Re: Sutta Nipāta 714

Dear Ven. Yuttadhammo,

No rush, thanks very much,

Metta, Bryan




________________________________
  From: Yuttadhammo Bhikkhu <yuttadhammo@...>
To: palistudy@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, June 22, 2012 11:16:03 AM
Subject: Re: [palistudy] Re: Sutta Nipāta 714


 
Dear Bryan,

Sorry, I'm in Thailand already.  When I get back to SL, I'll post the files
on the net somewhere.

Best wishes,

Yuttadhammo
On Jun 14, 2012 7:46 AM, "Bryan Levman" <bryan.levman@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> Dear Ven. Yuttadhammo,
>
> Thanks, but I don't read Thai, so when you can a chance I would
appreciate a copy,
>
> Metta, Bryan
>
> ________________________________
> From: Yuttadhammo Bhikkhu <yuttadhammo@...>
> To: palistudy@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2012 11:19:45 AM
>
> Subject: Re: [palistudy] Re: Sutta Nipāta 714
>
>
>
> Dear Bryan,
>
> Yes, DPR commentaries are Burmese. The Thai edition is online... sort
> of... and in Thai script. The new edition they're putting out from Wat
> Mahadhatu sounds more promising; they are willing to share word
> processor files, and I think it includes commentaries.
>
> Anyway, if you read Thai, here's the page to get the tipitaka and
> commentaries from:
>
> http://www.learntripitaka.com/
>
> I do have them transcribed, but in xml format, which is hard to read. I
> can send you them if you like.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Yuttadhammo
>
> On 06/13/2012 06:57 PM, Bryan Levman wrote:
> >
> > Thanks Lennart,
> >
> > Dear Ven. Yuttadhammo,
> >
> > I assume the DPR commentary is from the Burmese edition? Is the Thai
> > edition of the commentary available online? If not, where can I get a
> > copy? Thanks for your help,
> >
> > Metta, Bryan
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Lennart Lopin <novalis78@... <mailto:novalis78%40gmail.com>>
> > To: palistudy@yahoogroups.com <mailto:palistudy%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2012 9:19:52 AM
> > Subject: Re: [palistudy] Re: Sutta Nipāta 714
> >
> >
> >
> > Dear Bhante, Bryan,
> >
> > I think it makes more sense if you read is whole treatise ("The Nibbana
> > Sermons") which is available online as pdf on the web:
> >
> >
http://www.seeingthroughthenet.net/files/eng/books/ms/html/Mind%20Stilled.htm#Mindstilled33
> >
> > The context (esp. discussion of arahattaphalasamadhi) provides a better
> > picture for his analysis.
> >
> > The text was printed in a series of booklets, which could be given as
> > reference:
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nibbana-The_Mind_Stilled
> >
> > metta,
> > Lennart
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 5:33 AM, Yuttadhammo Bhikkhu
> > <yuttadhammo@... <mailto:yuttadhammo%40gmail.com>>wrote:
>
> >
> > > **
> > >
> > >
> > > I don't really get the problem Ven. Nyanananda has with the
commentary's
> > > explanation; I find his explanation even less comprehensible. it seems
> > > simply a matter of understanding the difference between the root /i
and
> > > the root /mun (or muñc if we follow the Thai edition's "na yidaṃ
> > > ekaguṇamuttaṃ"). One goes only once, i.e. does not repeat the same
> > > ariya-magga twice, and yet one experiences nibbana at least four times
> > > (one for each ariya-magga/phala), or one is freed in four stages, as
per
> > > the Thai edition.
> > >
> > > Reading "muttaṃ" does seem to fit the commentary's explanation better.
> > >
> > >
> > > On 06/13/2012 09:28 AM, Bryan Levman wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Dear Lennart and Ven. Yuttadhammo,
> > > >
> > > > Thanks very much for your suggestions and a copy of Ven Nyanananda's
> > > > commentary which was very helpful. Is there a book reference for
this
> > > > commentary (in addition to the web address you gave), if I want to
> > > > quote it?
> > > >
> > > > While I now understand how Ven. Nyanananda (and others) have
> > > > interpreted the passage, I wonder if it is simpler to interpret it
> > > > with a slightly different twist, within the context of the
Nālaskutta
> > > > where the Buddha is explicating "the supreme state of sagehood" (
> > > > moneyyaṃ uttamaṃ padaṃ). Here he talks about various virtues
including
> > > > the virtue of equanimity - he is not opposed and not attached to
> > > > living creatures (704), he has given up what is to be done and what
is
> > > > not to be done (715), he is neither inactive in mind, nor thinks too
> > > > much (717), - in short he has gone beyond the dualities whereby we
> > > > organize and create the world. I therefore propose to interpret
diguṇa
> > > > as an adjective (not an adverb) modifying pāraṃ, meaning "the far
