Thanks Khristos,
For your research and comments. I agree with your observations and look forward
to more discoveries and insightful comments on Paali grammar.
I don't know anything about Husserlian phenomenology, but would be interested in
learning,
Metta, Bryan
________________________________
From: Khristos Nizamis <nizamisk@...>
To: palistudy@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wed, September 15, 2010 8:58:23 PM
Subject: Re: [palistudy] Dhammapada commentary
Dear Bryan,
> <‘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?
>
I'm saying that in both of these examples, it seems to me that
paccavekkhitabba.m functions as an impersonal "verbal adjective" of
necessity (and therefore is nom. nt. sg.). The iti clause seems to form a
self-contained unit to which paccavekkhitabba.m refers (and so in that sense
it is like the 'object' of the verbal aspect of the "verbal adjective").
[Please don't get annoyed at my use of the expression "verbal adjective"
here instead of 'gerundive' or 'future passive participle' of necessity - it
is merely a means of pointing out, but I think it is quite valid, because
technically, paccavekkhitabba.m, as a participial adjective, is a verbal
adjective.] Other examples can be found with the same structure:
[xxxxxxx]-ti paccavekkhitabba.m. The square brackets indicate the
iti-clause. It's similar to saying in English:
"A person should never be seen merely as a means, but always as an end
in themselves" - this (statement) should be carefully contemplated.
> However, since a gerundive is a passive construction, both the
> main clause and the verb are themselves in the nominative.
>
In this case, because the 'object' is an iti-clause, it cannot, as a clause,
have a 'case'. What happens inside the clause is independent of the
impersonal function of paccavekkhitabba.m.
But when the 'object' of the impersonal paccavekkhitabba.m is actually
another noun or noun phrase, and as long as paccavekkhitabba.m is actually
functioning impersonally, then my hypothesis is that the 'object' noun
actually takes the accusative (just as it does in Greek). That is what
seems to be happening in the other example I gave:
bhikkhunaa attanaava attaana.m eva.m paccavekkhitabba.m (M i.98)
By a bhikkhu, the self (attaana.m) by the self, even, (attanaa eva),
should be reflected upon thus...
(Or: With a bhikkhu's own self his self should be reflected upon, in
the following way...)
But I'm going to continue my research into and study of these matters,
because they have me quite intrigued. It'll take some time, as I'm very
busy with other commitments, but whatever I find out that may be useful,
I'll post to you.
> 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,
>
You have to understand that when I work with (e.g.) a Husserlian paradigm
AND with a Buddhadhamma paradigm, I am not dogmatically pre-committed to
every single principle of either without deeper investigation and without
also critically comparing and evaluating both against each other and within
the one and same universe of experience that both refer to, and which is the
only one I or you or anyone else knows.
In practice, Buddhadhamma helps me to see (and even re-interpret) Husserlian
phenomenology from a perspective that is not absolutely Husserlian, but not
anti-Husserlian, either. And it is also the case that Husserlian
phenomenology helps me to investigate the Buddhadhamma in a manner that is
not anti-Buddhadhamma, but to the contrary, is actually quite harmonious
with and deeply enhances the Buddhadhamma (but I can and do speak only for
my own experience here).
"We must free ourselves from our own egoes" - isn't it such a wonderfully
paradoxical statement? (Or perhaps better: "Self realising non-self: that
is the True Self.") Just as it seems paradoxical to say that "Impermanence
is a Permanent Truth". But the paradox is built into the dualistic
dependently-coarisen nature of language and concepts, and we really notice
it when we try to talk and think about 'what necessarily transcends them'.
With metta,
Khristos
>
> \________________________________
> From: Khristos Nizamis <nizamisk@... <nizamisk%40gmail.com>>
> To: palistudy@yahoogroups.com <palistudy%40yahoogroups.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@...<bryan.levman%40yahoo.com>>
> 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><nizamisk%
> 40gmail.com>>
> > To: palistudy@yahoogroups.com <palistudy%40yahoogroups.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><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><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]
>
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]