Re: Question on Sabhiya sutta commentary

Dear Khristos, Lance,

Thanks very much for your comments and for your example, Khristos.


Renou's description of the  predicative instrumental only refers to the use of the case with verbs v.rt, stha, bhuu and car, not necessarily in a gerundive form, however. I am assuming that grammatically only ruupena is in the predicative instrumental, whereas attanaa is in the instrumental as subject of the future passive participle bhavitabban, which is the normal structure. I suppose one could consider evarūpena as an adj. modifying attanā, but then I don't think that would be a predicative use (stating an attribute of a noun or pronoun) and would change the meaning slightly ("Such a form of self must be", with "be" in the sense of "exist",  vs. "the self must be of such a form.", with "be" in the sense of a simple predicate, i. e. "is"). As Khristos says, it is an unusual structure.


A future passive participle is generally known as a participium necessitas (see Stenzler, Primer of the Sanskrit Language, section 281) and is used to mean "must or ought to be," ("may or can be" sometimes) per Stenzler. In the list I have compiled for my own use over the years, I have found usages of it as "should or ought to be" (von Hinuber) as well as "have to," likelihood ("very likely will be"), probability ("probably will be"), certainty ("undoubtedly will be"), futurity ("about to be") and a polite imperative ("please do…").


Re: attapaccakkha, by "creating a self" I only meant imputing permanence and intrinsic nature to something that did not have it, because of inverted perception and previous bad habits, which, in my understanding, is avijjaa, e.g. the four vipallāsas (AN 2, 52: "thinking that in the impermanent there is permanence.... thinking that in the not-self there is self...is an inversion of perception, etc.)

Metta, Bryan





________________________________
  From: Khristos Nizamis <nizamisk@...>
To: palistudy@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, May 8, 2012 5:28:50 AM
Subject: Re: [palistudy] Question on Sabhiya sutta commentary


 
Dear Lance,

On 8 May 2012 16:16, L.S. Cousins <selwyn@...> wrote:

> 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).
>
I didn't think that Bryan intended such a notion, and I certainly didn't
intend any such notion.  My reference to "attapaccakkhāni in the
'conventional', 'idiomatic' sense" was merely to the 'ordinary, idiomatic'
meaning of attapaccakkha - as Cone puts it, "seen by oneself, with one's
own eyes".  Of course, such an expression no more entails a nominal Self -
let alone a 'negative Self', whatever that might be - than does a sutta
locution such as "bhikkhunā attanāva attānaṃ evaṃ paccavekkhitabbaṃ".

Rather, I took the sense of " na attapaccakkhāni" to be that these (wrong)
views of Self are in fact not founded on any direct, personal experience of
such a Self.  In that sense, "na attapaccakkhāni" might perhaps even be
taken as somewhat playfully ironic.

On the other hand, while I would agree with you that there can be no doubt
that a 'permanent Self' is categorically ruled out in early Buddhadhamma
(EB), and I take anattā to be virtually axiomatic in EB, I think that the
function and importance of 'subjectivity' - which *does not *entail *either
*a 'Self' *or *a 'Subject' - and, correlatively, of 'agency', is
fundamental to EB.  I see no contradiction between 'subjectivity' and
'agency' and anattā, so long as 'subjectivity' and 'agency' are not
"reified" into entities/objects, etc.

But this would lead on to a quite different discussion.

Metta,
Khristos

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




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