I am trying to find out the proper translation for ‘vadhena’ in the following passage:
AN 3.70 (Ajahn Thanissaro)
yadapi luddho… dukkhaṃ upadahati vadhena vā bandhanena vā jāniyā vā garahāya vā pabbājanāya vā… itipi tadapi akusalaṃ
Whatever suffering a greedy person… inflicts… through beating or imprisonment or confiscation or placing blame or banishment… that too is unskillful
Ven. Bodhi has ‘killing’, which gives another impression altogether.
The meaning given in PTSD is a little fuzzy:
striking, killing; slaughter, destruction, execution
– bandhana flogging and binding (imprisoning).
(vadha – cheda – bandhana; v. is expld at SnA 285 as “sattānaŋ daṇḍ’ ādīhi ākoṭanan” i. e beating)
The same or similar expressions comes several times in the texts.
Contexts supporting ‘killing’ as the correct meaning:
Pr 3: ‘vadhaka’ means unequivocally ‘killer/murderer’
bhikkhu bhikkhuṃ āṇāpeti — “itthannāmaṃ jīvitā voropehī”ti, āpatti dukkaṭassa. so taṃ maññamāno aññaṃ jīvitā voropetti, mūlaṭṭhassa anāpatti. vadhakassa āpatti pārājikassa.
If a monk tells a second monk, “kill so-and-so,” there is an offence of bad conduct. If the second monk kills someone else, thinking he is the one he was told to kill, there is no offence for the instigator, but there is an offence entailing expulsion for the murderer.
MN 10 killed/slaughtered
seyyathāpi, bhikkhave, dakkho goghātako vā goghātakantevāsī vā gāviṃ vadhitvā catumahāpathe bilaso vibhajitvā nisinno assa.
just as a skilled butcher or his apprentice, having killed a cow, would sit at a crossroads cutting it up into pieces
Contexts supporting ‘beating’ as the correct meaning:
At MN 19, the same expression occurs:
vadhaṃ vā bandhanaṃ vā jāniṃ vā garahaṃ vā
But given the context, ‘killing’ would sound excessive:
Just as in the last month of the Rains, in the autumn season when the crops are ripening, a cowherd would look after his cows: He would tap & poke & check & curb them with a stick on this side & that. Why is that? Because he foresees flogging or imprisonment or a fine or public censure arising from that [if he let his cows wander into the crops].
At Pr 2, ‘vadha’ is replaced by ‘hanati’:
rājāno coraṃ gahetvā haneyyuṃ vā bandheyyuṃ vā pabbājeyyuṃ vā
kings, having caught a thief, would flog, imprison or banish him
PTSD for hanati, which seems to be rather fuzzy in meaning, too:
- to strike, to thresh
- to kill; maggaŋ˚; to slay travellers on the road J i.274; iii.220.
- to destroy, to remove
However the Vibhanga explains clearly that it may mean either beating or mutilating:
haneyyuṃ vāti hatthena vā pādena vā kasāya vā vettena vā aḍḍhadaṇḍakena vā chejjāya vā haneyyuṃ.
Would flog means: they would flog with the hand, the foot, a
whip, a cane, a rod, or by maiming.
Context supporting ‘injury’ as the correct meaning:
seyyathāpi, udāyi, laṭukikā sakuṇikā pūtilatāya bandhanena baddhā tattheva vadhaṃ vā bandhaṃ vā maraṇaṃ vā āgameti.
Suppose a quail were snared by a rotting creeper, by which it could expect injury, capture, or death
So, could ‘through injury’ be the correct translation in the AN 3.70 passage quoted above?
Also, could anyone enlighten me with what the commentary means:
vadhena vātiādi yenākārena dukkhaṃ uppādeti, taṃ dassetuṃ vuttaṃ.