This form can be interpreted in various ways, especially in Satipatthana sutta.
Ven. Dhammanando 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."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...
http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... 478#p35478
I think there's still some controversy over how to interpret the vineyya in "vineyya loke abhijjhadomanassam". It's standard to translate it as "having given up grief and covetuousness in regard of the world", where vineyya's absolutive form is given its plain absolutive connotation (ie hindrances have already been abandoned in the past).
Ven Analayo thinks that this is not a tenable reading and suggests that the vineyya should be read as a motive and purpose of satipatthana, rather than a means to it.
To be able to do this, the absolutive must then be able to be read as an infinitive. This does not appear to be unprecedented, given Gombrich's views here -
- see p.7.
Tse Fu Kuan also makes the same point in his "Mindfulness in Early Buddhism". He makes the interesting observation that the 2 Commentaries on the Satipatthana Suttas do not seem to agree on this point, which could simply point to the Digha Commentary being corrupted and diverging from the position in the Majjhima Commentary. It appears that the Majjhima Commentary explains the phrase as a fruit of satipatthana. Here's the extract -
The issue is controversial, as how the vineyya is interpreted could mean that Satipatthana bhavana is a "Vipassana" practice, or that it is a mere Samatha practice.The commentary on the Mahasatipatthana Sutta (Sv III 759) reads: abhijjhadomanassavinayena
bhavanabalam (same in CSCD) vuttan ti. This gloss also
occurs in the commentary to the Satipatthana Sutta of the Majjhima NikAya
(Ps I 244), but it has phala (same in CSCD) instead of bala. Ven. Nyanuttara
probably refers to the reading in Ps rather than Sv. Searching CSCD, I only
found one other occurrence of this expression at Patis-a I 177, which has phala
instead of bala, agreeing with the reading of Ps.
http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... 20#p159420
Rupert Gethin discusses the basic formula, Buddhist Path to Awakening, pp. 47-53.
Yet there's one more possibility. The Spk gloss mentioned by Rupert Gethin may be understood as well in the present time sense: "removing: removing by removing-by-opposite (tadaṅga-pahana), or by removing-by-stopping (vikkhambhana-pahana)", as explained by Ven. Dhammanando in the above quote.A few key points: The repetitive phrase “contemplating the body in the body” (kāye kāyānupassī) serves “to determine the object (the body) by isolating it” from other things such as feeling, mind, etc., and to show that one contemplates only the body as such, not as permanent, pleasurable, a self, or beautiful. Similarly in regard to the other three establishments. “Ardent” (ātāpī) connotes energy, “clearly comprehending” (sampajāno) implies wisdom. “Covetousness and displeasure” (abhijjhā-domanassa) are code words for the first two hindrances, and thus their removal may be understood to imply some success in concentration. Thus altogether four of the five spiritual faculties (indriya) are indicated here, and while faith is not mentioned it is clearly a prerequisite for taking up the practice in the first place.
Spk glosses vineyya: tadaṅgavinayena vā vikkhambhanavinayena vā vinayitvā, “having removed: having removed by removal in a particular respect or by removal through suppression.” “Removal in a particular respect” signifies temporary removal by deliberate restraint or by insight, “removal through suppression” temporary removal by the attainment of jhāna. The phrase need not be understood to mean that one must first abandon the hindrances before one starts to develop the four establishments of mindfulness. It would be sufficient to have temporarily suspended “covetousness and displeasure” through dedication to the practice itself.
To solve the ambiguity, external criteria are necessary.
The description of Satipatthana in Bhikkhunupassaya sutta
http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... 656#p88181
strongly speaks in favour of present time interpretation.