It’s not surprising since we often see people pointing out that the Theirgatha is likely the oldest collection of religious women’s writings. But of course they weren’t written down. And when they were collected I’m sure there was never the idea that only original, personal compositions would be included. Instead I think of them as “their” verses in the sense that they were what these women liked and used for liberation. And some of that (most?) was their own creations.
1 Like
There’s a saying “Everyone’s got a book in them. They rarely have two.” I know I wrote a couple of metric lines of poetry, and any more would be too much trouble. In a culture of people swapping and reciting poems, it’s understandable that all people would dabble a bit. For example, it’s easy enough to see the difference between poetic marvel in SNP, and the understated depth of Dhp, compared to the more amateurish tone of Thig. I say this with best of intentions, which gives credence to its historical claim.
1 Like
Also it’s hard to overemphasise the understated beauty of Ven. @sujato’s translations, and how valuable they are especially for a Pāli learner, which becomes ever more obvious when comparing it to other translations.
For example, I appreciate the zeal of Davids, and what Ven. Thanissaro is hoping to achieve, but they overshoot the dramatic pulse, taking away from the humble pride. And Ayya Soma’s offers an interesting read on some of the more weirder things that can be read differently, but I usually gravitate towards Ven. Sujato’s understanding in any case.
Only those of Susan Marcott have a similar elegant simplicity, yet her collection doesn’t cover all the poems. And to be honest, I can understand not wanting to translate last two poems - but even their lateness and inclusion in the collection tells an important story about how we should approach it all ever critically.
Anyway, on the topic of translations - am I correct to assume that khanda in tamokhandhaṁ padāliyā is an obvious reference to aggregates? In none of the translations is it made obvious.
In translating to Turkish, since there’s no widespread buddhist lexicon yet, I’m using a word that can be used both for aggregates and heap of darkness. Which I think would be useful as I hopefully delve into more translations especially of prose kind.
Oh, I think that the last chapter (thig16.1) is one of the most amazing texts in the whole canon.
But then again I’m not fussed by all this early/late business.
2 Likes
Ubbirī is another tricky one for authorship, thanks to all for the comments.
I have understood this in line with the commentary, where she is crying “live, mother!”, confusing her mother with her daughter from grief—which to me seems like a poignant and realistic touch. Is there any reason why the vocative must be separated from the cry?
The verse has two vocatives: amma and ubbiri. The speaker of the verse is addressing Ubbiri by her name, which would be unusual if it were her daughter. Pali is pretty consistent that a given speaker uses the same vocative for a given addressee.
Assuming amma and ubbiri are two separate people, then amma must be part of the quote that is spoken by Ubbiri, supporting the commentary.
Normally yes, but this kind of idiom is found in the Thera/Therigatha, such as this verse by Tālapuṭa in Thag 19.1:
For many years you begged me,
Bahūni vassāni tayāmhi yācito,
“Enough of living in a house for you!”
‘Agāravāsena alaṁ nu te idaṁ’;
Why do you not urge me on, mind,
Taṁ dāni maṁ pabbajitaṁ samānaṁ,
now that I’ve gone forth as an ascetic?
Kiṅkāraṇā citta tuvaṁ na yuñjasi.
1 Like
Yes there is a reason. I prefer to take the most straightforward approach by not assuming something new (i.e. the speculation about her mother ostensibly calling her daughter as “mother”, and why that may have been so).
The verb krandasi in the first line is in 2nd person - and the speaker is the girl’s voice addressing her mother, so naturally she addresses her mother as ‘amba’ in vocative in the same sentence.
In the second line, the vocative urvari is another sentence nestled within the quote. Within that quote, the mother is speaking now to her daughter by addressing her by name.
Amba and Urvari are referring to two different people, the first vocative is the direct speech of Urvarī to her mother, the second is the mother addressing her daughter within the quotation. They are two different sentences so the vocatives do not need to address the same person.
Then once she has quoted her mother in the first and second lines, Urvarī continues speaking.
There is nothing unusual in a mother calling her daughter by name. The amba in the first line is not spoken by the mother, but the urvari in the second line is within the quote spoken by the mother.
Not sure what you mean here.
