The missing reference for Nettippakarana 812


The above picture is the page 194 from ‘The_Guide,Nettippakarana,Nanamoli,1977’.

You can see the empty brackets after gathas 812.
:slightly_smiling_face: I’d like to fill something in, but not from Pali Tipitaka.

The Pali version for Nettippakarana 812:

Nettippakaraṇapāḷi 100.7
Kiṃsu hane uppatitaṃ,
kiṃsu jātaṃ vinodaye;
Kiñcassu pajahe dhīro,
kissābhisamayo sukho. 1

Nettippakaraṇapāḷi 100.8
Kodhaṃ hane uppatitaṃ,
rāgaṃ jātaṃ vinodaye;
Avijjaṃ pajahe dhīro,
saccābhisamayo sukho. 2

Firstly, we have Udānavarga 20.2 for the above gatha 2:

UV 20.2
krodhaṁ jahed utpatitaṁ
rāgaṁ jātaṁ nivārayet ।
avidyāṁ prajahed dhīraḥ
satyābhisamayāt sukham ।।

And also it’s Chinese parallels:

T210 25.17
T212 21.2

@Vimala Bhante, you may also put this in the parallels for UV20, but I don’t know your numbering method for Nettippakarana.
Found them in the legacy website:

“Kiṃsu hane uppatitaṃ,
kiṃsu jātaṃ vinodaye;
Kiñcassu pajahe dhīro,
kissābhisamayo sukho.
Kodhaṃ hane uppatitaṃ,
rāgaṃ jātaṃ vinodaye;
Avijjaṃ pajahe dhīro,
saccābhisamayo sukho”ti.
Ne 37: Sāsanapaṭṭhāna (Pāli) - Netti - SuttaCentral

Further more, these Q&A gathas can be found in 2 Chinese Saṃyuktāgamas (SA 1285, SA2 283), but not in their paralleled Pali Saṃyutta Nikāya (SN.1.71):

SA 1285


SA2 283


You may not read Chinese, however their meanings are almost 95% close to the Pali ones, except one word.

For each gatha, in the 2nd line, the Pali text use vinodaye (be guided out, or to drive out), but Udānavarga 20.2 and all the Chinese parallels use nivārayet (nivāraye in Pali, meaning to keep back, or to hold back from, and in Chinese that’s 防護 or 遮).

:slightly_smiling_face: So, considering all the gathas in Nettippakarana are taken from the Tipitaka, these 2 gathas must be lost in the Tipitaka for some reason.


Wow, excellent sleuthage! These little details are quite fascinating. How is it that a text found only in Pali quotes a verse found nowhere else in the Pali tradition, but in multiple places in northern traditions?

I presume these details are not noted in the translation. But I wonder whether any research on this point has been done before. I vaguely remember a discussion of a couple of similar instances, but I don’t know if any modern research has clarified the situation.

Given that the verses appear both in the Samyutta and the (non-Pali) Dhammapadas, and that the Dhammapadas are compilations, it would seem reasonable to suppose that they were added from the Samyutta to the Dhammapadas. I wonder whether other nearby verses from the Samyutta were likewise added to the Uv and other non-Pali Dhammapadas?

If this reasoning is correct, it suggests that the original lack was in the Samyutta; that is, there has been a loss in text in the Samyutta since the time of the Netti.

Curiously enough, the Netti commentary says nothing about this, just giving a simple gloss. Incidentally, for vinodaye it says:

Vinodayeti attano santānato nīhareyya.
“One should remove” means: one should take out from one’s own continuum.

Which is meant to clarify that the point here is to eliminate anger in oneself, not actually kill anyone! In any case, it does tend to indicate that vinodaye was current for the commentary.


:slightly_smiling_face: Thanks a lot for your reply, Bhante.
These parallels we are dealing with here are rather complex.
I am not sure whether I can possiblly make it clear.
Anyway, I’ll try my best. Let’s do it step by step.

In the Sagāthāvagga of Saṃyuttanikāya and Saṃyuktāgama, suttas are divdided into 2 parts: Stories and gathas (verses).
Some of the suttas do not have stories, but all of them have gathas.
So there are 2 kinds of parallels: story parallels, & gatha parallels.

