Hi Bryan: thanks, yes, of course, I think 'eel-wriggler' ('endless
equivocation' is very nice) is the obvious choice here. But the other is .
. . well, serendipitously cute.
I like your take on the last sentence (it's helpful to understand 'anuñña'
as 'leave to depart, dismissal'): it makes a nice sort of sense out of it:
both possibilities seem plausible, actually, and the sentence seems (to me,
at least) rather ambiguous between the two.
Thank you very much. Your suggestions are always very nice and to the point
(with such a fast turn-around time!).
Metta, Khristos
On 30 July 2010 23:01, Bryan Levman <bryan.levman@...> wrote:
>
>
> 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@... <nizamisk%40gmail.com>>
> To: palistudy@yahoogroups.com <palistudy%40yahoogroups.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]
>
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]