Dear Ven. Yutthadhammo:
okay, that's an interesting point.
ananuññāya ṭhatvā anuññampi paṭikkhipi
Prima facie it doesn't make sense to me that "ananuññāya ṭhatvā" should
refer to "non-allowance (of the "sukhapavesana"...)", since this comes after
(i.e. is a consequence of the first 'rejection'); but "non-allowance (...of
the "ucchedaṃ gaṇheyya")" makes a little more sense to me. The
anujānāti/anuññam
connection does feel natural and significant in context. And yet, on the
other hand, "ṭhānaṃ" in "sukhapavesanaṭṭhānaṃ" and the subsequent "ṭhatvā"
also seem to make a link.
Is it then, perhaps, that the Buddha rejects the 'na upapajjati' alternative
(on grounds of an erroneous nihilistic interpretation on Vaccha's part): he
thinks, 'let's not give Vaccha an easy way out of this' (as Bryan
suggested); so, on this ground of not sanctioning any way out of this,
sanction was denied.
(The possibly slightly pleonastic final clause wouldn't be (in my humble
opinion, from my limited familiarity) out of place for Buddhaghosa? He
doesn't seem averse to somewhat pleonastic explanations occasionally in
other contexts?)
Will sleep on it. Good night, and many thanks to you both.
Metta,
Khristos
On 30 July 2010 23:58, Noah Yuttadhammo <yuttadhammo@...> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> 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 ananuññāya ṭhatvāor the
> "ucchedaṃ gaṇheyya"), (the Buddha) refused to allow (the "na upapajjatī").
>
> Or am I missing something?
>
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Khristos Nizamis <nizamisk@... <nizamisk%40gmail.com><mailto:
> nizamisk%40gmail.com <nizamisk%2540gmail.com>>>
> > To: palistudy@yahoogroups.com <palistudy%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:
> palistudy%40yahoogroups.com <palistudy%2540yahoogroups.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]
>
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]