Dear Lance and Khristos,
Yes I received your email, no problem.
Following up on evarūpena attanā bhavitabban, I looked up von Hinuber's reference to Renou in the latter's Grammaire Sanscrite. He calls it the instrumental prédicatif and gives the meaning as "en tant que" (as much as), en qualité de (in the quality of), et à l'instar de ("following the example of," "like,").
That would then give a translation of "The self must be like such a form" or "The self follows the example of such a form" or "The self must be as much as that form (is)".
I did not take na attapaccakkhāni the way you did, Lance, with atta in a positive sense ("they are not a direct experience of a Self"), but in a negative sense as dependencies
on [conventional designation and inverted perception],
which are "not evident to the self." i.e. the person creates a self without mindfulness, by false perception and previous bad habits, and therefore has no control over it; in other words a self is created out of ignorance. I think the compound would support both interpretations, although I favour treating atta the same way in both phrases
Metta,
Bryan
________________________________
From: Khristos Nizamis <nizamisk@...>
To: palistudy@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, May 7, 2012 4:24:58 PM
Subject: Re: [palistudy] Question on Sabhiya sutta commentary
Hi Lance: your previous message had in fact got through. For my part, I
felt your and Bryan's most recent messages were a fitting close to the
discussion, and so made no further comment, sorry. Thank you both for
confirming that you both think that, in this context, "attanā" should best
be read as nominal, not pronominal. I also like your translation of the
second part, with your reading of the conclusion "they are not one's own
direct knowledge/ direct
experience (of a Self.)". I'm still curious about the range of nuances
possible for the "instrumental + bhavitabbaṃ" construction, because this
particular instance seems to require a somewhat different sense than the
more 'conventional' usage in the Nikāyas. I suppose this might be partly a
question of historical development (e.g., in the commentarial use of Pāli,
a question that goes beyond my focus of interest and study). On the other
hand, as far as I could see, “evarūpena attanā bhavitabban” may be
something of a unique occurrence, even within the commentarial context.
With metta, Khristos
On 7 May 2012 23:14, L.S. Cousins <selwyn@...> wrote:
> **
>
>
> I sent this on Friday, but it doesn't seem to have got through. So here
> it is again:
>
>
> Following on from the discussion, the sentence explaining uppattivasena
> can be viewed as in brackets. (Possibly it is an addition by the author
> of Pj II to an inherited comment or a later gloss.):
>
> uppattivasena pana yad etaṃ “itthī puriso” ti saññakkharaṃ vohāranāmaṃ,
> yā cāyaṃ micchāparivitakkānussavādivasena “evarūpena attanā bhavitabban”
> ti bālānaṃ viparītasaññā uppajjati, tadubhayanissitāni tesaṃ vasena
> uppajjanti, na attapaccakkhāni.
> I would translate:
>
> (But in the case of arising <naturally>, <fixed views> arise because of
> the conventional names i.e. the syllables <which express> the notions of
> "woman, man <and so on>" and because of the distorted notion which
> arises for fools who because of wrong thinking, tradition, etc. think "I
> must be like this/The Self must be like this" <and> are dependent on
> both of these; they are not one's own direct knowledge/ direct
> experience of a Self.)
>
> Probably given the context I would prefer to render atta as Self.
>
> Lance Cousins
>
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]