Translating "satipaṭṭhānānaṁ" in dative case ???

Explore the ancient language of the Tipitaka and Theravāda commentaries
User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 11380
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Translating "satipaṭṭhānānaṁ" in dative case ???

Post by DooDoot »

Dear Pali gurus

Can the following sentence be translated in dative case (instead of genitive case)?
Catunnaṁ, bhikkhave, satipaṭṭhānānaṁ [dative or genitive] samudayañca atthaṅgamañca desessāmi.

https://suttacentral.net/sn47.42/pli/ms
If so, what would the translation be?

Thank you :thanks:
There is always an official executioner. If you try to take his place, It is like trying to be a master carpenter and cutting wood. If you try to cut wood like a master carpenter, you will only hurt your hand.

https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/paticcasamuppada
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/anapanasati
User avatar
Sam Vara
Posts: 8478
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Sussex, U.K.

Re: Translating "satipaṭṭhānānaṁ" in dative case ???

Post by Sam Vara »

DooDoot wrote: Sun Jun 13, 2021 1:24 pm Dear Pali gurus

Can the following sentence be translated in dative case (instead of genitive case)?
Catunnaṁ, bhikkhave, satipaṭṭhānānaṁ [dative or genitive] samudayañca atthaṅgamañca desessāmi.

https://suttacentral.net/sn47.42/pli/ms
If so, what would the translation be?

Thank you :thanks:
I don't think so, in that the teaching is of the origin and the disappearance of the four satipatthānas. That's the genitive, and the dative ("to, or for the sake or purpose of the satipatthānas...") would not make sense and would leave samudaya and atthangama without a referent.
Pulsar
Posts: 1320
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2019 6:52 pm

Re: Translating "satipaṭṭhānānaṁ" in dative case ???

Post by Pulsar »

Sam Vara wrote
I don't think so, in that the teaching is of the origin and the disappearance of the four satipatthānas.
Thanks Sam, now I feel a whole lot better.
Point of Samma sati is to wipe out the 4 main domains where the mind or consciousness tends to dwell, only SN 47.42 makes this crystal clear. The fraudulent Satipatthana suttas by overthinking, and overanalyzing, makes a mess of a major teaching. So folks think there is no connection between Samma Sati and Samma samadhi.
Don't you think Samma sati is a direct conduit to Samma Samadhi?
So much for the conclusion of the narrative. Our Dear friend DooDoot is trying to prove that Dhammas in Satipatthans (4th) is Dhamma principles like the 7 bojjhangas and not mere objects of mind where craving mind creates homes.
Has not the Buddha said "destroy the places where mind or consciousness dwells?" What was that verse in the Dhammapada, that describes how Buddha greeted a
  • Householder
upon his awakening? "O house builder!"... I forget the rest.
Thank you Sam for saving this day. Dearest DooDoot are you convinced now?? that the compilers did not make an error in formulating the 4th satipatthana in SN 47.42.
With love to both of you. :candle:
User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 11380
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: Translating "satipaṭṭhānānaṁ" in dative case ???

Post by DooDoot »

Sam Vara wrote: Sun Jun 13, 2021 2:33 pm would leave samudaya and atthangama without a referent.
I thought so. There needs to be a verb involved, i think. Thanks :thanks:
There is always an official executioner. If you try to take his place, It is like trying to be a master carpenter and cutting wood. If you try to cut wood like a master carpenter, you will only hurt your hand.

https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/paticcasamuppada
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/anapanasati
User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 11380
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: Translating "satipaṭṭhānānaṁ" in dative case ???

Post by DooDoot »

Pulsar wrote: Sun Jun 13, 2021 7:07 pm Our Dear friend DooDoot is trying to prove that Dhammas in Satipatthans (4th) is Dhamma principles like the 7 bojjhangas and not mere objects of mind where craving mind creates homes.
The subforum is about Pali and appears not for doctrinal debate, unless the doctrinal debate is directly related to understanding the Pali. Both Bhikkhu Bodhi & particularly Sujato have said Dhamma here can be or actually is "Dhamma Principles".

Only an individual with a lack of discipline & a lack of respect for the rigorous teachings of the Buddha would ignore the view of Dhamma Principles because the Buddha used words precisely.

