Re: avagamana

Dear Bryan, and Jim

<<I have to echo Jim's sentiments.>>

I have already apoligised to Jim and explained the ambiguity of my statement.

<<The commentaries are much closer to the historical Buddha than our own interpretations>>

I agree. Please see my message to Jim. There I discussed the conversion of commentaries to scripture. The situation remained like that until the arrival of the Britiish and its civil service.

The result was the development of a language called Pali and dictionaries to give interpret. The first English dictionary was that of Childers. This was superseded by PTS Dictionary. Since then, for the English speaking world PED interpreted the commentaries. The teaching of Lord Buddha was Buddhism. [For me teaching of Lord Buddha and Buddhism has nothing in common, except meaningless symbols like Buddha]

<<Take the example of avecca, which has no clear etymology>>

There is no etymology. The originator of the word is Lord Buddha. It all follows from the Laws enunciated by Lord Buddha. He named them Ariyasaccas. These are absolutes. You cannot interpret them. Either you understand them or do not understand them. [one doesn't try to interpret Newton's Laws]

<<The idea that sutta might be dervied from suta (<Skt. śruta, "heard") is very intriguing>>

Thank you. Here is how I do it:

Skt. śruta appears to mean 'revelation' in Sanskrit.

<< Evaṃ Me Sutaṃ>>

I have to tell you a story: In 2006-2007, I started on a PhD. I was told for a PhD you can use only primary source. I started out with confidence because of knowledge of programming language translation. I started with Kalamasutta. It started with Evam Me Sutam. First step, literature survey: Read every available translation of the Sutta. I can honesly say no two translations agreed. I could not accept that. Imagine what would happen if my computer translated differently from yours. Well this is how I solved. I read the story. connected it to the Sutta Pitaka, connected it with the first council. I read the story in Sinhala. It took me 8 years to get there. I find the method useful.

Evam Me Sutam is actually how Arhant Ananda answered Arhant Kassapa.

Ar. Ananda confirms that he heard it from the Lord himself and the story that follows is exactly as he heard and retained. Note: suta is not heard; it is heard and retained in memory.

For me 'Evam Me Sutam' is the stamp of authenticity that the Sutta is Lord's Dhamma.

Sutta has the simple meaning formula or a mechanism; Dhamma is always a formula, because dhamma has a course always--Idappaccayata.

By the way Suttanta is not Sutta + anta. It is actually formed by the combination "suttaṃ + ta".

On Sat, Dec 6, 2014 at 11:48 PM, Bryan Levman bryan.levman@... [palistudy] <palistudy@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

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.

Metta is being friendly to everybody