On 10-07-30 06:31 AM, Bryan Levman wrote:
>
> <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?
>
That doesn't sound right... Buddhaghosa uses the word anujānitabbaṃ to
refer to allowing the various views. Here, he is surely saying that,
"having stood for the non-allowance (of the "sukhapavesana" or the
"ucchedaṃ gaṇheyya"), (the Buddha) refused to allow (the "na upapajjatī").
Or am I missing something?
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Khristos Nizamis <nizamisk@... <mailto:nizamisk%40gmail.com>>
> To: palistudy@yahoogroups.com <mailto: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]