Thank you very much Jayarava. Your post (like all the others) is very interesting and provides lots of food for further reflection.
I wondered if there could be any sens of pari- as "making whole" again or reintegrating, what had been initially differentiated or perceived as differentiated (vi-). Without necessarily going into the direction of non-duality. Like getting a global picture, instead of a partial or incomplete one.
I must confess that pari-ññā (Skt parijñā) was new to me. It seems to mean accurate or precise knowledge, so not I don't think it refers to re-integrating. You have to remember that the concern with non-duality is not found in the Pāli Canon. As I've mentioned before the Pāli texts never mention non-duality, and are relatively comfortable with certain types of duality: they can happily distinguish between bodily and mental sensations for instance.
As I understand it the concern is part of a discourse that comes very much later when Buddhists were in dialogue with Advaita Vendanta scholars - there was apparently some influence in both directions, though this is really not my area.
You might find the rest of the text interesting as it gets into how liberation of thought (cetto-viumtti) is achieved. I should probably finish translating it, eh?
I forgot to say that the prefix that usually expressed completeness or togetherness is saṃ- but we find this already in sañjānāti/sañña (Skt saṃjānāti/saṃjñā) - but clearly this has an altogether different meaning. The effect of prefixes is not always predictable.
How do you answer the question 'what is knowledge?'
Knowing involves 'mind' and we don't know what exactly is mind. Sure, the whole thing is related to what we call 'life', so perhaps we could understand knowledge only by studying the history of life.
Thank you for your answers. I will go out on a limb here and follow my intuition. ‘Pari-‘ translates into Tibetan (from where I am coming) as ‘yongs su’. So my intuition rather comes from ‘yongs su’ than from ‘pari-‘. It does indeed mean completely, fully, totally etc. We can understand something completely as in thoroughly, deeply, profoundly, but also as totally, globally in a more periferal way. And I actually wonder whether there may be an Indo-European link between pari- and peri-…
So I wonder whether prajñā may correspond to the deep, core understanding, and pari-jñāna to a complete, but periferal, global understanding of all the vi-jñānas. Vi-jñāna being a partial understanding. A proper understanding, but partial, i.e. incomplete. Any conclusive understanding based on a partial understanding (eventually further afflicted/incorrectly filled in by saṅkhārā) would lead to duḥprajñā.
So I wonder whether this idea of pari-jñāna may be a prototype of the knowledge of quantity (yathāvad vyavasthānaparijñāna, ji snyed pa mkhyen pa'i ye shes) of Mahāyāna Buddhism ?
I will read the rest of this interesting sutta and am looking forward to your forcoming translation then :-).
Unfortunately "intuition" is not a good guide to philology. You're not wrong about the prefix - it means "around, surrounding, encompassing; and therefore whole". And yes, it is cognate with Latin peri-
But as I say the effect of adding a prefix has effects which cannot be predicted from the bare general meaning of the prefix. It might well mean that in an etymological sense, but that is not how it is used!
I'm not going to go down the road you're suggesting. You're talking about a stage of the language that is more than 1000 years after the period that I am talking about. And you're also working with doctrine which has been developing for more than 1000 years. And a huge amount of change occurred in that time - most of it completely unrelated to the context of the Pāli texts.
Such an approach simply cannot shed light on the Pāli texts. Sorry, it just doesn't work. Though obviously speculation can be fun, and I indulge myself from time to time, it's doesn't lead to knowledge, it only leads to fun.
Good question. My first answer is 'I don't know'. Trying to define knowledge I found myself going in circles: knowledge is what we know. But what does it mean to 'know' something.
Knowledge does indeed involve the mind, and yes that is also something of a mystery.
However we don't really need to know how everything works: we have the experience of knowing, and that is enough. In Buddhism we can explore the experience through various methods and that helps us to understand to the extent that we need to.
I suppose a philosopher would give you a better answer! That said, I think it is interesting to study the history of life because all life has certain things in common. I particularly like to read books by Margaret Margulis - there is one called "What is Life?" that I've been reading lately. It is fascinating.
