Re: Question on Sabhiya sutta commentary

Dear Khristos

>“The self must be of such a form”

Thanks for your long and detailed explanation. I do not feel evaruupena attanaa bhavitabban can be translated as a future tense ("One/I shall become one having such a form" as Petra suggests), but in the context must have a sense of "must" or "is".


In Skt. the usual way of translating this expression is "must" (see MW: mayaa tavaanucarena bhavitavyam "I must become thy companion."). von Hinuber uses "soll...sein" in the reference  Petra gave, which is usually translated "should." 

My interpretation of what the sentence is saying is, that entities like "man, woman" arise by themselves because of our use of percept-words (conventional designations, i. e. sa~n~naakkhara) and because of inverted perception (vipariitasa~n~naa)  which is caused by our bad habits (anussava, "tradition" what we've always done in previous lives) and false mental conceptions (micchaaparivitakka, mistaking a name for something truly existent), as we do with the self when we think "I (or the self) am/must be of such a form" (as the 'man' or 'woman' so designated). So to me the only way to make this thought process clear is to translate

"The self (too) must be of such a form" or "The self  (too) is of such a form."

What the fool is thinking is that the designation "attan" is real and really designates something that "truly exists" with its own intrinsic nature, which is of course false.


Metta,

Bryan




________________________________
  From: Khristos Nizamis <nizamisk@...>
To: palistudy@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, May 3, 2012 11:07:20 PM
Subject: Re: [palistudy] Question on Sabhiya sutta commentary


 
Dear friends,

first of all, the satthāni = Skt. śāstrāni and Lance's reading of that
passage seems very convincing.

But, I'm sorry to say that (with all due respect) I’m still not quite
satisfied with Petra's interpretation of “evarūpena attanā bhavitabban”ti.  It
doesn’t really seem to me to fit the requirement of a viparītasaññā.  I did
a bit of looking about, and the following is just for your consideration.

The bhavitabbaṃ + instrumental formula seems to be fairly well-used in the
Nikāyā.  There are many examples:

> āraññikenāvuso, bhikkhunā jāgariyaṃ anuyuttena bhavitabbaṃ.  . . .  āraññikenāvuso,
bhikkhunā āraddhavīriyena bhavitabbaṃ.  . . .  āraññikenāvuso, bhikkhunā
upaṭṭhitassatinā bhavitabbaṃ.  . . .  āraññikenāvuso, bhikkhunā samāhitena
bhavitabbaṃ.  . . .   āraññikenāvuso, bhikkhunā paññavatā bhavitabbaṃ.  (M
I 471)

Following Bodhi, who translates bhavitabbaṃ here with a sense of
obligation, as "should be":

> “A forest-dwelling monk should be devoted to wakefulness.  . . .  should
be energetic  . . .  should be established in mindfulness  . . .  should be
concentrated  . . .  should be wise.”

A later period example from Mil 367 (where again it’s pretty clear that
bhavitabbaṃ has a sense of ‘obligation’, ‘he should be, he must be’):

> puna caparaṃ, mahārāja, kukkuṭo sacakkhukopi rattiṃ andho hoti. evameva
kho, mahārāja, yoginā yogāvacarena anandheneva andhena viya bhavitabbaṃ,
araññepi gocaragāme piṇḍāya carantenapi rajanīyesu
rūpasaddagandharasaphoṭṭhabbadhammesu andhena badhirena mūgena viya
bhavitabbaṃ, na nimittaṃ gahetabbaṃ, nānubyañjanaṃ gahetabbaṃ.

> "Furthermore, great king, the cock, (although) having eyes, is blind at
night.  Just so, great king, the yogī practising yoga, (although) not
blind, should be as if blind [yoginā yogāvacarena anandheneva andhena viya
bhavitabbaṃ], and when wandering in the forest and alms-villages for alms,
with respect to enticing forms, sounds, smells, tastes, tangibles and
thoughts, should as if blind, deaf, and mute [andhena badhirena mūgena viya
bhavitabbaṃ], he should not grasp a sign, he should not grasp a detail."

Although instrumental adjectives are predominant in these examples, I’m
beginning to wonder now whether attanā in our clause might actually be a
noun rather than a reflexive pronoun.

Wijesekera, Syntax of the Cases, §65c, also cites the example "sucibhūtena
attanā viharati", but (unlike Warder, cited earlier) he translates this as
“he lives with his self purified”, and notes that the commentary glosses
‘self’ as ‘mind’; but unfortunately he doesn’t give a reference for this
gloss.  I couldn’t find such a gloss, but I did find that the commentaries
do appear to read attanā in “sucibhūtena attanā viharati” as a noun, not a
reflexive pronoun:

> Root text: PTS D I 4: ‘adinnādānaṃ pahāya adinnādānā paṭivirato samaṇo
gotamo dinnādāyī dinnapāṭikaṅkhī, athenena sucibhūtena attanā viharatī’ti

> Comm.: PTS Sv I 72 (comm. to D I 4): na thenena athenena. athenattāyeva
sucibhūtena. attanāti attabhāvena. athenaṃ sucibhūtaṃ attānaṃ katvā
viharatīti vuttaṃ hoti.

> Comm.: PTS Ps II 206 (comm. to the same formula at M I 179): na thenena
athenena. athenattāyeva sucibhūtena. attanāti attabhāvena, athenaṃ
sucibhūtaṃ attabhāvaṃ katvā viharatīti vuttaṃ hoti.

So, one might read from Sv I 72 as: “Attanā = attabhāvena, i.e., ‘own
nature, self-nature, individuality, personality’.  He dwells having made a
pure self [sucibhūtaṃ attānaṃ] by non-stealing.”  A nominal reading seems
to be reinforced by Ps II 206, which one might read as: “He dwells having
made a pure self-nature/individuality/personality [sucibhūtaṃ attabhāvaṃ]
by non-stealing.”

If all of this is more or less plausible (but please correct me if I’m
wrong), what bearing might it have on “evarūpena attanā bhavitabban”ti?  Could
it be read as “The (or my) self should be of such a form”, or perhaps even
“The self must be of such a form”?  The latter would make much more sense
to me, given the context, if it is taken to express a viparītasaññā such
as: “The self must be of such a form”, i.e., “So that must be what the
‘self’ looks like!”

But I’ll have to leave this with you, now (really must get on with current
commitments).  Anyway, I hope this is might be of some help or use.

Best wishes and metta,

Khristos

On 4 May 2012 10:03, Bryan Levman <bryan.levman@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> Dear Petra,
>
> Thanks for the clarification,
>
>
> Metta, Bryan
>
> ________________________________
> From: petra kieffer-Pülz <kiepue@...>
> To: palistudy@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Thursday, May 3, 2012 3:28:54 PM
>
> Subject: Re: [palistudy] 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]
>
> [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]