:focus:
There is always an official executioner. If you try to take his place, It is like trying to be a master carpenter and cutting wood. If you try to cut wood like a master carpenter, you will only hurt your hand.

https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/paticcasamuppada
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/anapanasati
Pulsar
Posts: 1320
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2019 6:52 pm

Re: Translating "satipaṭṭhānānaṁ" in dative case ???

Post by Pulsar »

DooDoot wrote 
The subforum is about Pali and appears not for doctrinal debate, unless the doctrinal debate is directly related to understanding the Pali.
 The point I raised is very much a doctrinal issue, related to the understanding of Pali.
  • interpretation of 4th satipatthana.
You are incorrectly interpreting it. You wrote 
Both Bhikkhu Bodhi & particularly Sujato have said Dhamma here can be or actually is "Dhamma Principles"
Admittedly Sujatho uses the word principles, (what does he mean by principles?) 
Bodhi does not use the word principles, he uses phenomena.
Seemingly Sujatho and Bodhi used two different words to translate the same Pali word
Maybe they appear as synonyms, to these experienced translators.
Copying and pasting Bodhi's translation. 
“With the origination of attention there is the origination of phenomena. With the cessation of attention there is the passing away of phenomena.”
Does he say principles?
Phenomena is elsewhere translated as mind's objects.
And here is the last laugh....In the Wikipitaka's translation of Samudaya sutta SN 47.42, the 4th satipatthana is translated as 
"From the origination of awareness/attention is the origination of (sinful)mental qualities. (2) From the cessation of worldly awareness/attention (using insight meditation) is the subsiding of (sinful)mental qualities."
 From sinful mental qualities to your "awakening factors" or Dhamma Principles is quite a stretch. Aint it?https://tipitaka.fandom.com/wiki/SN_47. ... daya_Sutta

What point is there in getting the Pali right, and the doctrine wrong?
When this debate first began (in Retro's thread on Abhidhamma) you wrote regarding the translation of Satipatthana, Thanissaro's translation is wrong and nonsensical. 
Is DooDoot the Pali guru surpassing Thanissaro?
  • The way you translate the 4th satipatthana of  SN 47.42 is wrong and nonsensical.
I have great respect for Thanissaro.
You have conveniently ignored Sam Vera's correction of your nonsensical reading.  He wrote
that this teaching is of the origin and the disappearance of the four satipatthānas
In spite of the squabble between you and I, we are making progress. 
Let us follow the progress of your understanding. 
You wrote on June 13/21 on the original thread, blaming me and Retro.
SN 47.42 is a nonsense sutta. Reviewing it again, it makes no sense at all.
Later you opened a thread on DW regarding SN 47.42 and wrote 
Parts 1 to 3 of SN 47.42, appear to conform with the Dhamma, namely, they refer to the arising & ceasing of the unwholesome.
  • Are you implying part 4 of SN 47. 42 Samudaya sutta is Adhamma?
Who is slandering Buddha now? There are plenty of suttas to which Abhidhammikas have given their own spin. "Samudaya" is not one of them.

We made some progress, however now you accept 3/4ths of the Sutta to be true.
Thanks for the fun insults to Pulsar, such as 
Only an individual with a lack of discipline & a lack of respect for the rigorous teachings of the Buddha
 
I enjoy them as much as i enjoyed "Chirping bird"
With love  :candle:
PS if you think this is not the right place to post this comment, I can move it to Retro's thread where you first called SN 47.42 a nonsensical sutta.
User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 11380
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: Translating "satipaṭṭhānānaṁ" in dative case ???

Post by DooDoot »

Pulsar wrote: Mon Jun 14, 2021 10:11 pm Admittedly Sujatho uses the word principles, (what does he mean by principles?) 
Bodhi does not use the word principles, he uses phenomena.
Bodhi said in his footnote it could mean "principles", such as the Seven Factors Of Enlightenment
Pulsar wrote: Mon Jun 14, 2021 10:11 pmPhenomena is elsewhere translated as mind's objects.
The word "attention" is never used for mere "mind objects".
Pulsar wrote: Mon Jun 14, 2021 10:11 pmAnd here is the last laugh....In the Wikipitaka's translation of Samudaya sutta SN 47.42, the 4th satipatthana is translated as 
"From the origination of awareness/attention is the origination of (sinful)mental qualities. (2) From the cessation of worldly awareness/attention (using insight meditation) is the subsiding of (sinful)mental qualities."
 From sinful mental qualities to your "awakening factors" or Dhamma Principles is quite a stretch. Aint it?https://tipitaka.fandom.com/wiki/SN_47. ... daya_Sutta
I already considered "dhamma" can only mean "sinful qualities". I posted:
Doot wrote:The words must retrain the same meaning in SN 47.42; thus SN 47.42 says:

