another question based on Digha Tika

Dear Lance,

Thank you very much for your reply. This makes it clear, though I had already resolved my confusion about the feminine ending of asādhāraṇañāṇavisesanibandhanabhūtā. The proximity of this to sabbaññutaññāṇaṃ had misled me into assuming the author was speaking about sabbaññutaññāṇaṃ as the special foundation for the other unique knowledges of a Buddha. But he is still speaking about karuṇā. The proper sphere of sabbaññutaññāṇaṃ is all knowable (neyya) dhammas, and the proper sphere of a Buddha’s mahākaruṇā is all sentient beings seen as subject to suffering.

I have another question arising from this portion of the Digha-Tika. The question pertains to a subtle point in Tika doctrinal exposition. The relevant sentences are at VRI I.7, PTS I.9:

‘‘Paññāpajjotavihatamohataman”ti etena sammāsambodhiṃ dasseti. Anāvaraṇañāṇapadaṭṭhānañhi maggañāṇaṃ, maggañāṇapadaṭṭhānañca anāvaraṇañāṇaṃ ‘‘sammāsambodhī’’ti vuccatīti.

“Who dispelled the darkness of delusion with the lamp of wisdom”: by this expression he (the Commentator) indicates perfect enlightenment. For the path knowledge, which is based on the unobstructed knowledge, and the unobstructed knowledge, which is based on the path knowledge, are called “perfect enlightenment.”

I had understood that in the case of a Buddha path knowledge—the knowledge of the path of arahantship—arises destroying all defilements along with their residual tendencies (vāsanas), and then at that point, with all defilements destroyed, the sabbaññutaññāṇaṃ (= anāvaraṇañāṇaṃ) arises. So how can the author say that the path knowledge is based on the unobstructed knowledge? I don’t believe they occur simultaneously, or that padaṭṭhāna could apply to things that occur simultaneously.

In the next paragraph the author says:

Ettha ca karuṇāggahaṇena lokiyesu mahaggatabhāvappattāsādhāraṇaguṇadīpanato bhagavato sabbalokiyaguṇasampatti dassitā hoti, paññāggahaṇena sabbaññutaññāṇapadaṭṭhānamaggañāṇadīpanato sabbalokuttaraguṇasampatti.

This says that the path knowledge is based on the omniscient knowledge, which again seems contrary to my previous understanding.

In the Tika to the Sāmaññaphala Sutta, at VRI I 238, PTS I 349, we read:

Mahābodhisattānaṃ pana catuvīsatikoṭisatasahassamukhena pabhedagamanato nānānayaṃ sabbaññutañāṇasannissayassa ariyamaggañāṇassa adhiṭṭhānabhūtaṃ pubbabhāgañāṇagabbhaṃ gaṇhāpentaṃ pariṇataṃ gacchantaṃ paramagambhīraṃ saṇhasukhumataraṃ anaññasādhāraṇaṃ vipassanāñāṇaṃ hoti, yaṃ aṭṭhakathāsu ‘‘mahāvajirañāṇa’’nti vuccati.

That is, the insight-knowledge of great bodhisattas, which in the commentaries is called “the great diamond knowledge,” is the foundation for their knowledge of the noble path, which is in turn the support for their knowledge of omniscience (sabbaññutañāṇasannissayassa). This is the sequence that I would expect—insight, path knowledge, omniscient knowledge—so I can’t make sense of the apparent reciprocity of the two kinds of knowledge spoken of earlier in the Tika when commenting on the verses.

With metta,

Bhikkhu Bodhi

From: palistudy@yahoogroups.com [mailto:palistudy@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of L.S. Cousins
Sent: Friday, March 29, 2013 5:46 AM
To: palistudy@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [palistudy] questions based on Digha Tika

Dear Ven. Bodhi,

I make it:

"Or rather, he stated karuṇāsītalahadaya 'with a tranquil heart due to
compassion' because it is the compassion of the Lord in particular that
has reached the state of 'great compassion' which is the cause of a
tranquil heart, [compassion that] is the specific cause for the
knowledges that are not shared with others, because it extends over its
own domain just like the preeminent and all-inclusive knowledge of
omniscience."

I understand the meaning as follows:
Wisdom understands its object. Omniscient wisdom (=great wisdom) is
unsurpassed and understands its object comprehensively. Similarly
compassion is moved by the suffering of beings. Compassion which has
reached the degree of great compassion is especially the cause of the
Lord's tranquility of heart. It reaches that degree by fully
encompassing its own domain i.e. suffering beings. So it is a specific
cause for the knowledges which are unshared. Similarly omniscient wisdom
is preeminent and complete because it fully encompasses its own domain
i.e. dhamma(s).

Lance Cousins

On 28/03/2013 23:40, Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi wrote:
> Dear Friends,
>
>
> Looking at the passage again, I think I was on the right track but wrongly took what was correct to be a scribal error. I now think the Tika-writer is in fact saying that compassion, when it arrives at the state of great compassion (mahākaruṇābhāvaṃ upagatā karuṇāva), becomes the distinctive basis for the unique knowledges of a Buddha (asādhāraṇañāṇavisesanibandhanabhūtā)—just like the pre-eminent and all-inclusive omniscient knowledge (sātisayaṃ niravasesañca sabbaññutaññāṇaṃ). Thus it is right that --bhūtā should agree with the feminine singular ending of karuṇā.
>
>
> But I’m still unsure of the role of sa- in savisayabyāpitāya.
>
>
> Thanks.
>
>
> BB
>
> Dear Pali Friends,
>
> In the Dīgha Nikīya Ṭīkā we read the following:
>
> Atha vā asādhāraṇañāṇavisesanibandhanabhūtā sātisayaṃ niravasesañca sabbaññutaññāṇaṃ viya savisayabyāpitāya mahākaruṇābhāvaṃ upagatā karuṇāva bhagavato atisayena hadayasītalabhāvahetūti āha ‘‘karuṇāsītalahadayan”ti.
>
> (I 3, both in the VRI edition and in the PTS edition)
>
> I have two questions about this passage:
>
> (1) Since asādhāraṇañāṇavisesanibandhanabhūtā is evidently qualifying sabbaññutaññāṇaṃ, why does it end with –bhūtā, which looks like a feminine singular, rather than with –bhūtaṃ, which would agree with the neuter singular –ñāṇaṃ? Both editions of Ṭīkā, as well as the corresponding passage in the Sīlakkhandhavagga-Abhinavaṭīkā, have the same reading. It seems to me that the author (or an editor or copyist) momentarily forgot that he was writing about –ñāṇaṃ here and took the subject to be karuṇā, which is the main topic in the passage. But perhaps I’m missing something.
>
> (2) How should we understand the sa- in savisayabyāpitāya? It could be the short form of saha or it could represent “one’s own,” equivalent to attano. But if it is intended in the former sense, I don’t see what function it fulfills. The sense would seem adequate without sa-: “the pervasion of its objective sphere.”
>
> I look forward to your response to this.
>
> Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi
> Chuang Yen Monastery
> 2020 Route 301
> Carmel NY 10512
> U.S.A.

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