A curious variation! When I first saw it, I though, pshaw, that’s silly. But maybe it’s not so far fetched. Let’s see the Pali:
Seyyathāpi, āvuso ānanda, itthī vā puriso vā daharo yuvā maṇḍanakajātiko
this just refers to the youth .
This is the mirror[quote=“Erik_ODonnell, post:1, topic:5147”]
sakaṃ mukhanimittaṃ paccavekkhamāno
[/quote]
“check their own reflection”
Lite: “having grasped, would see, not without having grasped”.
The words upādāya/anupādāya are commonly used in the suttas to express the idea of being with grasping or without. In fact, I can see over 200 instances of the negative form, and all of them appear to have this meaning. The positive form is used more broadly. Generally, though, they don’t seem to be used in the literal sense of “pick up” something.
Then there’s the application of the simile: does it even make sense to say that they can’t see themselves without picking it up? I don’t think so.
Having said this, I checked the commentary, and it had a slightly different take:
Upādāyāti āgamma ārabbha sandhāya paṭicca
Upādāya means relying on, resting on, supported by, depending on
The point here is not that the youth is attached to their gorgeous visage, but that they rely on the mirror to see themselves.
If this reading was adopted, it would require recasting the whole sutta (and a bunch of others that have similar wording!) Instead of:
The notion “I am” occurs because of grasping form, feeling, perception, choices, and consciousness
We would have:
The notion “I am” occurs in reliance on form, feeling, perception, choices, and consciousness
Now, the word upādāya does accommodate this degree of semantic slipperiness. Compare the following passage from SN 22.151:
“When form exists, because of grasping form and insisting on form, someone regards it like this: ‘This is mine, I am this, this is my self.’
Notice the three terms here: sati unambiguously refers to the existence of the thing; the final term abhinivissa unambiguously refers to the attachment to it; but upādāya could be read either way, as “reliant on form” or “grasping to form”. Probably the ambiguity is deliberate, but when translating you have to come down on one side or the other; or at least, I can’t think of a better way.
To return to the original, I don’t think the text supports a reading of actually picking up the mirror, although it would not take much dialectical slippage for this to become like a reasonable reading.
The question then becomes, are we better off reading upādāya in a more functional way (relying on) or in the doctrinal sense (attached to)? The difference is ultimately reduced, since what you are reliant on is ultimately attachment. This is another variation of the upādāna as fuel/grasping problem.
As a general rule (“the principle of least meaning”) I would prefer to read it in the most semantically thin way, but in this case, since the doctrinal relevance is so strongly established, that seems to be the intended sense.