Dear Bryan and Khristos,
For some reason I have stopped receiving copies of my postings sent to
the group. I don't know if that means the settings have changed on
Yahoo, but there doesn't seem to be any way of reversing this.
I am not convinced that there is any idea of creating a self in a
negative sense in ancient Buddhism. This seems to be a product of the
introduction of ideas from modern psychotherapy, etc. Rather because of
wrong thinking and distorted notions we construct ideas about a supposed
permanent self, which are delusory and the product of defilements, etc.
and similarly we construct ideas about our future.
So I think the main point is to reject non-Buddhist claims that Self is
known as a matter of direct experience (=pratyakṣa).
> 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