1. Dhamma, which is unwholesome, arises with unwholesome attention

2. Dhamma, which is unwholesome, ceases with wholesome attention.

I cannot recall the above has any precedent in the suttas in respect to Satipatthana. However, it certainly accords somewhat with SN 22.5 (but SN 22.5 is not explicitly about Satipattana).

viewtopic.php?p=628123#p628123
:alien:
Pulsar wrote: Mon Jun 14, 2021 10:11 pmIs DooDoot the Pali guru surpassing Thanissaro?
Generally DooDoot surpasses Thanissaro. :mrgreen: In fact, I suspect Thanissaro wrote his "Shape of Suffering" book based on my old internet posts; therefore I suspect Thanissaro might possibly be my disciple or student. :shock: :bow:
Pulsar wrote: Mon Jun 14, 2021 10:11 pmI have great respect for Thanissaro.
Too bad.
Pulsar wrote: Mon Jun 14, 2021 10:11 pm Later you opened a thread on DW regarding SN 47.42 and wrote 
Parts 1 to 3 of SN 47.42, appear to conform with the Dhamma, namely, they refer to the arising & ceasing of the unwholesome.
Correct.
Pulsar wrote: Mon Jun 14, 2021 10:11 pmAre you implying part 4 of SN 47. 42 Samudaya sutta is Adhamma?
Indeed. This said, I already posted many times "principles" appears wrong because the word "samudaya" is generally not used for the arising of wholesome states. This is what this topic was about: What is the meaning of "dhamma" in SN 47.42 ???. :roll:

If part 4 of SN 47. 42 is not adhamma; then the introduction to SN 47.42 must be adhamma; because the introduction is saying the "arising" of Satipatthana" is unwholesome. :idea: :|
Pulsar wrote: Mon Jun 14, 2021 10:11 pmWho is slandering Buddha now?
There is no evidence the Buddha spoke SN 47.42 because it appears to use words inconsistently.
Pulsar wrote: Mon Jun 14, 2021 10:11 pmThere are plenty of suttas to which Abhidhammikas have given their own spin. "Samudaya" is not one of them.
Irrelevant.
Pulsar wrote: Mon Jun 14, 2021 10:11 pmI enjoy them as much as i enjoyed "Chirping bird" .... nonsensical sutta.
Yes, Chirping Bird, it appears nonsensical. The idea of the samudaya & nirodha of satipatthana appears utterly nonsensical. :smile:

:focus:
There is always an official executioner. If you try to take his place, It is like trying to be a master carpenter and cutting wood. If you try to cut wood like a master carpenter, you will only hurt your hand.

https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/paticcasamuppada
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/anapanasati
User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 11380
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: Translating "satipaṭṭhānānaṁ" in dative case ???

Post by DooDoot »

Pulsar wrote: Sun Jun 13, 2021 7:07 pm Sam Vara wrote
I don't think so, in that the teaching is of the origin and the disappearance of the four satipatthānas.
Thanks Sam, now I feel a whole lot better.
It appears Sam Vara did not confirm or support anything you wrote.
Pulsar wrote: Sun Jun 13, 2021 7:07 pmPoint of Samma sati is to wipe out the 4 main domains where the mind or consciousness tends to dwell
The above appears incorrect. A Buddha continues to abide in Satipatthana.
Pulsar wrote: Sun Jun 13, 2021 7:07 pmonly SN 47.42 makes this crystal clear.
But Thanissaro never said the above. Thanissaro only said the 4th satipatthana is about ending "unskilful qualities", as follows:
Thanissaro wrote:Mental qualities = dhammas. SN 46.51 discusses the ways in which inappropriate attention feeds such unskillful mental qualities as the hindrances, whereas appropriate attention feeds such skillful mental qualities as the factors for awakening.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... html#fnt-2
:alien:
Pulsar wrote: Sun Jun 13, 2021 7:07 pmThe fraudulent Satipatthana suttas by overthinking, and overanalyzing, makes a mess of a major teaching.
SN 47.42 is a similar mess, which is why Thanissaro had to change the definition of Satipatthana to make his interpretation, which I have equally done (elsewhere), when I described this interpretation as "childlike":
Thanissaro wrote:This discourse is unusual in that it identifies the word satipatthana, not with the standard formula of the process of establishing mindfulness, but with the objects that form the frame of reference for that process. For example, instead of identifying the first satipatthana as, "There is the case where a monk remains focused on the body in & of itself — ardent, alert, & mindful — subduing greed & distress with reference to the world," it identifies it simply as "body