I am saying
- “amba” is addressed by the daughter to the mother (and therefore is not part of a quotation) and
- “urvari” is addressed by the mother to the daughter (and is therefore within the quotation).
Not sure how your reading of the commentary can be right without introducing additional speculative content.
This isnt someone addressing themselves in 2nd person. It is someone conceptualizing their mind as a separate entity (from the speaker), and then addressing it in second person.
I’m looking at the verse feeling like I too, like Ubbiri, am going mad, until I realized that you’re reading the first two lines as containing two separate cries from the mother:
“(Please be) alive”
“Please come back to your senses, Urvarī”
So the daughter is reporting that the mother is saying these things. I think I understand you now!
I’ve always understood that the second line is not another cry, but is a voice of admonition from the speaker to the mother, “get a hold of yourself!”. Whereas you read it, if I am correct, as saying, “come back to life!”. I’ve had a quick look around and I can’t find any close parallels to this phrasing that would decide this point.
Most translators, including myself, take the daughter’s name as Jīvā, hence the line about 84,000 named Jīvā. Obviously a pun is intended as well.
Under your reading, if I understand correctly, the daughter is called Ubbirī. But the verses as a whole are associated with “the theri Ubbirī”. So we are now to assume that the daughter Ubbirī was formerly a nun, then died, then came back as a spirit to speak to her mother? This seems like a fairly heavy set of assumptions.
Further, the “hero” of the poem is clearly the mother, the woman who gets it together and practices for arahantship in the second and third verses. If I understand you correctly, under your reading we don’t even know her name, only that she was Ubbirī’s mother. Possible, I guess, but it seems unlikely.
It still seems to me that the commentary’s reading is more satisfying and lets us make sense of the verses with the one simple assumption that a grieving mother as a sign of confusion called her daughter “mother”.
3 Likes
It is also possible that she’s first crying to her mother, then crying for her daughter?
Like a child dropping on the floor would cry for his mother in agony (“Help me mom!”) so is this mother first calling to her mother, then to her daughter?
OK, thanks. A new meaning dawns now, it sounds clearer. So,
The Buddha says to Urvarī – Calling out to your daughter with the words “Amba Jīve”, you cry in these woods. [Amba & Jīve are vocatives here; Jīve being the vocative of Jīvā, the ‘e’ ending of which is presumably lost in Pāli due to sandhi with iti, and is replaced with the lengthened ‘ā’, else the vocative is irregularly taken as Jīva which then becomes long as a result of sandhi].
Alternatively the ‘Amba’ is the Buddha addressing Urvarī by saying – Hey mother (Urvari), you are crying out for your daughter saying “(My dear) Jīvā”
The Buddha continues – But hey Urvari, collect yourself (i.e. gain a control over your feelings).
The Buddha continues – because you have birthed this very same Jīvā in 84000 former lives, and when they died every time all their bodies were cremated right here in this cremation ground, so which of those 84000 do you bewail now? [i.e. these births, deaths and grieving is getting very very repetitive & impulsive, so get out of it with wisdom]
Then Urvarī, in response, with her new found understanding declares her grieving is over, and she has reached the peace with going for refuge, and thereafter becoming a sthavirī.
Thanks for talking this through. 
3 Likes
Right, exactly. So I think there are at least two possible readings here, and although I think I’ll stick with the commentarial one for now, i do find your reading attractive. It’s a dramatic scenario!
Just a couple of minor grammatical points:
- The detail about the spelling of the vocative jīva vs. jīve is interesting, and taken in isolation, would suggest that the meaning is rather the imperative here: “live, mother”. But the punning is deep in this one! I feel like translating her name as “Liv” to get it across.
- In the second line, there is no close -ti, so no explicit indication that it is a second quote. Sometimes this is omitted, though.