Sorry, no « intuition », wondering and speculation then. Simply one question: more than 1000 years and no doctrinal relation between pariññā and parijñāna? Are we talking about worlds as impermeable as you seem to think they were? I do tend to think that fun, recreation and creativity can lead to knowledge, but I may be wrong again.
Joy. Think about the English language 1000 years ago. It's not intelligible to us. Te use of words changes considerably in that time - connotations drift.
Think of a word like "terrific" - look at the etymology and you will find it means 'frightening', but today it means some exciting and enjoyable.
Then think about any world culture 1000 years ago. Are there not huge differences? I'm not saying they are impermeable, I'm saying one must be cautious about equating them - it seemed to me that you acknowledged no difference at all, and I was pointing out that 1000 years is a long time in any culture or language. Buddhism has history, and we cannot simply treat 2500 years of history as an homogeneous unit. Vast differences accrue over centuries.
I do not know if there is a doctrinal relationship between pariññā and parijñā because I've not come across the words before working on this text. A quick look through some reference books at hand suggests that pariññā did not survive into the Mahāyāna - none of my sources lists parijñā as a word, let alone gives a definition. And that alone should give us pause for thought! If you know of a place it is used in Sanskrit or Tibetan I'd be interested to get a reference.
And again I'm not against play, but one can so easily fool oneself that fantasy is fact in these matters. What I am trying to do is clarify matters.
A quick look in the Tibetan canonical works shows that there are many occurrences of ‘yongs shes (pa)’ (parijānāti, parijñāna, prajānāti), variously translated as ‘through knowledge’, ‘comprehend’, ‘cognize’, and as soon as the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra, translated in Chinese in the 3rd century. A quick look, because there may be earlier occurrences. When were the Pāli suttas written again, and more specifically the Mahā-Vedalla Sutta? At first sight, I would think the difference in time isn’t that big, certainly not 1000 years, nor does the difference of meaning seem to be that significant. So it could be worthwhile looking into it before concluding anything definite.
One can have an intuition and then check whether there is any ground for it or not. Without giving it any attention, one might have concluded straight away the term pariññā didn’t make it into mahāyāna, which may or may not be incorrect. Many things have and are still discovered by accident or by looking for something else.
I will try and look into it and keep you informed, unless someone else here knows anything more about its survival in mahāyāna or other Buddhist sects.
The Pāli texts are thought to have been composed ca 5th century BCE, The Laṅka ca. 4th century CE so only about 800 years. And Tibetan translations another 2-300 year later again.
I do see parijñā- in the Sanskrit Laṅka Sūtra as well but my Sanskrit is no longer good enough to know how it's being used. The Buddhist Hydrib Sanskrit Dictionary says : "(thorough) knowledge; here not used in any special of technical way".
For the record Bhikkhu Bodhi translates pariññāta (the past participle) as "fully understood" SN 12.63 for example. The idea here is to thoroughly understand how viññāṇa arises, through understanding what nourished (āhrāra) it, which in this case is nāmarūpa (which recalls the discussion in the Kalahavivāda Sutta Sn 4.11). It's not putting together what was discriminated, it's undermining the whole process of discrimination by not feeding it.
Buddhaghosa comments (Saṃyutta Nikāya Aṭṭhakathā): Pariññāteti ñātapariññā tīraṇapariññā pahānapariññāti imāhi tīhi pariññāhi pariññāte. i.e Pariññāta (in the locative case) means fully understanding the known, fully understanding decisions, fully understanding renunciation; from these three full-understandings, comes the fully understood.
There are some Pāli commentarial glosses (which date from around the same time as the Laṅka but occur in a different part of the world)
Paṭisambhidāmagga A: pariññā is jānana, or more specifically byāpitaṃ jānana 'pervasive knowledge'; Netippakaraṇa: Pariññāti tīraṇapariññā adhippetā 'by pariññā is meant knowledge for deciding'.
So yes, the word has retained it's meaning, but that meaning is just what I said it was in the first place, which is "thoroughly understanding". It's not the meaning you wish to attribute to it.
interesting about the verbs! so it goes like 'sun' (noun), 'sunny'(adjective) and 'sunning' (verb.. i know this doesn't exist but interesting to conjugate from a noun & an adjective).
