Re: Question on Sabhiya sutta commentary

Dear Bryan,

I understand that the heresies exist by upadisitabbavasena, not by uppattivasena.
But by uppattivasena there exist two things, the saññakkharaṃ and the viparītasañña. While saññakkharaṃ ist the conventional name (man, woman), the wrong perception consists in the idea that one will become such a one  (i.e. a man or a woman), and this wrong perception is itself created by wrong consideration, hearsay etc.(?).

Since it is the wrong perception of the fools (pl.), the words evarūpena attanā bhavitabban should probably also be rendered in the plural "We will be such ones (i.e. men or women)."

Best,
Petra
****************************************

Dr. Petra Kieffer-Pülz
Wilhelm-Külz-Strasse 2
99423 Weimar
Germany

Tel. 03643/ 770 447

kiepue@... (priv.)
petra.kieffer-puelz@...

www.pali.adwmainz.de




Am 03.05.2012 um 18:38 schrieb Bryan Levman:

> Dear Khris and Petra
>
> >"One/I shall become one having such a form".  (evarūpena attanā bhavitabban)
>
> I am a little unclear as to exactly what this means. The naming of "man, woman" causes the foolish person to think that he/she is also of such a form, i. e. what appears to be an independent entity.  So I would translate, "I (too) must be/exist in such a form." Is that how you see it?
>
> Metta, Bryan
>
> ________________________________
> From: petra kieffer-Pülz <kiepue@...>
> To: palistudy@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Thursday, May 3, 2012 10:21:59 AM
> Subject: Re: [palistudy] Question on Sabhiya sutta commentary
>
>
>  
> Hey Khris
> >
> > 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’].
> >
>
> This sentence as it stands now, has no end. Therefore the construction must be something like:
>
> These (are heresies), because there are sixty three, ... and because they are dependent upon having to be pointed out, not in virtue of arising (naturally).
>
> The next sentence then is constructed in the following way:
>
> But by virtue of arising (naturally), there arise (uppajjati) that which is saññā-akkhara (=)
> conventional name ... , and that which is inverted perception of ignorant people (thinking) ...
>
> evarūpena attanā bhavitabbaṃ means "One/I shall become one having such a form". For this type of construction see von Hinüber, Kasussyntax § 143.
>
> Usage of a part. fut. pass. with vasena are very common in younger commentarial literature.
>
> Best,
> Petra
>
> > 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]
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>



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