From: Petra Kieffer-Pülz
Message: 3867
Date: 2014-07-30
Dear Jim,
Thank you for your comment and for providing me with Fausboll's translation of the line. I just searched the internet and found his translation is now in the public domain and is available for free download.
Pj proposes two ways of construing panujja, as imperative and as absolutive:
Etesu nandiñca nivesanañca, panujja viññāṇanti etesu uddhādīsu taṇhañca diṭṭhinivesanañca abhisaṅkhāraviññāṇañca panudehi, panuditvā ca bhave na tiṭṭhe, evaṃ sante duvidhepi bhave na tiṭṭheyya. Evaṃ tāva panujjasaddassa panudehīti imasmiṃ atthavikappe sambandho, panuditvāti etasmiṃ pana atthavikappe bhave na tiṭṭheti ayameva sambandho. Etāni nandinivesanaviññāṇāni panuditvā duvidhepi bhave na tiṭṭheyyāti vuttaṃ hoti.
Norman must have been following Pj rather than Nidd2. This seems more reasonable, since I don’t see how panujja can be an imperative. Though Nidd2 must have its reason, that reason is not clear to me, and both Norman and N.A. Jayawickrama opt for the absolutive.
Petra brought up syntax as the reason behind the Niddesa-Pj way of construing the verse, but, while syntax should not be dismissed lightly, I give more weight to meaning. Here, a potent consideration against the Niddesa-Pj interpretation is its dependence upon the relatively late concept of abhisaṅkhāraviññāṇa. Thus Nidd2 has:
Panujja viññāṇanti puññābhisaṅkhārasahagataṃ viññāṇaṃ, apuññābhisaṅkhārasahagataṃ viññāṇaṃ, āneñjābhisaṅkhārasahagataṃ viññāṇaṃ. Etesu nandiñca nivesanañca abhisaṅkhārasahagatañca viññāṇaṃ nujja panujja nuda panuda jaha pajaha vinodehi byantīkarohi anabhāvaṃ gamehīti.
The text first lists three types of abhisaṅkhāraviññāṇa, that associated with volitional activities of merit, demerit, and the imperturbable. Then it continues, “Dispel ... extinguish delight, attachment, and the consciousness associated with volitional activity.” The problem is that abhisaṅkhāraviññāṇa is a fairly late concept. Though it may be implicit in certain sutta passages, I don’t see explicit recognition of it in the archaic Nikāyas. Thus the idea of “dispelling consciousness” seems to me discordant with the typical way of approaching the task of spiritual cultivation in the Nikāyas, which stresses active exertion against defilements (like nandī and nivesana here; elsewhere against taṇhā, chanda, rāga, māna, etc.) rather than against viññāṇa.
Then, on the other hand, we find a handful of texts that speak about viññāṇa not persisting into a new existence, such as those I referred to in the previous message, and the passages about viññāṇaṃ becoming appatiṭṭhitaṃ, such as this one at the end of the Vakkali Sutta (SN 22:87): appatiṭṭhitena ca, bhikkhave, viññāṇena vakkali kulaputto parinibbuto ti. The correspondence between appatiṭṭhita viññāṇa and viññāṇaṃ bhave na tiṭṭhe seems to me stronger than the considerations based on syntax. Though I haven’t researching the point, there may be other clear examples of syntax disjunction in the suttas. In SN 22:54 I found one just by chance:‘‘Yo, bhikkhave, evaṃ vadeyya – ‘ahamaññatra rūpā aññatra vedanāya aññatra saññāya aññatra saṅkhārehi viññāṇassa āgatiṃ vā gatiṃ vā cutiṃ vā upapattiṃ vā vuddhiṃ vā virūḷhiṃ vā vepullaṃ vā paññāpessāmī’ti, n’etaṃ ṭhānaṃ vijjati.
The statement opens with the relative pronoun ‘yo’, but the subject of the demonstrative clause is not the person who speaks thus, but the case (etaṃ ṭhānaṃ) which is not found (na … vijjati).
With good wishes,
Bhikkhu Bodhi
On 7/30/2014 12:11 PM, 'Jim Anderson' jimanderson.on@... [palistudy] wrote:
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
-- Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi Chuang Yen Monastery 2020 Route 301 Carmel NY 10512 U.S.A. To help feed the hungry and educate disadvantaged children around the world, please check: Our website: http://www.buddhistglobalrelief.org/ Our blog: http://buddhistglobalrelief.wordpress.com/ For my Dhamma lectures and teachings: http://www.baus.org/en/?cat=9 (includes schedule of classes) http://bodhimonastery.org/a-systematic-study-of-the-majjhima-nikaya.html http://www.noblepath.org/audio.html http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL23DE0292227250FA For my public photo albums: http://picasaweb.google.com/venbodhi Sabbe sattā averā hontu, abyāpajjā hontu, anighā hontu, sukhī hontu! 願眾生無怨，願眾生無害，願眾生無惱，願眾生快樂！ May all beings be free from enmity, free from affliction, free from distress. May they be happy!