Thanks Khristos, Ven.Yuttadhammo,
I think it's clear what it means now, and Ven. Yuttadhammo was correct in his
assessment of an-anuññā meaning "non-acceptance" or "non-allowance" of any of
these four views,
Metta,
Bryan
________________________________
From: Khristos Nizamis <nizamisk@...>
To: palistudy@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sat, July 31, 2010 2:37:48 AM
Subject: Re: [palistudy] Passage from MA iii.198
Thanks, dear gentlemen: with your help I think I may have understood it.
First, though, re: "sattami (locative) makes sense as well, but one would
assume
"ananuññāyaṃ" then, no?"
'Ananuññāya' could actually be any one of the oblique cases except the
accusative. According to the grammars, the locative for feminine nouns
ending in –ā can appear in two forms, ananuññāyaṃ and also ananuññāya (same
form as the instrumental, dative, ablative, and genitive). So, the
ambiguity of the form here has to be decided here by the best contextual
sense.
To my mind, the key is the right way to understand the sense of '
anujānitabbaṃ' (anujānāti) and the derivative 'ananuññāya' and 'anuññam'. I
think the most useful translation here is 'anujānāti = to admit' and 'anuññā
= admission', with a slightly 'logical' sense: i.e., to admit a statement
as 'logically' (or semantically) acceptable or valid (upetī ti yujjati).
With this in mind, the last clause now makes plain sense to me. (Note: I'm
reading 'ananuññāya' as ablative, with a 'causal', i.e. consequential,
sense. Also, I take the last clause as a relatively independent semantic
unit, with no part of it subordinate to or dependent on the the preceding
'iti' statement.)
ananuññāya ṭhatvā anuññampi paṭikkhipi.
From having established (taken a stand on) the non-admission, the admission,
too, was refused.
Expanded gloss: From having taken a stand on the non-admission of ‘na
upapajjati’, the Buddha also refused its admission: namely , that ‘na
upapajjati’ is in another sense in fact valid or appropriate (upeti). The
reason for this is explained in the preceding sentence (tasmā bhagavā "ayaṃ
appatiṭṭho anālambo hotu, sukhapavesanaṭṭhānaṃ mā labhatū"ti). But "by
asserting the non-admission, he refused the admission, too" need not be a
merely tautological or pleonastic statement.
The 'na upapajjati' question is the second that Vaccha asks, after the
Buddha has (unproblematically) not admitted the first alternative (Buddha:
"upapajjatīti kho, vaccha, na upeti"):
Vaccha: "tena hi, bho gotama, na upapajjatī"ti?
Buddha: "na upapajjatīti kho, vaccha, na upeti".
Here, he takes his stand on the non-admission of 'na upapajjati’ on the
grounds (according to Buddhaghosa's interpretation) that admitting this
would be misunderstood by Vaccha to entail 'annihilation', which is a wrong
view (it is not the truth).
However, the Buddha thereby also automatically has to (temporarily) reject
the admission, too:namely, that 'na upapajjati' is, in another sense, quite
correct; it is the right view (it is the truth). But to perceive this, one
has to know why it is not identical to 'annihilation'. (A tathāgata or an
arahant 'does not reappear', but this 'non-reappearance' is not to be
equated with 'annihilation'. Vaccha is not quite yet ready to grasp this -
hence the non-admission of 'na upapajjati' here - although the Buddha
successfully brings him to the insight in the last stage of the sutta.)
This demonstrates, then, that the 'non-admission' (ananuññā) and the
'admission' (anuññā) are not merely logical contradictories (not merely
affirmation and negation of one and the same 'statement'). That is to say:
when the Buddha does not admit the assertion 'na upapajjati' as coming from
Vaccha, he is rejecting an idea that is quite different from the
understanding that he himself would in fact admit for the statement 'na
upapajjati'. The merely verbal 'same statement' can have two very different
meanings in two very different minds.
Metta,
Khristos
On 31 July 2010 08:59, Noah Yuttadhammo <yuttadhammo@...> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> 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@... <bryan.levman%40yahoo.com>
> > <mailto:bryan.levman%40yahoo.com <bryan.levman%2540yahoo.com>>>
> > To: palistudy@yahoogroups.com <palistudy%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:
> palistudy%40yahoogroups.com <palistudy%2540yahoogroups.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@... <yuttadhammo%40gmail.com>
> > <mailto:yuttadhammo%40gmail.com <yuttadhammo%2540gmail.com>>>
> > To: palistudy@yahoogroups.com <palistudy%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:
> palistudy%40yahoogroups.com <palistudy%2540yahoogroups.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]
>
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]