SuttaCentral
The sentence reads: vipassanāya paṭivipassanākāle viya pacchimadiṭṭhiyā purimadiṭṭhiggahaṇakāle evaṃ hoti.
I think I have about a 70% understanding of what is being said, but the parsing of the two larger compounds, and the function of kāle as a suffix of sorts, is throwing me.
For context, it appears in the atthakathā to section 241.
Thank you.
The commentator there is talking about two views, the former view (purimadiṭṭhi, that of the common people who don’t know the dharma) and the latter view (pacchimadiṭṭhi, that of the one who knows the dharma). The former view is normally given up by the one who knows the dharma.
When reflecting on the view of the common people - one who knows the dharma has to think like how the common people think - and when that prior view is considered (purima-diṭṭhi-gahaṇa-kāle) the ideas “so loko so attā…” etc emerge (in one’s mind)
I’m sorry, perhaps I should have been clearer with my question.
Thank you, but I was looking for a more philological explanation of the sentence itself: i.e., a very literal explanation of the Pāli. I think I have a general understanding of what the import of the sentence is, I’d just like to tighten it with clarification of what the sentence is actually doing here linguistically.
That being said, though, I’m interested in what brought you to the answer you provided: where, for instance, did you get this juxtaposition of “common people” and “one who knows the dharma”? I have yet to come across mention of anything like that in the commentary.
The whole paragraph in the commentary is:
Of these 4 statements in the paragraph, your query directly pertains to the last, but the first 3 sentences provide the context for what the last sentence is saying i.e. they tell you what the purimadiṭṭhi (referred to in the last sentence) is.
In the root text (section 241) - this purimadiṭṭhi is associated with the commoner who doesn’t know Buddhist-dharma – “idha, bhikkhave, assutavā puthujjano ariyānaṃ adassāvī ariyadhammassa akovido ariyadhamme avinīto, sappurisānaṃ adassāvī sappurisadhammassa akovido sappurisadhamme avinīto, rūpaṃ ‘etaṃ mama, esohamasmi, eso me attā’ti samanupassati”
The pacchimadiṭṭhi, on the other hand, is the view of the Buddhist (one who knows the Buddhist-dharma) - which provides the contrast to the purimadiṭṭhi. The person having the pacchimadiṭṭhi, in order to get a proper grasp of the purimadiṭṭhi (purima-diṭṭhi-gahaṇa) - evaluates the individual beliefs or opinions comprised in the purimadiṭṭhi.
The last sentence:
vipassanāya - abl. sing. of vipassanā (f)
paṭivipassanā-kāle - in loc. sing. of masc. compound paṭivipassanā-kāla (“at the time/occasion of paṭivipassanā”)
viya = indeclinable particle expressing similarity
pacchimadiṭṭhiyā = abl. sing of compound pacchima-diṭṭhi (f)
purima-diṭṭhi-gahaṇa-kāle = loc. sing of masc. compound purima-diṭṭhi-gahaṇa-kāla (at the time of considering the former view)
evaṃ hoti = “this happens” (or “this is the case”)
Ahhh, I understand now what you were saying about “common” vs. “one who understands.”
I appreciate your thoughtful response, including the grammatical breakdown.
Thank you. I will consider your response carefully.
Just for consideration as a personal opinion.
paṭivipassanākāle:
is given as an example. Like at that time of removing even subtle defilements in terms of ‘i am a great vipassaka’ and so forth. Ñāṇa considered by Ñāṇa. But in this case it’s diṭṭhi considered by diṭṭhi.
pacchimadiṭṭhiyā purimadiṭṭhiggahaṇakāle:
refers to the time of considering “tampi ‘etaṁ mama, esohamasmi, eso me attā’ti”(main text)
purimadiṭṭhi:
is the view given in the main text, “so loko so attā, so pecca bhavissāmi nicco dhuvo sassato avipariṇāmadhammo, sassatisamaṁ tatheva ṭhassāmī”
In short, not only fools have wrong views they identify with those views.