We still don’t have an explicit parallel for the idiom attānaṃ adhigaccha, it would be really nice to see if this is used elsewhere. I found two texts that use the phrase, but I don’t know if the contexts are relevant:
Mokṣopāya
vicārayan vicāro 'pi nātmānam adhigacchati /
yadā tadā nirullekhaṃ param evāvaśiṣyate //MU_2,19.24//yadi tvam ātmanātmānam adhigacchasi tat svayam /
etat praśnottaraṃ sādho jānāsy atra na saṃśayaḥ //MU_4,39.15//
Bhagavad Gita 5.7
baladevaḥ : īdṛśī mumukṣuḥ sarveṣāṃ preyān ity āha yogeti | yoge niṣkāme karmaṇi yukto nirataḥ | ataeva viśuddhātmā nirmala-buddhiḥ | ataeva vijitātmā vaśīkṛta-manāḥ | ataeva jitendriyaḥ śabdādi-viṣaya-rāga-śūnyaḥ | ataeva sarveṣāṃ bhūtānāṃ jīvānām ātma-bhūtaḥ premāspadatām gata ātmā deho yasya saḥ | na cātra pārtha-sārathinā sarvātmaikyam abhimatam - na tv evāham ity ādinā sarvātmanāṃ mitho bhedasya tenābhidhānāt | tad-vādināpi vijñājñābhedasya vaktum aśaktyatvāc ca | evambhūtaḥ kurvann api viviktātmānusandhānād anātmany ātmābhimānena na lipyate acireṇātmānam adhigacchati | ataḥ karma-yogaḥ śreyān ||7||
1 Like
Right, so I’ve got a couple more questions now with the famous Thig 5.2 of Vimalā. For reference:
Mattā vaṇṇena rūpena,
sobhaggena yasena ca;
Yobbanena cupatthaddhā,
aññāsamatimaññihaṁ.
Vibhūsetvā imaṁ kāyaṁ,
sucittaṁ bālalāpanaṁ;
Aṭṭhāsiṁ vesidvāramhi,
luddo pāsamivoḍḍiya.
Now aññāsamatimaññihaṁ we’ve got “I despised other women”. But I think it means literally “others like me”, isn’t it?
So, I think there’s a subtle difference, because she doesn’t despise all women - just her competition, and probably those in her line of work who were of comparable beauty and status. So I think it gives the translation a subtle depth to say “Others like me”, as in, other women working just like her and her competition, unless of course I’m botchering the grammar somehow.
And for the second question, commentary explains bālalāpanaṁ as how Ven. Sujato translates it. But following the example of Ayya Soma, isn’t this something like: “I adorned this body with fancy paints (probably referring to makeup) and empty chatter”, which makes sense as she’s the one catcalling customers at the brothel door, hence a hunter laying traps.
Those are today’s inquiries to you venerables. 
1 Like
You’re right, it should be “I looked down on others”. Not sure why it should say “like me”? It’s aññāsaṃ + atimaññi + ahaṃ.
This is also at MN 106:2.2, where I have the following note:
As for bālalāpana, at sn22.95:13.2 we find bālalāpinī in a similar context, which there follows right after the death of the physical body. This suggests that lāpinī there has the sense “lament” which is attested in Sanskrit. Bālalāpana is found at thig5.2:2.2 of a beautiful body; see too ja421:5.3. In later Sanskrit, bālalapitaṁ is used by Jayarāśi Bhaṭṭa in his Tattvopaplavasiṁha in the sense “prattle of fools”.
2 Likes
Seeing how people consistently translated this as “other women”, and Ayya Soma’s interesting “I despised anyone who was not my equal.”, I though it was thus aññā + sama + atimaññi + ahaṃ. Which probably should’ve been aññāsamātimaññihaṁ. Which probably is gibberish in Pāli (so should be something like aññāsamamatimaññihaṁ?) But, perhaps metre considerations and all.
Only saying “Others” also could have a different meaning, with how little she thinks of her customers and so.
This gives an interesting context especially since it’s also related to sensual pleasures!
Thanks a lot Bhante!
2 Likes
Another day, another question.
This time it concerns Thig5.4 with this nice little bit:
Yathā idaṁ tathā etaṁ,
yathā etaṁ tathā idaṁ;as this is, so is that,
as that is, so is that.
This is the Ven. @sujato’s translation, along with Ayya @ayyasoma, along with a host of other translators, which is fine. As I understand, it’s likely a reference to DO as well.
Also, in SNP, Muni is said not to see themselves higher, lower, or equal to other people. So this perspective of “As is this, so is that” in a sense of “Nothing is different” is kind of a non-dualist perspective that’s kinda alien to Pāli Canon worldview?
