@mikenz66 has highlighted one of the most inspiring passages in the suttas:
He has raised a number of translation issues, which are well considered, but on returning to the text I find there are more issues than I thought. I wonder, in fact, whether my translation has been unduly influence by the commentary.
Here’s the Pali; note the punctuation in the MS edition:
Cha dhāturo ayaṁ, bhikkhu, puriso cha phassāyatano aṭṭhārasa manopavicāro caturādhiṭṭhāno;
yattha ṭhitaṁ maññassavā nappavattanti, maññassave kho pana nappavattamāne muni santoti vuccati.
There’s a list of attributes describing the person, literally “this is a person of six elements, six spheres of contact, eighteen mind-explorations, four adhiṭṭhānas.” (Leaving the last term untranslated for now.) The MS edition supplies a semicolon after this list, implying that the items go together, which is implied by the Pali syntax in any case.
Now, the second phrase begins with yattha “where”. The commentary construes this as referring back to the four adhiṭṭhānas, which it interprets as “grounds, foundations”.
Yattha ṭhitanti yesu adhiṭṭhānesu patiṭṭhitaṃ
This makes good metaphorical sense, as the next line refers to the sweeping over of the tides of conceit. Someone who is well-grounded is able to stand and resist the tides. And it is for this reason that I, as well as Ven Bodhi, and I think Ven Nyanamoli, followed the commentary in this case.
However there are some reasons to question this.
Grammatically, there is no reason why yattha should call back to the previous phrase. It would be a little odd, in fact, for the yattha to call back to only the last item in the preceding phrase. The phrase itself, as noted above, treats all its clauses equally.
What is more, the phrase occurs three times in the Sutta, and only the first time does it directly follow the passage concluded with the four adhiṭṭhānas. Thus when I wrote “They have four foundations, standing on which the streams of identification don’t flow”, or when Ven Bodhi wrote “The tides of conceiving do not sweep over one who stands upon these foundations”, we have supplied what we think the intended meaning is, but the four adhiṭṭhānas are not actually mentioned.
Instead, we can simply read it as saying “wherever they stand …”. This construction is common in the Vinaya, for example pli-tv-bu-vb-pc50:2.2.2:
Yattha ṭhito passati, āpatti dukkaṭassa.
Wherever he stands to see it, he commits an offense of wrong conduct.
It should also be noted that adhiṭṭhāna doesn’t usually mean “foundation” in the Suttas. The normally meaning is “resolve, determination”, or else it is a term for attachments. In this case, Analayo uses “resolutions”, and notes the following renderings:
MĀ 162 at T I 690c9 as “four spheres of establishment”, 四住處, and D (4094) mngon pa, ju 35b7 or Q (5595) tu 39a3 as “four resolutions”, byin gyis brlabs (D: gyi rlabs) bzhi pa, while T 511 varies, cf. T XIV 780b27: “four solid phenomena”, 四事堅, but then T XIV 780b28: “four solid intentions”, 四堅志.
The translations, therefore, also oscillate between the senses of “resolution” and “foundation”, even within the same text. If we sever the metaphorical link between “tides of conceiving” and “foundation”, then it opens the question as to whether the better established sense of “resolution” should apply.
On the other hand, the commentary, both here and in DN 33, has the sense of “foundation, ground, standing place”, saying that the prefix adhi here is a mere particle. In the text itself, under the first category, that of wisdom, it says:
Tassa sā vimutti sacce ṭhitā akuppā hoti.
That liberation of theirs stands on truth, and is unshakeable.
Here the sense of “stand, grounding” must apply. On the whole, then, I am inclined to accept the sense of “foundation”.
A couple of other points of translation. I have, reluctantly, abandoned the Nyanamoli/Bodhi use of “conceives/conceit” for maññati/māna. It’s an extremely clever translation, as it connects the ideas of “thinking”, “conceptualizing”, “constructing a sense of self”, and “pride”. The problem is, I think a naive reader would miss all that.
To say “does not conceive earth”, in simple English means “has no idea of what earth is”, rather than “does not construct the idea of earth in relation to a self”. So I reluctantly use “does not identify with earth”. This is clearer, but captures less nuance, and unfortunately overlaps with other uses of “identify”. Anyway, opinions welcome!
Now, let’s talk about “has”. Normally the possessive in Pali is indicated by the genitive case, but here it’s all nominative all the way down. This implies as stronger connection, “is”, expressed by Ven Bodhi as “consists of”. However, he is not able to maintain this consistently, and the person is said to “have” the four foundations, creating a split in the syntax where none exists in Pali.
That the sense of “have” is justified is supported by the text, which says
iminā paramena paññādhiṭṭhānena samannāgato hoti
endowed with this ultimate foundation of wisdom
And since the Pali maintains a uniform syntax, I think it’s best to keep it as “has” throughout.
Finally, the verb here, pavattati, literally means to “proceed” (cf. the Dhammacakka). It doesn’t have a particular sense of “sweep over”.
Cha dhāturo ayaṁ, bhikkhu, puriso cha phassāyatano aṭṭhārasa manopavicāro caturādhiṭṭhāno;
This person has six elements, six fields of contact, eighteen mental preoccupations, and four foundations.
yattha ṭhitaṁ maññassavā nappavattanti, maññassave kho pana nappavattamāne muni santoti vuccati.
Wherever they stand, the steams of identification do not flow. And when the streams of identification do not flow, they are called a sage at peace.