Thank you for addressing this issue @sujato! So far, I disagree on this matter. I would like to explain why.
Your main criticism is that translations have been misled by the commentaries. Well, I would like you to know that I was unaware of what the commentaries had to say about this sutta. I was asking my question merely from examining the Pāli of this sutta.
I would like to take up what you said about this word in your post which you have referred us to:
You say “However, this is a mistake.” And yet the only reasoning you seem to give is the above. My question was asked on the basis of the PED definitions. For ease of reference:
Are you saying these are wrong?
Now, regarding other occurences, using the PED I have noticed that there are only 3 suttas with ‘gambhīraṃ atthapadaṃ’:
- AN 4.192
- AN 6.46
- AN 9.4
Searching only ‘atthapadaṃ’, reveals only these in addition:
- KN 2.8
- KN 5.73
- KN 15.522
- KN 15.553
So let’s tackle the ones with the full ‘gambhīraṃ atthapadaṃ’:
- AN 4.192
You did quote from this sutta, but I believe a longer quote is important for understanding the context. This is the relevant section:
‘You can get to know a person’s wisdom by discussion. But only after a long time, not casually; only when paying attention, not when inattentive; and only by the wise, not the witless.’
‘Sākacchāya, bhikkhave, paññā veditabbā, sā ca kho dīghena addhunā, na ittaraṃ; manasikarotā,no amanasikarotā; paññavatā, no duppaññenā’ti, Justin note: that refers to the enquirer, not the one being investigated]That’s what I said, but why did I say it?
iti kho panetaṃ vuttaṃ. Kiñcetaṃ paṭicca vuttaṃ?Take a person who is discussing with someone else. They come to know:
Idha, bhikkhave, puggalo puggalena saddhiṃ sākacchāyamāno evaṃ jānāti:‘Judging by this venerable’s approach, by what they’re getting at, and by how they articulate a question, they’re witless, not wise.
‘yathā kho imassa āyasmato ummaggo yathā ca abhinīhāro yathā capañhāsamudāhāro, duppañño ayamāyasmā, nāyamāyasmā paññavā.Why is that?
Taṃ kissa hetu?This venerable does not articulate matters that are deep, peaceful, refined, beyond the scope of reason, subtle, comprehensible to the astute.
Tathā hi ayamāyasmā na ceva gambhīraṃ atthapadaṃ udāharati santaṃ paṇītaṃ atakkāvacaraṃ nipuṇaṃ paṇḍitavedanīyaṃ.When this venerable speaks on Dhamma they’re not able to explain the meaning, either briefly or in detail. They can’t teach it, assert it, establish it, open it, analyze it, or make it clear.
Yañca ayamāyasmā dhammaṃ bhāsati tassa ca nappaṭibalo saṅkhittena vā vitthārena vā atthaṃā cikkhituṃ desetuṃ paññāpetuṃ paṭṭhapetuṃ vivarituṃ vibhajituṃ uttānīkātuṃ.This venerable is witless, not wise.’
Duppañño ayamāyasmā, nāyamāyasmā paññavā’ti.
I have highlighted gambhīraṃ atthapadaṃ, and also the parts which I feel make it clear that the wisdom that is being spoken of is at least partly if not entirely an intellectual wisdom. And that this context is specifically about teaching the dhamma, explaining the dhamma, analyzing it and so on.
-
AN 6.46
The subject of this discussion, so no need to go further with this one. -
AN 9.4
In this sutta, Nandaka was giving a dhamma teaching. It was too lengthy. The Buddha then advised Nandaka on giving dhamma teachings. Here is some of it:
[The Buddha discusses how to give a dhamma talk:]
It’s appropriate for people from good families like you, who have gone forth in faith from the lay life to homelessness, to sit together for a Dhamma talk.Etaṃ kho, nandaka, tumhākaṃ patirūpaṃ kulaputtānaṃ saddhāya agārasmāanagāriyaṃ pabbajitānaṃ, yaṃ tumhe dhammiyā kathāya sannisīdeyyātha.
[later he lists the benefits of dhamma teaching:]
Reverends, there are these five benefits of listening to the teachings at the right time and discussing the teachings at the right time.
Pañcime, āvuso, ānisaṃsā kālena dhammassavane kālena dhammasākacchāya.[…]
Furthermore, a mendicant teaches the mendicants the Dhamma …
Puna caparaṃ, āvuso, bhikkhu bhikkhūnaṃ dhammaṃ deseti ādikalyāṇaṃmajjhekalyāṇaṃ pariyosānakalyāṇaṃ sātthaṃ sabyañjanaṃ, kevalaparipuṇṇaṃparisuddhaṃ brahmacariyaṃ pakāseti.Whenever they do this, they see a deep matter in that Dhamma with penetrating wisdom.
Yathā yathā, āvuso, bhikkhu bhikkhūnaṃ dhammaṃ deseti ādikalyāṇaṃ … pe …brahmacariyaṃ pakāseti tathā tathā so tasmiṃ dhamme gambhīraṃ atthapadaṃ paññāya ativijjha passati.This is the third benefit …
Ayaṃ, āvuso, tatiyo ānisaṃso kālena dhammassavane kālena dhammasākacchāya.
So we see that this sutta is also specifically in the context of teaching the dhamma.
If both the dictionary is telling us that atthapadaṃ is “a profitable saying, a word of good sense, text, motto”, and the contexts of every other occurrence of this phrase gambhīraṃ atthapadaṃ is specifically about teaching and explaining the teachings, then, does this not indicate that it quite likely does carry the meaning as indicated in the PED? I.e. that gambhīraṃ atthapadaṃ may be more specifically intellectual, such as ‘deep doctrine’, ‘deep teaching’ or something along those lines?
Now, in your post you also take up the meaning of dhamma:
Note also the use of dhamma in the context of wisdom for the dhammanusari. This usage echoes the similar contrast between ajjhattaṃ cetosamatha and adhipaññādhammavipassanā (“inner serenity” and “higher wisdom of discernment into principles”). We also have dhammavicaya and dhammānupassanā in the same sense; and I think dhammayoga fits here too. In all these cases dhamma means “principles”, in the sense of understanding the “principles” of cause and effect that underlie the four noble truths and so on.
It would be highly unusual, if not unique, for the suttas to use terminology like “sees after penetrating with wisdom” for someone who had merely studied the teachings. The two means of dhamma as “teaching” and “principle, phenomena” are often conflated in wisdom contexts, and in some cases the suttas themselves invoke both meanings in the same context; I’m thinking of the canonical explanations of dhammavicaya. However there is no reason why we should read such a conflation in this case.
What I had not realised until doing this analysis of occurences of gambhīraṃ atthapadaṃ in response to your comments, is that in the only other two suttas (there are none in the vinaya) containing that phrase, this phrase is located specifically in the context of people verbally teaching dhamma, discussing the dhamma, explaining the dhamma. So this would seem to greatly strengthen the case against your position that this is not about dhamma in the sense of dhamma talks in this sutta, would it not?
I also want to express that I have huge respect for you, and learn a great deal from you, especially from this type of interaction. Apparently I can sometimes come across strangely online and would not want to seem ungrateful or overly critical - this is just my mode of learning. Basically, I have very few Pāli skills, but lots of interest in buddhadhamma, and deeply appreciate being able to discuss these issue with you. Many, many thanks 