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... html#fnt-1
Thanissaro himself (the same as DooDoot but unlike Retrofuturist & Pulsar) has acknowledged this sutta in inconsistent.
Pulsar wrote: Sun Jun 13, 2021 7:07 pm Dearest DooDoot are you convinced now?? that the compilers did not make an error in formulating the 4th satipatthana in SN 47.42.
Imo, the compilers made an error. Thanissaro's own footnotes support this. :smile:
There is always an official executioner. If you try to take his place, It is like trying to be a master carpenter and cutting wood. If you try to cut wood like a master carpenter, you will only hurt your hand.

https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/paticcasamuppada
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/anapanasati
Pulsar
Posts: 1320
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2019 6:52 pm

Re: Translating "satipaṭṭhānānaṁ" in dative case ???

Post by Pulsar »

DooDoot wrote
Yes, Chirping Bird, it appears nonsensical. The idea of the samudaya & nirodha of satipatthana appears utterly nonsensical.
Will I ever through to you? Guess I will make a separate entry on my Jhana thread regarding the sutta on origination SN 47.42, but these things are so time consuming.
What is the issue you have with Samudaya and Nirodha? Comprehension???
Isn't ending of origination the solution to suffering? When origination is ended what you have is Nirodha.
Don't get stuck on words,
think through them
DooDoot wrote
Imo, the compilers made an error. Thanissaro's own footnotes support this
Thanissaro's footnote only says it is an unusual sutta (in fact I am so impressed with him, he is the only scholar monk who noticed how unique this sutta was, with good reason?
Is he not brilliant?
What Venerable Thanissaro says is the sutta's explanation does not fit with the standard formula of the process of establishment of mindfulness.
What does that mean to you? To me it meant the standard formula has something terribly wrong with it.
Then I read the two major Satipattana suttas were frauds concocted by abhidhammikas at the 3rd council.
I mean think of the content of those suttas, Meditating on dead bodies? can that takes care of first satipatthana.
first satiapathana is about using the body as a tool of meditation.
What is the smartest way to do it? First think how the body came to be?
How did your body come to be?
How will you answer My Dearest DooDoot?
Go through the canon like a detective.
It has been worked over and over again by the abhidhammikas, incorporating their thoughts.
Believe only the suttas that do not have the fingerprints of Abhidhammikas.
the endless dispute on these threads is because folks use abhidhamma influenced suttas to fight Buddha's
suttas untouched by abhidhammikas. Never mind, I should write this stuff on the other thread.

Let us get back to Satipatthana
How do these two main Satipatthana suttas help you terminate dependent origination? Pl. tell me DooDoot.
Sutta on Samudaya SN 47.42 helps that cause in the snap of a finger... the only issue is, once you understand, it is 24/7 undertaking.
No one wants to do that. Everyone wants to find housing for their pesky consciousness. Everyone
wants to originate, everyone wants to proliferate. As long as origination continues, and mental proliferation continues, samsara continues.
Good night, night is falling here.
Chirping bird AKA Pulsar on DW AKA Bird of Paradise on Sutta Central
Last edited by Pulsar on Tue Jun 15, 2021 12:44 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 11380
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: Translating "satipaṭṭhānānaṁ" in dative case ???

Post by DooDoot »

Pulsar wrote: Tue Jun 15, 2021 12:16 amIsn't ending of origination the solution to suffering?
Yes. But generally the suttas only say unwholesome things "originate". Satipatthana is not an unwholesome thing.
Pulsar wrote: Tue Jun 15, 2021 12:16 amDon't get stuck on words, think through them....
Your master Thanissaro himself said, similar to my good self: :smile:
Thanissaro wrote:This discourse is unusual in that it identifies the word satipatthana, not with the standard formula of the process of establishing mindfulness, but with the objects that form the frame of reference for that process. For example, instead of identifying the first satipatthana as, "There is the case where a monk remains focused on the body in & of itself — ardent, alert, & mindful — subduing greed & distress with reference to the world," it identifies it simply as "body

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... html#fnt-1
My query is warranted. Retrofuturist's interpretation of this sutta appears unsubstantiated.
Last edited by DooDoot on Tue Jun 15, 2021 12:36 am, edited 1 time in total.
There is always an official executioner. If you try to take his place, It is like trying to be a master carpenter and cutting wood. If you try to cut wood like a master carpenter, you will only hurt your hand.

https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/paticcasamuppada
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/anapanasati
User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 4587
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:55 pm
Location: Whitby, Canada

Re: Translating "satipaṭṭhānānaṁ" in dative case ???

