Thanks, Snowbird…!
We’ve seen above, that bahira could mean “external” and also “exclusive”.
Let’s take Jhāna now.
For there is a word play with Jhāna, that is seldomly taken into consideration.
Jhāna comes from jhāyati - and jhāyati has two roots.
- Jhāna (from jhāyati) - Sk. kṣāyati (root kṣi) = to be diminished, decrease, waste away.
- Jhāna (from jhāyati) - Sk. dhyāyati (root dhī) = to perceive, think upon, meditate over).
The former is the one that is never taken into consideration.
Look at this summary for Jhāna: JHĀNA
For instance - before one can get into the first jhāna, one has to decrease (even waste away) his sensual pleasures and unskilfull qualities (unproper states).
Then one can get into the absorption of the first jhāna, where one perceives, thinks upon and/or meditate upon the ensuing states.
Before one can get into the second jhāna, one has to waste the pleasure born of seclusion away; then decrease (to the minimum) vitakka & vicara. Etc.
So in JHĀNA , what is “to be diminished”, is bolded and strukthrough.
These “decreases” (root kṣi), lead to the ensuing states, which are the absorptions (root dhī) — namely the absorptions as jhāna (from jhāyati) - Sk. dhyāyati (root dhī) = to perceive, think upon, meditate over).
This stage of absorption is both, the paṭisaṃvedī … sikkhati of ānāpānasati [ viz. the desire to be able to (desiderative of śak,) have an accurate knowledge of the particulars of something (pratisaṃvid)] — plus — the experience itself of that thing; generated by the perception and thinking upon that thing (e. g. pītipaṭisaṃvedī … sikkhati — namely the desire to understand, then to have the knowledge of pīti; then to experience it) .
To summarize, one has first to decrease or waist something away [root kṣi] — then — one has to perceive and think upon (have the knowledge of) something - plus - meditate upon that thing (contemplate and/or experience the result) [root dhī] .
This seems to be the wordplay with Jhāna.
Interesting, thank you!
We’ve seen above that:
- Bahira has both the meanings of “external” and “exclude”.
- Anicca has both the meanings of "impermanent " and “not one’s own”.
- Jhāna has both the meanings of "to be diminished " and “absorption”.
Let’s see now the two meanings of sati. One of which is never used.
The first meaning comes from smṛti, which means “thinking upon”, “calling to mind”; (usually translated as “mindful”).
It can be being mindful of (thinking upon) the breath. Or being mindful of not letting the external akusala get in, etc.
In Chinese, it is written as 想 (ideation) — as in “mindfulness of death” (死想) [EA 40.8/AN 6.19]
The second meaning, that is never used, comes from sati = sāti = santi
https://www.sanskritdictionary.com/sati/247861/1
http://sanskritdictionary.com/sāti/258979/1
which means “gaining”, “obtaining”.
In Chinese, it is written as 念 (settled recollection/sthāpana) — as in 安那般那念 = Ānāpānasati = settled recollection (obtention) of in & out breath.
So for instance, Ānāpānasati should not be read as “mindfulness of breathing”.
Instead one should read “obtention through breathing”.
Obtention of what? — “obtention” of the establishment (samadhi/定).
Establishment of what? — “establishment” of citta (= liberation from ceto, the tainted citta).
And sati-paṭṭhānā (sati-prasthāna) should be read as “the way to attain-the obtention”.
… satiṃ upaṭṭhapetvā. So sato’va assasati. Sato passasati.
… having looked after the obtention (sati = sāti), mindful (sati=smṛti), he breathes in, mindful he breathes out (SN 54.13).
>Note: In the case of the verbs assasanto & passasanto, the Sanskrit considers dīgha (दीर्घ dīrgha) and rassa (ह्रस्व hrasva [hras-va]), as adverbs - whose translation is lofty & low - and not long & short (as it would be, in the case of an adjective ).
To summarize, sati is a recollection, a calling to mind (smṛti).
But sati is also about that settled recollection (sāti/念/sthāpana) - where sthāpana is the agent causative of sthā - an agent on which one “whishes to stand” (sthā) back [the obtention, the acquisition)]. An agent from which a dhamma “arises from” (sthā), and gets actualized in the sphere of senses (saḷāyatana). But most of all, an agent that should from now on, “stand still” (sthā), once the actualized dhamma has been properly experienced through “the insight from knowledge according to what has become” (yathābhūtañāṇadassana).
That obtention (sāti) of the settled recollection, is what one should look after, and arrive at. Namely the settled recollection of a state, prior to the actualization of dhammas - which by now, should also include the proper knowledge (dukkha & anicca,) of what has come to be.
There is hidden meaning in all this, only when these double meanings are kept hidden by the corrupters of the Teaching. Aren’t they?
Who are these “corrupters” of the teaching suci1/vinc… I mean Jean?
Not sure if meanings are intentionally hidden by certain people. However, it seems that the Buddha instilled in some of his teachings some meanings that are literal, and some that are more subtle.
Sorry to bring up something from earlier in the thread. I don’t think that the arahant killing the insects is in any way a twist. The connection to the verse is because of the monks who accused the arahant asked the Buddha how it could be that someone who became an arahant could also be someone who became blind. Then the Buddha reveals the action he did in a previous life (blinding someone else) as something that followed him along to this life. It’s quite clear and direct.
