Re: Question on Jātaka 277

Thanks Chris,

I can only find these four readings, all listed in the PTS Fausboll edition (in the verses or the commentary). If anyone is aware of any other versions, I'd like to hear,

Regards, Bryan





________________________________
  From: Chris Clark <chris.clark@...>
To: palistudy@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, April 15, 2012 9:07:43 PM
Subject: Re: [palistudy] Question on Jātaka 277


 
Dear Bryan and Venerable Yuttadhammo,

Thanks for noting what Lüders wrote on this topic. A careful text critical comparison of variant readings from as many printed editions and manuscripts as possible would no doubt gain some clarity on what the earliest reading might have been. But I do not volunteer for such a project!

I was quoting the Chaṭṭhasaṅgāyana version, which reads rumāya. I took this as feminine locative singular ("in Rumā").

Regards,
Chris

-----Original Message-----
From: bryan.levman@...
Sent: Sun, 15 Apr 2012 17:58:24 -0700 (PDT)
To: palistudy@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [palistudy] Question on Jātaka 277

Dear Ven. Yuttadhammo,

What is rūma? A place? (in Monier Willliams)  I can't find it in the Pali dictionary.  It would only be genitive if it is a fem. noun, i. e. rūmā, gen. rūmāya

Bryan

________________________________
From: Yuttadhammo <yuttadhammo@...>
To: palistudy@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, April 15, 2012 6:44:13 PM
Subject: Re: [palistudy] Question on Jātaka 277

isn't ruumaaya genative, "of ruuma"? or maybe locative f., "in ruuma"?
That would explain romaka, with the strengthening of uu => o when adding
the suffix.

