Re: Passage from MA iii.198

On 10-07-30 03:36 PM, Bryan Levman wrote:
>
> Sorry, I meant in the locative case, not ablative, Bryan
>
Actually, I was thinking catutthi vibhatti (=dative):

ananuññāya ṭhatvā = having stood, ananuññāya = for the non-allowance

But that's just a guess... maybe tatiya:

"having stood by the non-allowance"

sattami (locative) makes sense as well, but one would assume
"ananuññāyaṃ" then, no?

> ________________________________
> From: Bryan Levman <bryan.levman@...
> <mailto:bryan.levman%40yahoo.com>>
> To: palistudy@yahoogroups.com <mailto:palistudy%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Fri, July 30, 2010 2:15:46 PM
> Subject: Re: [palistudy] 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@...
> <mailto:yuttadhammo%40gmail.com>>
> To: palistudy@yahoogroups.com <mailto:palistudy%40yahoogroups.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]
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>


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