Ud 7.8: Kaccāyana Sutta

Each week we study and discuss a different sutta or Dhamma text

Moderator: mikenz66

User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 16426
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: Ud 7.8: Kaccāyana Sutta

Post by mikenz66 » Fri Dec 21, 2012 6:27 am

Here is John Ireland's translation of the verse:

He for whom mindfulness of the body
Is always constantly established thus:
"If there had not been there would not be for me;
There will not be, and there will not be for me,"
[*]
If he dwells upon that in graded steps
In time he will pass beyond attachment. [/i]

[*] This cryptic saying can be paraphrased with the help of the Commentary thus:
"If there had not been" impure deeds (kilesa-kamma) that I had done in the past, then "there would not be for me" now, in this life, the experiences of their ripening (vipaka). And since "there will not be" any impure deeds when he is an arahant, so "there will not be" anything to ripen in the future.

Sylvester
Posts: 2205
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:57 am

Re: Ud 7.8: Kaccāyana Sutta

Post by Sylvester » Sat Dec 22, 2012 6:12 am

Sam Vara wrote:
santa100 wrote:
Sam Vara wrote:
"It should not be,
it should not be mine;
it will not be,
it will not be mine"
A bit of help with this, please...
Woodward's rendering and note:
"It could not be, for me it cannot be;
It shall not become, for me it shall not become"
In this Udana version Comy. expl. 'at first the mass of passions was in my person; then on my attaining the Ariyan way it was not'. 'My purification at first did not exist, but came about when I reached the heights. The Ariyan way at first had not arisen, come about; the mass of passions will no more come to be, nor is it now to be seen';
Many thanks santa100.

I'm beginning to think that this little Pali phrase can generate an awful lot of different translations, all of them profound in their implications.
See BB's note 75 to SN 22, explaining the difficulty of this passage at p.1061 of the CDB. The optative tenses can be used for hypotheticals, with a rather broad range of meanings in English.

danieLion
Posts: 1947
Joined: Wed May 25, 2011 4:49 am

Re: Ud 7.8: Kaccāyana Sutta

Post by danieLion » Sat Dec 22, 2012 6:39 am

Sylvester wrote:Anyway, here was my previous analysis of the grammatical structures of the Nihilist view versus the Ariyan view of SN 22.55 that leads to Non-Return -

http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... 21#p215021" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Language, it appears, does make a difference to perception...
So this devolves to: to avoid nihilistic self-view, it's more accurate to refer the self as an "I" rather than an "It"?

Sylvester
Posts: 2205
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:57 am

Re: Ud 7.8: Kaccāyana Sutta

Post by Sylvester » Sat Dec 22, 2012 6:55 am

Quite the opposite Daniel. The Nihilist version uses bhavissāmi (I will not be), while the Ariyan version uses bhavissati (it will not be). The Nihilist labours under the view that an "I" (1st person singular) will be destroyed, while the Ariyan views it in the impersonal 3rd person singular.

danieLion
Posts: 1947
Joined: Wed May 25, 2011 4:49 am

Re: Ud 7.8: Kaccāyana Sutta

Post by danieLion » Sat Dec 22, 2012 11:32 pm

Sylvester wrote:Quite the opposite Daniel. The Nihilist version uses bhavissāmi (I will not be), while the Ariyan version uses bhavissati (it will not be). The Nihilist labours under the view that an "I" (1st person singular) will be destroyed, while the Ariyan views it in the impersonal 3rd person singular.
Honestly, Sylvester, I was very tired when I wrote that, and thought, "Well, I've got a 50/50 chance here (nihilistic-'I' OR nihilistic-'It'), and if I'm wrong Sylvester will correct me/it"--which you did. So, thanks. Again.

Sylvester
Posts: 2205
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:57 am

Re: Ud 7.8: Kaccāyana Sutta

Post by Sylvester » Sun Dec 23, 2012 3:21 am

You are welcome. :anjali:

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests