Dear Khristos,
Thanks very much for your informative comments on the discussion.
<‘a~n~no me aakappo kara.niiyo’ti pabbajitena abhi.nha.m
<paccavekkhitabba.m;
>“My deportment must be done differently (sc., from others)” should
>often be contemplated by one who has gone forth.
This example shows best both the impersonal and personal use of the gerundive.
In the latter case it agrees with the subject; in the former it is neuter and
acts as an imperative, and doesn't necessarily have to agree with the subject of
the previous clause, if I understand you correctly. Thus in the example I gave
from the Dhp commentary,
>>mara.nadhamma.m mata.m, bhijjanadhamma.m bhinna'nti
> > yoniso paccavekkhitabba.m
I think you are saying that paccavekkhitabba.m is not necessarily agreeing with
the subject mara.na, but is an impersonal imperative and mara.na and the the
whole clause (mara.nadhamma.m mata.m, bhijjanadhamma.m bhinna'nti) might be
looked at as an "object" of the imperative verb although it's in the nom). Is
that correct? However, since a gerundive is a passive construction, both the
main clause and the verb are themselves in the nominative.
I'm not sure about the amata.m overtone in the story; it is certainly not
explicit and the statement is profound enough as it is (and I don't see it as
negative at all), but on first reading, I took it in that sense - that what was
subject to death has died (because of the state of Nibbaana), because of the
Buddha's teaching. Of course it could be read both ways (the second being the
literal, i.e. "Everything/one dies". In some ways the second def'n is the most
cogent - that which has the nature of death has died, which simply means that
since we are all rising phenomena (samudayadhammaa) then we must also be
falling/cessation phenomena (nirodhadhammaa) - this is an immutable natural law.
We only make ourselves sick when we try to reify the person and stop the natural
order of rising and falling inherent in the universe by eternalizing it (making
it into a permanent thing, i. e. the ego). Instead we should accept, even
celebrate it; - that recognition of our own selflessness, frees us from the
ego, suffering and change and is true liberation and in true harmony with the
ceaseless flow of the universe where nothing permanent (like the mid or ego)
ever lasts,
With metta,
Bryan
________________________________
From: Khristos Nizamis <nizamisk@...>
To: palistudy@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tue, September 14, 2010 11:21:27 PM
Subject: Re: [palistudy] Dhammapada commentary
Dear Bryan,
I didn't get involved with the development of this discussion as I was
offline all day yesterday (studying Husserl).
It looks like everyone is pretty much in agreement about the basic literal
meaning of the 'iti' clause, but just analysing and debating its grammar.
I won't respond to all the various points from you and from Jim as most of
these have already been sorted out now.
I've encountered the future passive participle/gerundive quite often, it's
very common, and 'paccavekkhitabba.m' and 'sikkhitabba.m' are probably, I
think, amongst the most common verbs used in that form. However, this
present discussion has inspired me to look again, look more carefully, and
from a slightly different angle, at how such forms are actually used (I
guess it comes back to the syntax question again). That'll be an ongoing
exercise.
It has also raised a question for me about similarities and differences
between ancient Greek and Pali constructions. I want to become more
conscious and cautious about such, because I suspect that sometimes ancient
Greek patterns may influence my reading or expectation of Pali patterns.
'Paccavekkhitabba.m' and 'sikkhtabba.m' provide a really nice point of
comparison, in fact. I'll mention this because revising it has clarified a
couple of useful points for me, which might also interest you. The meaning
and use of the Pali gerundive/future passive participle has a direct
correlate in Greek, the verbal adjective in -teos, which is a present (not
future) passive participle and which implies necessity. It has two
constructions: personal and impersonal. The personal construction is always
passive in form and sense. But the relevant construction here is the
impersonal. It is technically passive in form, but has an active sense. It
always takes the neuter gender, typically singular, -teon, but occasionally
plural, -tea. The agent, if mentioned, takes the dative (unlike the Pali,
where it takes the instrumental).
Examples: 'poieteon', lit. 'it is necessary (for sth.) to be done' but read
as 'it is necessary to do'; 'boetheteon', lit. 'it is necessary (for sth.)
to be helped', read as 'it is necessary to help'; 'matheteon', lit. 'it is
necessary (for sth.) to be studied or learnt', 'it is necessary to study or
learn'.
The impersonal verbal adjective can take an object. The object of the verb
is in the case governed by the verb. So, for example, in 'Ton potamon esti
diabateon', 'The river must be crossed' (lit. 'the river is
needing-to-be-crossed-over'); 'Philosophian soi esti matheteon', 'Philosophy
must be studied/learnt by you'. In this form, 'river' and 'philosophy' are
in the accusative, not the nominative: they are objects, not subjects. In
the personal form, which has basically the same meaning, they would be
nominative: 'Ho potamos esti diabateos', 'He philosophia esti mathetea'.
The copula (esti) is very often omitted and merely understood (as in Pali).
This brings me back to 'Paccavekkhitabba.m' and 'sikkhtabba.m'. It seems
clearer now to me how these forms are often used impersonally in the neuter
singular form. The 'object' is very often what we might call a 'direct
speech' clause marked off by 'iti'. What happens inside such an iti-clause
seems to be unrelated grammatically to the form of the impersonal neuter
singular gerundive (future passive participle) which governs it. This can
be seen, I think, very clearly in the following excerpt from AN 10.48 (PTS A
v.87.
dasayime, bhikkhave, dhammaa pabbajitena abhi.nha.m paccavekkhitabbaa.
katame dasa?
