Re: Question on bhūṇahu

 

A further note:

 

In looking up bhūṇa in Sadd (Index Radicum) it gives an equivalent as bhāsāyaṃ ("speech") or āsāyaṃ (hope, wish). The verb form is bhūṇeti or bhūṇayati which is a class 10 verb in Sanskrit (bhrūṇ) meaning "hope, wish, fear".

Westergaard (33.7) glosses it as bhrūṇ āśāviśaṃkayoḥ  ("hope and fear").

Therefore bhūṇaha, -hu, or -hata, could mean “destroyer of hope, destroyer of desire” an epithet which may well be applicable to the Buddha in Māgandiya’s eyes (as a brahman, a believer in the ātman,  and a theist). It could also mean, in a passive sense, “hope destroyed” which would be applicable to the Jātaka’s referenced in the last email. This is perhaps another possibility,

 

Bryan,

---

From: "Bryan Levman bryan.levman@... [palistudy]" <palistudy@yahoogroups.com>
To: "palistudy@yahoogroups.com" <palistudy@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2015 5:23 PM
Subject: [palistudy] Question on bhūṇahu

 

Dear Pāli Friends,

 

Does anyone know what the expression bhūṇaha (var: bhūnahaṭa, bhūnahoṭa, bhūhata, bhūṇahu) means?

 

It occurs in three principal places in the Tipiṭaka:

 

Sn 664-b bhūṇahu where Norman translates “abortionist”.

 

Commentary: Pj 2, 479³: bhūnahu bhūti-hanaka, vuḍḍhi-nāsaka, “killer of a being, destroying growth”.

 

The Māgandiya Sutta (MN 75, vol. 1, 502¹⁵,  bhūṇahu, bhūṇahano) where it is an insult directed by Māgandiya against the Buddha and Ven. Bodhi translates “destroyer of growth”. Ven. Ñāṇamoli translates “a wrecker of being” (Ñāṇamoli and Bodhi 1995: 607, 1281). Per the commentary the “growth” that the Buddha is destroying is sense-object experience, the cultivation of which Māgandhiya believes in.

 

Commentary  (Ps 3, 211^4-5), hatavaḍḍhino mariyādakārakassa, “destroyer of growth, maker of limits”.

 

It is a pejorative expression supposedly derived from the Vedic bhrūṇa-han or -ghna, “killer of an embryo” (Saksena 1936); the Vedic work bhrūṇa first occurs in the RV (10.155.2) where it means "embryo". According to MW it also has the meaning  "child, boy, learned Brahman, and pregnant woman". however, this definition ("embryo-destroyer") doesn’t make a lot of sense, either in the above references or in the Jātaka usages, two examples of which are:

 

Jātaka 530, vol. 5, 266

 

ete patanti niraye, uddhaṃpādā avaṃsirā.
isīnaṃ ativattāro, saññatānaṃ tapassinaṃ. 88

 

te bhūnahuno (var, C^k guṇāhuno) paccanti, macchā bilakatā yathā.
saṃvacchare asaṅkheyye, narā kibbisakārino. 89

 

Francis 1895 [2008]: 137, translates

 

All that have outrage done to saints or injured holy men
Fall headlong into hell’s abyss, no more to rise again.

 

In evil plight their mangled frames, piecemeal like fish on toast,
For their misdeeds through countless years in hell are doomed to roast.

 

Commentary glosses; te bhūnahunoti te isīnaṃ ativattāro attano vuḍḍhiyā hatattā bhūnahuno koṭṭhāsakatā macchā viya paccanti. “They offend the seers, because they are destroyed by the inflation of the self and are cooked like fish made into a portion (koṭṭhāsa-katā, i. e., like a fish cut up and cooked)", which seems to suggest "arrogance"; it might also mean "destroyer of brahmans".

 

Jātaka 358, vol. 3, 179.

 

aham eva dūsiyā bhūnahatā, rañño Mahāpatāpassa.
pamuñcatu dhammapālaṃ, hatthe me deva chedehīti.4

 

Mahāpatāpa’s wretched queen,
‘Tis I alone to blame have been.
Bid Dhammapāla, Sire, go free,
And off with hands of luckless me (Francis and Neil 1895 [2008]: 118).

 

Commentary:  bhūnahatāti hatabhūnā, hatavuḍḍhīti attho. bhūnahatā = “Growth destroyed, prosperity lost” is the meaning, but again, the meaning seems to be more “arrogant” as the queen is being punished because she did not rise when the King entered her chamber and is here lamenting, that it is she who should be punished not their son Dhammapāla.Perhaps it means "destroyer of children", because her conduct is leading to her son's death?

 

My feeling is that most of these cases do not reflect the translations given, including “embryo-destroyer” or “destroyer of growth”. As you can see, the Jātaka authors have taken a good deal of license with the translation, rendering it “in evil plight their mangled frames” (Jā. 530), and with Jātaka 358 associating the expression with “wretched” and “blame”.

 

 

Any suggestions would be appreciated,

 

Best wishes,

 

Bryan