> > > > shore of two qualities" and would translate
> > > >
> > > > “High and low are the paths proclaimed by the recluse, (but) they do
> > > > not go to
> > > > a far shore of two kinds, nor is that (far shore) thought of as
having
> > > > (even)
> > > > one quality.”
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > In other words the arhat has transcended all dualities and even the
> > > > notion of "oneness" (which of course presupposes twoness).
> > > >
> > > > The Mahāvastu has a version of this verse which I think suggests
this
> > > > translation more cogently than the Pāli.
> > > >
> > > > na pāraṃ dviguṇāyati nāpi caivaṃ
> > > > guṇāyati /
> > > > uccāvacā pratipadā śrāmaṇyena prakāśitā // (3.389)
> > > >
> > > > “The
> > > > other shore does not appear as a quality of two, nor does it
> > appear as a
> > > > quality at all in any way, (though) the path is proclaimed as high
and
> > > > low by
> > > > those practicing religious austerity.”
> > > >
> > > > This verse may well be earlier than the Pāli. For one thing, it has
> > > > only one metrical irregularity (syllable 5-7 of the first pāda),
while
> > > > the Pāli version has several (see Norman, Group of Discourses, 298).
> > > > And it's meaning seems to be clearer - i. e. I don't think it can be
> > > > interpreted in the way the Pāli verse is. The verbs dvigunāyati and
> > > > guṇāyati.are denominatives. The latter verb means "to become or
appear
> > > > as a merit, or quality" (MW). dviguṇāyati would mean "to become or
> > > > appear as a quality of two, to appear twofold or double."
> > > >
> > > > In this translation, the verse would also echo the refrain from the
> > > > Uragasutta, "the bhikkhu... leaves this shore and the far shore as a
> > > > snake leaves its old worn-out skin" (so bhikkhu jahāti orapāraṃ,
urago
> > > > jiṇṇamivattacaṃ purāṇaṃ.) and other parts of the Sn as well (e.g.
842,
> > > > 849, 919, 949, 954, 1098, 1099, 1113,etc.)
> > > >
> > > > What do you think of this as a possible interpretation?
> > > >
> > > > Best wishes, Bryan
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: Lennart Lopin <novalis78@...
> > <mailto:novalis78%40gmail.com> <mailto:novalis78%40gmail.com>>
>
> > > > To: palistudy@yahoogroups.com <mailto:palistudy%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:palistudy%40yahoogroups.com>
> > >
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2012 9:59:04 AM
> > > > Subject: Re: [palistudy] Re: Sutta Nipāta 714
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Dear Bhante, Bryan,
> > > >
> > > > Ven. Nyanananda has a great passage on that verse in his Nibbana
> > > > Sermon No.
> > > > 18 - you might be familiar with it. He also talks about the
> > commentarial
> > > > interpretation of the verse:
> > > >
> > > > As we mentioned before, if one is keen on getting a solution
> > > > > to the problems relating to Nibbāna, the discourses we are now
> > > > > taking up for discussion might reveal the deeper dimensions of
> > > > > that problem. We had to wind up our last sermon while drawing
> > > > > out the implications of the last line in the Paramaṭṭhakasutta of
> > > > > the Sutta Nipāta: pāraṃgato na pacceti tādi. We drew the
> > > > > inference that the steadfast one, the arahant, who is such-like,
> > > > > once gone to the farther shore, does not come back.
> > > > > We find, however, quite a different idea expressed in a verse
> > > > > of the Nālakasutta in the Sutta Nipāta. The verse, which was
> > > > > the subject of much controversy among the ancients, runs as
> > > > > follows:
> > > > > *Uccāvāca hi paṭipadā,
> > > > > samaṇena pakāsitā,
> > > > > na pāraṃ diguṇaṃ yanti,
> > > > > na idaṃ ekaguṇaṃ mutaṃ.*
> > > > >
> > > > > "High and low are the paths,
> > > > > Made known by the recluse,
> > > > > They go not twice to the farther shore,
> > > > > Nor yet is it to be reckoned a going once."
> > > > > The last two lines seem to contradict each other. There is no
> > > > > going twice to the farther shore, but still it is not to be
> > conceived
> > > > > as a going once.
> > > > > Now, as for the first two lines, the high and low paths refer to
> > > > > the modes of practice adopted, according to the grades of
> > > > understanding in
> > > > > different character types. For instances, the highest
> > > > > grade of persons attains Nibbāna by an easy path, being
quickwitted,
> > > > sukhā
> > > > > paṭipadā khippābhiññā, whereas the lowest grade
> > > > > attains it by a difficult path, being relatively dull-witted,
dukkhā
> > > > > paṭipadā dandhābhiññā.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > > *The problem lies in the last two lines. The commentary tries
> > > > > to tackle it by interpreting the reference to not going twice to
