Re: Dhammapada commentary

Hi Jim,

I like your past participle rendering in *"...what is dead had the nature of
dying; what is
*
*broken up had the nature of breaking up."* much more than my quick response
to Bryan; it is much more precise, thanks!

BTW, the "absurdity" of *death being regarded as dead *- even though I agree
is not implied here - does get mentioned (or related to) at other places in
the Suttas (and in a much deeper context). Just for curiosity's sake, I am
quoting from Nyanananda's 11. sermon on Nibbāna were he cites the
Parāyanavagga:

"Akiñcanaṃ anādānaṃ

etaṃ dīpaṃ anāparam

`nibbānam' iti naṃ brūmi

jarāmaccuparikkhayaṃ.[16]<http://www.what-buddha-taught.net/Books8/Bhikkhu_Nanananda_Nibbana_Sermon_14.htm#L16>

"Owning naught, grasping naught,

The isle is this, none else besides,

Nibbāna - that is how I call that isle,

Wherein Decay is decayed and Death is dead."

The Buddha's reply makes it clear that the term Nibbāna stands for the
> extinction of craving and grasping. The ideal of owning naught and grasping
> naught is itself Nibbāna, and nothing else. If the term had any other
> connotation, the Buddha would have mentioned it in this context.

It is indubitably clear, then, that the epithet dipam, or island, has to be
> understood in a deeper sense when it refers to Nibbāna. It is that owning
> nothing and grasping nothing, that puts an end to decay and death.


If you are interested in more detail on that topic, he explains it in detail
in his lecture number 3
http://www.beyondthenet.net/calm/nibbana03.htm

That is why we have pointed out that the concepts of birth, decay-and-death
> are of the nature of fading away. That is also why decay-and-death have been
> described as impermanent, made up, depen dently arisen, of a nature to
> wither away, pass away, fade away and cease: Aniccaṃ saṅkhataṃ
> paṭiccasamuppannaṃ khayadhammaṃ vayadhammaṃ virāgadhammaṃ nirodhadhammaṃ
> [16] <http://www.beyondthenet.net/calm/nibbana03.htm#_edn16>


metta,

Lennart


On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 10:09 AM, Jim Anderson <jimanderson_on@...>wrote:

>
>
> Dear Khristos,
>
> I'm afraid I have to disagree with your double accusative explanation.
> My reading of:
>
>
> tasmaa `mara.nadhamma.m mata.m, bhijjanadhamma.m bhinna'nti yoniso
> paccavekkhitabba.m, na socitabba.m. -- Dhp-a on verse 212
>
> is:
>
> therefore, it should be reflected upon, not grieved over in the
> following way: what has died was subject to dying; what has broken up
> was subject to breaking up.
>
> Alternatively: "...what is dead had the nature of dying; what is
> broken up had the nature of breaking up."
>
> "mara.nadhamma.m" is an adjectival compound qualifying the neuter noun
> "mata.m". Both words are in the nominative singular.
>
> If you read "mara.nadhamma.m" as the subject of "paccavekkhitabba.m"
> in a passive construction, both words would have to be in the
> nominative case ending in the masc. -o and you would also have to have
> a 'ti' after 'mata.m", i.e., matanti and then there is the absurdity
> of the nature or property of dying being reflected upon as a dead
> thing.
>
> ,Best wishes,
> Jim
>
> 
>


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