Re: Sutta Nipāta 714

Dear Friends,


I am trying to understand verse 714 of this sutta which reads

uccāvacā hi paṭipadā, samaṇena pakāsitā.
na pāraṃ diguṇaṃ yanti, nayidaṃ ekaguṇaṃ mutaṃ.

Norman translates

“For high and low are
the paths proclaimed by the ascetic. They do not go to the far shore twice;
this is not experienced once.”

Buddhaghosa seems to explain the verse in terms of the four modes of progress (PED s.v. paṭipadā: "painful practice resulting in
knowledge slowly acquired & quickly acquired, pleasant
practice resulting in the same way"), presumably meaning that one does not go to the far shore twice, because at each stage of the path (which Norman idenitifes with sotāpanna, sakidāgāmin, anāgamin and arahat) one has a unique nibbāna experience.

Buddhaghoṣa's commentary and my attempt to translate follow. It is not that clear, so if anyone has any suggestions for improving the translation, I would be grateful,

Metta, Bryan

“Since he is one
who is dutiful in going about for alms, after a little while, not having met
with pleasure, he might obstruct his progress. For the essence of religious
practice is the teaching. And this is the meaning of uccāvacā…pe…mutaṃ:  this mode of progress on the path, because of
its division into the highest and the low, has been declared by the recluse as
high and low (uccāvacā buddhasamaṇena pakāsitā). For pleasant practice, and
the quick (acquisition of ) supernormal power is high; painful practice, and  the slow (acquisition of) supernormal power is
low. The second two are high by one consideration, low by another
(consideration); or just the first is high and the other three are low. With
this exertion, with this high or low mode of progress, they do not go to the
far shore of two kinds (na pāraṃ diguṇaṃ yanti,  or  alt.
“they do not go to the far shore twice”). The reading “twice” (duguṇaṃ) has the meaning “They do not go
to nibbāna twice by a single path.” Why
is that? The afflictions which were abandoned by means of this path, they do
not have to abandon again; by this, he is explaining the absence of phenomena
which have waned. This is not thought of as one quality (or alt. “this is not
experienced once”) (nayidaṃ ekaguṇaṃ mutaṃ). This far shore is not worth attaining
only once. Why? Because of the absence of the abandoning of all the afflictions
by means of the one path; therefore he explains the non-existence of the state
of an arahant by means of just the one path.”[1] 

________________________________

[1] PJ
2, 497-98: uccāvacāti imissā gāthāya
sambandho — evaṃ bhikkhācāravattasampanno hutvāpi tāvatakeneva tuṭṭhiṃ
anāpajjitvā paṭipadaṃ ārodheyya. paṭipattisārañhi sāsanaṃ. sā cāyaṃ uccāvacā … pe … mutanti. tassattho — sā
cāyaṃ maggapaṭipadā uttamanihīnabhedato uccāvacā buddhasamaṇena pakāsitā.
sukhāpaṭipadā hi khippābhiññā uccā, dukkhāpaṭipadā dandhābhiññā avacā. itarā
dve ekenaṅgena uccā, ekena avacā. paṭhamā eva vā uccā, itarā tissopi avacā.
tāya cetāya uccāya avacāya vā paṭipadāya na
pāraṃ diguṇaṃ yanti. “duguṇan”ti vā pāṭho, ekamaggena dvikkhattuṃ nibbānaṃ
na yantīti attho. kasmā? yena maggena ye kilesā pahīnā, tesaṃ puna
appahātabbato. etena parihānadhammābhāvaṃ dīpeti. nayidaṃ ekaguṇaṃ mutanti tañca idaṃ pāraṃ ekakkhattuṃyeva
phusanārahampi na hoti. kasmā? ekena maggena sabbakilesappahānābhāvato. etena
ekamaggeneva arahattābhāvaṃ dīpeti.


________________________________

[1] Norman, Group of Discourses, 88.


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