There Sāriputta addressed the mendicants: “Reverends, mendicants!” “Reverend,” they replied. Sāriputta said this:
♦ “addhamāsūpasampannena me, āvuso, atthapaṭisambhidā sacchikatā odhiso byañjanaso. tamahaṃ anekapariyāyena ācikkhāmi desemi paññāpemi paṭṭhapemi vivarāmi vibhajāmi uttānīkaromi. yassa kho panassa kaṅkhā vā vimati vā, so maṃ pañhena. ahaṃ veyyākaraṇena sammukhībhūto no satthā yo no dhammānaṃ sukusalo.
“Reverends, I realized the textual analysis of the meaning—piece by piece and expression by expression—a fortnight after I ordained. In many ways I explain, teach, assert, establish, clarify, analyze, and reveal it. Whoever has any doubt or uncertainty, let them ask me, I will answer. Our teacher is present, he who is so very skilled in our teachings.
♦ “addhamāsūpasampannena me, āvuso, dhammapaṭisambhidā sacchikatā odhiso byañjanaso. tamahaṃ anekapariyāyena ācikkhāmi desemi paññāpemi paṭṭhapemi vivarāmi vibhajāmi uttānīkaromi. yassa kho panassa kaṅkhā vā vimati vā, so maṃ pañhena. ahaṃ veyyākaraṇena sammukhībhūto no satthā yo no dhammānaṃ sukusalo.
I realized the textual analysis of the text—piece by piece and expression by expression—a fortnight after I ordained. …
♦ “addhamāsūpasampannena me, āvuso, niruttipaṭisambhidā sacchikatā odhiso byañjanaso. tamahaṃ anekapariyāyena ācikkhāmi desemi paññāpemi paṭṭhapemi vivarāmi vibhajāmi uttānīkaromi. yassa kho panassa kaṅkhā vā vimati vā, so maṃ pañhena. ahaṃ veyyākaraṇena sammukhībhūto no satthā yo no dhammānaṃ sukusalo.
I realized the textual analysis of terminology—piece by piece and expression by expression—a fortnight after I ordained. …
♦ “addhamāsūpasampannena me, āvuso, paṭibhānapaṭisambhidā sacchikatā odhiso byañjanaso. tamahaṃ anekapariyāyena ācikkhāmi desemi paññāpemi paṭṭhapemi vivarāmi vibhajāmi uttānīkaromi. yassa kho panassa kaṅkhā vā vimati vā, so maṃ pañhena. ahaṃ veyyākaraṇena sammukhībhūto no satthā yo no dhammānaṃ sukusalo”ti. dutiyaṃ.
I realized the textual analysis of eloquence—piece by piece and expression by expression—a fortnight after I ordained. In many ways I explain, teach, assert, establish, clarify, analyze, and reveal it. If anyone has any doubt or uncertainty, let them ask me, I will answer. Our teacher is present, he who is so very skilled in our teachings.”
Question #1 for Bhante @Sujato and anyone else who might know,
I still don’t get exactly what “4 textual knowledges” are.
In AN 7.38 and 39, it refers to these 4 knowledges without explaining what they are,
AN 7.38 paṭhama-paṭi-sambhidā
paṭhama-paṭi-sambhidā-suttaṃ (AN 7.38)
AN 7.38. Textual Analysis (B.Sujato trans.)
38. “sattahi, bhikkhave, dhammehi samannāgato bhikkhu
“Mendicants, a mendicant with seven qualities
nacirasseva catasso paṭisambhidā
will soon realize the four kinds of textual analysis
sayaṃ abhiññā sacchikatvā upasampajja vihareyya.
and live having achieved them with their own insight.
and in B.Bodhi’s footnotes, it refers to AN 4.172.
I don’t think either of these 2 suttas have EBT parallels. (according to legacy suttacentral)
question #2 How do you check for parallels in new suttacentral?
#3) Are these 2 texts related to KN Ps in anyway? #4) Are 4 sambhidas just Theravada inventions and not EBT at all? #5) In AN 4.172 who is “our teacher” referring to? The Buddha, or is Sariputta talking about himself?
The 4 patisambhidas are a group of dhammas referred occasionally in the suttas. Despite their minor role in the EBTs, they went on to play a major role in Theravada Buddhism specifically, and they do to this day. The set is attha, dhamma, nirutti, patibhāna; i.e. meaning, text/teaching, terminology (sometimes said to be “language”, but this is probably incorrect), and eloquence or ability to articulate said teachings.
Usually the set is translated as something like “analytical knowledges”, however as you can see they are specifically centered around knowledge of how to analyze texts, hence my rendering.
There is an expander icon with a badge on each sutta card to show the parallels. In these cases, however, there are no parallels.
Yes, they were the doctrinal basis for that much later text.
Well, to keep our terminology straight, as I use it, EBT refers to the body of literature we are concerend with, which conains both early and late portions. Not everything in the EBTs is authentic.
It is certain that the patisambhidas were emphasized specially in the Theravada, but they may have been present in a minor form from the beginning.
There is a reference to four Patisambhidas in Arthaviniscaya Sutra of Sarvastivadin Sanskrit text (and I remember read it on Puggavaladin texts too), but the definition is different from Theravadin one, perhaps the terminology is early but the meaning is unclear…
On the Topic of Nirutti, a question/comment for Bhte. Sujato… Regarding translation I noticed in M.5/Anangana you translate ‘avuso’ as ‘venerbale’ is this a typo and if not why is avuso ‘venerable’, the other noteworthy word was ajjhattha as ‘subjective’ rather than ‘internal’…as Pauline would say…Please Explain…?
Oh, yes, that jolts my memory. The Sanskrit term is pratisaṁvida indicating the root “to know” rather than the root “to break apart/analyze” as in Pali. I can’t recall if any investigation has been done into this, but it looks like some early confusion. Such vacillation in the root of a doctrinal term is highly unusual, reinforcing the impression that the category is a marginal one. Which doesn’t, of course, mean the same thing as “late”.
Not quite, I translate āvuso throughout as “reverend”. In fact it is the same root as āyasmā, which is usually translated as “venerable”. While both terms have a somewhat flexible meaning, they have more or less the same meaning in the texts. In a few contexts it appears that āvuso may indicate a somewhat lesser degree of respect as compared to āyasmā, which is why many modern translations use “friend”. However, it doesn’t really mean “friend” at all, in literal or applied meaning. It’s a term of respect, and much like the Christian uses of the terms “venerable” and “reverend” the degree of respect may vary, but in any case are to be inferred from context, rather than anything in the words themselves.
Yes sorry i think i mistook another translators work for your’s (ajjhattha was ‘subjective’ and subha was 'fair?!)
On ‘āyasma, āvuso, bhante,’ is it the case bhante is used more for the buddha and āyasma amongst the sāvakas?, what about the mahā-parinibbāna story of there being a distinction between bhante-avuso?
No, bhante is used equally for the Buddha and other monastics.
Indeed, see above re “a few contexts it appears that āvuso may indicate a somewhat lesser degree of respect”. But that doesn’t, in my view, translate as “friend”, a word that isn’t an honorific at all, and is not really used as a term of address in the same kind of way.
Ok thanks for the clarification, can you say something about the term ‘kula-putta’ lit. ‘sons of families’ often translated as ‘sons of good families’ and what the commentary says about it, why isn’t it just sons of families?
38. “sattahi, bhikkhave, dhammehi samannāgato bhikkhu