> > > > > the farther shore, na pāraṃ diguṇaṃ yanti, as an assertion that
> > > > > there is no possibility of attaining Nibbāna by the same path
> > > > > twice, ekamaggena dvikkhattuṃ nibbānaṃ na yanti*.
> > > > >
> > > > > The implication is that the supramundane path of a stream-winner,
> > > > > a once-returner or a non-returner arises only once. Why it is not
> > > > > to be conceived as a going once is explained as an acceptance
> > > > > of the norm that requires not less than four supramundane paths
> > > > > to attain arahant-hood.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > > However, a deeper analysis of the verse in question would
> > > > > reveal the fact that it effectively brings up an apparent
> > > > contradiction. *The
> > > > > commentary sidetracks* by resolving it into two
> > > > > different problems. The two lines simply reflect two aspects of
the
> > > same
> > > > > problem.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > > They go not twice to the farther shore, and this not going
> > > > > twice, na idaṃ, is however not to be thought of as a `going
> > > > > once' either. The commentary sidetracks by taking idaṃ, `this',
> > to mean
> > > > > the farther shore, pāraṃ, whereas it comprehends the
> > > > > whole idea of not going twice. Only then is the paradox complete.
> > > > > In other words, this verse concerns the such-like one, the
> > > > > arahant, and not the stream-winner, the once-returner or the
> > > > > non-returner. Here we have an echo of the idea already expressed
> > as the
> > > > > grand finale of the Paramaṭṭhakasutta: pāraṃ-
> > > > > gato na pacceti tādi, the such-like one, "gone to the farther
> > > > > shore, comes not back".
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > > It is the last line, however, that remains a puzzle. Why is
> > > > > this `not going twice,' not to be thought of as a `going once'?
> > > > > There must be something deep behind this riddle.
> > > > > Now, for instance, when one says `I won't go there twice',
> > > > > it means that he will go only once. When one says `I won't tell
> > > > > twice', it follows that he will tell only once. But here we are
> > > > > told that the arahant goes not twice, and yet it is not a going
> > > > > once.
> > > > > The idea behind this riddle is that the influx-free arahant,
> > > > > the such-like-one, gone to the farther shore, which is
supramundane,
> > > > does
> > > > > not come back to the mundane. Nevertheless, he
> > > > > apparently comes back to the world and is seen to experience
> > > > > likes and dislikes, pleasures and pains, through the objects of
> > > > > the five senses. From the point of view of the worldling, the
> > > > > arahant has come back to the world. This is the crux of the
> > > > > problem.
> > > > > Why is it not to be conceived of as a going once? Because
> > > > > the arahant has the ability to detach himself from the world
> > > > > from time to time and re-attain to that arahattaphalasamādhi.
> > > > > It is true that he too experiences the objects of the five
external
> > > > > senses, but now and then he brings his mind to dwell in that *
> > > > > arahattaphalasamādhi*, which is like standing on the farther
shore.
> > > > > Here, then, we have an extremely subtle problem. When the
> > > > > arahant comes back to the world and is seen experiencing the
> > > > > objects of the five senses, one might of course conclude that he
> > > > > is actually `in the world'. This problematic situation, namely the
> > > > > question how the influx-free arahant, gone to the farther shore,
> > > > > comes back and takes in objects through the senses, the Buddha
> > > > > resolves with the help of a simple simile, drawn from nature.
> > > > > For instance, we read in the Jarāsutta of the Sutta Nipāta the
> > > > > following scintillating lines.
> > > > > Udabindu yathā pi pokkhare,
> > > > > padume vāri yathā na lippati,
> > > > > evaṃ muni nopalippati,
> > > > > yadidaṃ diṭṭhasutammutesu vā.
> > > > > "Like a drop of water on a lotus leaf,
> > > > > Or water that taints not the lotus petal,
> > > > > So the sage unattached remains,
> > > > > In regard to what is seen, heard and sensed
> > > >
> > > > sorry for the formatting:
> > > > http://www.beyondthenet.net/calm/nibbana18.htm
> > > >
> > > > **
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > 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]
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > [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]
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > [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]
>
> [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]