Ten things (dhammaa) should be often contemplated by one who has gone
forth. Which ten?
[Note: Here we see the personal form: 'paccavekkhitabbaa' qualifies and
corresponds in gender, number and case with 'dhammaa'. The agent is in the
instrumental.]
‘veva.n.niyamhi ajjhupagato’ti pabbajitena abhi.nha.m
paccavekkhitabba.m;
“(I am one who) has obtained (the state of) having no caste” should
often be contemplated by one who has gone forth.
[Note: Here we see the impersonal form, 'paccavekkhitabba.m', used with an
iti-clause. 'Ajjhupagato' is masc. sg.past participle, and here it seems to
have a nominal (personal) sense, and its object is veva.n.n.iya.m, which is
nt. sg., and I suppose it should be read as acc. here.]
‘a~n~no me aakappo kara.niiyo’ti pabbajitena abhi.nha.m
paccavekkhitabba.m;
“My deportment must be done differently (sc., from others)” should
often be contemplated by one who has gone forth.
[Note: Again the impersonal form of 'paccavekkhitabba.m'; and it's iquite
nteresting that the iti-clause contains another gerundive/future passive
participle, 'kara.niiya' (from 'karoti'), 'that ought to be made or done',
which is personal, qualifying and agreeing with 'aakappo' (nom. masc. sg.).]
I think that's enough to show the basic pattern. (Going back to the Greek
has helped me get clearer on the Pali. I think I'll use this as a study
method from now on (it'll help me refresh and develop my sadly neglected
Greek studies, too).)
A final note on the meaning of the passage which you guys also discussed.
May I just toss in my wee penny's worth and say that if the meaning of "This
should be contemplated carefully, this should not be grieved: 'What has the
nature of death has died, what has the nature of perishing, has perished'"
were nothing but 'death', it would hardly be worth using as an argument
(teaching, advice) against grief. There must surely be an implicit contrast
here between 'mata.m' and 'amata.m', i.e., Nibbaana, 'the deathless', 'the
without-death'. And if Nibbaana, 'the deathless', had absolutely no
relation or connection to our otherwise deathly nature, it would be of no
value or use or meaning to us whatsoever. But we are simultaneously of the
nature of the deathly and the deathless. That's the point of what I take to
be a comforting word, not a merely cold, heartless observation of an
inevitable natural fact. The Buddha is not saying, 'Look, everything's
going to die, so what's the point of grieving about it'. If that were the
sum total of it, then there would be some very good cause for grieving!
Rather, the Buddha is saying, 'That which had to die has died. How about
turning your attention to that which transcends all death, and all grief.
You know, it really is of relevance to you. You really can attain it, if
you really want to.' That's a more positive message, and I think the Buddha
was a fairly positive sort of guy.
Thanks for spurring us on in our studies, and for the opportunity to learn
and to least clarify. I think that'll have to do as my Pali lesson for
today - better get on to all the other stuff 'kara.niiya'!
With much metta and sukha,
Khristos
On 14 September 2010 00:12, Bryan Levman <bryan.levman@...> wrote:
>
>
> Thanks Lennart and Khristos,
>
> Yes, that makes much more sense in the context, thank you.
>
> Khristos, since paccavekkhitabba.m is a passive verb (a gerundive, "to be
> contemplated"), I believe mara.na.mdhamma.m would be in the nominative with
>
> dhamma as an adj. (PED "having the inherent quality") modifying the neuter
> noun
> mara.na.m which is the subject of the sentence. Literally one would
> translate
> "That which has the nature of death, has died...etc., .is to be
> contemplated
> wisely." I suppose it also makes sense in the accusative, ("One must
> contemplate
> that...."), but ordinarily the gerundive is translated as a future passive
> participle ("It is to be [verb]ed...") so that what it modifies would be in
> the
> nominative - at least that's how I learned my grammar (dhammo te
> sikkhitabbo =
> The Dharma is to be studied by you, or in the active sense, Study the
> Dharma!);
> however in the end it comes to the same meaning. Looking through the DPR,
> in the
> vast majority of cases sikkhitabba.m is used in the neuter nom. as evaṃ vo
> sikkhitabbaṃ ("It is to be learned by you thus/in that way" or "learn it
> like
> this"), without a main noun. The question then is, if the main noun were a
> masculine one, how would it read? e. g.
>
> nirodhadhammo mato (nom.)... sikkhitabbo or
> nirodhadhamma.m mata.m (accus.) sikkhitabba.m.?
>
> An interesting grammatical question. Have you seen anything in the writings
>
> which might clarify this?
>
> Thank you both for your help in clarifying the meaning,
>
> Metta, Bryan
>
> ________________________________
> From: Khristos Nizamis <nizamisk@... <nizamisk%40gmail.com>>
> To: palistudy@yahoogroups.com <palistudy%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Sun, September 12, 2010 10:09:32 PM
> Subject: Re: [palistudy] 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@...<novalis78%40gmail.com>>
> 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@...<bryan.levman%40yahoo.com>
> > >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]
>
> [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]