"And note that vedeti is the process which causes pleasure or pain to be known, sañjānāti recognises and names the experience, and vijānāti distinguishes between them."
I think i'm beginning to get it...the root of the vedeti verb being 'to know'...and vedana being 'known'... hum... the word VEDETI for the act of attributing either sukha, dukkha or adukkhasukha is useful & merits to be in wider circulation.
It's typical of Indo-European languages to define concepts, as far as possible, in terms of verbs.
The habit of citing verbs in the infinitive 'to feel' comes from Latin. In Indic languages we'd tend to cite the root (dhātu) from PIE root *pōl- 'to touch, to fold' > Germanic *foljan ? Old English felan > English feel; or the 3rd present singular present indicative 'he feels, she feels'.
Given that English feel comes from PIE pōl, then phassa (from phussati 'he touches'; Skt. root √spṛś) and feeling are closely related in sense. In other words if any word deserves to be translated as "feeling" it is phassa!
Sunning is a perfectly good verb. Often used in the infinitive: 'to sun oneself.'
Anyway yes, the etymology is relatively neglected, as is the study of how words are actually used in Pāli!
India has the same metaphor as we have in English: to see is to know. So sometimes words for knowing and seeing are interchangeable. See what I mean?
The first aṅga of the aṭṭhaṅgikamagga is sammādiṭṭhi. Diṭṭhi (Skt dṛṣṭi) is an action noun from √dṛś 'to see'. It is literally 'seeing, viewing; sight' . We take it to means something like 'a way of seeing things' or 'to view' [something a particular way].' So it comes to means something like an ideology - a wrong view is a micchadiṭṭhi - a seeing which goes against the grain. A sammā-diṭṭhi is a way of seeing which is in accord with how experience is. I did a little bloglet on sammā/micchā a couple of years ago.
The idea that this might mean 'understanding' comes, I think, from the orthodox Theravāda view that sammādiṭṭhi should be thought of in terms of a correct understanding of the ariyasaccā (truths of the nobles). It's a rather laboured and limited diṭṭhi to define sammādiṭṭhi this way.
I just try to follow the logic of the text, and the etymology of the words. This is simply what it seems to say. I'm not sure it applies to the overall context. It was an eye opener for me as well - which is why I made a blog post out of it!
Cheers Jayarava
Friday, March 16, 2012
[Image]IT'S BEEN A WHILE since I drew directly on the Pāli texts so I thought I would share some observations from my recent Pāli studies. The Mahā-Vedalla Sutta is from the Majjhima Nikāya and features a series of questions put to Sāriputta by Elder Mahākoṭṭhika, and the answers.
The title of the sutta includes the word vedalla which is unusual (there is also a Cūḷa-Vedalla Sutta). PED thinks that it might be similar in form to mahalla 'old, venerable' which seems to be a (dialectical?) mutation from mahā-ariya via mahā-ayya. Veda-ariya doesn't really work as a compound. Another possibility raised by PED is that it derives from vedaṅga. This would give us the sense of 'types of knowledge' which does describe the content of the sutta, especially the paragraphs below. Since this seems the most sensible option I have adopted it.
What follows is a condensed translation of the first seven of Sāriputta's answers and some commentary. The Great Discourse on Types of Knowledge - condensed translation. Mahā-Vedalla Sutta (MN 43; M i.292ff.)
Ignorance (dupañña ) is not-understanding (nappajānāti) that 'this' is disappointing; that disappointment has a beginning and an end, and there is a way to bring about the end.
Intelligence (paññavā ) is understanding (pajānāti) that 'this' is disappointing; that disappointment has a beginning and an end, and there is a way to bring about the end.
Discrimination (viññāṇa) is discriminating (vijānāti ) between pleasure (sukha) and pain (dukkha) and neither (adukkhasukkha).
