Re: sa.mki.n.nattaa viki.n.nattaa

Dear Jayarava,

You have raised some very interesting issues. .thitatta, per PED means "self -
controlled, composed, steadfast". PED gives two glosses on it from the Sutta
Nipaata and the Diigha Nikaaya. From verse 370 of the Sn we have lokadhammehi
akampaneyya -citta ( whose mind is not to be shaken by the things of the world)
and from DN i.57 we have suppatiṭṭhitacitto (whose mind is well
established/supported), so it appears here that "atta" is being used as a
synonym of "citta" and comes from the word attan, not from an abstract noun
ending in -tta.m < Skt. tva.m. You are right in that it could be ablative but I
take it as a masculine nom. noun in apposition to parikhaa.

parikhaa is fem. noun, nom. case. and .thitattaa, is therefore in apposition to
parikhaa. If the atta represented a Skt. <tva.m ending, then it would have to be
neuter nom. or atta.m. As I said it could be abl. What makes me think it isn't
is the parallel structures sa.mki.n.natta and viki.n.natta in the next sentence
which look like they are introduced by "esa" which itself is nom. masc. sing.
"Therefore this self of the moat (tassaa) that has been dispersed, destroyed is
known as he whose moat has been dispersed/destroyed/filled in, which is a 
bahuvrihi, the fem. noun parikhaa changing to the masc. to modify the masc.
subject ("so") at the beginning of the sentence.

I could be wrong so we should circulate this to the group to get their input.

Best wishes,

Bryan






________________________________
From: jayarava <jayarava@...>
To: Bryan Levman <bryan.levman@...>
Sent: Wed, October 27, 2010 5:08:34 AM
Subject: sa.mki.n.nattaa viki.n.nattaa

Hi Bryan

Thanks for your replies. I have asked a further question, but after several days
it has not appeared on the Yahoo Group. So I thought I'd opt  for the direct
approach. I'm fascinated by this word and how to understand it.

I wondered about your treating sa.mki.n.nattaa and viki.n.nattaa as compounds
with attaa. I took them to be abstract nouns in -tta, in the ablative case lit
'because of it's filled-in-ness'. What do you think?

For reference:
MA 2.115 So hi punappuna.m uppattikara.navasena parikkhipitvaa .thitattaa
parikkhaati vuccati, tenesa tassaa sa.mki.n.nattaa viki.n.nattaa
sa.mki.n.naparikkho ti vutto.

Your translation runs:

For he who again and again is surrounded/encircled by the power of undergoing
rebirth has an enduring attaa, he is called a moat; now then the moat's attaa
that has been dispersed and and filled up, is known as a filled in/destroyed
moat.

But you appear to make Buddhaghosa say that a person has an enduring attaa that
is then destroyed. Isn't that a little unlikely? Surely Buddhaghosa wouldn't
have understood a person to have an  attaa that is destroyed, but would have
said that there is no enduring attaa?

"He is called a moat"? What case is parikha/aa then? Most translators (i.e.
Bodhi & Nanamoli, Nyanaponika, Thanissaro) render sa.mki.n.naparikho as  "one
who's moat/ditch/trench is filled", not "he is a filled in moat".

I though .thitatta and parikha might go together with a long aa ending. PED
.thitatta meaning 'standing, being placed, etc'.

My stab at a translation is "Having been encircled because of being reborn again
and again, [he] is called 'placed in a rut'. Because his [rut] is filled and
scattered: 'whose rut is filled' is said."

I have to admit this is more intuitive than scientific! The case would appear to
be ablative, but does that make sense?

Thanks again for your help and I look forward to hearing what you think of my
questions and suggestions.

Best Wishes
Jayarava



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