Re: Sutta Nipāta 714

Dear Friends,

The first sentence is confusing because of ārodheyya - I think it is a
mistake; should be "ārādheyya", as per the Thai edition.

I would translate it as follows:

"Thus, even though one has become fulfilled in deportment and duties of
a bhikkhu, having not been satisfied by just so much, should further
cultivate their practice."

As for the "diguṇaṃ", "ekaguṇaṃ" part, first of all, this is mentioned
in the Kv as proof that the arahant is not liable to fall away from the
state of arahantship:

     265. parihāyati arahā arahattāti? āmantā. nanu vuttaṃ bhagavatā —

     “uccāvacā hi paṭipadā, samaṇena pakāsitā.

     na pāraṃ diguṇaṃ yanti, nayidaṃ ekaguṇaṃ mutan”ti .

     attheva suttantoti? āmantā. tena hi na vattabbaṃ — “parihāyati arahā
     arahattā”ti.


The Thai translation of the Sn commentary translates the passage as,
"[sages] do not go to nibbāna twice; this nibbana should not be
contacted only once."  It then goes on to translate the commentary much
as you have it, except for the last phrase which it gives as "the
non-attainment of arahantship by just one path".

I think it is a bit of a riddle, that is meant to be solved as the
commentary solves it - that nibbāna is only to be obtained once
according to its specific nature of cutting off specific defilements,
but in general, nibbāna is to be experienced at each of the paths and
fruitions.

Best wishes,

Yuttadhammo

On 06/12/2012 01:36 PM, petra kieffer-Pülz wrote:
>
> Dear Bryan,
>
> The first sentence should be translated slightly different, I think.
>
> > “(This) is the construction of the verse 'uccāvaca'. (A monk) even
> though he is successful in the practice of going about for alms in
> that way, if he does not meet with pleasure by just this much (i.e. by
> bhikkhaacaarasampatti), might obstruct his progress."
> >
> Best,
> Petra
>
> Am 12.06.2012 um 04:29 schrieb Bryan Levman:
>
> >
> > 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
> >
> >
> >
> > 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]
> >
> >
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>


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