Dear Bryan,
The same passage occurs in the Khuddakapāṭha-aṭṭhakathā and
the Vinaya Pārājikakaṇḍa-aṭṭhakathā. Here I paste in the text from the latter
source (VRI I 6).
Thero sakalanavaṅgasatthusāsanapariyattidhare
puthujjana-sotāpanna-sakadāgāmi-anāgāmi-sukkhavipassakakhīṇāsavabhikkhū
anekasate anekasahasse ca vajjetvā tipiṭakasabbapariyattippabhedadhare paṭisambhidāppatte
mahānubhāve yebhuyyena bhagavatā etadaggaṃ āropite tevijjādibhede khīṇāsavabhikkhūyeva
ekūnapañcasate pariggahesi.
Note that both these versions have “bhagavatā etadaggaṃ āropite”,
which supports the PTS reading of the Sumaṅgala-vilāsinī as against the Be
reading, which has bhagavato. Bhagavatā certainly makes
better sense to me.
Where you distinguish three groups who were excluded, I take
“sakalanavaṅgasatthusāsanapariyattidhare” to be descriptive of “puthujjana-sotāpanna-sakadāgāmi-anāgāmi-sukkhavipassakakhīṇāsavabhikkhū”.
Mahākassapa certainly must select monks who are learned in the entire teaching with
its nine limbs; he just won’t accept learned monks other than those who are arahants
fully endowed with the other qualifications mentioned (the analytical knowledges and great spiritual majesty). “Tevijjādibhede” is an accusative
plural describing the khīṇāsavabhikkhū.
Here is my rendering, using yours as a basis but revised to
fit my understanding of the passage:
The Elder
[Mahākassapa], having avoided (vajjetvā seems preferable to bajjayitvā) those many
hundreds and thousands of monks who were common people, stream-enterers, once-returners,
non-returners and dry-insight outflow-destroyers [all of whom] knew the entire
teaching of the Teacher with its nine limbs, selected just 499 outflow-destroyer
monks classified as triple-knowledge bearers and so forth--#those who had
attained the analytical knowledges#, who were of great majesty, and who for the
most part had been appointed by the Blessed One [to the position of] foremost
in that [field].
Note that etadagga is a technical term referring to those appointed to the position of foremost in
particular areas, such as wisdom, psychic powers, recollection of past lives,
etc., as mentioned in the Etadaggavagga of the Anguttara, Book of Ones. Though
the commentary says that “for the most part” these monks were appointed as
etadagga, this may be an exaggeration typical of the commentaries. The
Etadaggavagga mentions only 40 monks as appointees, 459 short of the number
selected by Mahākassapa to join the Saṅgīti.
I hope this is helpful.
With best wishes
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [palistudy] Sumaṅgala-Vilāsinī_question
From: "Bryan Levman
bryan.levman@... [palistudy]"
<
palistudy@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Thu, October 15, 2015 3:46 pm
To: <
palistudy@yahoogroups.com>
Dear Pāli friends,
In the Sumaṅgalavilāsinī (volune 1, page 4, lines 6-12), Mahākassapa excludes certain people from the first council and includes others. I am having some trouble in understanding how many groups the Pāli refers to or whether the various phrases are appositive.
It reads as follows (PTS version):
thero sakala-navaṅga-satthu-sāsana-pariyatti-dhare puthujjana-sotāpanna-sakadāgāmi-anāgāmi –sakkha (Burmese: sukkha)-vipassaka-khīṇāsava-bhikkhū anekasate, anekasahasse ca bajjayitvā tipiṭaka-sabbapariyatti-ppabheda-dhare paṭisambhidā-ppatte mahānubhāve yebhuyyena bhagavato (Burmese; PTS Bhagavatā) etadaggaṃ āropite tevijjādi-bhede khīṇāsava-bhikkhū yeva ekūnapañcasate pariggahesi.
of which a rough translation is
The Elder [Mahākassapa] excluded those many hundreds and thousands who knew the whole nine limbs of the teacher’s teaching by heart, the common people, the stream-enterers, the once-returners, the non-returners and those monks whose outflows had been destroyed through dry-insight [those who achieved insight without samādhi], and he included just 499 monks whose outflows had been destroyed, of great majesty, who for the most part had effected that pinacle of the Blessed One consisting in the three knowledges.
It looks like those excluded include three groups
1) those who knew the nine aṅgas
2) everyone who wasn’t an arhat (the common people up to the non-returners)
3) monks whose outflows were destroyed through dry-insight
But there are no “ca’s” in the text, leaving open the possibility of an appositive structure.
For those 499 included, there are also no “ca’s” and again the question is, is the commentator talking about one group of monks who have destroyed the outflows, have great majesty, achieved the three knowledges? or two or three different groups? It looks like an appositive structure with everything modifying the khīṇāsava-bhikkhū. That would suggest that the excluded groups should be similarly read, except a putthujana, sotāpanna, etc., can not be read in apposition to khīṇāsava-bhikkū.
I would appreciate knowing how you interpret these groups,
Best wishes,
Bryan