Dear Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi,
At SBE X, p.186, V. Fausboll takes "viññāṇāṃ' as the subject of "tiṭṭhe" ;
his translation: let thy mind not dwell on existence. The Cūḷaniddesa
interprets "panujja" as a 2nd pers. sing. imperative and not as an
absolutive as Norman has it. It also takes "tiṭṭhe" as "tiṭṭheyya" (3rd
pers. sing. optative).which further supports mind or consciousness as the
subject and not "you". The Cūḷaniddesa comments aren't all that clear to me
expecially on the relationship of "panujja" to "viññāṇāṃ".
Best wishes,
Jim
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bhikkhu Bodhi venbodhi@... [palistudy]"
<palistudy@yahoogroups.com>
To: <palistudy@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: July 29, 2014 6:32 PM
Subject: [palistudy] Sn 1055 panujja viññāṇaṃ bhave na tiṭṭhe
Dear Pali Friends,
Suttanipāta verse 1055 (of the PTS edition; 1061 in the CST edition)
reads thus:
1061.
Yaṃ kiñci sampajānāsi, (mettagūti bhagavā)
Uddhaṃ adho tiriyañcāpi majjhe;
Etesu nandiñca nivesanañca,
panujja viññāṇaṃ bhave na tiṭṭhe.
The Cūḷaniddesa and Paramattha-jotikāboth gloss this as if panujja
applies to viññānaṃ, and leave the subject of tiṭṭhe as an unstated
“you.” Both K.R. Norman and N.A. Jayawickrama follow Nidd 2 and Pj here.
Norman renders: “… having thrust away enjoyment and attachment to these
things, [and consciousness], you would not remain in [this] existence.”
NAJ’s rendering is similar, ending with “you shall not remain in becoming.”
It seems to me intuitively, however, that viññāṇam should be taken, not
as an object of panujja, but as the subject of bhave na tiṭṭhe. One
might claim support for this from the following texts (and perhaps still
others):
SN 12:12 (II 13): ‘Viññāṇāhāro āyatiṃ punabbhavābhinibbattiyā paccayo,
tasmiṃ bhūte sati saḷāyatanaṃ, saḷāyatanapaccayā phasso’’’ti.
SN 12:38 (II 65): “Yato ca kho, bhikkhave, no ceva ceteti no ca
pakappeti no ca anuseti, ārammaṇametaṃ na hoti viññāṇassa ṭhitiyā.
Ārammaṇe asati patiṭṭhā viññāṇassa na hoti.”
SN 12:64 (II 102): ‘‘Kabaḷīkāre ce, bhikkhave, āhāre natthi rāgo natthi
nandī natthi taṇhā, appatiṭṭhitaṃ tattha viññāṇaṃ avirūḷhaṃ. Yattha
appatiṭṭhitaṃ viññāṇaṃ avirūḷhaṃ, natthi tattha nāmarūpassa avakkanti.
Yattha natthi nāmarūpassa avakkanti, natthi tattha saṅkhārānaṃ vuddhi.
Yattha natthi saṅkhārānaṃ vuddhi, natthi tattha āyatiṃ
punabbhavābhinibbatti. Yattha natthi āyatiṃ punabbhavābhinibbatti,
natthi tattha āyatiṃ jātijarāmaraṇaṃ.”
SN 22:54 (III 55): ‘‘Rūpadhātuyā ceva, bhikkhave, bhikkhuno rāgo pahīno
hoti. Rāgassa pahānā vocchijjatārammaṇaṃ patiṭṭhā viññāṇassa na hoti.
Vedanādhātuyā ce… saññādhātuyā ce… saṅkhāradhātuyā ce… viññāṇadhātuyā
ce, bhikkhave, bhikkhuno rāgo pahīno hoti. Rāgassa pahānā
vocchijjatārammaṇaṃ patiṭṭhā viññāṇassa na hoti.”
Is there a compelling reason, apart from their antiquity, to accept
Cūḷaniddesa and Paramattha-jotikāas correct in their treatment of these
lines, or could my alternative reading be defended? Would anyone have
any thoughts about this?
Thank you.
With metta,
Bhikkhu Bodhi