Re: Question on Sabhiya sutta commentary

Dear Bryan,

just a quick reply for now, hopefully which might give you some leads to
follow up.

Cf. AN 11.9 (at PTS A V 325) “idha, saddha, bhadrassa purisājānīyassa
pathaviyaṃ pathavisaññā vibhūtā hoti. . . (etc.)”.  Thanissaro translates:
“"There is the case, Sandha, where for an excellent thoroughbred of a man
the perception of earth with regard to earth has ceased to exist...”, and
as he notes (the ATI numbering is AN 11.10, fn. 2), ‘saññā’ in such a
context must have a meaning along the lines of ‘mental note or label’.
(Although I think an even stronger and deeper sense is implied than is
suggested by the expressions 'mental note' or 'label'; see the further
notes below.)


Akkhara here should have the sense of ‘expression, word’ (cf.Cone, s.v.,
df. 5).  If you search the ṭīkā you’ll find akkhara glossed as nirutti,
language (Sv-pṭ III 59) and samaññā, designation (Spk-pṭ Myan I 172).  Just
as the commentary says here (Pj II 434-5), “saññakkharaṃ vohāra-nāmaṃ”.


There’s an interesting sequence here: DN 27 (at D III 93): “khettānaṃ
adhipatīti kho, vāseṭṭha, ‘khattiyo, khattiyo’ tveva dutiyaṃ akkharaṃ
upanibbattaṃ.”  On which the commentary (Sv III 870) says “‘akkharaṃ
upanibbatta’nti saṅkhā samaññā paññatti vohāro uppanno.”  (I wonder if
‘upanibbataṃ’ here may have a bearing on the sense as ‘uppajjati’ in your
passage.)


I think the theoretical background to the meaning of ‘saññakkhara’ here
probably goes back to teachings such as DN 15 (at PTS D II 62) on
‘adhivacana-samphassa’; and farther on at D II 63 “ettāvatā
adhivacanapatho, ettāvatā niruttipatho, ettāvatā paññattipatho...”; and
again D II 68 “yāvatā, ānanda, adhivacanaṃ yāvatā adhivacanapatho, yāvatā
nirutti yāvatā niruttipatho, yāvatā paññatti yāvatā paññattipatho...”  Cf.
to this SN 22.62 (PTS S III 71) “tayome, bhikkhave, niruttipathā
adhivacanapathā paññattipathā...”.  All of which has to do with the
interdependent relations between contact, feeling, perception, language in
their ultimate referential dependence upon the pañcupādānakkhandhā (in
short, intentionality, in the phenomenological sense).

You've pointed out an interesting text and set of questions, thanks.

With metta,
Khristos




On 3 May 2012 08:01, Bryan Levman <bryan.levman@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> Dear Friends,
>
> I have been trying to understand verse 538 in the Sabhiya sutta (Sutta
> Nipaata) which reads:
>
> “yaani ca tii.ni yaani ca sa.t.thi, sama.nappavaadasitaani bhuuripa~n~na.
>
> sa~n~nakkharasa~n~nanissitaani, osara.naani vineyya oghatamagaa.
>
> especially the compound sa~n~na-akkhara-sa~n~na-nissitaani,
>
> Norman translates (Group of Discourses), 65:
>
> One of great wisdom, you have gone [over] the darkness of the flood,
> having dispelled the three and sixty heresies, which are dependent upon the
> utterances of ascetics and dependent upon perceptions and conventions of
> perceptions.
>
> The word sa~n~naa here seems to be more related to "names" or
> "conceptions, ideas" per the commentary (PJ II 2, 434):
>
> eva.m pa~nhabyaakara.nena tu.t.thassa pana sabhiyassa “yaani ca
> tii.nii”tiaadiisu abhitthavanagaathaasu osara.naaniiti ogaha.naani
> titthaani, di.t.thiyoti attho. taani yasmaa sakkaayadi.t.thiyaa saha
> brahmajaale vuttadvaasa.t.thidi.t.thigataani gahetvaa tesa.t.thi honti,
> yasmaa ca taani a~n~natitthiyasama.naana.m pavaadabhuutaani satthaani
> sitaani upadisitabbavasena, na uppattivasena. uppattivasena pana yadeta.m
> “itthii puriso”ti sa~n~nakkhara.m vohaaranaama.m, yaa caaya.m
> micchaaparivitakkaanussavaadivasena “evaruupena attanaa bhavitabban”ti
> baalaana.m vipariitasa~n~naa uppajjati, tadubhayanissitaani tesa.m vasena
> uppajjanti, na attapaccakkhaani. taani ca bhagavaa vineyya vinayitvaa
> oghatamagaa oghatama.m oghandhakaara.m agaa atikkanto. “oghantamagaa”tipi
> paa.tho, oghaana.m anta.m agaa, tasmaa aaha “yaani ca tii.ni … pe …
> tamagaa”ti.
>
> which I tentatively tranlsate as
>
> In
> this way, with the answering of the questions of the satisfied Sabhiya, he
> said yāni
> ca tini, etc. in respect of these gāthās of praise. “osaraṇāni ” are the
> heresies
> of the sects, their beliefs – that is the meaning. These (heresies),
> because they have taken
> the 62 views described in the Brahmajāla
> sutta, together with the view of individual, number sixty-three, and
> because they  are dependent (sitāni)  on the teachings (satthāni),
> produced by the discussions of the ascetics and members
> of other sects, on account of that which is to be  taught  (by them?
> upadisitabba-vasena), they are not uppattivasena (arisen by themselves?
> lit: “on account of coming forth”). But  that which does arise by itself
> is the name
> and expression vohaarananaama.m), the conception and the name
> (sa~n~nkkhara.m), that is  “woman, man”, which arises as an inverted
> perception/conception of fools, who think “Of such a form [man or woman]
> the self must be”
> because of [the force of     past ] tradition and false mental conception,
> etc., - because
> of these, dependencies on both of these things arise, which are not
> realized by/evident
> to the self. These (afflictions) the Blessed One has put away. He has gone
> over
> the darkness of the flood, oghan-tam’-agā  (aghantamagā)
> is another reading, he has gone to the end of the flood.”
>
> My question is - what does upadistabbavasena mean and how does it fit into
> the syntax of the sentence? Same for uppattiyavasena?
> upadistabba is the future passive participle of upadisati to teach, point
> out, so means "to be taught," or "to be pointed out" and vasena is the
> normal adverb for "on account of" or because. uppatti, means "coming forth,
> origin, product."
>
> I think I understand the gist of the argument which is that most wrong
> views are made through discussion, and only one wrong view - the view of
> the personality or self, arises on its own because of the use of language
> to name things. However, I'm not sure what the two compounds with -vasena
> mean and how they fit into the grammatical structure.
>
> Any help would be appreciated,
>
> Metta, Bryan
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> 
>


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