. anu~n~naa (= Skt. anuj~naa) usually means
“permission” or “leave to depart”, “dismissal”. The gerund and the subject of
pa.tikkhipi (“refused”) must also have the same subject. So perhaps it means,
“the Buddha remained there without giving him leave to depart; he refused to
give him leave to depart” (because he knew Vaccha was confused and he was going
to offer further explanation – i. e. the simile of the fire). Alteratively the
subject is Vaccha and it means “Vaccha remained there without being dismissed;
he refused to leave” which is consistent with his complaints of bewilderment
which he utters right afterwards. Or I may have it wrong altogether. Perhaps
someone else has some ideas?
Metta,
Bryan
________________________________
From: Khristos Nizamis <nizamisk@...>
To: palistudy@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Fri, July 30, 2010 7:36:40 AM
Subject: [palistudy] Passage from MA iii.198
Dear Jim, Bryan, and other friends,
if someone has a moment to help me out with the end of this passage
from theMajjhima nikāya aṭṭhakathā, 2.3.2, para. 190, MA iii.198, it
would be much
appreciated. The passage is from the commentary to M i.486, para. 190.
It's about the passage where Vaccha asks about whether a bhikkhu who is
vimutta-citta reappears/doesn't reappear/both/neither, and the Buddha
replies to each question with 'na upeti'. Buddhaghosa is saying that, of
course, 'na upapajjati' should have been admitted, but that if it had been,
Vaccha would have interpreted it nihilistically, and so it, too, was treated
as 'na upeti'. All of that is pretty clear. It's the **last sentence**
that I'm not clear about (assuming that my take on the second to last
sentence is correct: I'm sure you'll let me know if it's not). As for '
amarāvikkhepaṃ' my bet is 'eel-wriggling', but the other possibility sounds
very charming. ^__^
na upetī ti na yujjati. ettha ca "na upapajjatī"ti idaṃ anujānitabbaṃ siyā.
yasmā pana evaṃ vutte so paribbājako ucchedaṃ gaṇheyya, upapajjatīti pana
sassatameva, upapajjati ca na ca upapajjatīti ekaccasassataṃ, neva
upapajjati na na upapajjatīti amarāvikkhepaṃ, tasmā bhagavā "ayaṃ appatiṭṭho
anālambo hotu, sukhapavesanaṭṭhānaṃ mā labhatū"ti ananuññāya ṭhatvā
anuññampi paṭikkhipi.
‘It does not apply [na upeti: lit., ‘it does not go up to’] (means) it is
not appropriate [na yujjati]. And here, ‘he does not reappear’: (the reason
is) if this were to be permitted, because of that, when he [sc. the Buddha]
spoke [vutte] thus, he, the wanderer, would have assumed [gaṇheyya]
annihilation [ucchedaṃ]; ‘he reappears’, on the other hand, is just
eternalism; ‘he reappears and he does not reappear’ is similar to [ekacca]
eternalism; he neither reappears nor does not reappear’ is [either] (1.)
eel-wriggling [amarā-vikkhepaṃ] /or/ (2.) immortal peace [amara-avikkhepaṃ]
[!?]. Because of that, the Blessed One (thought): “Let this person be
without a footing, unsupported, let him not obtain a standing-place for
entrance into happiness (satisfaction)”. **Because of having stayed [ṭhatvā]
without sanction (unordained?) [ananuññāya], sanction (ordination?) also is
refused.**
Many thanks,
Khristos
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]