Now, let’s look at the easier one first, the story parallels.
Story parallels for suttas in question:

SN.1.71 → SA 1285, SA2 283
SN.2.3 → SA 1309, SA2 308
SN.7.1 → SA 1158, SA2 81
SN.11.21 → SA 1116, SA2 45

:slightly_smiling_face: This is quite clear. I’ll talk about the gatha parallels in the next floor.

:slightly_smiling_face: Here comes the gatha parallels.
If I can draw a table, it would be much easier.
Let’s match the gathas one by one.

Gatha 1
Kiṃsu chetvā sukhaṃ seti,
kiṃsu chetvā na socati.
Kissassu ekadhammassa,
vadhaṃ rocesi gotama.

In Pali:

In Chinese: (:sweat_smile:Sorry, I still don’t know how to do highlighting)
殺何得安眠? 殺何得善樂?
為殺何等人, 瞿曇所讚嘆?
害誰安隱眠? 害誰不憂愁?
滅何等一法, 為聖所稱歎?
為殺於何等, 而得安隱眠?
為殺於何等, 令心得無憂?
為殺於何等, 瞿曇所稱歎?
摧壞何物得安眠? 除却何法獲無憂?
是何一法能死滅? 瞿曇沙門為我說。
為殺於何等, 而得安隱眠?
為殺於何等, 而得無憂畏?
為殺何等法, 瞿曇所讚歎?
除滅何事安隱眠? 滅除何物無憂愁?
滅何一法瞿曇讚? 唯願為我決眾疑。

Gatha 2
Kodhaṃ chetvā sukhaṃ seti,
kodhaṃ chetvā na socati.
Kodhassa visamūlassa,
madhuraggassa brāhmaṇa.
Vadhaṃ ariyā pasaṃsanti,
taṃ hi(tañhi) chetvā na socati.

In Pali:
sn1.71#3(SuttaCentral) brāhmaṇa → devate
sn2.3#3(SuttaCentral) brāhmaṇa → vatrabhū
sn11.21#3(SuttaCentral) brāhmaṇa → vāsava

In Sanskrit:
Udānavarga 20.3
krodhaṁ hatvā sukhaṁ sete
krodhaṁ hatvā na śocati ।
krodhasya viṣamūlasya
madhuraghnasya bhikṣavaḥ
vadham āryāḥ praśaṁsanti
taṁ ca hatvā na śocati ।।

In Chinese:
若殺於瞋恚, 而得安隱眠,
殺於瞋恚者, 令人得歡喜。
瞋恚為毒本, 殺者我所歎,
殺彼瞋恚已, 長夜無憂患。
害瞋安隱眠, 害瞋得無憂,
瞋恚之毒根, 詐親傷害人,
滅是等一法, 賢聖所稱歎。
殺於瞋恨者, 而得安隱眠,
殺於瞋恚者, 而心得無憂。
瞋恚為毒本, 能害甘種子,
能害於彼者, 賢聖所稱歎。
若能害彼者, 其心得無憂。
摧壞瞋恚得安眠, 除滅瞋恚得無憂,
瞋恚詐親能死害, 摩納如是應當知,
滅除瞋恚聖所讚, 能害彼者得無憂。
害兇惡瞋恚, 而得安隱眠,
害兇惡瞋恚, 心得無憂畏。
瞋恚為毒根, 滅彼苦種子,
滅彼苦種子, 而得無憂畏。
彼苦種滅故, 賢聖所稱歎。
滅除瞋恚安隱眠, 滅除瞋恚無憂愁,
去除瞋恚棘毒根, 汝今帝釋應當知,
如是瞋恚壞美善, 除滅上事聽所讚。

:slightly_smiling_face: Let’s have a break. I’ll do the next parallels in the next floor.

Gatha 3
Kiṃsu hane uppatitaṃ,
kiṃsu jātaṃ vinodaye;
Kiñcassu pajahe dhīro,
kissābhisamayo sukho.