I think the Pāli construction has a nuance to it that’s lost in this fashion. Maybe I’m pedantic about this.
As-this-indeed-comes,
As-comes-indeed-this.
This is a rough idea to give it the proper DO nuance.
For that I looked back in the other suttas with the “As above, so below”, for example AN3.90:
As before, so after; as after, so before.
Yathā pure tathā pacchā, yathā pacchā tathā pure;As below, so above; as above, so below.
Yathā adho tathā uddhaṁ, yathā uddhaṁ tathā adho.As by day, so by night; as by night, so by day.
Yathā divā tathā rattiṁ, yathā rattiṁ tathā divā. (VEN. SUJATO)
This kind of English rendering I think gives the impression that “This is like that” or “As in the case of this, so is in the case of that”.
But I think in the Pāli poetry of transformation of cyclical movement is implied. Perhaps that’s what should be understood with “As X so Y”, but I’ve always read it in mystical traditions in a way “Whatever applies to X applies to Y”.
Altogether, it sounds rather mystical and unapproachable (even if elegant perhaps) this “As x So y” formula, so this is how I’d read this:
As the past becomes future, so the future becomes past.
Yathā pure tathā pacchā, yathā pacchā tathā pure;As the low becomes high, so the high becomes low.
Yathā adho tathā uddhaṁ, yathā uddhaṁ tathā adho.As the day turns into night, so the night turns into day.
Yathā divā tathā rattiṁ, yathā rattiṁ tathā divā.
And it also makes a poetic sense with the rest of AN3.90:
Overcoming every direction
with limitless immersion,they call them a ‘trainee on the path’,
and ‘one living a pure life’.
But a wise one who has gone to the end of the path
they call a ‘Buddha’ in the world.
I changed Ven. Sujato’s “Having mastered” with “Overcoming”, which I think is an elegant literal translation of Abhibhuyya.
There’s a sense of transformation of a cyclical nature, and finally a Buddha comes to the end of this cyclical path.
I have to admit I was inspired with Robert Jordan’s Wheel of Time English idioms, which has a similar phrasing to describe the cyclical nature of life, inspired with his Advaita Vedanta views.
Am I completely off the rails with this? 
1 Like
I restate the above sūkta Thig5.4 in Sanskrit as the grammar and meanings of words become clearer for interpretation (at least to me).
āturam aśuciṃ pūtim paśya nande samuccayam
aśubhāya cittam bhāvaya ekāgraṃ susamāhitam
yāthedaṃ tathādaḥ yathādas tathedam
durgandham pūtikaṃ vāti bālānām abhinanditam
evam etad avekṣamāṇā divārātram atandritā
tataḥ svakīyayā prajñayā nirvyadhyādrākṣam
tathā mayā apramattayā vicinvatyā yoniśaḥ
yathābhutam ayaṃ kāyo dṛṣṭaḥ sāntarbahiḥ
atha nirviṇṇāhaṃ kāye adhyātmaṃ ca virajyāhaṃ
apramattā visaṃyuktopaśāntāsmi nirvṛtā - iti
Here the translator has not said literally what the source says). etam and idam in the Pali are two distinct pronouns that both mean “this”. They don’t mean “this” and “that” respectively. However the sense requires us to consider the etam as meaning “that”.
It appears to me that the pre-Pali version would have said adaḥ, which is the opposite of idam (which in Pali should have been something like adaṁ/aduṁ, which the Pali redactor may have corrected to a more-familiar word etam, as we currently have it)
So I have the line in Sanskrit as “yāthedaṃ tathādaḥ yathādas tathedam” (yathā idaṃ tathā adaḥ, yathā adaḥ tathā idam) …durgandham pūtikaṃ vāti bālānām abhinanditam.
The meaning is “Just as this (my body), in the same way that (his body); and just as his body, in the same way my body - is a stinky rotting bag of bones, but the immature ones still think of it as an object of pleasure.”
It doesnt have anything to do with pratītya-samutpāda (dependent-origination).