Yes that’s also in there, yet you cannot deny the potent situational irony.
Does that subtlety has to do with some kind of a subtle message; or is it that the language is just inherently subtle?
Sankrit and Pali are incredibly subtle; to the extent that a word can mean something and its contrary.
We’ve seen above that sthā can mean “to wish to stand”, to “arise from”, and to “stand still”. That’s a lots of meanings indeed (and there are more as well) - yet they all make sense, when one tries to explain the other meaning of sati, as “obtention” (of a settled recollection).
Words are containers that are filled with contexts; generations after generations.
It would be suitable that genuine Buddhists should know the different meanings that these containers were carrying at the time of Buddha.
This is the least they can do: historical lexicography.
One of the main point of early Buddhism, is to have an insight (vision) from knowledge according to what has become” (yathābhūtañāṇadassana) - a vision from the cit.
For that matter, the all practice is about turning the mano towards the origin (yoniso manasikara); that is towards the beginning, from which things (dhammas) have come be — plus — it is also about liberating the ceto from the taints (asavas); so as to obtain that “settled recollection” of a previously untainted, free citta - for the cit (cí t) is what sees, what it is piling up (sankharazation of the khandhas in the nāmarūpa nidāna).
https://www.sanskritdictionary.com/ci/80935/1
https://www.sanskritdictionary.com/ci/80863/1
That simply means that one has to turn the mano towards the previous link (nidāna), where the “sankharization” (co-action) of the khandhas takes place (“arise from”); with the ensuing dhamma that “comes to be” — plus — one has to “wish to stand” in that settled recollection, that will allow him to see with a liberated citta, how things have come to be.
This is the general idea behind the practice, that is indeed quite clearly stated, when one uses the right historical lexicography.
Now, one must admit that sati is indeed, a subtle concept. For it encompasses the actual recollections (general recollections, or recollection of the Teaching as a barrier against the akusala dhammas) — as well as the wish to obtain the previously untainted recollection of a free citta, that has the particularity to “stand still” and look at what is going on, (which it can’t do, as long as it is tainted).
But does that mean that the Buddha was using, on purpose, some kind of subtlety while delivery his message?
Or does that mean that he was he just counting on his audience, to have in mind, the proper concepts of the time?
Still waiting to hear who these corrupters are suci1/ToVincent/Cobwith/Jean?
Then there is the case when the “hidden meaning” is just pure ignorance of the historical lexicography.
Parimukha means “beginning”, introduction, commencement (root).
Not “mouth”, not “in front”, not “etc.” A least, not in this case.
This “root” meaning appears in the Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa (ŚBr. 2.5.1(8)) as:
Sa vā āgneyo 'ṣṭākapālaḥ puroḍāśo bhavati | agnirvai devatānām mukham
prajanayitā sa prajāpatistasmādāgneyo bhavati
In the first place, there is a cake for Agni on eight potsherds. Agni indeed is the root, the progenitor of the deities; he is Pragâpati (‘lord of creatures’): hence there is a cake for Agni.
This meaning goes very well wit the previous second meaning of sati (as shown before), namely 'obtention" (of a settled recollection), from a previous nidāna.
The notable expression in the Ānāpānasati sutta:
“aṇidhāya parimukhaṃ satiṃ upaṭṭhapetvā”
becomes:
“Intending towards the beginning (root), and having looked after the obtention (sati) [viz. of the establishment (samādhi) of Citta].”
You just can’t imagine, how much criticism and censure this historical lexicography thing can bring up so far. Just mere outrage and outcry (sometimes quite unnoble); and I must confess that I have seen no vindication of the matter so far.
Wonder why?
This “historical lexicography” adventure of yours gives some rather spurious definitions of Buddhist terms and makes some rather bizarre claims, for example your anicca reference above. It is purely your own idiosyncratic invention, which has been debunked many times both here and on DhammaWheel suci1/ToVincent/Cobwith/Jean.
I am still waiting to hear who the corrupters of the Dhamma are? Do tell us when this great apostasy began?
Addendum to the “anicca” post above:
Nicca as Vedic Nitya:
https://dsalsrv04.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/app/pali_query.py?qs=Nicca&searchhws=yes
Meaning of Vedic नित्य nitya:
1 - continual, perpetual, eternal (aka permanent)
https://www.sanskritdictionary.com/nitya/118390/1
agne apām sam idhyase duroṇe nityaḥ sūno iti sahasaḥ jāta-vedaḥ sadha-sthāni mahayamānaḥ ūtī
In the floods’ home art thou enkindled, Agni, O Jatavedas, Son of Strength, eternal, exalting with thine help the gathering places.
2 - one’s own (opp. to araṇa)
https://www.sanskritdictionary.com/nitya/118389/1
nityam na sūnum madhu bibhrataḥ upa krīḷanti krīḷāḥ vidatheṣu ghṛṣvayaḥ
Bringing the pleasant meath as’ twere their own dear son, they sport in sportive wise gay at their gatherings. (RV. 1.166.2)
Put an a- in front of nitya, and you will have the opposite anitya/anicca) =
- impermanent
- not one’s own. The latter being similar to “na tumhāka” (not yours).
Of course within the Buddhist texts anatta is used for “not one’s own” whilst anicca is used for impermanence.