Re: ITIVUTTAKA 7

Dear Jim,

Thanks for your information. I know that in a complicated and profound language as Pali, a single sentence could require deep analysis and extra information from variuos sources.

However, firstly, from the advice of Petra, I think it could be taken simple by following way:

Sabbaṃ, bhikkhave, anabhijānaṃ aparijānaṃ tattha cittaṃ avirājayaṃ appajahaṃ
abhabbo dukkhakkhayāya.

[1] anabhijānaṃ and aparijānaṃ are 2 present participle, here they are all Mas Nom Sing. anabhijānaṃ is from the Stem anabhijānant or anabhijānat which HAS 2 NOMINATIVE DECLENSIONS: anabhijānaNTO & anabhijānAM (cf Practical Pali Grammar - Charles Duroiselle, 226). Here the form anabhijānAM is used, and it is the same as MAS/NEUT ACC SING of the Verbal Noun anabhijāna (Unsuperknowing), so that is the key of confusion, cause the most frequently used form is anabhijānaNTO not anabhijānAM.

[2] Similarly as above, avirājayaṃ and appajahaṃ are present participle Neut Nom Sing which are attributed to cittaṃ - Neut Nom Sing.

So, by that way of analysis, the sentence will be taken as:

Monk! The man who is not super-knowing, not comprehending ALL (things), therefrom whose mind is not detaching, not abandoning, is unable of destruction of suffering.

I think the group (Sabbaṃ anabhijānaṃ aparijānaṃ) & the group (tattha cittaṃ avirājayaṃ appajahaṃ) are combined logically. That is to say: because a certain man does not super-know, not comprehend, so his mind does not detach, not abandon. And the final consequence is he could not destroy sufferings.

Through common sense and naturally logical analysis, I think it makes sense, however, its meaning also depends on the explanation of Commentaries and Sub-Commentaries

Sincerel yours,

From: "'Jim Anderson' jimanderson.on@... [palistudy]" <palistudy@yahoogroups.com>
To: palistudy@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, September 12, 2016 12:21 AM
Subject: Re: [palistudy] ITIVUTTAKA 7

Dear Huynh Trong Khanh and Petra,

I have some questions regarding the sentence (Itv p. 3):

Sabbaṃ, bhikkhave, anabhijānaṃ aparijānaṃ tattha cittaṃ avirājayaṃ appajahaṃ
abhabbo dukkhakkhayāya.

1) Which present participle serves as the subject and main agent? "ababbho"
is part of the predicate "is incapable of". Could there be four agents
representing the same individual at different stages?

2) Two existing translations (see below) of this part: "tattha cittaṃ
avirājayaṃ appajahaṃ" are unclear, especially regarding the meaning of
'cittaṃ' and Woodward takes 'sabbaṃ' as the grammatical object of appajahaṃ
(not abandoning). I have Peter Masefield's translation (Vol. I, pp. 135-9)
of the Itivuttaka commentary explaining this sentence in great detail and
which requires considerable study and thought.

F.L. Woodward, p. 118 (1935):
‘ Monks, the man who does not understand and
comprehend the all, who has not detached his mind
therefrom, who has not abandoned the all, can make
no growth in the extinction of Ill.’

Justin Hartley Moore, p. 24 (1908):
‘ He, O monks, that doth not understand and comprehend the
All (sabba-), and whose thought about it is neither one of re-
nunciation nor abandonment, cannot attain destruction of Misery.’

Best wishes,

Jim

----- Original Message -----
From: "KHANH TRONG HUYNH testsuda@... [palistudy]"
<palistudy@yahoogroups.com>
To: <palistudy@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: September 10, 2016 8:14 AM
Subject: Re: [palistudy] ITIVUTTAKA 7

Dear Petra,
Thanks so much for your support. I also always look on English translations
for those suttas that I translate, but sometimes I am embarrassed with rare
forms, cause usually what we need is not only the meaning of the sentence
but also the grammatical base behind the meaning.
Sincerely yours,
Huynh Trong Khanh

From: "Petra Kieffer-Pülz kiepue@... [palistudy]"
<palistudy@yahoogroups.com>
To: palistudy@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, September 10, 2016 5:31 PM
Subject: Re: [palistudy] ITIVUTTAKA 7

Dear Huynh Trong Khanh,