2 Likes
I thought perhaps it would’ve been read in a (greatly abbreviated) matter of this, to satisfy meter requirements! Apparently wrongly so:
Iti imasmiṁ sati idaṁ hoti, imassuppādā idaṁ uppajjati— Ud1.1
I’m wondering, in Sanskrit there grammar rules are more well defined, where a certain word can mean for example both accusative and locative, this is not the case in Sanskrit, is it true?
I assume this would also apply to the AN3.90, so again, not a sense of flowing into, but a straightforward reading more in libe with how Ven. Sujato reads it.
Well, welp! That’s how we learn. Thanks a lot for the insight!
1 Like
I think there again is probably a mistranslation in the above link.
Yathā pure tathā pacchā, yathā pacchā tathā pure;
Yathā adho tathā uddhaṁ, yathā uddhaṁ tathā adho.
Yathā divā tathā rattiṁ, yathā rattiṁ tathā divā;
Abhibhuyya disā sabbā, appamāṇasamādhinā.
In Sanskrit this would be:
yathā puraḥ tathā paścāt, yathā paścāt tathā puraḥ
yathā adaḥ tathā ūrdhvaṃ, yathā ūrdhvaṃ tathā adaḥ
yathā divā tathā rātriḥ, yathā rātriḥ tathā divā;
abhibhūya disaḥ sarvāḥ apramāṇa-samādhinā…
Here this part is talking about one’s boundless samādhi pervading one on all sides (spatially and temporally) - puraḥ (front) & paścāt (back), ūrdhvam (above) and adaḥ (below), divā (during the day) and rātriḥ (night).
The translation of AN 3.90 however translates “Yathā pure tathā pacchā” as “as after, so before” which doesnt make contextual sense here (because ‘day and night’ is sufficiently descriptive of the temporal dimensions, while the prior two phrases ‘front and back’, ‘above and below’ deal with the spatial aspect).
That is right, there is less confusion between the vibhaktis (noun declension forms) in Sanskrit, compared to Pali. The same holds good for verb conjugations as well. The number of homonyms in Sanskrit are fewer by an order of magnitude, thereby lending better clarity. Grammar also is more well understandable (as it is way more detailed) and lends better clarity.
Vedic Sanskrit would be even more clearer than Classical Sanskrit due to mandatorily using the pitch accents to convey meaning (these pitch accents became optional in Classical Sanskrit) but which Vedic preserves without change from the Proto-Indo-European stage.
2 Likes
Interesting notes on a tricky idiom!
That’s a good insight, and I think you’re probably right, but let me explore this a little more.
My basic understanding of this point is ultimately from Ven Bodhi, whose note on SN 51.20 reads:
Yathā pure tathā pacchā, yathā pacchā tathā pure. Spk: This should be understood: (i) by way of the meditation subject; and (ii) by way of the teaching. (i) The interpretation (abhinivesa, or “introduction”) of the meditation subject is “before” and arahantship is “after.” A bhikkhu who, after interpreting the root meditation subject, does not allow the mind to fall into the four undesirable conditions (overly lax, etc.) goes on to attain arahantship; he is called one who dwells “as before, so after.” (ii) By way of teaching, the head-hairs are “before” and the brain is “after” (among the solid parts in the contemplation of the body). A bhikkhu who develops his meditation from beginning to end without sliding into the four undesirable conditions is called one who dwells “as before, so after.”
The explanation sounds strained. The phrase refers simply to maintaining consistency in attending to the meditation subject in all its aspects throughout the session, from start to finish. See too the use of the phrase in the sentence pacchāpure saññī caṅkamaṃ adhiṭṭheyyāsi (AN IV 87,2-3), where it seems to have a spatial meaning: “Percipient of what is behind and in front, you should determine on walking back and forth.”
It’s fairly unusual that Ven Bodhi would stand so clearly against the commentary, so one assumes he is confident on this point. And he reads it as temporal continuity.
Doing a brief check of pre-Buddhist uses, it turns out that this idiom is quite common. First some passages from the Rig Veda, translations Jamison/Brereton:
Rig Veda 6.19.9
Let your unbridled force, a bull, come here from behind, here from above and below, here from in front.
Let it come altogether toward us from all sides. Indra, grant to us sun-like brilliance.
Rig Veda 10.36.14:
Savitar from behind, Savitar from in front, Savitar from above, Savitar from below—
let Savitar impel wholeness to us; let Savitar bestow on us a long lifetime.
Rig Veda 10.87.20–21
Guard us from below and from above, Agni, from behind and from in front.
Let these unaging, hottest (flames) of yours, ever blazing, burn against the man who speaks evil.From behind, from in front, from below, and from above—as a poet with your poetic skill protect us all around, o king.
O comrade, (protect) your comrade, as an unaging one (protect him to attain) old age. O Agni, as an immortal (protect) us who are mortal.
This is just a selection. But here we can see a number of things:
- The idiom is always spatial, not temporal.
- Behind/in front is associated with the sun (from whence the sense of east/west also comes)
- It’s associated with protection, security, completeness.
- We already find above/below used with behind/in front.
Atharvaveda supplies some more examples, eg. 8.3.19–20 (Griffith translation):
Guard us, O Agni, from above and under, protect us from behind and from before us;
And may thy flames, most fierce and never wasting, glowing with fervent heat, consume the sinner.From rear, from front, from under, from above us, Agni, protect us as a sage with wisdom.
Guard to old age thy friend as friend eternal: O Agni, as immortal, guard us mortals.
We also find a number of similar uses in other pre-Buddhist texts, including Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa and Chāndogya Upaniṣad. Eg. in the latter at 7.25.1 we find the idiom has been adapted to the non-dual teaching (Lokeswarananda translation):
That bhūmā is below; it is above; it is behind; it is in front; it is to the right; it is to the left. All this is bhūmā. Now, as regards one’s own identity: I am below; I am above; I am behind; I am in front; I am to the right; I am to the left. I am all this.
All these uses maintain the original Vedic sense of “behind, in front” rather than having a temporal sense. It’s either applied directly or in the sense of “east and west”.
Now, in Pali contexts we do have a temporal sense.
purevacanīyaṁ pacchā avaca, pacchāvacanīyaṁ pure avaca
You said after what you should have said before, you said before what you should have said after.
So that’s possible. The Sutta contexts for meditation lie semantically closer to the Vedic usage, however, in that they deal with the establishing of a universal and all-over protection or safety. So unless there is good reason, we should accept the spatial sense.
Translate as “before and behind”.
3 Likes
So we get glimpses of non-dual! Certainly seems to be the case with Thig5.4, but it might even stretch to AN3.90:
Which is why I appreciate Pāli’s idiosyncrasies, for example, in AN3.90 we have 1 spatial, 1 temporal, and 1 both spatial & temporal designation.
They don’t make the translation job any more easier! But bits like this makes me appreciate the language even more. And all these conversations spinning around is humbling me greatly with the amount of attention you all give - so thanks a lot, teachers.
1 Like
Still the Thig5.4. 
@srkris your Sanskritisation (word?) is proving greatly helpful in rest of the poem’s translation.
Which in the original Pāli:
Reflecting in such a way,
Evametaṁ avekkhantī,
tireless all day and night,
rattindivamatanditā;
having broken through
Tato sakāya paññāya,
with my own wisdom, I saw.
dakkhisaṁ looks like a very rare form, literally only found in the entire canon in this passage. DPD doesn’t help a lot as well, thinks it’s aorist 1st sg.
Commentary says first three quartets (including this one) are by Buddha, addressing Nandā. But even commentary is confused on dakkhisaṁ, saying “I saw it” (??). avekkhantī is female.
I also get dakkhisi from the PTS Commentary footnotes. Which would be “You will see.”
Parsing your Sanskrit with machine translation, I get this:
Reflecting on this thus, tirelessly day and night,
Then, with one’s own wisdom, one will penetrate and see.
Which I think makes more sense with the Pāli version, and coming from Buddha, it fits the narrative. Otherwise if both 3rd and 4th quartets are from Nandā, there’s an anachronism and redundancy in the story: 3rd quartet tells her breakthrough, 4th quartet tells her going back to investigate the body.
It makes more sense to read 3rd quartet as a teacher’s instruction, and 4th quartet as Nandā heeding Buddha’s call, her action piece.
Either 2nd sg or 3rd sg would be fine, I think. But being pedantic, perhaps dakkhisi should be read in 2nd sg.