Āditta: all is burning

[Sam Vara]

Can someone please explain this one to me?

When, in The Fire Sermon, SN 35.28, the Buddha says that "All is burning", he uses the term āditta. That's translated as burning, blazing, or red hot. This is, apparently, the pp of ādippati. This seems to be the verb dippati with the prefix ā, and dippati certainly means "blazes", but apparently can also mean "shines", "manifests" or "appears clearly"

So how do we know that the Buddha meant "ablaze", etc. rather than "All is shiny" (I love it! ) or (more seriously) "all manifests" or "all appears clearly".

Is the verb and past participle restricted to "burning" by the prefix ā? Or is it merely contextual? Given that it appears in the SN in a section related to "All", and was supposedly the third discourse taught by the Buddha, what is that context?

(Please note that I'm only trying to sort out the Pali in my own mind here, and not trying to sell some daft new interpretation!)

[ToVincent]

ādīp (ā-√ dīp) means: to cause to blaze , kindle , set on fire , illuminate (towards the speaker (ā)).

Never meant "all manifests" or "all appears clearly".

E. g. the eye (+ form) is set on fire with rāga, dosa, moha. (SN 35.28)
Maybe it is implied that the eye (+form) is "illuminated" by the light of Mara (Mara vas), in these particular cases.
Aren't the French saying "he is an illuminated", when they mean that a person is a sociopath?

It would be pretty daft indeed, to believe that Buddha could have meant that things (e. g. eye & form) appear "clearly" with the light of Mara?!?!?!?!?!?

Note:

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
THE ALL SN 35.23
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

The All is the eye and forms, the ear and sounds, the nose and odours, the tongue and tastes, the body and tactile objects, the mind and mental phenomena.


.
.

[Assaji]

Hi,

Is the verb and past participle restricted to "burning" by the prefix ā?

Indeed:

https://cpd.uni-koeln.de/search?article_id=12254

[Sam Vara]

Hi,

Is the verb and past participle restricted to "burning" by the prefix ā?

Indeed:

https://cpd.uni-koeln.de/search?article_id=12254

Ah, that's what I was looking for! Many thanks, Assaji.

[Coëmgenu]

Can someone please explain this one to me?

When, in The Fire Sermon, SN 35.28, the Buddha says that "All is burning", he uses the term āditta. That's translated as burning, blazing, or red hot. This is, apparently, the pp of ādippati. This seems to be the verb dippati with the prefix ā, and dippati certainly means "blazes", but apparently can also mean "shines", "manifests" or "appears clearly"

The historical Buddha speaking in the non-Sanskritized and Sanskritized Prākrits alike of the early Buddhist texts loves puns, not because they give him a frivolous sense of amusement, but because they are instructional. Rupa is rupa both because it "appears" and because it is "deformed." Folk etymologies abound in the Buddha's teaching not because he is a deficient etymomogist, but because he uses language very skillfully to draw out latent associations. I don't know if "it appears" is meant as a secondary meaning, "sabbaṃ, bhikkhave, ādittaṃ," but I also wouldn't be surprised.

[Sam Vara]

Can someone please explain this one to me?

When, in The Fire Sermon, SN 35.28, the Buddha says that "All is burning", he uses the term āditta. That's translated as burning, blazing, or red hot. This is, apparently, the pp of ādippati. This seems to be the verb dippati with the prefix ā, and dippati certainly means "blazes", but apparently can also mean "shines", "manifests" or "appears clearly"

The historical Buddha speaking in the non-Sanskritized and Sanskritized Prākrits alike of the early Buddhist texts loves puns, not because they give him a frivolous sense of amusement, but because they are instructional. Rupa is rupa both because it "appears" and because it is "deformed." Folk etymologies abound in the Buddha's teaching not because he is a deficient etymomogist, but because he uses language very skillfully to draw out latent associations. I don't know if "it appears" is meant as a secondary meaning, "sabbaṃ, bhikkhave, ādittaṃ," but I also wouldn't be surprised.

Many thanks, Coëmgenu, that's an interesting thought. I was aware of the "Ruppatīti kho, bhikkhave, tasmā ‘rūpan’ti vuccati." pun from SN 22.79, and it now occurs to me that one who uses puns as the Buddha apparently did captures the understanding of his audience, but risks being misunderstood by future audiences who can't pick up on the nuances. The possible secondary meaning is certainly very plausible, and my mind remains open on this one.

[ToVincent]

... he (Buddha) uses language very skillfully to draw out latent associations. I don't know if "it appears" is meant as a secondary meaning, "sabbaṃ, bhikkhave, ādittaṃ," but I also wouldn't be surprised.

This is ludicrous for two simple reasons:

1. Buddha uses puns, when there are two or more meanings for a word.
There is no additional meaning as "manifest", or" make clear", for the root dīp in the Indian litterature* at the time of Buddha.
However, if Buddha had wanted to make a pun, he would have used the root kāś instead.

*Meaning of :
- "kindling" in RV. and KaushBrUp.

- both "setting on fire" and "illuminating" in BṛĀrUp.
"When the organ of speech got rid of death, it became fire. That fire, having transcended death, illuminates beyond its reach."
BṛĀrUp 1.3.12

- And, if it had to be the "burning light" (jyotirdīpyate):
"... the light of Brahman that illuminates above this heaven, above everything, above all, in the incomparably good and the highest worlds, even this is the light within the body of man.
ChUp 3.13.7
I hardly see how this could be related to our sutta.

2. The context of the sutta: It only applies to raga, dosa, moha - which definitely are Mara's features.

So all this mix-up, is just a crusading un-buddhist wishful thinking to me.
The "light of Mara" ("Mara vas") might be encompassed (impled) somewhere in Buddha's Teaching — but it is definitely something to get rid of; as raga, dosa, moha.— and certainly doesn't "reveal" anything interesting, as far as Buddhism is concerned.
.
.

