Re: Question on Sabhiya sutta commentary

Dear Khristos and Petra,

Thanks very much for your suggestions. Yes, I think sitāni must modify upadisatabbavasena because of its position; I just couldn't figure out how to translate it; I think Khristos' suggestions "dependent upon having to be pointed out"  makes sense. If that is the meaning I don't know why the commentator didn't simply write upadistabbāni ("that must be pointed out" or ".. must be taught") and leave out vasena. Since it is a future passive participle it already has that sense of "must be" or "prescription" (indeed some call it a "prescriptive passive participle.")

Khristos, thanks very much for your suggested translation. The only part I am not sure about is “It must come into being/exist thus by its own material form [rūpena attanā]" for evarūpena attanā bhavitabban. Can attanā be used as an adj. meaning "own" in a case like this? (I would have thought sayaṃ would have been used). The structure instr. + future passive participle is a standard imperative form (Skt: mayā gantavyam = "I must go"), so I would translated attanā bhavitabban = I must be or I must come into being, evarūpena "by means of such a form" (as what the label 'woman' or 'man' designates). 

In any case I don't think the meaning is substantially changed i. e., that we create what is "out there" by naming, which causes us to (mis)perceive entities as separate and different.

Metta,

Bryan



________________________________
  From: Khristos Nizamis <nizamisk@...>
To: palistudy@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, May 3, 2012 7:11:37 AM
Subject: Re: [palistudy] Question on Sabhiya sutta commentary


 
Hi Bryan (and Petra)

if you wish, check out if the following makes sense to you, in the way it
presently seems to make sense to me:

These (doctrines) – because, the sixty two speculative views named in the
Brahmajāla (Sutta), taken together with identity view, are sixty three; and
because these (doctrines) of recluses who are followers of other sects
(are) doctrines [satthāni] born of disputation, dependent upon having to be
pointed out (i.e., learned), not in virtue of arising [i.e., (seemingly)
‘naturally’].  But, in virtue of arising [‘naturally’]: such as (for
example), the percept-word (i.e., perception constituted through a
linguistic term/category) [saññā-akkhara] ‘woman, man’, (which is) a
conventional name: in virtue of the wrong cogitation, tradition, etc. of
the ignorant (naïve), there arises this inverted perception: “It must come
into being/exist thus by its own material form [rūpena attanā]” (i.e., ‘it
is just what the conventional name says that it is, in virtue of its own
intrinsic material nature’).  In virtue of both such dependencies
(attachments), these (doctrines) arise, not (in virtue of) personal
experience [lit., ‘(seeing) what is in front of one’s own eyes’].

With metta,
Khristos

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




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