Working on Dhammacakkapavatana in Pāli class, and looking for some clarification that’s probably more Dhamma than grammar, and hence, outside the scope of our class discussion.
From the section where the Buddha details the three parivaṭṭā for each Noble truth:
- 'Taṁ kho panidaṁ dukkhaṁ ariyasaccaṁ pariññeyyan’ti
- ‘Taṁ kho panidaṁ dukkhasamudayaṁ ariyasaccaṁ pahātabban’ti
- ‘Taṁ kho panidaṁ dukkhanirodhaṁ ariyasaccaṁ sacchikātabban’ti
- ‘Taṁ kho panidaṁ dukkhanirodhagāminī paṭipadā ariyasaccaṁ bhāvetabban’ti
Translations from Bhante Sujato, Bhante Bodhi, and Ajahn Thanissaro are all in agreement that the potential participle (aka future passive participle) modifies the ariyasacca, and not the respective apposite phrase of that ariyasacca. That is to say - for these three translators, it does not modify dukkha, dukkhasamudaya, dukkhanirodha, or the paṭipadā (of dukkhanirodhagāmi).
So, the English translation (here fr Bhante Bodhi) would be:
- 'This noble truth of suffering is to be fully understood’
- This noble truth of the origin of suffering is to be abandoned’
- ‘This noble truth of the cessation of suffering is to be realized’
- ‘This noble truth of the way leading to the cessation of suffering is to be developed’
My confusion is that this does not make sense for ariyasacca #2, because it sounds like the the noble truth is to be abandoned, not the origin of suffering.
If applied to school rules on uniforms - it sounds like the school rule should be abandoned - not the t-shirts.
- School rule about neckties should be understood
- School rule about t-shirts should be abandoned
- School rule about button-ups should be experienced
- School rule about slacks should developed.
Whereas if the future passive participle applies to the apposite phrase of each ariyasacca, the English would read:
- 'This is the noble truth of: that suffering should be understood’
- 'This is noble truth of: that origin of suffering should be abandoned’
- ‘This noble truth of: that cessation of suffering is to be realized’
- ‘This noble truth of: that way leading to the cessation of suffering is to be developed’
Can anyone help me understand why that future passive participle applies to the whole ariyasacca and not its apposite?
A secondary reason I’m intuiting a structural separation between the ariyasacca and its apposite is that each sections opens with idaṃ, to establish the ariysacca, and then follows with taṃ - seemingly to create a separate clause for the apposite ( dukkha ariyasacca here)
‘Idaṁ dukkhaṁ ariyasaccan’ti me, bhikkhave…
'Taṁ kho panidaṁ dukkhaṁ ariyasaccaṁ pariññeyyan’ti me, bhikkhave…
If I have correctly understood it, then idaṃ = this ariyasacca, and taṃ = a demonstrative pronoun pointing to whatever is pariññeyyaṃ. Which seems like it would necessarily refer to a subject distinct from the ariyasacca, no?