Understanding and discrimination are connected and inseparable. What one understands, one discriminates; what one discriminates, one understands. The difference is that understanding should be cultivated (bhāvetabba), and discrimination should be fully understood (pariññeyya).
‘Knowns’ (vedanā) are called ‘knowns’ because they cause [things] to be known, they produce knowledge (vedeti ) They cause pleasure to be known; they cause pain to be known; and they cause neither-pleasure-nor-pain to be known.
Perception (saññā) is called ‘perception’ because of recognition (sañjānāti) of blue/green, yellow, red, and white and so on.
Knowns, perceptions, and discrimination are connected and inseparable. What is made known, is recognised; what is recognised, is discriminated. One of the first things we notice is that the text contains a lot of words deriving from the root √jñā'to know, to understand', including nouns paññā, viññāṇa, and saññā;" >; adjectives dupañña and paññavant; and verbs pajānāti, vijānāti, parijānāti, & sañjānāti; in addition to words from the root √vid 'to know', vedanā & vedeti. And what the text is doing is defining these terms in relation to each other. Understanding Pāli terms pertaining to mental processes can be difficult since the definitions appear to change over time and according to context. So this text is one version of how the terms can be distinguished. As such its quite handy.
In this text, following Indian grammatical practices, nouns and adjectives are defined in terms of verbs.
nounverbpaññā pajānātiviññāṇa vijānātisaññā sañjānātivedanā vedeti So the noun paññā 'understanding' is defined in terms of the verb pajānāti 'to understand'. The paragraphs form two groups: the first defines paññā and viññāṇa and describes the relationship between them; the second defines vedanā and saññā and their relationship to each other and to viññāṇa. Viññāṇa is a conceptual link between the two groups, which as I will try to show represent two different routes to viññāṇa.
In the first group we find the adjective dupañña 'badly understanding, foolish' (here the spelling is pañña not paññā) which is defined as nappajānāti 'not understanding'. This is contrasted with another adjective paññavant 'possessing understanding, intelligent' which is defined as pajānāti 'understanding'. The subject which we either understand or don't, which makes us dupaññā or paññavant is the Four Truths of the Nobles: the fact that 'this' (i.e. our immediate experience) is disappointing; and that disappointment has a beginning and and end, and a way to bring about the end. If we understand this we are intelligent, and if not we are foolish.
Also in the first group viññāṇa is defined as 'knowing' pleasure, pain, and neither-pleasure-nor-pain (sukha, dukkha, adukkhasukha). Here the literal meaning of vijānāti is intended: vi- 'division' and jānāti 'knowing' - i.e. understanding the difference between. My reading is that 'consciousness' would be the wrong translation here, and that discrimination (or something along these lines) would be more appropriate.
Now the relationship between paññā and viññāṇa is that they are inseparably connected, that one involves the other. However there is a difference in how we approach each. Paññā is to be cultivated (bhāvetabba), while viññāṇa is to be fully understood (pariññāṇa). The word for cultivated is related to the word bhāvanā in mettābhāvanā 'the development of loving kindness'.
Now to the second group. Here vedanā, usually translated as 'sensations' or 'feelings' (with much discussion of which of these two alternatives is a best fit), is defined in terms of vedeti. The relationship to the verb vedeti shows that neither 'sensations' nor 'feelings' really convey what vedanā is. Vedeti is from the root √vid 'to know' and comes from a PIE root *√weid which means to see; and draws on the metaphor that to see is to know. English cognates include: via German wise, wit; via Greek idea, eidetic; and via Latin video, vision. Vedeti in particular is the causative form which means 'to make known, to bring about understanding'. Vedanā is based on the past-participle vedana 'made known, brought to understanding'. Hence I have translated vedanā as 'a known'. And what is being made known to us is the pleasure and pain of experience. I'm not sure that this is all that we know, but pleasure and pain are what are salient to the Buddha's program.
The next term to be defined is saññā. The definition is here is not entirely helpful but we can infer more about it from what follows. Saññā is primarily defines in terms of sañjānāti recognition and the examples used of what is recognised are the names of colours. The implication here is that saññā is recognition expressed in terms of naming the objects of perception, i.e. apperception.
Finally we see that the relationship between vedanā, saññā and viññāṇa is described as sequential: what is made known, is recognised and named; and what is recognised is discriminated. This further implies that saññā is applied to vedanā; so naming the colours must be seen as a very limited example of the kind of operation involved.
We can diagram the statements above like this: [Image] Anticipating some future posts on papañca I have added it branching off from saññā. What this model suggests is that discrimination has two input streams. One of them is experiential in the sense of being based on processing sense experience (vedanā → saññā → viññāṇa). Vedanā is the point at which we become aware of contact (phassa) which itself rests on the coming together of sense object, sense faculty, and sense-discrimination (also confusingly referred to as viññāṇa). And note that vedeti is the process which causes pleasure or pain to be known, sañjānāti recognises and names the experience, and vijānātidistinguishes between them. In this sense paññā); and it comes from cultivating understanding of the truths of the nobles (ariyasacca). What is implied in the latter is reflection on the truth of the truths. In both cases the senses and their data are secondary. The result of discriminating on the basis of greater and greater understanding is complete understanding (pariññā) which we can take as a synonym for bodhi. My reading leads me away from reading paññā as 'wisdom' in this case - though it may well be appropriate in other cases. I think rather that it refers to intellect, and that someone who possesses paññā is 'intelligent'. [1] Unlike latter Buddhist schools of thought it is viññāṇa which must be perfected in this model, not paññā (Skt. prajñā).
At least one of my regular readers is interested in the khandhas, and I this sutta may shed some light on them. As far as I know the khandhas themselves are not presented as a sequence in the suttas (this seems to be Sue Hamilton's conclusion too). But here we have three of the five khandhas presented as a logical sequence. Since saññā is defined in terms of colours, we could invoke the idea seen in many other suttas that the object of the eye (cakkhu) is form (rūpa). We could then state that here rūpa is implied as the generic object of the senses which combines with a generic sense faculty to produce contact (phassa). This is indeed how most people interpret rūpa in this context. One problem however is that contact rests on a tripod of object, faculty and sense-consciousness (cakkhuviññāṇa, sotaviññāṇa... manoviññāṇa). We would have to suppose that viññāṇa was being used in two different denotations here, which is fine, although somewhat confusing. Another problem is saṅkhārā which is left out, and this is a term that is difficult to understand (I wrote about in Saṅkhāra qua Construct, but that meaning does not seem to apply here). What saṅkhārā means in the khandhas, and why it takes the place it does in the order (if it is an order) are unsolved problems. Perhaps saṅkhārā or in verbal form saṅkharoti (from Skt. saṃskaroti < saṃ-s-√kṛ 'to compose, arrange') may well have its literal meaning here of 'put together, arranged'. [2]
In any case we could see here a kind of prototype from which a model of khandhas might have emerged with some tinkering. Perhaps these slightly incompatible models emerged amongst discreet groups of practitioners and were only brought together in the Canon. My theory, for what it is worth, is that the Canon as we know it was not compiled until the time of Asoka and probably under his direct influence. There is, in the Canon, clear evidence of multiple oral traditions preserving stories with slight variations (which I've noted in the past). Asoka's empire represents the first point in history when widely spread groups might have had a chance to come together, especially as the preceding centuries were full of war and social unrest.
Even if my translation choices and interpretations do not convince (or appeal to) the reader, I think they will agree that this sutta offers some useful insights into technical terms for kinds of knowing.
~~oOo~~
NotesIntelligence comes from the Latin intelligentem, which is a present-participle of intelligere 'to understand, comprehend'. The etymology is inter- 'between' + legere 'to chose, pick out, read'. The earliest sense of the word was the "faculty of understanding". So the word 'intelligent' is probably more closely related in sense to vijānāti 'discriminating, distinguishing'.The gerund of the word is used at S ii.269 where akaddamaṃ saṅkharitvā means 'having made clean' (i.e. mud free). In fact 3 of the four occurrences of the word relate to preparing food before one eats it.
posted by Jayarava Attwood at 08:00 on 09-Mar-2012
18 Comments
Close this window Jump to comment formThank you very much Jayarava. Your post (like all the others) is very interesting and provides lots of food for further reflection.
