Date: Sun, 02 Feb 1997 00:44:36 +0000

Max writes,

>> Upadhim pa.ticca dukkha.m ida.m sambhoti

>> Upaadaanakkhayaa natthi dukkhassa sambhavo

>>

>> Depending on 'upadhi' suffering comes into being;

>> With the destruction of holding (grasping),

>> there is no arising of suffering.

To understand the full implications of this quote :

Whether we translate or not the word dukkha, it connotes everything

that is unsatisfactory and distasteful in the life process of humans.

The word dukkha implies the presence of samsaara.

When the text says 'dependent on upadhi dukkha is generated or arises',

it means that 'upadhi generates samsaara producing substratum.'

The word sambhoti is the verb

[prefix sa.m + root /bhuu - to be or become],

present tense, 3rd person sigular and means arises, comes to be.

Sambhavo is the substantival form from the same root and the prefix.

It means the genesis, arising.

The word upadhi is formed of the prefix upa + the root/dhaa -to place.

Upadhi means what is placed, basis, foundation.

Thus upadhi is what underlies samsara.

While upadhi implies a finished product,

upaadaana = grasping, clinging implies a process, a line of activity.

Upaadaanakkhayaa means 'through the cessation of the process of grasping.'

Natthi dukkhassa sa.mbhavo means 'Thereis no genesis of dukkha'.

>pa.ticca literally means 'having gone back' and applies to the

>contemplation of the sequence of the appearance of phenomena.

With regard to the above, while we agree that the verb pacceti

[prefix pati + root/i - eti] sometimes means rebounds, comes back to

[as in 'tameva baala.m pacceti paapa.m sukhumo rajo pa.tivaata.m va khitto

at Dhp. v.125]

its general meaning suggests forward movement.

It is difficult to concede "pa.ticca literally means

'having gone back '..."

>Upadhim pa.ticca dukkha.m ida.m sambhoti.

Here upadhim pa.ticca must mean

'dependent on or in consequence of upadhi '.

Pa.ticca and paccayaa seem to have the same meaning of

in consequence of,

as a result of,

on account of.

that is the manner and sense in which it is used

in the chain Causal Genesis as in avijjaa paccayaa sa'nkhaaraa...etc. =

dependent on ignorance there arices factors of samsaara genesis.

With metta

Dhammavihari

>-------

>Jakub Bartovsky (bartovsk@praha1.ff.cuni.cz) recently wrote:

>...

>>Maybe you are aware of the most illuminating passage in Udaana

>>III,10 (Lokavolokana-sutta):

>> Upadhim pa.ticca dukkha.m ida.m sambhoti

>> Upaadaanakkhayaa natthi dukkhassa sambhavo

>>

>> Depending on 'upadhi' suffering comes into being;

>> With the destruction of holding (grasping),

>> there is no arising of suffering.

>...

>

>

>The concept of pa.ticca is important for many reasons, most

>notably, of course, for the 'causal chain/dependent arising',

>the pa.ticca-samuppaada.

>

>The PTS dict says:

>"pa.ticca - [ger. of pacceti, pa.ti+i; cp Sanskrit pratiitya]

>grounded on, on account of, concerning, because (with acc.)..."

>

>Let us look at pa.ti: "(PTS: [...] directional _prefix_ in well-

>defined meaning of back (to), against, towards, ..."

>

>pa.ticca literally means 'having gone back' and applies to the

>contemplation of the sequence of the appearance of phenomena.

>

>It is a gerund (pubbakiriyaa), a form which is not explained

>in Ven.Narada's public domain grammar book (which you can

>find at http://www.newciv.org/Pali/ ) and which should definitely

>be included in a future addendum to his work.

>

>AK Warder explains in his 'Introduction to Pali', page 48:

>

>Gerund

>The gerund (pubbakiriyaa), an indeclinable participle, is

>used to express an action preceding (pubba) the action of the

>main verb of a sentence...

>

>Now, looking back to what we said about 'upadhi' and 'dukkha'

>in the past days, a meaning starts to emerge.

>

>(For me, this quote exemplifies that 'upadhi' does NOT mean

>just 'basis' (see my previous post) and that dukkha should be

>kept untranslated.)

>

>But, alas, as we start looking at the original texts more

>closely, everybody can make up his/her own mind about the

>truth expressed by those words, of course :)

>

>Can somebody step forward and illuminate us about the

>the difference of 'sambhoti' and 'sambhavo' ?

>

>With metta,

>

>Max

>