Re: Dipavamsa passage

From: Nyanatusita
Message: 3754
Date: 2013-11-18

Dear Petra,

Although the Tikas interpretation makes sense, I am still not completely sure about the meaning of the Dipavamsa verse. Why does the Dipavamsa abruptly change mid-sentence from the name of texts (which fits in with the discussion of canonical texts in the preceding verses, see below) to the emblems and requisites of monastics? Perhaps nāmaṃ rather refers to the name of the nikāya or sect, Mahāsaṅgīti/ Mahāsaṅghika, i.e. they changed the name of their sect, and their emblems, requisites, deportment and actions.

The author of the Tika might have seen an earlier commentary which just explained nāma as nikāya and then, in accordance with the preceding discussion of texts, interpreted that as a group or section of texts rather than a monastic sect or group.

An emblem would be the material and colour of their robes, which is still a distinguishing mark between different monastic groups in Sri Lanka, Thailand, etc. A difference in requisites would be the long stick with rings to keep away dogs, etc. which if I remember correctly, (Mula) Sarvastivadins, were carrying in India. Or it could refer to the sour milk that Mahasamghikas were drinking as a medicine, but which the Theravadins didn't accept. Comportment or deportment would be the manner they behave in terms of etiquette, etc.
 
To take a modern example, in Thailand there are the two monastic groups called Maha-nikaya and Dhammayuttika-nikaya. And in Thailand forest monks can immediately see which monastery another forest monk comes from by the colour of the newcomer's robes and the way it was sewed, the appearance and material of their umbrella or bowl-stand (which monks in Sri Lanka don't use), and the their deportment. In each tradition and important monastery the way of going on alms, sweeping, etc., is done is different than in others. In Thailand monks shave their eye-brows while elsewhere not. In Burma tea is regarded as a food because it is eaten with meals, while elsewhere it is regarded as a medicine and drunk. In Sri Lanka it generally regarded as improper for a monk to engage in manual labour (as that is done by low caste lay workers) but in Thailand (where there is no caste system) monks build whole monasteries themselves.

‘‘Mahāsaṅgītikā bhikkhū, vilomaṃ akaṃsu sāsane;

Bhinditvā mūlasaṅgahaṃ, aññaṃ akaṃsu saṅgahaṃ.

‘‘Aññatra saṅgahitā suttaṃ, aññatra akariṃsu te;

Atthaṃ dhammañca bhindiṃsu, vinaye nikāyesu ca pañcasu.

‘‘Pariyāyadesitañcāpi, atho nippariyāyadesitaṃ;

Nītatthañceva neyyatthaṃ, ajānitvāna bhikkhavo.

‘‘Aññaṃ sandhāya bhaṇitaṃ, aññaṃ atthaṃ ṭhapayiṃsu te;

Byañjanacchāyāya te bhikkhū, bahuṃ atthaṃ vināsayuṃ.

‘‘Chaḍḍetvāna ekadesaṃ, suttaṃ vinayagambhīraṃ;

Patirūpaṃ suttaṃ vinayaṃ, tañca aññaṃ kariṃsu te.

‘‘Parivāraṃ atthuddhāraṃ, abhidhammaṃ chappakaraṇaṃ;

Paṭisambhidañca niddesaṃ, ekadesañca jātakaṃ.

‘‘Ettakaṃ vissajjitvāna, aññāni akariṃsu te;

Nāmaṃ liṅgaṃ parikkhāraṃ, ākappakaraṇāni ca.

‘‘Pakatibhāvaṃ jahitvā, tañca aññaṃ akaṃsu te;

Pubbaṅgamā bhinnavādā, mahāsaṅgītikārakā.

Best wishes,
                     Bh Nt

On 11/18/2013 12:20 AM, Petra Kieffer-Pülz wrote:
 

Dear Ven Nyanatusita,


That's very interesting, and makes good sense in this context. liṅga, by the way, is also used for the robe of Buddhist monks in the word liṅganāsanā "exclusion [under retention of the outward] sign (i.e. the monastic robe)". To this fits perfectly the explanation in the Ppk-mṭ you quote. Sikka I had somewhere, but do not remember he context at the moment.


