Is There Clear Delineation Of What Is/Not "Early Buddhism"?

Textual analysis and comparative discussion on early Buddhist sects and texts.
ToVincent
Posts: 400
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: ToVincent's interesting translations

Post by ToVincent » Thu Aug 17, 2017 11:55 pm

Kumara wrote:As I've mentioned in the other thread: "If ekaggata is rightly analyzed as "eka-g-gata", how are we to analyze ekagga?"
Hi Kumara,

We can turn to the Sanskrit (in fine compositi) ग ga [agt. √ गम् gam]; whose general meaning is: "who goes in, or who is in".

Or even better, we can turn to a Pali grammar pundit's highly praised book, and find if that agent stuff exists also in the Pali - which should not be a surprise.

As far as I am concerned, I'll stick to the Sanskrit grammar, and pass it on to the Pali, and translate the following extract as such:
samāhitaṃ cittaṃ ekaggaṃ
The mind becomes concentrated, which causes it to go to (the) one.
(Using the first definition of √ gam below - one can also pick another meaning to broaden the general meaning).
SN 35.134

Mudita
* √ गम् gam
- to cause to go to any condition (RV. AV.), cause to become - (TS. ŚBr.)
- to strive to obtain - (ŚBr. ChUp.)
- to wish to bring (to light) - (TS.)
- to go with the mind , observe - (RV.)
- to go to any state or condition , undergo , partake of , participate in - (RV. AV.)
- to go to or towards , approach - (RV.)
- to cause to go or come, lead or conduct towards , send to - (AV.)
- bring to a place - (RV.)
- to cause to understand , make clear or intelligible , explain - (MBh.)
Note:

Ekagga (viz. the "agent" that causes to go to "oneness",) seems to be the result of several factors.
It is the result of developing the citta on a specific object, like foulness (SN 8.4) - or mastering (vasī) the citta (AN 3.58) - or of not striving with the mano (amanasikārā) to perceptions of manifoldness as below (although not specifically mentioned):
Here, with the complete overstepping of perceptions of form (matter), with the vanishing of perceptions (based) upon the organs of senses (viz. ajjhattikāni āyatanāni & mano), not striving with the mind (manasa/mano) to perceptions of manifoldness (lit. (what is) differently (than one)), aware that ‘space is boundless,’ he attains and seizes distinctively, the field of boundless space.
Idhānanda, bhikkhu sabbaso rūpasaññānaṃ samatikkamā, paṭighasaññānaṃ atthaṅgamā, nānattasaññānaṃ amanasikārā ‘ananto ākāso’ti ākāsānañcāyatanaṃ.
MN1
Nānatta, [Sk.fr.nānā] (opp.ekatta).
- diversity, variety, manifoldness, multiformity.
नाना nānā
- differently , variously , distinctly , separately.


-----
There is also the possibility of ekaggatā/ekāgratā; in which ekagga/ekāgra could be the following:

Ekāgra-tā
Ekāgra [agra]
अग्र agra [√aṅg]
The late (post-Buddhist) meaning of "prominence" for agra, is quite dubious. It seems to have an origin with the root √aṅg; that would itself be linked to √ aṅk, which has the meaning of a hook in RV.
"Hooked to (the) one"!?! - That seems a bit far fetched.
For one can see that agra, in pre-Buddhist texts means:
- from - up to (ŚBr.)
- before (in time) (AitUp.)

॰ता -tā forms suffixes of state; quality of.

Anyway, why this dubious and complicated √aṅg; and not just the plain √ gam?


I have updated my notes with Sutta extracts: https://justpaste.it/1970m
In this world with its ..., Māras, ... in this population with its ascetics.... (AN 5.30).
------
We are all possessed - more or less.
------
And what, bhikkhu, is inward rottenness? Here someone is immoral, one of evil character, of impure and suspect behaviour, secretive in his acts, no ascetic though claiming to be one, not a celibate though claiming to be one, inwardly rotten, corrupt, depraved. This is called inward rottenness.”
SN 35.241
------
https://justpaste.it/j5o4

User avatar
Kumara
Posts: 615
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2012 8:14 am

Re: ToVincent's interesting translations

Post by Kumara » Mon Aug 21, 2017 6:00 am

ToVincent wrote:
Kumara wrote:As I've mentioned in the other thread: "If ekaggata is rightly analyzed as "eka-g-gata", how are we to analyze ekagga?"
Hi Kumara,

We can turn to the Sanskrit (in fine compositi) ग ga [agt. √ गम् gam]; whose general meaning is: "who goes in, or who is in".

Or even better, we can turn to a Pali grammar pundit's highly praised book, and find if that agent stuff exists also in the Pali - which should not be a surprise.

As far as I am concerned, I'll stick to the Sanskrit grammar, and pass it on to the Pali, and translate the following extract as such:
samāhitaṃ cittaṃ ekaggaṃ
The mind becomes concentrated, which causes it to go to (the) one.
(Using the first definition of √ gam below - one can also pick another meaning to broaden the general meaning).
SN 35.134
I prefer a simpler, more literal translation: mind is composed, still.
("Still" is my idiomatic version for the literal "one-placed".)
Last edited by Kumara on Mon Aug 21, 2017 6:30 am, edited 1 time in total.
I'm not just a monk. I'm a human being. — Sayadaw U Jotika

User avatar
Kumara
Posts: 615
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2012 8:14 am

Renunciation [Re: ToVincent's interesting translations]

Post by Kumara » Mon Aug 21, 2017 6:30 am

Kumara wrote:I like your contributions, eg on nekkhamma above. While I've trouble fitting "renunciation" properly into the meditation practice, "inaction" (or perhaps "non-action") actually fits in very well. I don't want accept this too quickly though, but I am seriously considering it.
I'd like to somewhat retract the above.

"Inaction" is too sweeping a sankappa. Renunciation is in a way inaction too: renouncing craving action.
I'm not just a monk. I'm a human being. — Sayadaw U Jotika

ToVincent
Posts: 400
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: Renunciation [Re: ToVincent's interesting translations]

Post by ToVincent » Mon Aug 21, 2017 6:45 pm

Kumara wrote:......
Ah Ok!
In this world with its ..., Māras, ... in this population with its ascetics.... (AN 5.30).
------
We are all possessed - more or less.
------
And what, bhikkhu, is inward rottenness? Here someone is immoral, one of evil character, of impure and suspect behaviour, secretive in his acts, no ascetic though claiming to be one, not a celibate though claiming to be one, inwardly rotten, corrupt, depraved. This is called inward rottenness.”
SN 35.241
------
https://justpaste.it/j5o4

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests