1

AN 4.197 has been translated as:

Here, Mallikā, a certain woman, is angry, often irritable. Even over a trivial remark, she is cross (abhisajjati), shaken, vexed, stubborn, and shows her temper (byāpajjati), anger and sulkiness. She is not a giver of food, drinks, cloth, vehicles, garlands, scents, ointments, beddings, dwelling or lightings, to recluses or brahmins. Furthermore, she is jealous in her heart; jealous of others‟ receiving gains, honour, respect, esteem, homage and worship; she is vengeful and holds grudges. If she falls away (cutā) and returns (āgacchati) to such a state, wherever she is reborn (paccājāyati), she is ugly, deformed, of very mean appearance and she is poor, having few things, of little wealth and little influence.

AN 7.64 also contains the word "āgacchati" and says:

An irritable person, overcome and overwhelmed by anger, is ugly, even though they’re nicely bathed and anointed, with hair and beard dressed and wearing white clothes. This is the first thing that pleases and assists an enemy which comes upon (āgacchati) an irritable woman or man. Because an enemy doesn’t like to have a beautiful enemy.

When a person is irritable, overcome and overwhelmed by anger, the rulers seize the legitimate wealth they’ve earned by their efforts, built up with their own hands, gathered by the sweat of their brow. An angry person is ugly and sleeps poorly. Gaining a profit, he turns it into a loss, having done damage with word & deed. A person overwhelmed with anger destroys his wealth. Maddened with anger, he falls into disgrace. Relatives, friends & colleagues avoid him. Anger brings loss. Anger inflames the mind. He doesn’t realize that his danger is born (jāta) from within. Doing these deeds that kill beings and do violence to himself, the angry person doesn’t realize that he’s ruined. The snare of death (maccupāso) in the form of anger lies hidden in the heart. You should cut it out by self-control, by wisdom, energy and right ideas.

AN 8.29 has been translated as follows:

Here, a Tathāgata has arisen in the world...and enlightenment is taught...but a person has been reborn (upapannā) in hell. This is the first inopportune moment that is not the right occasion for living the spiritual life.

Here, a Tathāgata has arisen in the world...and enlightenment is taught...but a person has been reborn (upapannā) in the animal realm. This is the second inopportune moment...

Here, a Tathāgata has arisen in the world...and enlightenment is taught...but a person has been reborn (upapannā) in the sphere of afflicted spirits. This is the third inopportune...

Here, a Tathāgata has arisen in the world...and enlightenment is taught...but a person has been reborn (upapannā) in certain order of long-lived devas. This is the fourth inopportune…

Here, a Tathāgata has arisen in the world...and enlightenment is taught...but a person has been reborn (paccājāto) in the outlying provinces among the uncouth foreigners, a place to which bhikkhus, bhikkhunīs, male lay followers and female lay followers do not travel. This is the fifth inopportune moment that is not the right occasion for living the spiritual life …

Here, a Tathāgata has arisen in the world...and enlightenment is taught...but a person has been reborn (paccājāto) in the central provinces, but he holds wrong view and has a distorted perspective... there is no fruit or result of good and bad actions… This is the sixth inopportune..

Here, a Tathāgata has arisen in the world...and enlightenment is taught...but a person has been reborn (paccājāto) in the central provinces, but he is unwise, stupid, obtuse, unable to understand the meaning of what has been well stated and badly stated. This is the seventh...

Here, a Tathāgata has not arisen in the world...and enlightenment is not taught...but a person has been reborn (paccājāto) in the central provinces, and he is wise, intelligent, astute, able to understand the meaning of what has been well stated and badly stated. This is the eighth …

There is, bhikkhus, one unique opportune moment that is the right occasion for living the spiritual life. What is it? Here, a Tathāgata has arisen in the world... and enlightenment is taught as proclaimed by a Fortunate One. And a person has been reborn (paccājāto) in the central provinces, and he is wise, intelligent, astute, able to understand the meaning of what has been well stated and badly stated.

Questions:

  1. Why are two different words used for "reborn" in AN 8.29?

  2. What is the path of action (kamma) leading to "rebirth" in a geographical region?

  3. When compared to AN 7.64 and AN 8.29, what distinguishes AN 4.197 so AN 4.197 is about "rebirth"?

Note: the words "paccājāyati" (verb) and "paccājāto" (past particle) are the same.

2

do the Pali words “āgacchati” and “paccājāyati” mean “reborn”?

The PTS dictionary translates "paccājāyati" as "reborn". Apparently that's the prefix Pati -- which has many meanings (or usages), including "a second time"; and Jayati which is translated "to be born, to be produced, to arise, to be reborn".

Jati is one of the 12 nidanas, see SN 12.2.

The translation is consistent with the previous phrase, as there are two definitions (or shades of meaning) for "cuta":

  1. moved or fallen (from one ’s place); (who has) fallen away; who has abandoned (the holy life)
  2. (who has) fallen from one state of existence (to another); who has died; ceased, come to an end

If you wanted to say "No it's not that, instead it's talking about moment-to-moment becoming", then perhaps that's a false dichotomy, i.e. that it may mean both -- see for example What's the value or harm of a literal belief in rebirth?

I think the topic is pretty close to being a thicket. But I suppose it isn't controversial, that it does or may refer to successive moments in (conventionally) "one person's life".

I think the point of the sutta isn't to teach that rebirth and/or successive states of existence exist -- what it does is warn Queen Mallikā against (unfortunate consequences of) anger and ungenerosity. It also redirects her rather conceited or vain question, to topics of inner mind (non-anger) and important social relations.

Why are two different words used for "reborn" in AN 8.29

It's a similar word (i.e. based on Jati) with a different prefix -- Upa instead of Pati.

A convenient summary of Pati is here, showing meanings including "for a second time" and "in contrast to".

Conversely perhaps "Upa" defined here means under or above.

So "upapannā" could mean "entering or being [re]born in a higher or lower realm for the first time", whereas "paccājāto" is about being born "again" in the human realm.

5
  • the PTS dictionary is obviously interpretative and has no real credibility. since "rebirth" is "self-view", obviously the answer above is a "thicket". Mar 21 at 0:45
  • upapannā has no relationship to jati. the root of upapannā is "pad" and the root of jati is "jan". is it possible to down vote this answer for every error? thanks Mar 21 at 0:47
  • the prefix "pati" or "pacca" generally means "opposite", such as in "patipuggala", which means "rival" or "comparison". it appears quite obvious from its use in the suttas the term "paccājāyati" means "comparative birth/status", such as living in the central lands compared to living in the border regions. therefore, when the angry woman in the Mallikā Sutta returns to the human (virtuous) sphere after her outbursts of anger, she has a bad reputation, "compared to" other women in her human circle of associates. while she is in the human realm, her "humanity" does not compare to others Mar 21 at 0:50
  • 2
    I said it's based on Jati because wisdomlib.org/definition/upapanna says that it's the "pp. of upapajjati" (quoting the PTS dictionary again). I see on page 93 of buddhanet.net/pdf_file/paligram.pdf that "to be born" is an irregular verb, but I haven't found a table of how to conjugate it (to confirm or deny whether it can plausibly conjugate to upapanna). Conversely page 133 of ia800105.us.archive.org/26/items/MyPaliCourse/… suggests it means "arisen" and that its derivation is "p.p. of u + pada, to go".
    – ChrisW
    Mar 21 at 7:49
  • 2
    I suppose translators (like anyone understanding a natural language) infer the "meaning" of a word from its context, and perhaps from commentary (explanation), with etymology being unclear sometimes. The PTS dictionary here does say that someone else explained "not quite to the point" that it's rooted in "gata" i.e. gone. Personally I find "born in" and "gone to" pretty similar in meaning, close enough that it doesn't matter, not worth worry about which is right -- just accept both or either.
    – ChrisW
    Mar 21 at 8:00

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.