Dear All,
The verse, in the same form as in AN 11.9, also occurs at SN 22.79 (III 91). Unfortunately the commentary does not offer an explanation of the grammar.
Nettippakaraṇa sheds some light on the meaning of the passage (including the verse). At VRI ed. 34 (= Ee 38) it says:
Desanāsandhi na ca pathaviṃ nissāya jhāyati jhāyī jhāyati ca. Na ca āpaṃ nissāya jhāyati jhāyī jhāyati ca, na ca tejaṃ nissāya jhāyati jhāyī jhāyati ca, na ca vāyuṃ nissāya jhāyati jhāyī jhāyati ca. Na ca ākāsānañcāyatanaṃ nissāya…pe… na ca viññāṇañcāyatanaṃ nissāya…pe… na ca ākiñcaññāyatanaṃ nissāya…pe… na ca nevasaññānāsaññāyatanaṃ nissāya…pe… na ca imaṃ lokaṃ nissāya…pe… na ca paralokaṃ nissāya jhāyati jhāyī jhāyati ca. Yamidaṃ ubhayamantarena diṭṭhaṃ sutaṃ mutaṃ viññātaṃ pattaṃ pariyesitaṃ vitakkitaṃ vicāritaṃ manasānucintitaṃ, tampi nissāya na jhāyati jhāyī jhāyati ca. Ayaṃ sadevake loke samārake sabrahmake sassamaṇabrāhmaṇiyā pajāya sadevamanussāya anissitena cittena na ñāyati jhāyanto.
It then refers to the Godhika Sutta (SN 4.23) and the Vakkali Sutta (SN 22:87):
Yathā māro pāpimā godhikassa kulaputtassa [passa saṃ. ni. 1.159] viññāṇaṃ samanvesanto na jānāti na passati. So hi papañcātīto taṇhāpahānena diṭṭhinissayopissa natthi. Yathā ca godhikassa, evaṃ vakkalissa sadevakena lokena samārakena sabrahmakena sassamaṇabrāhmaṇiyā pajāya sadevamanussāya anissitacittā na ñāyanti jhāyamānā. Ayaṃ desanāsandhi.
Nettippakaraṇa-Aṭṭhakathā elaborates on the underlined phrase (at VRI 230): Anissitacittā na ñāyanti jhāyamānāti na kevalaṃ anupādisesāya nibbānadhātuyā khīṇāsavassa cittagatiṃ mārādayo na jānanti, api ca kho saupādisesāyapi nibbānadhātuyā tassa taṃ na jānantīti attho.
At VRI 35, Netti states: Nissitacittā ucchedadiṭṭhiyā ca sassatadiṭṭhiyā ca niddisitabbā, anissitacittā saupādisesāya ca anupādisesāya ca nibbānadhātuyā niddisitabbā.
There is a variant on the verse of AN 11.9 in Nettippakara.na (VRI ed. 129 = Ee 151), which reads:
‘‘Namo te purisājañña, namo te purisuttama;
Yassa te nābhijānāma, kiṃ tvaṃ nissāya jhāyasī’’ti.
The same verse is cited by Netti-Aṭṭhakathā when explicating Netti section 28 (VRI ed. 35). I don’t have access to any other editions of Netti to see whether they read the verse in the same way as the VRI version. Perhaps in the tradition on which Netti is based (which, it is said, may not have been the Theravada tradition that went to Sri Lanka) the scribes found the transmitted verse problematic and revised it to establish a more intelligible reading. Or perhaps this tradition had the more archaic form, which became garbled in the Pali transmission.
Interestingly, in terms of meaning, the verse corresponds to a passage in MN 22: Evaṃ vimuttacittaṃ kho, bhikkhave, bhikkhuṃ saindā devā sabrahmakā sapajāpatikā anvesaṃ nādhigacchanti – ‘idaṃ nissitaṃ tathāgatassa viññāṇa’nti. Taṃ kissa hetu? Diṭṭhevāhaṃ, bhikkhave, dhamme tathāgataṃ ananuvijjoti vadāmi.
With metta,
Bhikkhu Bodhi
From: palistudy@yahoogroups.com [mailto:palistudy@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Bryan Levman
Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2012 7:40 AM
To: palistudy@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [palistudy] vibhuta in AN 11.10
Dear Lance,
Thanks very much; yes, abhijānāti must take the genitive in this case, and looking up jñā in MW, it does say that jñā takes the gen. "rarely." Te is then the oblique (dative ) case, as in the first part of the gāthā,
Thanks, Bryan
________________________________
From: L.S. Cousins <selwyn@... <mailto:selwyn%40ntlworld.com> >
To: palistudy@yahoogroups.com <mailto:palistudy%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2012 2:28:05 AM
Subject: Re: [palistudy] vibhuta in AN 11.10
On 16/10/2012 03:14, Bryan Levman wrote:
> A question on grammar: in the gāthā,
>
>
> yassa te nābhijānāma, yampi nissāya jhāyasī”ti.
>
> why is yassa in the genitive? The verb abhijānāma would normally take an accusative, would it not?
>
> yaṃ (or taṃ) te nābhijānāma, yampi nissāya jhāyasī
>
>
> and what form is the word "te"? oblique case for tvaṃ? or nom. plural substitute for mayaṃ?
>
> Mettā,
>
>
> Bryan
The full verse is:
namo te purisājañña, namo te purisuttama,
yassa te nābhijānāma, yam pi nissāya jhāyasi
I would translate:
... homage to you, highest of men, you concerning whom we do not
comprehend anything <and we do not comprehend> what you are meditating
in dependence upon.
I think this is the same usage as you occasionally get with jānāti - a
survival of the earlier wider use of the genitive with such verbs as
smarati.
Lance Cousins
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]