Post by Coëmgenu »

Reading satipaṭṭhānānaṁ as in the dative is a horrendous grammatical distortion that destroys the meaning of the Pāli sentence.
It is because the valleys are empty that they echo. It is because the mirror is empty that it reflects. It is because the flute is empty that it affects sound. It is because the ears are empty that they can listen. It is because the eyes are empty that they can see. It is because the nose is empty that it can smell.

If these were of substance inside, then there would be obstruction in these.

(from the writings of Master Liè, Daoist text, ~370AD)
User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 11380
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: Translating "satipaṭṭhānānaṁ" in dative case ???

Post by DooDoot »

Coëmgenu wrote: Tue Jun 15, 2021 12:27 am Reading satipaṭṭhānānaṁ as in the dative is a horrendous grammatical distortion that destroys the meaning of the Pāli sentence.
Sure. We agreed on this.
There is always an official executioner. If you try to take his place, It is like trying to be a master carpenter and cutting wood. If you try to cut wood like a master carpenter, you will only hurt your hand.

https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/paticcasamuppada
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/anapanasati
User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 4587
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:55 pm
Location: Whitby, Canada

Re: Translating "satipaṭṭhānānaṁ" in dative case ???

Post by Coëmgenu »

The pericope "samudayañca atthaṅgamañca desessāmi" is preceded by a genitive, not a dative. Because the plural forms of the genitive and dative are identical, one needs to look for "samudayaṁ" etc. corresponding to something in the singular.

dukkhassa samudayañca atthaṅgamañca desessāmi

This construction has a genitive.
It is because the valleys are empty that they echo. It is because the mirror is empty that it reflects. It is because the flute is empty that it affects sound. It is because the ears are empty that they can listen. It is because the eyes are empty that they can see. It is because the nose is empty that it can smell.

If these were of substance inside, then there would be obstruction in these.

(from the writings of Master Liè, Daoist text, ~370AD)
User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 11380
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: Translating "satipaṭṭhānānaṁ" in dative case ???

Post by DooDoot »

Coëmgenu wrote: Tue Jun 15, 2021 12:32 am The pericope "samudayañca atthaṅgamañca desessāmi" is preceded by a genitive, not a dative. Because the plural forms of the genitive and dative are identical, you need to look for "samudayam" etc. corresponding to something in the singular.

dukkhassa samudayañca atthaṅgamañca desessāmi

This construction has a genitive.
Sure. we already agreed on this. :thanks:
There is always an official executioner. If you try to take his place, It is like trying to be a master carpenter and cutting wood. If you try to cut wood like a master carpenter, you will only hurt your hand.

https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/paticcasamuppada
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/anapanasati
User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 4587
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:55 pm
Location: Whitby, Canada

Re: Translating "satipaṭṭhānānaṁ" in dative case ???

Post by Coëmgenu »

To give an idea of what it is like to use the wrong declension, we can use English pseudo-declensions. We say:

I go to the store.

"To the" is an English pseudo-dative. Imagine if someone said:

I go of the store.

That is the sentence with a genitive. We understand what it means, but it is not grammatical, and we'd have to assume that the person speaking it was not fluent in English. A better example is this, where neither is broken, but the meaning is lost when we change the declension.

I spoke to the man.

I spoke of the man.

There can't be an "origination to" something in this usage. Just like in English, to have "to" here instead of "of" makes the sentence's grammar broken.
It is because the valleys are empty that they echo. It is because the mirror is empty that it reflects. It is because the flute is empty that it affects sound. It is because the ears are empty that they can listen. It is because the eyes are empty that they can see. It is because the nose is empty that it can smell.

If these were of substance inside, then there would be obstruction in these.

(from the writings of Master Liè, Daoist text, ~370AD)
Post Reply