I wondered if there could be any sens of pari- as "making whole" again or reintegrating, what had been initially differentiated or perceived as differentiated (vi-). Without necessarily going into the direction of non-duality. Like getting a global picture, instead of a partial or incomplete one.
Joy
Joy
Friday, March 09, 2012
Hi Joy
I must confess that pari-ññā (Skt parijñā) was new to me. It seems to mean accurate or precise knowledge, so not I don't think it refers to re-integrating. You have to remember that the concern with non-duality is not found in the Pāli Canon. As I've mentioned before the Pāli texts never mention non-duality, and are relatively comfortable with certain types of duality: they can happily distinguish between bodily and mental sensations for instance.
As I understand it the concern is part of a discourse that comes very much later when Buddhists were in dialogue with Advaita Vendanta scholars - there was apparently some influence in both directions, though this is really not my area.
You might find the rest of the text interesting as it gets into how liberation of thought (cetto-viumtti) is achieved. I should probably finish translating it, eh?
Regards
Jayarava
Friday, March 09, 2012
Joy
I forgot to say that the prefix that usually expressed completeness or togetherness is saṃ- but we find this already in sañjānāti/sañña (Skt saṃjānāti/saṃjñā) - but clearly this has an altogether different meaning. The effect of prefixes is not always predictable.
Jayarava
Friday, March 09, 2012
Hi Jayarava,
How do you answer the question 'what is knowledge?'
Knowing involves 'mind' and we don't know what exactly is mind. Sure, the whole thing is related to what we call 'life', so perhaps we could understand knowledge only by studying the history of life.
Shajan
Saturday, March 10, 2012
Thank you for your answers. I will go out on a limb here and follow my intuition. ‘Pari-‘ translates into Tibetan (from where I am coming) as ‘yongs su’. So my intuition rather comes from ‘yongs su’ than from ‘pari-‘. It does indeed mean completely, fully, totally etc. We can understand something completely as in thoroughly, deeply, profoundly, but also as totally, globally in a more periferal way. And I actually wonder whether there may be an Indo-European link between pari- and peri-…
So I wonder whether prajñā may correspond to the deep, core understanding, and pari-jñāna to a complete, but periferal, global understanding of all the vi-jñānas. Vi-jñāna being a partial understanding. A proper understanding, but partial, i.e. incomplete. Any conclusive understanding based on a partial understanding (eventually further afflicted/incorrectly filled in by saṅkhārā) would lead to duḥprajñā.
So I wonder whether this idea of pari-jñāna may be a prototype of the knowledge of quantity (yathāvad vyavasthānaparijñāna, ji snyed pa mkhyen pa'i ye shes) of Mahāyāna Buddhism ?
I will read the rest of this interesting sutta and am looking forward to your forcoming translation then :-).
Joy
Saturday, March 10, 2012
Hello Joy
Unfortunately "intuition" is not a good guide to philology. You're not wrong about the prefix - it means "around, surrounding, encompassing; and therefore whole". And yes, it is cognate with Latin peri-
But as I say the effect of adding a prefix has effects which cannot be predicted from the bare general meaning of the prefix. It might well mean that in an etymological sense, but that is not how it is used!
I'm not going to go down the road you're suggesting. You're talking about a stage of the language that is more than 1000 years after the period that I am talking about. And you're also working with doctrine which has been developing for more than 1000 years. And a huge amount of change occurred in that time - most of it completely unrelated to the context of the Pāli texts.
Such an approach simply cannot shed light on the Pāli texts. Sorry, it just doesn't work. Though obviously speculation can be fun, and I indulge myself from time to time, it's doesn't lead to knowledge, it only leads to fun.
Saturday, March 10, 2012
Hi Shajan
How do I answer the question 'what is knowledge?'
Good question. My first answer is 'I don't know'. Trying to define knowledge I found myself going in circles: knowledge is what we know. But what does it mean to 'know' something.