Best wishes,
Petra




 
Am 17.11.2013 um 19:27 schrieb Nyanatusita:

 

Dear Petra,

Thanks for the suggestions. There is support for them in the explanation of the phrase in the Pañcapakaraṇa-mūlaṭīkā (Be p. 48) which I just found. However, it takes none of the terms to refer to grammar:

Nāmanti yaṃ buddhādipaṭisaṃyuttaṃ na hoti mañjusirītiādikaṃ, taṃ nikāyanāmaṃ. Liṅganti nivāsanapārupanādivisesakataṃ saṇṭhānavisesaṃ. Sikkādikaṃ parikkhāraṃ. Ākappo ṭhānādīsu aṅgaṭṭhapanaviseso daṭṭhabbo. Karaṇanti cīvarasibbanādikiccaviseso.

Here is a rough translation:

''Name: that which is not related to the Buddha, etc., such as 'Mañjusiri' etc. as the name of the section (of scriptures of the Tipitaka).  Feature/attribute: making a distinction in clothing, dressing, etc.; it is a distinction in appearance. Requisite is a string,* etc..  Comportment is to be regarded as the placing of the limbs at a spot, etc. 'Making' is the distinction in the work of sewing robes, etc.''

*So PED. Sikkā is a 'pingo-basket' according to Buddhadatta's CPED.
Mañjusiri would refer to the Bodhisattva Mañjuśrī.

More tomorrow.

Best wishes,
                         Bh Nt


looking through Deokar's book on Technical terms ... of Pali grammars, I could not find the terms parikkhāra, ākappakaraṇiya or ākappa searched by you. Also Cone does not list ākappa as a technical term of grammar. By the way the Dīpavaṃsa verses are also quoted  in the Sp-ṭ I 116, and there you have the reading ākappakaraṇāni (in the Burmese edition).

I, therefore, see no chance whatsoever to link parikkhāra and ākappa-karaṇāni with grammar.

Given the context where many different things are listed changed by the Mahāsāṅghikas, couldn't it be that nāma and liṅga refer to their language, but parikkhāra (requisite) and ākappa (dress or comportment) to their outward appeareance? Karaṇa could form a third instance (forming a Dvandva with ākappa), and refer to the performance of their legal acts or form a Tatpurusa with ākappa ("the act of making dresses??).

pakatibhāva I would understand as the "common (i.e. original) state" which still is kept by the Theravādin, but changed by the Mahāsāṅghikas, thus I would come up with something like:

"Forsaking the common way regarding nouns, genders, requisites, dresses and performance [of their legal acts] (or: and the act of making [their] dresses??), they made it differently."

Best,
Petra







Am 17.11.2013 um 06:41 schrieb Nyanatusita:

 

Dear All,

Perhaps someone can help with translating an obscure passage in the Dīpavaṃsa, which I need for an article I am working on.

Nāmaṃ liṅgaṃ parikkhāraṃ ākappakaraṇīyāni ca, / pakatibhāvaṃ jahitvā tañca aññaṃ akaṃsu te.  = Geiger, 5.38, 44, 50; SL edition (on GRETIL) verse 77, 83, 89.

This was translated by Oldenberg in 1879 as:

“Forsaking the original rules regarding nouns, genders, compositions, and the embellishments of style, they changed all that.”

The context is a description of the changes that the Mahasamghikas and other schools made to their canons and texts.

I checked Pali and Sanskrit dictionaries but found nowhere an indication that parikkhāraṃ and ākappakaraṇīyāni can have the meaning of ““compositions, and the embellishments of style”.  Both parikkhāra and ākalpa can mean 'decoration' but what does this mean in terms of grammar? The first two terms, nāmaṃ & liṅgaṃ would refer to noun and gender. Could the two terms parikkhāraṃ and ākappakaraṇīyāni perhaps refer to inflection or declension or the morphology of words,  ,e.g. a locative plural in -ehi instead of -esu; or a nominative singular in -aḥ instead of -o or bhikṣu instead of bhikkhu or pācattika instead of pācittiya? The Mahasamghikas and other schools sanskritized their texts to varying degrees.

I am not sure too whether pakatibhāvaṃ means 'original rules', rather it would mean 'original state'.

Remarkably, there is no English translation of the Dipavamsa other than Oldenberg's 135 year old translation.

Best wishes,
                        Bh Nyanatusita






Previous in thread: 3753
Next in thread: 3755
Previous message: 3753
Next message: 3755

Contemporaneous posts     Posts in thread     all posts