Re: Dhammapada commentary

Dear Bryan,

it's probably already unnecessary to do so - but I think that I'd have to
second Lennart's reading, on the grounds that in "mara.nadhamma.m mata.m"
(and "bhijjanadhamma.m bhinna.m") both words are in the accusative, i.e., a
double accusative which is governed by a verb of cognition,
"paccavekkhitabba.m", 'to be looked upon, contemplated'.

Wijesekera discusses this construction in para. 58. 'Double accusative, b.
'Direct + predicative object', where he says that "an accusative other than
the direct object of the simple verb appears predicatively with verbs of
speaking, thinking, knowing, perceiving, making, and the like" (p. 73).
Examples with verbs of knowing that he cites: "yadaa te Bhagavaa a~n~nasi
kallacitte...", "when the Blessed One knew them to be (lit. as) of suitable
disposition..." (D ii.41); "bhaasamaana~nca ma.m na jaananti", "they do not
know me to be speaking" (D ii.109); "peta.m ma.m jaanaahi", "know me as a
departed (spirit)" (Pv ii.9); "ta.m vaa pi dhiiraa muni.m vedayanti", "him
the wise know as a sage" (Sn 212 (= DPR Sn 214)).

In "mara.nadhamma.m mata.m", I think the first accusative is the direct
object, the second accusative the predicate of that object.  "It should be
wisely contemplated: 'That which has the nature of death is dead / has died;
that which has the nature of breaking is broken / has broken'."  But even if
you wanted to read the past participle as 'nominal' (as you do in your
translation), and as the direct object, I think the reading would be: "That
which has died had / was of the nature of death".

For the meaning you suggested, wouldn't you have to have something like:
"'mara.na.m mara.nadhamma.m, bhijjana.m bhijjadhamma'nti yoniso
paccavekkhitabba.m"?

Anyway, thanks for sharing this very interesting narrative from the
commentary.

With metta,
Khristos






On 13 September 2010 09:31, Lennart Lopin <novalis78@...> wrote:

> Hi Bryan, I understand it as "(what was) subject to death, died. (what was)
> subject to breaking, broke".
> hope that helps,
> metta,
> Lennart
>
> On Sun, Sep 12, 2010 at 12:30 PM, Bryan Levman <bryan.levman@...
> >wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Dear Friends,
> >
> > In his commentary on Dhp verse 212, Buddhaghosa tells the story of the
> > Buddha
> > who consoles a householder whose son has died. The Buddha says:
> >
> > "ki.m nu kho, upaasaka, dukkhitosii"ti pucchitvaa tena puttaviyogadukkhe
> > aarocite, "upaasaka, maa cintayi, ida.m mara.na.m naama na ekasmi.myeva
> > .thaane, na ca ekasseva hoti, yaavataa pana bhavuppatti naama atthi,
> > sabbasattaana.m hotiyeva. ekasa"nkhaaropi nicco naama natthi. tasmaa
> > `mara.nadhamma.m mata.m, bhijjanadhamma.m bhinna'nti yoniso
> > paccavekkhitabba.m,
> > na socitabba.m.
> >
> > which I tentatively translate:
> >
> > “What’s the problem layman, that you are so unhappy?” and once told by
> him
> > about
> > the loss of his son, said, “Layman, don’t worry, this thing called death
> is
> > not
> > just about one condition (or "does not just happen on one occasion"?) nor
> > does
> > it apply to just one person, just like what is called “coming into
> > existence”
> > applies to all beings. There is not a single mental volition,
> (sa"nkhaara:
> > phenomenon, essential property, etc.) that may be called permanent.
> > Therefore
> > death is subject to death, something broken is subject to destruction, it
> > is
> > said – this is to be wisely considered/contemplated, not to be grieved
> > about.
> >
> > My question is the translation of the underlined part from ida.m
> mara.ma.m
> > up to
> > bhinna'nti.
> >
> > Is the Buddha saying that death is subject to death because it is
> conquered
> > by
> > Nirvaa.na? or is he saying that death is subject to death because of
> future
> >
> > rebirth? or is it just a rephrasing of udayabbayadhamma,(rising
> phenomenon
> > are
> > subject to cessation)?
> >
> > Thanks for your help,
> >
> > Metta, Bryan
> >
> > P. S. If anyone is interested in the context, I append the entire story
> > below
> >
> > Commentary: piyato jaayatii ti. The teacher spoke this Dharma teaching
> > while
> > living in the Jetavana grove with reference to a certain man of property.
> > For he was overwhelmed with the death of his son and having gone to the
> > cremation grounds, he cried and was not able to bear the grief of his
> son's
> >
> > loss. The teacher, examining the world at dawn saw a good opportunity for
> > the
> > path of stream-enterer and taking a junior monk, went in front of his
> (the
> > householder’s) house. He, having heard of the teacher’s arrival, being
> > desirous
> > of making him feel welcome, ushered in the teacher, prepared a seat in
> the
> > middle of the house, and once the teacher was seated, he came and sat
> down
> > on
> > one side of him. The teacher asked him “What’s the problem layman, that
> you
> > are
> > so unhappy?” and once told by him about the loss of his son, said,
> “Layman,
> >
> > don’t worry, this thing called death is not about just one condition nor
> > does it
> > apply to just one person, just like what is called “coming into
> existence”
> > applies to all beings. There is not a single mental
> > volition/phenomenon/essential property that may be called permanent.
> > Therefore
> > death is subject to death, something broken is subject to destruction, it
> > is
> > said – this is to be wisely considered/contemplated, not to be grieved
> > about.
> > The wise old ancients, knowing that death is subject to death and what is
> > broken
> > is subject to destruction have not mourned but have become mindful of
> > death.” So
> > he said. “Sir, who has acted in such a way and when have they done so,
> > please
> > tell me.” Once asked, taking up a previous explanation of the meaning,
> > Buddha
> > said:
> > “Just like a snake abandons its old skin and goes to a (new) body, in the
> > same
> > way there is mindfulness in regard to a deserted body, (mindfulness) to
> the
> > dead
> > that have died, thinking, the person consumed (by death) is not aware of
> > the
> > lamentation of his relatives, therefore I will not mourn him, he has gone
> > on to
> > a new existence.” Having explained the five-part story of the snake birth
> > story,
> > he said, “Thus in the past, as wise men (have done) in the death of their
> > beloved son, so now you, having given up your occupation and wandered
> about
> >
> > fasting and crying, not wandering about, not mourning because of the
> > strength of
> > the cultivation of mindfulness about death, eat food and concentrate on
> > your
> > business/occupation/working. Do not mourn ‘My dear son has died’, for
> grief
> > or
> > fear comes into existence because of just this belovedness/pleasantness.”
> > Having
> > said this he spoke these verses:
> >
> > From what is pleasant comes grief, from what is pleasant comes fear. For
> > one who
> > is freed from what is pleasant there is no grief, much less fear
> (Norman’s
> > translation, 2004, 32).
> > Here piyato (“from what is pleasant”) means originating fromsa.msaara,
> for
> > either grief or fear arising, they arise depending on a dear person or
> > mental
> > formation, but from the freeing from it (what is pleasant), both (grief
> and
> >
> > fear) are dead and no longer exist.
> >
> > At the end of this instruction, the householder was established in the
> > fruit of
> > a stream-enterer. The Dharma teaching was successful (sampattaanampi?
> > sampatta =
> > attained)
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>


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