From: Bhikkhu Bodhi
Message: 3875
Date: 2014-08-01
Dear Jim, Bryan, Petra,
and others,
In regard to the points brought up by Jim:
(1) "If it [tiṭṭhe] were the 2nd pers. wouldn't they have glossed
it with tiṭṭheyyāsi instead of tiṭṭheyya?" This seems to be a
valid question. Even though Geiger does include an -eyya form in
the 2nd sing. optative, such a form must be very rare, and in any
case in their word comments, the commentaries almost invariably
reformulate the unusual in terms of the familiar, not in terms of
the rare. But the commentarial gloss need not be taken to have
captured the intended meaning of the text. It could still be the
case that the text intends tiṭṭhe as the 2nd person optative,
which would be consistent with the preceding verb sampajānāsi.
(2) I don't see why Jim says that Pj II and Nidd-a II have
"overridden" Nidd II's reading of panujja as a 2nd person singular
imperative in favor of an absolutive. Both Pj II and Nidd-a take
account of both alternatives. Pj II says "... taṇhañca
diṭṭhinivesanañca abhisaṅkhāraviññāṇañca *panudehi, panuditvā
ca*," and it then construes the line separately by way of the two
interpretations. Nidd-a II simply echoes Pj II.
(3) Jim writes: "I have not been able so far to make sense of an
absolutive panujja with a 2nd or 3rd pers. tiṭṭhe as the main
verb." If tiṭṭhe is taken as the 2nd person singular optative,
there would be no grammatical problem in one's reading of the
verse. The problem, rather, is doctrinal, for on the basis of the
consistent sutta teaching, "viññāṇaṃ bhave na tiṭṭhe" would
describe what happens to the viññāṇa of an arahant upon his
passing away, and panujja viññāṇaṃ as the dispelling of an
abhisaṅkhāraviññāṇa—the latter a commentarial concept—would stand
out by its uniqueness.
I don't understand on what basis the commentaries explain panujja
as an imperative. All three seem to take it as obvious, but it
isn’t transparent to me. Is there any precedent for this, Petra,
in Skt grammar? Is there any rare Pāli
grammatical paradigm that can support it? The proper second person
singular imperative for panudati, in my understanding, would have
to be either panuda or panudāhi.
Thus, taking panujja at face value as an absolutive, if viññāṇaṃ is taken as the subject of tiṭṭhe, the doctrinal problem is solved, but there arises the *grammatical tension* between the absolutive with the person (here, Mettagū) as the intended subject ("you, Mettagū, having dispelled craving and attachment to views") and the finite verb with viññāṇaṃ as the subject. On the other hand, if viññāṇaṃ is taken to be the object of panujja (along with taṇhā and diṭṭhinivesana), the grammatical tension may be resolved, but then a *doctrinal problem* crops up in the unusual injunction to dispel viññāṇa (identified as abhisaṅkhāraviññāṇa). As I said in an earlier post, the suttas generally assert that it is the defilements that are to be dispelled, not viññāṇa, while it is viññāṇa that departs from bhava with the passing away of the arahant (as in SN 12:38: … ārammaṇametaṃ na hoti viññāṇassa ṭhitiyā. Ārammaṇe asati patiṭṭhā viññāṇassa na hoti. Tadappatiṭṭhite viññāṇe avirūḷhe āyatiṃ punabbhavābhinibbatti na hoti).
Either way, the verse is problematic, and it seems to escape the
problem one must sacrifice either grammatical consistency or
doctrinal consistency. I don't see a solution without sacrificing
one or the other, and I incline to uphold doctrinal consistency
over strict grammatical consistency.
With best wishes,
Bhikkhu Bodhi
Dear Bryan, Bhikkhu Bodhi, Petra et al,
I've been focussing on how the 3 commentaries (Pj II, Nidd II, Nidd-a II)
interpret Sn 1055, Here are some of my observations so far.
1) I think all three agree that tiṭṭhe is 3rd pers. sing, opt. If it were
the 2nd pers. wouldn't they have glossed it with tiṭṭheyyāsi instead of
tiṭṭheyya ? Apparently Geiger also includes an -eyya form in the 2nd sing.
opt.
2) It seems that Pj II and Nidd-a II have overidden Nidd II's reading of
panujja as a 2nd pers. sing. imp. in favour of an absolutive. DOP II
s.v. nudati gives only nudiyā as its absolutive Nidd-a II (which includes
much from Pj II) glosses panujja with "atīva khipa" (2nd sing. imp.). It is
worth noting that Niruttidīpanī gives a passive panujjati in addition to
panudīyati.
3) It seems that all three include viññāṇaṃ as an object of panujja along
with nandi and nivesana. I have not been able so far to make sense of an
absolutive panujja with a 2nd or 3rd pers. tiṭṭhe as the main verb. But if I
take panujja (2nd imperative) as the main verb then "bhave na tiṭthe" could
be construed as an explanatory note on viññāṇa (it cannot remain in
existence). I think the removal of viññāṇa could not happen until the
arahant passes away permanently. The term panujja is just part of a series
of imperatives covering the events passing thtrough the four supramundane
paths as best explained in Nidd-a II.
Best wishes,
Jim
ps to Bryan: I recently heard that Newfoundland which originally had
no moose now has a 100,000. They say you can't see the forest for the moose.
-- 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!