Dhamma Wheel Buddhist Forum

I just don't get it. What is the point of this discussion? Is there some benefit in it, and if so, for who?

Hi Catmoon,

catmoon wrote:I just don't get it. What is the point of this discussion? Is there some benefit in it, and if so, for who?

What the passage means is quite important in practical terms. Some interpret it to mean that jhana is required to carry out the satipatthana practises. As we have seen, the Commentary does not appear to support that assertion.

A more general answer is that the "Classical Theravada" area is a place to discuss the meaning of the Canon, from the point of view that Vinaya, Sutta, Abhidhamma, and Commentary are authoritative. That may not interest everyone...

Metta
Mike

Hi Phil,

phil wrote:Well, I'm still curious about the tense that is usuall translated as "having put aside", which if my very rudimentary knowledge of Pali is correct would be something with a "-tva" in it.
Sayadaw U Silananda says that though that is usually translated as "having put aside" and while there is grammatical reason to do so, it is not correct in his opinion to translate it that way. But I still wonder how we can do that, just ignore the grammatical form used in the original Pali...

I agree with the sayadaw's translation and don't think that he is ignoring the grammatical form. In a sentence that comprises an absolutive like vineyya or vinayitvaa followed by a finite verb, there are several possibilities as to how the actions denoted by the two verbs might be temporally related. Pali primers naturally focus on the commonest one: "Having done this, he then did that." But the next most common construction is one in which the absolutive refers to some ongoing action that is simultaneous with the action of the finite verb. For example, "she walks holding a parasol" would be expressed in Pali as "saa chatta.m gahetvaa gacchati", literally, "she, having held a parasol, walks."

Best wishes,
Dhammanando

mikenz66 wrote:Hi Catmoon,

catmoon wrote:I just don't get it. What is the point of this discussion? Is there some benefit in it, and if so, for who?

What the passage means is quite important in practical terms. Some interpret it to mean that jhana is required to carry out the satipatthana practises. As we have seen, the Commentary does not appear to support that assertion.

A more general answer is that the "Classical Theravada" area is a place to discuss the meaning of the Canon, from the point of view that Vinaya, Sutta, Abhidhamma, and Commentary are authoritative. That may not interest everyone...

Metta
Mike

Ahhh. And it seems quite an academic approach is being used. I think I see the problem - it's all a little over my head!

Apologies.

Dhammanando wrote:

phil wrote:I agree with the sayadaw's translation and don't think that he is ignoring the grammatical form. In a sentence that comprises an absolutive like vineyya or vinayitvaa followed by a finite verb, there are several possibilities as to how the actions denoted by the two verbs might be temporally related. Pali primers naturally focus on the commonest one: "Having done this, he then did that." But the next most common construction is one in which the absolutive refers to some ongoing action that is simultaneous with the action of the finite verb. For example, "she walks holding a parasol" would be expressed in Pali as "saa chatta.m gahetvaa gacchati", literally, "she, having held a parasol, walks."

Best wishes,
Dhammanando

Finally! An explanation of the Pali absolutive that makes sense to me.

Many thanks, Bhante.

With metta,
Sherubtse