On 04/16/2012 03:41 AM, Bryan Levman wrote:
>
> Dear Chris,
>
> Yes, I agree, it could be a proper noun. In fact, that's the only
> thing that makes sense under the circumstances. It still, however,
> doesn't explain why we have so many variant forms (romaka, ropaka,
> ruumaya and dumaaya); the number of variants suggests that no one knew
> what the word meant and they tried to change it to something that made
> sense.
>
> Luders doesn't really say why he rejects "feathered. He says he thinks
> it unlikely (für unmöglich) and that probably romaka has nothing to do
> with roma (meaning hair).
>
> He thinks words starting with l- (which also have initial r- forms,
> as loman and roman for hair) are more truly Pali ( "echter Besitz des
> Pali") than words starting with r-, which I assume he feels are later
> and derived; this is because the Ostsprache (eastern language)
> regularly used l- rather than r-, so Lüders believed that words with
> l- were closer to the Ursprache (the original language of the canon),
> some of which language was preserved in Pali,
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Bryan
>
> ________________________________
> From: Chris Clark <chris.clark@... <mailto:chris.clark%40inbox.com>>
> To: palistudy@yahoogroups.com <mailto:palistudy%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Saturday, April 14, 2012 11:00:59 PM
> Subject: Re: [palistudy] Question on Jātaka 277
>
> Dear Bryan,
>
> Perhaps this ṭīkā is wrong. The word romaka is also found in Sanskrit
> and MW gives it as “a kind of saline earth and the salt extracted from
> it” and notes that the word is derived from the place name Rumā, which
> is apparently near Sambhar in Rajasthan. U Houq Sein’s Pali to Burmese
> dictionary agrees (trans. “romaka: salt located in the village of
> Rumā”). Of course, this meaning doesn’t seem to fit the Romakajāta.
> However romaka could simply mean “of/from Rumā”. Therefore, you could
> read the commentary as “romaka means ‘O one who was born in Rumā’
> (romakāti rumāya uppanna). In other words, in the root text the
> ascetic might be addressing the bodhisatta as someone who has come
> from the village of Rumā. Perhaps you could even consider Romaka the
> bodhisatta’s name in this particular rebirth (a name which implies he
> is from the village of Rumā). Of course, this speculation could easily
> turn out to be wrong and it needs
> more research.
>
> Incidentally, why did Lüders reject the translation “feathered”?
>
> Regards,
> Chris
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: bryan.levman@... <mailto:bryan.levman%40yahoo.com>
> Sent: Sat, 14 Apr 2012 05:34:59 -0700 (PDT)
> To: palistudy@yahoogroups.com <mailto:palistudy%40yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: [palistudy] Question on Jātaka 277
>
> Dear Ven. Yuttadhammo,
>
> No, I missed this. Here it refers to a type of salt (originating in a
> Roman country, per the tika) which I don't think makes sense in the
> Jātaka context. But thanks for pointing it out,
>
> Metta, Bryan
>
> ________________________________
> From: Yuttadhammo <yuttadhammo@... <mailto:yuttadhammo%40gmail.com>>
> To: palistudy@yahoogroups.com <mailto:palistudy%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Friday, April 13, 2012 11:58:10 PM
> Subject: Re: [palistudy] Question on Jātaka 277
>
> Dear Bryan,
>
> Did you see the instance of romaka.m in the vinaya?
>
> "dve loṇāni — sāmuddaṃ kāḷaloṇaṃ. aparānipi dve loṇāni — sindhavaṃ,
> ubbhidaṃ. aparānipi dve loṇāni — *romakaṃ*, pakkālakaṃ."
>
> (parivārapāḷi, ekuttarikanayo, dukavāro)
>
> The tika says "Romajanapade jātaṃ *romakaṃ*. *Pakkālakan*ti
> yavakkhāraṃ."
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Yuttadhammo
>
> On 04/14/2012 06:59 AM, Bryan Levman wrote:
> >
> > Dear Friends,
> >
> > Does anyone know the meaning of the word "romaka"? It occurs in Jātaka
> > 277 and is usually tranlsated "feathered" (from Pāli roma/loma
> > meaning "hair"), but there are so many variants, that it is evident
> > the word was not understood by the scribes and/or bhāṇakas. Here is
> > the verse and the commentary:
> >
> > ♦ 79.
> > ♦ “vassānipaññāsa samādhikāni [var. Bi, samīdhītāni, Bd, samadhikāni],
> > vasimhaselassa guhāya romaka [var. Bid, romakā],
> > asaṅkamānāabhinibbutattā [var. Bi, abhinippaticittā,
> > Pd, abhinibbūticittā],
> > hatthattam [var. Ck, hatthattham, Cs Bd, hattatthaṃ] āyantimamaṇḍajā
> > pure.
> > For fifty years we have lived (vasimha, 1st pers. plural aorist?) in
> > this cave of rock,
> > O feathered ones (romakā; Lüders does
> > not think it means “feathered” per 1954: 32, footnote 4). Formerly
> > they came, the
> > egg-born ones, not hesitating, with a calm mind, taking my hand.
> >
> > Commentary:
> > ♦ tatthasamādhikānīti [var. samadhitāniti, samādhikāniti] samādhikāni
> > [mama adhikāni]. romakāti[ropakā]rūmaya uppanna [dumāya
> > uppanna/uppannā],sudhotapavāḷena [var., -lena]samānavaṇṇanettapādatāya
> > [sahanavaṇṇe
> > netta pādamakāya] bodhisattaṃ pārāvataṃ [var. pārāpataṃ,
> > pārāsataṃ] ālapati.asaṅkamānāti evaṃ atirekapaññāsavassāni imissā
> > pabbataguhāya vasantesu amhesu ete aṇḍajā ekadivasampi mayi āsaṅkaṃ
> > akatvā abhinibbutacittāva [abhinibbutacitā] hutvāpubbe mama hatthattaṃ
> > [hatthatthaṃ] hatthappasāraṇokāsaṃ[pasāraṇokāsaṃ] āgacchantītiattho.
> > samādhikāni means abundant. romaka means “Born from a
> > tree (romaka/ropakā/rūmaya/dumāya? or born with feathers?), he
> > addresses the
> > bodhisattva who is a pigeon, with the same feet, eyes and colour with
> > thoroughly clean sprouts(?pavāla).”
> > Lüders call this “unverständlich” and I agree.
> > asaṅkamānā means thus, for more than fifty years, when we were
> > dwelling in this mountain cave, these egg-born (birds) each day had no
> > fear of
> > me and were perfectly tranquil formerly, and came and took my hand
> > whenever it was stretched out.
> > The word has four different forms: romaka, ropaka, ruumaya and dumaaya
> > in the different recensions, so it seems like no one was quite sure of
> > its meaning. The commentator's explication of the word does not seem
> > to make sense (unless I am translating it wrong). Any help would be
> > appreciated,
> >
> > Metta, Bryan
> >
> > Lüders, H. 1954. Beobachtungen über die Sprache des Buddhistischen
> > Urkanons. Berlin: Akademie - Verlag.




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