Moderator: Mahavihara moderator
Strictly speaking, kāyānupassī does not actually mean "contemplating the body," but a "body-contemplator." Thus a very literal translation of the phrase would be: "He dwells as a body-contemplator in relation to the body." Since such a rendering would sound awkward in English, I fall back on teh familiar "contemplating the body in the body." Similar considerations apply to the other three satipaṭṭhānas.
Strictly speaking, kāyānupassī does not actually mean "contemplating the body," but a "body-contemplator." Thus a very literal translation of the phrase would be: "He dwells as a body-contemplator in relation to the body." Since such a rendering would sound awkward in English, I fall back on teh familiar "contemplating the body in the body."
Sylvester wrote:Could I trouble you explain the derivation of anupassanasīlo from anupassana? CPD simply parsed it as an adjective meaning "being in the habit of viewing, considering". Pali morphology was not something I invested enough time on, sadly.
Yes, I would agree that morphologically, this is explained as a present participle. I think the tricky bit here is whether this present participle is -
1. functioning as a verb per se (as is typically translated); or
2. functioning as an adjective (as suggested by BB).
Warder suggests that present participles too can function as "adjectives" and "qualify" nouns (p 47) but he encases the 2 words in quotation marks, suggesting that the function is adjectival-like or perhaps pseudo-adjectives.
Dmytro wrote:anupassana + sīla
Dmytro wrote:Why is the word "body" used twice in the phrase: "Contemplating the body in the body?"
Dmytro wrote:My good friend from Russia provided me with an early definition from Vibhanga:
357. Anupassīti. Tattha katamā anupassanā? Yā paññā pajānanā…pe… amoho dhammavicayo sammādiṭṭhi – ayaṃ vuccati ‘‘anupassanā’’. Imāya anupassanāya upeto hoti samupeto upāgato samupāgato upapanno sampanno samannāgato. Tena vuccati ‘‘anupassī’’ti.
samudayadhammānupassī vā kāyasmiṃ viharati
he dwells as a contemplator of the arising of dhamma with reference to the body
Sylvester wrote:If the locative were rendered as a literal spatial locative, it might be a bit more difficult to account for the cemetery contemplations which uses the optative verb passeyya instead of passati. The optative suggests that there is no need for immediacy of the sights, so that it works on a conceptual level. If the kāye were a spatial locative to refer to "in" one's body, that makes a rather less comfy fit with the cemetery contemplations. Whereas, if kāye were a locative of reference "with respect to" one's body, I think the contemplations of decay would be not in the presence of decay in what is presently not dead, but with reference to the inevitable fate of one's sarīra (physical body) when Death comes.