SuttaCentral
Thread for John Kelly’s Pāli Reading Group 2025 Session 5 (April 6th / 7th
2025).
Meeting ID: 829 5896 1475
Passcode: anicca
You will need to remain in the “waiting room” until host lets you in.
We will continue going through together Dīgha Nikaya 22, Mahāsatipaṭṭhāna sutta.
Homework preparation for this class:
Prepare your answers for the following sections:
Looking ahead, please make a note that there will be no Pāli Reading Group session on April 20/21 (the Easter weekend).
Hi John, I’m still not sure if I understand correctly the grammar concerning the relative pronouns in this passage:
Katamo ca, bhikkhave, piyehi vippayogo dukkho? Idha
(1) yassa te honti iṭṭhā kantā manāpā rūpā saddā gandhā rasā phoṭṭhabbā dhammā,
(2) ye vā panassa te honti atthakāmā hitakāmā phāsukakāmā yogakkhemakāmā mātā vā pitā vā bhātā vā bhaginī vā mittā vā amaccā vā ñātisālohitā vā,
(3) yā tehi saddhiṃ asaṅgati asamāgamo asamodhānaṃ amissībhāvo,
(4) ayaṃ vuccati, bhikkhave, piyehi vippayogo dukkho.
This is how I see it:
(1) and (2) are of same ‘level’, connected by vā; both of them are relative clauses, modifying tehi for (3).
Then (3) is also a relative clause modifying ayaṃ for (4).
If this is the case, then I have a question here: Is yassa in (1) the same as ye (vā pana)assa in (2)?
So yassa is ‘splitted’ into ye and assa, for the insertion of vā pana.
Here are some translations:
(Anandajoti) And what, monks, is the suffering from being parted from what is liked?
Here, for that one who has wanted, lovely, pleasant forms, sounds, smells, tastes, tangibles, and thoughts; or, for that one who has those who do desire his welfare, benefit, comfort and security—mothers, or fathers, or brothers, or sisters, or friends, or companions, or blood relatives—(and then) not having meetings, assembly, connection, and interaction with them: this, monks, is called the suffering from being parted from what is liked.
(Sujato) And what is meant by ‘separation from the liked is suffering’?
There are sights, sounds, smells, tastes, touches, and ideas that are likable, desirable, and agreeable. And there are those who want to benefit, help, comfort, and protect you: mother and father, brother and sister, friends and colleagues, relatives and kin. The division from these, the disconnection, segregation, and parting from them: this is what is meant by ‘separation from the liked is suffering’.
(Thanissaro) And what is the stress of separation from the loved?
There is the case where desirable, pleasing, attractive sights, sounds, aromas, flavors, or tactile sensations do not occur to one; or one has no connection, no contact, no relationship, no interaction with those who wish one well, who wish for one’s benefit, who wish for one’s comfort, who wish one security from the yoke, nor with one’s mother, father, brother, sister, friends, companions, or relatives. This is called the stress of separation from the loved.
(Walshe) And what is being separated from the loved?
Here, whoever has what is wanted, liked, pleasant sight-objects, sounds, smells, tastes, tangibles or mind-objects, or whoever encounters well-wishers, wishers of good, of comfort, of security, mother or father or brother or sister or younger kinsmen or friends or colleagues or blood-relations, and then is deprived of such concourse, intercourse, connection, or union, that, monks, is called being separated from the loved.
(Pariyatti) And what, monks, is the suffering of being disassociated with what one does like?
Wherever and whenever one finds pleasant, agreeable or liked objects of sight, sound, smell, taste, touch or of the mind, or, whenever and wherever one finds that there are wishers of one’s own fortune, prosperity, comfort or of one’s own security, like mother and father, like
brother and sister, like friends and colleagues or relatives; if one gets disassociated, one does not meet, one does not come into contact or does not get combined with them—this, monks, is called the suffering of being disassociated with what one does like.
Hello Trung,
No, I wouldn’t exactly see it the way you have phrased it here. Try the following:
Hope that helps.
Thank you John for your reply!
Is there any difference in meaning between yassa in (1) and ye assa in (2)?
It seems to me that they are interchangeable in this passage. So, aside from the order of ideas, the meaning would remain the same if (1) and (2) were modified as follows:
(1) yassa te honti atthakāmā hitakāmā phāsukakāmā yogakkhemakāmā mātā vā pitā vā bhātā vā bhaginī vā mittā vā amaccā vā ñātisālohitā vā,
(2) ye vā panassa te honti iṭṭhā kantā manāpā rūpā saddā gandhā rasā phoṭṭhabbā dhammā,
They are actually quite different, Trung, and not interchangeable.
Read again my responses to you in my previous post
- yassa is relative pronoun dative meaning something like "for whom " followed by te honti … ", there are these sights, etc. wished for and so on.
- ye vā panassa where ye is relative pronoun nominative plural agreeing with atthakāmā, etc., and assa is demonstrative pronoun dative “for him”.
In the first case, as I stated above, yassa is dat rel pron meaning “for whom”.
In the second case ye (which is not combinable with assa, as you seem to be suggesting) is the nom pl rel pron agreeing with what follows, that is, those things that are (te honti) atthakāmā hitakāmā phāsukakāmā …
And assa (which is an alternative form of tassa) is a dative (or genitive) demonstrative (or 3rd person) pronoun. And the ‘person’ referred to by assa relates back to the same person referred to by yassa in the previous clause. But that doesn’t nake them equivalent.
Yes, now I can see this too. Thanks for your explanation!
But all the translations (and the meaning too) seem to suggest that (1) yassa te honti iṭṭhā … and (2) ye vā panassa te honti atthakāmā … are parallel in their function, linked by vā.
If assa in (2) relates back to yassa in (1), wouldn’t that make (1) a relative clause for (2), so they cannot be parellel?
Translations can be made quite freely, Trung, as long as the essential meaning is captured.
I’ve now made it pretty clear what I believe the grammatical functions are of each of the words you are asking about. I wouldn’t get too hung up on trying to match with the various translations.
Could you please provide us with your most grammatically precise translation of the passage, especially taking into account that (1) is a relative clause to (2), and that the two are connected by “or”?
According to DPD, yassa could be a sandhi [yo + assa] meaning ‘whoever to him’
An example of this is given by DPD:
na brāhmaṇassa pahareyya,
n’āssa muñcetha brāhmaṇo,
dhī brāhmaṇassa hantāraṃ,
tato dhī yassa muñcati.
[DHP389]
Translation by Acharya Buddharakkhita:
One should not strike a holy man,
nor should a holy man, when struck, give way to anger.
Shame on him who strikes a holy man,
and more shame on him who gives way to anger.
So I think it’s quite possible that yassa is also a sandhi [ye + assa] in the passage we have been discussing.
Yes, this is possible.
So I think it’s quite possible that yassa is also a sandhi [ye + assa] in the passage we have been discussing.
I’m not convinced, but perhaps it is possible.
Anyway, I’ve had enough of discussing this particular passage. Let’s move on, please.