Knowledge does indeed involve the mind, and yes that is also something of a mystery.
However we don't really need to know how everything works: we have the experience of knowing, and that is enough. In Buddhism we can explore the experience through various methods and that helps us to understand to the extent that we need to.
I suppose a philosopher would give you a better answer! That said, I think it is interesting to study the history of life because all life has certain things in common. I particularly like to read books by Margaret Margulis - there is one called "What is Life?" that I've been reading lately. It is fascinating.
Best Wishes
Jayarava
Saturday, March 10, 2012
Sorry, no « intuition », wondering and speculation then. Simply one question: more than 1000 years and no doctrinal relation between pariññā and parijñāna? Are we talking about worlds as impermeable as you seem to think they were? I do tend to think that fun, recreation and creativity can lead to knowledge, but I may be wrong again.
Best wishes,
Joy, homo sapiens et ludens
Saturday, March 10, 2012
Joy. Think about the English language 1000 years ago. It's not intelligible to us. Te use of words changes considerably in that time - connotations drift.
Think of a word like "terrific" - look at the etymology and you will find it means 'frightening', but today it means some exciting and enjoyable.
Then think about any world culture 1000 years ago. Are there not huge differences? I'm not saying they are impermeable, I'm saying one must be cautious about equating them - it seemed to me that you acknowledged no difference at all, and I was pointing out that 1000 years is a long time in any culture or language. Buddhism has history, and we cannot simply treat 2500 years of history as an homogeneous unit. Vast differences accrue over centuries.
I do not know if there is a doctrinal relationship between pariññā and parijñā because I've not come across the words before working on this text. A quick look through some reference books at hand suggests that pariññā did not survive into the Mahāyāna - none of my sources lists parijñā as a word, let alone gives a definition. And that alone should give us pause for thought! If you know of a place it is used in Sanskrit or Tibetan I'd be interested to get a reference.
And again I'm not against play, but one can so easily fool oneself that fantasy is fact in these matters. What I am trying to do is clarify matters.
Best Wishes
Jayarava
Saturday, March 10, 2012
A quick look in the Tibetan canonical works shows that there are many occurrences of ‘yongs shes (pa)’ (parijānāti, parijñāna, prajānāti), variously translated as ‘through knowledge’, ‘comprehend’, ‘cognize’, and as soon as the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra, translated in Chinese in the 3rd century. A quick look, because there may be earlier occurrences. When were the Pāli suttas written again, and more specifically the Mahā-Vedalla Sutta? At first sight, I would think the difference in time isn’t that big, certainly not 1000 years, nor does the difference of meaning seem to be that significant. So it could be worthwhile looking into it before concluding anything definite.
One can have an intuition and then check whether there is any ground for it or not. Without giving it any attention, one might have concluded straight away the term pariññā didn’t make it into mahāyāna, which may or may not be incorrect. Many things have and are still discovered by accident or by looking for something else.
I will try and look into it and keep you informed, unless someone else here knows anything more about its survival in mahāyāna or other Buddhist sects.
Joy
Saturday, March 10, 2012
Hi Joy
The Pāli texts are thought to have been composed ca 5th century BCE, The Laṅka ca. 4th century CE so only about 800 years. And Tibetan translations another 2-300 year later again.
I do see parijñā- in the Sanskrit Laṅka Sūtra as well but my Sanskrit is no longer good enough to know how it's being used. The Buddhist Hydrib Sanskrit Dictionary says : "(thorough) knowledge; here not used in any special of technical way".
For the record Bhikkhu Bodhi translates pariññāta (the past participle) as "fully understood" SN 12.63 for example. The idea here is to thoroughly understand how viññāṇa arises, through understanding what nourished (āhrāra) it, which in this case is nāmarūpa (which recalls the discussion in the Kalahavivāda Sutta Sn 4.11). It's not putting together what was discriminated, it's undermining the whole process of discrimination by not feeding it.
