Re: avagamana

Dear Jim, D. C.,

I have to echo Jim's sentiments. The commentaries are much closer to the historical Buddha than our own interpretations; some of them may have been composed to elucidate his teachings by his disciples, even during his own lifetime or shortly therafter (that is, disciples who knew the Buddha). As Jim says, they were an established tradition before Mahinda. Therefore they are of especial interest to anyone studying the dhamma.

Take the example of avecca, which has no clear etymology. Per Buddhaghosa (who was presumably translating these same commentaries that Mahinda had brought from the mainland), it is to be interpreted as acala = avigata = a + veti > a+vetya > a + vecca ("immovable, not disappearing"). This helps to illuminate the sense of the word, even if the "correct" etymology is from ava + i, "to understand".

The idea that sutta might be dervied from suta (<Skt. śruta, "heard") is very intriguing. We know that in the early writing geminates were not written down, so sutta would have been written suta, but presumably it would have been pronounced differently in the oral traditīon with a long -ū- representing the vowel before the double -tt-'s or even the two t's pronounced distinctly to distinguīsh the word from suta.

But it is a tempting etymology since most suttas start with the evaṃ me sutaṃ phrase.Of course it is far-fetched to suggest that suta is equal to sutta, when the entire Indic tradition derives it from sūtra or sūkta, but nevertheless it is good to keep an open mind in case any evidence turns up to support it,

Best wishes,

Bryan

From: "'Jim Anderson' jimanderson.on@... [palistudy]" <palistudy@yahoogroups.com>
To: palistudy@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, December 6, 2014 11:32 AM
Subject: Re: [palistudy] avagamana

Dear D.C.

I'd like to comment on this statement of yours:

"For me commentaries are interpretations. So they have no value." taken from
the following :

<< 2. However, I found the word in the Commentaries. For me commentaries are
interpretations. So they have no value. But more importantly, we have no
way of giving them a meaning. I give below three instances of aveti in the
commentaries.>>

I agree that the commentaries are interpretations but I don't agree with
your conclusion that they therefore have no value. The commntaries
(aṭṭhakathās) were around long before Mahinda brought them to Sri Lanka and
rendered them into Old Sinhalase and afterwards restored to their Pali
originals by Buddhaghosa. They represent a time-honoured and widely-accepted
interpretation of what the Buddha and his disciples once said long long ago.
In my view, the commentaries have immense value.

You aren't the only one to dismiss the value of the commentaries. I once
knew a Sinhalese bhikkhu, a former head of the Toronto Mahavihara, who
rejected the commentaries as well as the Abhidhammapiṭaka. My view is that
any text that is written in reasonably good Pali is worthy of consideration.
They all have something of value to offer.

Best wishes,

Jim

----- Original Message -----
From: "Dc Wijeratna dcwijeratna@... [palistudy]"
<palistudy@yahoogroups.com>
To: <palistudy@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: December 5, 2014 10:50 AM
Subject: Re: [palistudy] avagamana

Dear Bryan, Ven. Bodhi, and Jim

*Avecca, Acala and Aveti*

My comments are as follows:

1. To start with I must make a confession. I don’t know Sanskrit; I don’t
know Pali (language) either.

2. I accept only the words attributed to Lord Buddha (Bhagavā Buddho,
usually shortened Bhagavā in the Suttas.) as the vocabulary of the Teaching
of the Buddha; not Buddhism.

Previous in thread: 4090
Next in thread: 4092
Previous message: 4090
Next message: 4092

Contemporaneous posts Posts in thread all posts