Moderator: Mahavihara moderator
Sylvester wrote:Thank you, Dmytro. This is most useful.
Now to the hard part - what do you think is the nature of the word appatiṭṭha? Should it function as a verb or as an adjective?
Patiṭṭha being the past participle of the intransitive verb patiṭṭhahati would function in an active voice and thus retain its function as a verb in Pali.
This much seems to be the sense conveyed by the past participles patiṭṭhā and virūḷha in SN 12.38, in the passages where cetanā or anusaya are present. Yet, BB's translation of the negation appatiṭṭha in SN 12.39 looks ambiguously like an adjective (unestablished), whilst at the same time, he left the negation avirūḷha in its verb sense. Strangely enough, in his draft of the translation, he translated appatiṭṭha as "not established", thereby retaining the verb sense.
One cannot be sure that BHS usage have not been allowed to creep into the Prakrit Agamas.
If I recall correctly, the Chinese parallels to the Vakkali and Godhika suttas mentioned above put the "non-establishment" as a case of "no rebirth consciousness", thereby excluding the possibility of a consciousness predicated by an "unestablished" adjective.
Yasmiṃ kho pana, bhikkhave, padese cakkaratanaṃ patiṭṭhāti tattha rājā cakkavattī vāsaṃ upeti saddhiṃ caturaṅginiyā senāya.
Seyyathāpi, bhikkhave, apaṇṇako maṇi uddhaṃ khitto yena yeneva patiṭṭhāti suppatiṭṭhitaṃyeva patiṭṭhāti;
Saddho, bhikkhave, bhikkhu na cavati, patiṭṭhāti saddhamme. Hirīmā, bhikkhave, bhikkhu na cavati, patiṭṭhāti saddhamme. Ottappī, bhikkhave, bhikkhu na cavati, patiṭṭhāti saddhamme. Āraddhavīriyo, bhikkhave, bhikkhu na cavati, patiṭṭhāti saddhamme. Paññavā, bhikkhave, bhikkhu na cavati, patiṭṭhāti saddhamme. Imehi kho, bhikkhave, pañcahi dhammehi samannāgato bhikkhu na cavati, patiṭṭhāti saddhamme”ti.
Patiṭṭha being the past participle of the intransitive verb patiṭṭhahati would function in an active voice and thus retain its function as a verb in Pali.
I don't understand how such a thing can happen. Perhaps you would give an example?
Ārammaṇe asati patiṭṭhā viññāṇassa na hoti.
Sylvester wrote:However, could present participles in Pali function as adjectives?
Might it be possible that patiṭṭhā (with the long a) is the feminine noun meaning "establishment"? This seems like the only reading I can give to a conjunction of patiṭṭhā with viññāṇa in the genitive case.
Sylvester wrote:Going by the context set by SN 12.38 and SN 12.39, I think I'll treat the phrase "appatiṭṭhita viññāṇa" in its various cases as simply a negation of the proposition "patiṭṭhā viññāṇassa hoti", ie it would connote "there is no establishment of consciousness". That negation seems the most natural from the context, since "appatiṭṭhita viññāṇa" as a proposition flows from "patiṭṭhā viññāṇassa na hoti ".
Of course, I would not disagree that going just by its grammatical form alone, it probably lends itself just as easily to a reading of "there is an unestablished consciousness" or the more ambigious "consciousness is unestablished". Which of course creates doctrinal problems, if the understanding of the noun patiṭṭhā is as something other than a process connected with rebecoming.
Precision would also require to specify the nature of 'establishment'.
Thus kamma is the field, consciousness the seed, and craving the moisture. The consciousness of living beings hindered by ignorance & fettered by craving is established in/tuned to a lower property. Thus there is the production of renewed becoming in the future.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html
Iti kho ānanda, kammaṃ khettaṃ, viññāṇaṃ bījaṃ, taṇhā sineho. Avijjānīvaraṇānaṃ sattānaṃ taṇhāsaṃyojanānaṃ hīnāya dhātuyā viññāṇaṃ patiṭṭhitaṃ. Evaṃ āyati punabbhavābhinibbatti hoti.
What one intends, what one arranges, and what one obsesses about:[1] This is a support for the stationing of consciousness. There being a support, there is a landing [or: an establishing] of consciousness.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html
Yañca bhikkhave, ceteti yañca pakappeti, yañca anuseti, ārammaṇametaṃ hoti viññāṇassa ṭhitiyā. Ārammaṇe sati patiṭṭhā viññāṇassa hoti.
Sylvester wrote:This sutta suggests that patiṭṭhā is a process of creating the potential for a type of rebecoming in the future. The allowance for both the present event and the future possibility existing in the same proposition is in fact attested to in the special grammatical construction used in "Tasmiṃ patiṭṭhite viññāṇe virūḷhe āyatiṃ punabbhavābhinibbatti hoti." from SN 12.38.
It is this connection to the rebirth potential that causes me to reject the translation of "appatiṭṭhita viññāṇa" as referring to a "consciousness that is unestablished". If such a consciousness exists from the time of the non-establishment all the way to the end of the Arahant's life, we are left with Sati the fisherman's son's belief in some unchanging sub-stratum. I think it therefore makes better sense to treat the term as a reference to the event of non-establishment, rather than as a reference to a special ante-mortem consciousness of the Arahant (or worse, some 'unconditioned' post-mortem consciousness!).
This establishment/patiṭṭhā process looks closely connected to the verb tiṭṭhati which you helpfully pointed out in SN 35.235. I think the only discernible difference I can make out is the fact that patiṭṭhā is a reference to the creation of a future potential, while tiṭṭhati is the present action. Might it be possible to view it sequentially so that "if one tiṭṭhati, then there is patiṭṭhā."?
This split in the respective functions of tiṭṭhati and patiṭṭhāti is in fact explicated by SN 12.38 and SN 12.39 as follows -What one intends, what one arranges, and what one obsesses about:[1] This is a support for the stationing of consciousness. There being a support, there is a landing [or: an establishing] of consciousness.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html
Yañca bhikkhave, ceteti yañca pakappeti, yañca anuseti, ārammaṇametaṃ hoti viññāṇassa ṭhitiyā. Ārammaṇe sati patiṭṭhā viññāṇassa hoti.
Perhaps we could discuss further in a separate thread.
Sylvester wrote:Reading patiṭṭhā as a footing, instead of the process of establishment in rebirth, is also a fair interpretation that avoids the Sati problem. There might be some quibble, though, on what this would mean in relation to an Arahant's consciousness' footing not existing (patiṭṭhā viññāṇassa na hoti).
I just think that SN 12.39 might be a better candidate for this interpretation, rather than SN 12.38, as SN 12.39 does not address rebecoming, but the descent of nāmarūpa. Somehow, I try to avoid a same-life model of multiple punabbhava, and allow nāmarūpa to take on the role in both rebirth and multiple cognitive contacts.
Registered users: Bing [Bot], Crazy cloud, David N. Snyder, Google [Bot], Helyron, K.Dhamma, Kamran, khlawng, Lazy_eye, Modus.Ponens, MSNbot Media, purple planet, Sam Vara, Zenainder