Buddhaghosa comments (Saṃyutta Nikāya Aṭṭhakathā): Pariññāteti ñātapariññā tīraṇapariññā pahānapariññāti imāhi tīhi pariññāhi pariññāte. i.e Pariññāta (in the locative case) means fully understanding the known, fully understanding decisions, fully understanding renunciation; from these three full-understandings, comes the fully understood.
There are some Pāli commentarial glosses (which date from around the same time as the Laṅka but occur in a different part of the world)
Paṭisambhidāmagga A: pariññā is jānana, or more specifically byāpitaṃ jānana 'pervasive knowledge'; Netippakaraṇa: Pariññāti tīraṇapariññā adhippetā 'by pariññā is meant knowledge for deciding'.
So yes, the word has retained it's meaning, but that meaning is just what I said it was in the first place, which is "thoroughly understanding". It's not the meaning you wish to attribute to it.
Saturday, March 10, 2012
Hi Jayarava,
No further questions. Thank you for your point of view.
Best wishes,
Joy
Sunday, March 11, 2012
dear jay
interesting about the verbs! so it goes like 'sun' (noun), 'sunny'(adjective) and 'sunning' (verb.. i know this doesn't exist but interesting to conjugate from a noun & an adjective).
"And note that vedeti is the process which causes pleasure or pain to be known, sañjānāti recognises and names the experience, and vijānāti distinguishes between them."
I think i'm beginning to get it...the root of the vedeti verb being 'to know'...and vedana being 'known'... hum... the word VEDETI for the act of attributing either sukha, dukkha or adukkhasukha is useful & merits to be in wider circulation.
Just my two euros..thanks for the info.
be well
adam
Tuesday, March 13, 2012
Hi Ad
It's typical of Indo-European languages to define concepts, as far as possible, in terms of verbs.
The habit of citing verbs in the infinitive 'to feel' comes from Latin. In Indic languages we'd tend to cite the root (dhātu) from PIE root *pōl- 'to touch, to fold' > Germanic *foljan ? Old English felan > English feel; or the 3rd present singular present indicative 'he feels, she feels'.
Given that English feel comes from PIE pōl, then phassa (from phussati 'he touches'; Skt. root √spṛś) and feeling are closely related in sense. In other words if any word deserves to be translated as "feeling" it is phassa!
Sunning is a perfectly good verb. Often used in the infinitive: 'to sun oneself.'
Anyway yes, the etymology is relatively neglected, as is the study of how words are actually used in Pāli!
Tuesday, March 13, 2012
"Vedeti is from the root √vid 'to know' and comes from a PIE root *√weid which means to see; and draws on the metaphor that to see is to know."
is this why the first step of the 8 fold path is sometimes presented as 'right view' and other times as 'right understanding'?
TIA
Adam
Thursday, March 15, 2012
Hi Adam,
India has the same metaphor as we have in English: to see is to know. So sometimes words for knowing and seeing are interchangeable. See what I mean?
The first aṅga of the aṭṭhaṅgikamagga is sammādiṭṭhi. Diṭṭhi (Skt dṛṣṭi) is an action noun from √dṛś 'to see'. It is literally 'seeing, viewing; sight' . We take it to means something like 'a way of seeing things' or 'to view' [something a particular way].' So it comes to means something like an ideology - a wrong view is a micchadiṭṭhi - a seeing which goes against the grain. A sammā-diṭṭhi is a way of seeing which is in accord with how experience is. I did a little bloglet on sammā/micchā a couple of years ago.
The idea that this might mean 'understanding' comes, I think, from the orthodox Theravāda view that sammādiṭṭhi should be thought of in terms of a correct understanding of the ariyasaccā (truths of the nobles). It's a rather laboured and limited diṭṭhi to define sammādiṭṭhi this way.
Cheers
Jayarava
Thursday, March 15, 2012
Your translation of viññāṇa as "discriminations" and - especially - vedanā as "knowns" is eye-opening.
Friday, March 16, 2012
Hi Swanditch
I just try to follow the logic of the text, and the etymology of the words. This is simply what it seems to say. I'm not sure it applies to the overall context. It was an eye opener for me as well - which is why I made a blog post out of it!
Cheers
Jayarava
Friday, March 16, 2012