In Pali:

In Chinese:
何法起應滅? 何生應防護?
何法應當離? 等觀何得樂?
云何起必壞? 云何遮不生?
云何捨所畏? 云何成法樂?

Gatha 4
Kodhaṃ hane uppatitaṃ,
rāgaṃ jātaṃ vinodaye;
Avijjaṃ pajahe dhīro,
saccābhisamayo sukho.

In Pali:

In Sanskrit:
Udānavarga 20.2
krodhaṁ jahed utpatitaṁ
rāgaṁ jātaṁ nivārayet ।
avidyāṁ prajahed dhīraḥ
satyābhisamayāt sukham ।।

In Chinese:
瞋恚起應滅, 貪生逆防護,
無明應捨離, 等觀真諦樂。
瞋恚起時滅, 貪欲生必遮,
棄無明無畏, 證滅最為樂。

Please note: SN.1.71 and SA 1285, SA2 283 are story-paralleled, but not gatha-paralleled.
In fact, the story for SN 1.71 is too short to compare. This is also true for SA 1285 and SA2 283.
The only similarity between SN.1.71 and SA 1285/SA2 283 is “a devata asked the Buddha with a verse, and the Buddha answered with another verse starting with ‘Kodhaṃ’”.
Maybe, SN.1.71 could be identified as not paralleled with SA 1285/SA2 283, since their gathas are actually different.

Gatha 5
Chandajaṃ aghaṃ
chandajaṃ dukkhaṃ,
Chandavinayā aghavinayo,
Aghavinayā dukkhavinayo.

In Pali:

In Chinese:
欲生諸煩惱, 欲為生苦本,
調伏煩惱者, 眾苦則調伏。
調伏眾苦者, 煩惱亦調伏。
欲為生死根, 欲能生諸苦,
斷欲得解脫, 諸苦亦復然,
苦得解脫故, 苦本亦解脫。

:slightly_smiling_face: That’s all I have for now.
There are many more gatha parallels in SN.1.34, 36; SA1285, 1286; and SA2 283, 284.
:sweat_smile: But they are all messed up, the paralleling is even more difficult. I haven’t done them yet.

1 Like

Thank you so much for all this. I will have a look at it when I have finished my current project. At the moment I’m looking at the parallels between the Udanavarga, the Tibetan version and T213 (Bibliotheca Polyglotta) and once that is done I will have a look at the above.

On a separate note, I just remembered that the Netti is a later text and the references in there are not marked as parallels, but as quotations. This means that the text quotes another, already existing, text like the SN. But it does not quote the Chinese texts. So only one text is mentioned as being quoted, even though the verses are the same in other texts too.

That does not mean that your above remarks are not valid, on the contrary, they are very valueble to find out what is going on.

1 Like

I finally had some quiet time to sit down and look into this :slight_smile: So please ignore my earlier remarks.

Gatha 1

I added the pali parallels for Gatha 1 and those to the Chinese Agama texts because we only had the parallels to the whole files and not the specific verses. Thank you so much for that!

Gatha 2

The only ones we did not have yet are the parallels to the specific verses in the Chinese Agama texts. And note as we recently discussed, there is also a parallel of Gatha 2 to the Tibetan Udanavarga: uv-kg20#411


The Netti, as I explained above, is not a parallel but a quotation (or a mention). It quotes a certain pali sutta and I assume it quotes one of the Samyutta suttas, although it is far from certain which one. In any case, in our system these two gathas are said to be quoting sn7.1.

Also, our system mentions that Uv20.2 is mentioned in Netti ne37#179 rather than any pali text.

However, considering the discussion above, it seems more likely that sn1.71 is being quoted in the Netti while part of this sutta has disappeared after the Netti was being formed as Bhante @Sujato suggested. Therefore, I have changed the “mention” to sn1.71 instead for all 4 Gathas. Bhante, is that OK with you, even though these gathas no longer exist in the original SN 1.71?

Gatha 3

I added the Chinese Agama verses as parallels of each other.

Gatha 4

I added the Chinese Agama verses to the list.
To be complete, this is also a parallel to the Tibetan uv-kg20#410.

Gatha 5

I’ve added all these.