Re: Passage from MA iii.198

Dear Ven. Yuttadhammo, (and Khristos)

Thanks for your suggestion and indeed you may be right. So you are reading
ananu~n~naaya in the ablative, I believe, viz.,

  "Buddha abided in non-allowance (of this view), also rejected the other view
(accusative).

The only problem I see with your interpretation is that there are four views,
not two. When the Buddha thinks

"ayaṃ appatiṭṭho anālambo hotu, sukhapavesanaṭṭhānaṃ mā labhatū"ti

he is surely rejecting all four views, not just two, isn't he? So perhaps we
should read


"Buddha abided in non-allowance (of his view, i. e. of any of the four
tetralemmas), he rejected any view at all (which latter phrase "api" would have
to stand for), the second phrase being a reiteration and re-emphasizing of the
first. Does that make sense?

Metta, Bryan





________________________________
From: Noah Yuttadhammo <yuttadhammo@...>
To: palistudy@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Fri, July 30, 2010 1:40:37 PM
Subject: Re: [palistudy] Passage from MA iii.198

  

> 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.
>
It seems to me that the 'pi gives a clue, that we're talking about two
different allowances... it seems to me that, given the syntax,
"ananuññāya ṭhatvā" is refering to the quotation directly before it:

tasmā bhagavā "ayaṃ appatiṭṭho anālambo hotu, sukhapavesanaṭṭhānaṃ mā
labhatū"ti ananuññāya ṭhatvā anuññampi paṭikkhipi.

Therefore, the Blessed One, having stood for the following (iti)
non-allowance: (iti) "may this one be of no support, of no holding; may
he gain no place for the attainment of ease!" refused the allowance [of
the view] as well (pi).

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]