[Coëmgenu]

... he (Buddha) uses language very skillfully to draw out latent associations. I don't know if "it appears" is meant as a secondary meaning, "sabbaṃ, bhikkhave, ādittaṃ," but I also wouldn't be surprised.

This is ludicrous for two simple reasons:

1. Buddha uses puns, when there are two or more meanings for a word.
There is no additional meaning as "manifest", or" make clear", for the root dīp in the Indian litterature* at the time of Buddha.

AN 2.49 uses dippanti very oddly, seemingly as to elucidate or to make clear, likely related to this "shining" sense.

[Sam Vara]

... he (Buddha) uses language very skillfully to draw out latent associations. I don't know if "it appears" is meant as a secondary meaning, "sabbaṃ, bhikkhave, ādittaṃ," but I also wouldn't be surprised.

This is ludicrous for two simple reasons:

1. Buddha uses puns, when there are two or more meanings for a word.
There is no additional meaning as "manifest", or" make clear", for the root dīp in the Indian litterature* at the time of Buddha.

AN 2.49 uses dippanti very oddly, seemingly as to elucidate or to make clear, likely related to this "shining" sense.

Yes, that is interesting. This gets deeper...

[ToVincent]

AN 2.49 uses dippanti very oddly, seemingly as to elucidate or to make clear, likely related to this "shining" sense.

AN 2.49 (Parisa 8) does mention dippanti - (Bikkhu Bodhi translates it as "explained"). But the parallel seems more about assemblies (parṣad) making the Dhamma and Vinaya "glorious" and "resplendent" — or not.


Anyway, what point are you trying to make ?
AGAIN, isn't the sutta in question (SN 35.28,) about Mara's features?
What are you pushing here? - That raga, dosa, moha are "explaining" something.
"That the All is explained" by lust, for instance. Or even better — along with Sam Vara's interpretation — that the "All is shiny" (he loves it,) with raga, dosa, moha. That it (the All) "appears clearly" with raga, dosa, moha !?!?!

I thought that the establishment of citta, was what makes things "appear clearly".

"This gets deeper" into Mara's land, I presume.
.
.

[Sam Vara]

Or even better — along with Sam Vara's interpretation — that the "All is shiny" (he loves it,) with raga, dosa, moha.

I suppose at this point I ought to point out for those unable to appreciate the nuance that what I loved about that was its surreal incongruity.

That it (the All) "appears clearly" with raga, dosa, moha !?!?!

Obviously, the meaning is "on fire", "aflame", etc., but if there is a pun on "appears clearly" - that greed, hatred and bewilderment appear clearly, or shine up, then I'm fine with that too.

"This gets deeper" into Mara's land, I presume.

That sounds dramatic! I was thinking more along the lines of deeper levels of meaning. This is the Pali section, after all.

[ToVincent]

I suppose at this point I ought to point out for those unable to appreciate the nuance that, what I loved about that was its surreal incongruity.

Sure — no ambiguity applies — It goes without saying.

1. .... but if there is a pun on "appears clearly"
--------
2. I was thinking more along the lines of deeper levels of meaning.

1. There is no pun.
2. We might wonder about the soundness of any translation that might abide in that sense.
.
.

[Sam Vara]

I suppose at this point I ought to point out for those unable to appreciate the nuance that, what I loved about that was its surreal incongruity.

Sure — no ambiguity applies — It goes without saying.

1. .... but if there is a pun on "appears clearly"
--------
2. I was thinking more along the lines of deeper levels of meaning.

1. There is no pun.
2. We might wonder about the soundness of any translation that might abide in that sense.
.
.

I was merely asking about āditta. I know this means "ablaze, burning, on fire, etc" because that's the only translation the PED gives me. It also tells me it is the pp of ādippati. Again, this means "blazing, red hot, etc."

The Digital Pali Reader breaks this term into the prefix ā and the verb dippati. Which has the multiple meanings, some of them at odds with my understanding of what is meant in the Fire Sermon. So I was asking whether the prefix ā was the feature which gave it the exclusive sense of "burning, etc", or if not, what other factor there was. In the absence of any other factor, I'm quite happy to consider that the term was chosen so as to invoke a pun; until such time as I am given a good reason to drop that consideration.

[ToVincent]

So I was asking whether the prefix ā was the feature which gave it the exclusive sense of "burning, etc", or if not, what other factor there was. In the absence of any other factor, I'm quite happy to consider that the term was chosen so as to invoke a pun; until such time as I am given a good reason to drop that consideration.

As already mentioned, ā is a reflexive prefix that means "towards the speaker".
In other words "the burning is coming towards oneself".

No pun.
.
.

[Sam Vara]

So I was asking whether the prefix ā was the feature which gave it the exclusive sense of "burning, etc", or if not, what other factor there was. In the absence of any other factor, I'm quite happy to consider that the term was chosen so as to invoke a pun; until such time as I am given a good reason to drop that consideration.

As already mentioned, ā is a reflexive prefix that means "towards the speaker".
In other words "the burning is coming towards oneself".

No pun.
.
.

Yes, that's what I understand ā to mean. Does it also have the additional function of eliminating those additional meanings of "shines", "manifests" or "appears clearly" which dippati (according to the PED) carries? Because if it doesn't, it could also mean "shines towards the speaker...", "manifests towards the speaker", or "appears clearly towards the speaker", in the absence of some (as yet undisclosed) other reason for eliminating those meanings. And if those alternative meanings are not eliminated, there is the possibility of a pun being intended.