Re: Yā tesaṃ tesaṃ sattānaṃ tamhi tamhi sattanikāye jāti

Hi,

I wonder if "each and every" goes a little too far. For example, beings that are not currently in the process of acquiring the aggregates, but are instead only using the currently available aggregates to continue their current life (living beings as we know them), would not be covered under the distribution of tesaṃ-tesaṃ. Also, Whitney only says that repeated words give intensive, distributive, OR a repetitional meaning - not all-encompassing, and not necessarily all simultaneously either.

I think the underlying assumption in the sentence which the Buddha doesn't really mention, is that tesaṃ-tesaṃ applies to those beings that are in the process of being born, not to "each and every" being in the world. That means, it does not include beings that are currently already in a realm and are just living their life.

Now it is possible to argue against my point, depending on how you interpret the phrase khandhānaṃ pātubhāvo. It is possible to interpret this as meaning the acquisition of aggregates that is constantly occurring in the minds of all unenlightened beings. If we take it that far, then all beings are constantly being reborn, every single moment. Any instance of bhava would be an instance of jāti. In that case, the interpretation "each and every" would be accurate. But although that would not be entirely inconsistent with the Buddha's teachings, it doesn't appear that we need to go that far. It is true that bhava does lead to jāti almost without our ability to do anything about it, but arahants are capable of giving rise to bhava (through samādhi) without allowing the seeds of bhava to sprout.

So instead of going as far as saying "of each and every being", I'd rather think of it as "of those respective beings", where "those" is implied to refer to the beings that are in the process of birth.

When we describe the process of rain, and we talk of water-droplets coalescing together around their respective nuclei, we don't mean to imply that all water droplets everywhere in the world are coalescing, although all water-droplets have the ability to do so. The phrase "their respective nuclei" refers only to those water-droplets that are forming rain droplets. In the same way, when the Buddha said "of those respective beings", he was referring to the beings that were being reborn, and not to all beings everywhere.

Thanks,

Balaji

On Tue, Jan 8, 2019 at 12:24 PM Yuttadhammo Bhikkhu yuttadhammo@... [palistudy] <palistudy@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Thanks all, I appreciate the thoughtful discussion.

On Mon, Jan 7, 2019 at 10:34 PM Bryan Levman bryan.levman@... [palistudy] <palistudy@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Dear Bhante,

According to Whitney (section 1260) repeated words "give an intensive, distributive or a repetitional meaning." So, a you have observed, "each and every" would be a good translation to capture this function in English,

Mettā, Bryan

On Monday, January 7, 2019, 9:17:20 PM EST, Balaji balaji.ramasubramanian@... [palistudy] <palistudy@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Dear Ven Yuttadhammo:

Based on your full quotation, I now realize this is coming from DN 22 Mahāsatipaṭṭhānasutta. The Buddha is explaining jāti, jarā, maraṇaṃ etc, the whole list. And yes, this is just a general concept he - not a specific event. We can see this because, in some cases, he uses terms that would otherwise qualify as adjectives to describe.. For example, aging is also the condition of weakness (jīraṇatā), and death is also described as cavanatā (the condition of getting away):

tesaṃ-tesaṃ sattānaṃ ... jāti sañjāti ...
tesaṃ-tesaṃ-sattānaṃ ... jarā jīraṇatā ....
tesaṃ-tesaṃ sattānaṃ ... cuti cavanatā ...

So, he is not explaining birth as an event, but birth as a condition/process: the fact that beings are born. It is like rain. There may be rain occurring in multiple locations on this planet at any given moment, but when we describe the process of rain, and say "when the water droplets in the clouds collect together around their respective nuclei to become heavy and fall down, the process of rain, precipitation, falling of water drops, that occurs, that monks is called rain."

See the pattern? The water-droplets are plural, nuclei are plural, the use of "respective" clause, and yet, there is a singular rain (and not rains). This is to describe a process or a condition or even a phenomenon.

Thanks,
Balaji

On Sun, Jan 6, 2019 at 5:45 PM jimanderson.on@... [palistudy] <palistudy@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Dear Ven. Yuttadhammo,

A careful study of the commentary (which you quote from) along with its subcommentary should help resolve some of the problems of understanding the passage in question.

Two quick notes:

1) At this stage, I can only glance over the commentaries. The "sabbasattānaṃ" comment suggests that "tesaṃ tesaṃ" is to be construed as "sabbesaṃ" and, similarly, "sabbamhi" for the "tamhi tamhi" that follow in the next phrase with "sattanikāye".

2) Also, the comment on the "jāti" at the beginning of a list of 6 terms gives it a much narrower meaning than what one would expect for the "jāti" at the end after "vuccati".

Jim

From: palistudy@yahoogroups.com <palistudy@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: January 5, 2019 1:02 PM
To: palistudy@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [palistudy] Yā tesaṃ tesaṃ sattānaṃ tamhi tamhi sattanikāye jāti

Thanks Jim, I thought of that about the double satta, but that doesn't seem like a strong argument, since Pali seems okay with such doubling in other circumstances, no? I can see how it was a long shot suggesting the connection there though.

jāti in this passage does seem clearly to be referring to birth in the ordinary sense:

yā tesaṃ tesaṃ sattānaṃ tamhi tamhi sattanikāye jāti sañjāti okkanti abhinibbatti khandhānaṃ pātubhāvo āyatanānaṃ paṭilābho, ayaṃ vuccati, bhikkhave, jāti.

The commentary says:

yā tesaṃ tesaṃ sattānanti idaṃ “imesaṃ nāmā”ti niyamābhāvato sabbasattānaṃ pariyādānavacanaṃ.

So the function of tesaṃ tesaṃ sattānaṃ seems clear at least, delineating the boundary as relating to all beings, not just "of these".

This all came from someone trying to argue for a deeper meaning to what they saw as plural births inferred by English translations like "The birth of the various beings". So I'm trying to understand the grammar behind what appears to be birth in the singular.

Is tesaṃ tesaṃ sattānaṃ maybe to be understood as referring to beings individually? Something like "each and every being"? Or is it simply that birth here means the general concept, as opposed to a specific event?

On Sat, Jan 5, 2019, 11:49 AM mailto:jimanderson.on@... [palistudy] <mailto:palistudy@... wrote:

Dear Ven. Yuttadhammo,

I agree with Balaji and Ma Vajira that sattānaṃ should be connected to jāti but I can see a problem with sattānaṃ being in the plural with the English "birth" for "jāti"...... It somehow clashes in also suggesting the birth of multiple beings simultaneously into a group of other beings. I think "production" would work better in this case.