From: Petra Kieffer-Pülz
Message: 3876
Date: 2014-08-02
(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.
panudati gos back to skt. pra-ṇud which belongs to the sixth class, and therefore would have the regular imperative praṇuda. The only explanation I have for the interpretation of panujja as a second person imperative is that at the time of the commentators the passive stem panujjati was understood as the base from which this panujja as an imperativform. We have several references for the med. part. panujjamāna which could have led to such an understanding. Looking through the references for panujja on the CSCD I, however, Idid not see any other instance for an interpretation or usage of panujja as a 2nd.imp.
(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.
So the stanza originally was eventually written with changing subject, and interpreted later by the commentators in accordance with grammar and the by then established concept of abhisaṅkhāraviññāṇa?!
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.