Prefix worksheets fore
Created a textbox popup to display a cell's value when the cell is selected: Now I cant select multiple cells without an error.
2024.05.19 05:35 Lintaar Created a textbox popup to display a cell's value when the cell is selected: Now I cant select multiple cells without an error.
I wrote some VBA to display a cell's value in a variable sized textbox when the cell is selected. However, I can't figure out a way to resolve the error "Run-time error '13': Type mismatch. I know I need a condition to turn off the script as soon as multiple cells are selected and turn back on when a single cell is selected but am having trouble.
Any help appreciated, here is my code:
submitted by Lintaar to excel [link] [comments]
Any help appreciated, here is my code:
Dim TextBox As Object Private Sub Worksheet_SelectionChange(ByVal Target As Range) On Error Resume Next If Not TextBox Is Nothing Then TextBox.Delete End If On Error GoTo 0 If Target.Cells.Count = 1 And Target.Column = 5 And Target.Value <> "" Then Set TextBox = Me.Shapes.AddTextbox(msoTextOrientationHorizontal, Target.Left, Target.Top + Target.height, 200, 100) TextBox.TextFrame.Characters.Text = Target.Value TextBox.Fill.ForeColor.RGB = RGB(255, 255, 255) TextBox.Fill.Transparency = 0 TextBox.Line.ForeColor.RGB = RGB(0, 0, 0) TextBox.Line.Transparency = 0 TextBox.TextFrame.Characters.Font.Size = 10 TextBox.TextFrame.Characters.Font.Name = "Arial" Dim textLength As Integer textLength = Len(Target.Value) Dim width As Single, height As Single width = 100 + (textLength * 3) height = 20 + (textLength * 0.5) If width > 300 Then width = 300 If height > 200 Then height = 200 TextBox.width = width TextBox.height = height End If End Sub
2024.05.17 10:04 Ekocare On the Origin of the Buddhist Arthakathás (R. C. Childers, L. C. Vijasinha)
On the Origin of the Buddhist Arthakathás Cambridge University Press (1871)
It must be admitted that the point raised by Mr. Childers is one of grave importance as affecting the credibility of Buddhaghosa and the authenticity of all the commentaries on the Tipitaka. From a missionary point of view, the astounding statement that a commentary on Buddha's discourses existed during his lifetime, and was rehearsed along with those discourses at the First Great Council, appears so improbable and unnatural as at once to justify one in discrediting the testimony; and I doubt not that missionary orientalists will hail the discovery as a valuable addition to their stock of arguments against the genuineness and authenticity of the Buddhist Scriptures.
Indeed I found it difficult at first to obtain the opinions of some of my learned friends of the Buddhist priesthood on this point, as they seemed to regard it as another thunderbolt intended to be levelled against their religion by some enthusiastic missionary ; and it was only after explaining to them the object of the inquiry, and the literary character of the gentleman who started the apparent difficulty, that I could induce them to look the question fairly in the face.
I am glad to say that most of my clerical Buddhist friends with whom I have consulted on this subject agree with me on the necessity of giving a wider and more extended signification than is generally allowed to the word Atthakathá as applied by Buddhaghosa in the passage cited. The word, as is well known, is compounded of two terms, attha, " meaning, " and katha , " a statement, explanation, or narrative," the dental t being changed to the cerebral by a latitude in the rules of permutation.1 The literal meaning of the compound term would thus amount to simply " an ex- planation of meaning. " Taking this wider sense of the word as a basis for the solution of the problem, I think the statement of Buddhaghosa in his preface to the commentary on the Dígha Nikáya is not so hopelessly irreconcilable with probable and presumable facts as would at first sight appear.
On a careful perusal of the two accounts given by Buddhaghosa of the proceedings of the three famous Councils in the Sumańgala Vilásiní and the Samanta Pásádiká, this view will, I think, be found to be very reasonable. It must be admitted that no actual commentary, in the sense that the westerns attach to that term, and like that which has been handed down to us by Buddhaghosa, existed either in the lifetime of Buddha or immediately after his death. The reasons adduced by Mr. Childers, apart from others that can easily be added, against such a supposition, are overwhelmingly convincing. But if we suppose that by the word Atthakathá in his preface Buddhaghosa only meant to convey the idea that at the various Councils held for the purpose of collocating the discourses and sayings of Buddha, the meanings to be attached to different terms were discussed and properly defined, then the difficulty of conceiving the contemporaneous existence pf the commentaries and the Pitakas would be entirely removed.
This view of the subject will appear still further borne out if we briefly glance over the history of the First Convocation, as narrated by Buddhaghosa himself. The first proposal to hold an assembly of priests for the purpose of collocating Buddha's discourses was made by Mahá Kassapa, the chief of the seven hundred thousand priests who assembled at Kusinára to celebrate the obsequies of the departed saint. Seven days had hardly elapsed after that mournful occurrence, when signs of discontent at monastic restraint manifested themselves, and a disaffected disciple of Buddha named Subhadda openly proclaimed that now their master was no more the ties of discipline should be relaxed, if not broken. The words of consolation offered by this old monk to his brethren in distress are certainly remarkable, as it would be difficult to say whether they betoken more the callousness of his feelings or the depravity of his heart: " Brethren, enough of this sorrow, weep not, lament not. We are well rid of that Arch-priest, having been in constant dread of his declarations, This befits you, this befits you not. Now, there- fore, what we desire we shall do; what we do not desire that shall we not do." To a sagacious mind like that of Mahá Kassapa it was not difficult to perceive what language like this foreshadowed, and he instantly formed the resolve to congregate the priesthood, and to collect and arrange the laws and doctrines proclaimed by his Master. Hardly two months had elapsed before this active mind brought about what it had contemplated, and the result was the Council of the Five Hundred, convoked at Kájagaha, under the auspices of King Ajátasattu, for the purpose of collecting and arrang- ing the doctrines and discourses of Buddha.
The proceedings of this Council appear to have been con- ducted in a very orderly and systematic manner, which is the more surprising when we consider that monastic autocracy was about to give place to a form of church government prescribed by the great Founder himself, but which was now to be established and tested for the first time. Mahá Kassapa, whom Buddha indirectly indicated as his equal in point of superhuman mental acquirements, assumed the office of Moderator, and by the unanimous consent of the synod Upáli was elected as the best qualified of their order to repeat the Yinaya, and Ānanda the Dhamma ; the Council having previously decided that the Yinaya was the most material for the permanence of Buddhism.
Now it is important to observe that the catechetical form was used in the collocation of both the Laws and Doctrines. "Afterwards Mahá Kassapa, having seated himself in the presidential chair, questioned the venerable Upáli respecting the Yinaya in this wise. Brother Upáli, where was the first Párájika promulgated? My lord, at Vesáli. On whose account? On account of Sudinna, the son of Kalanda. With regard to what offence? To fornication. Then did the venerable Mahá Kassapa question the venerable Upáli on the offence, the cause, the offender, the primary law, the secondary law, the transgression and the non-transgression, relating to the first law enacted against mortal sin. And the venerable Upáli explained as he was questioned." Such was also the method employed in the synod in the collocation of the Dhamma : - " Brother Ananda, where was the Brahmajála delivered ? My lord, between Rájagaha and Nálanda," and so on. Though it is subsequently added that " at the conclusion of the questions and answers the five hundred Arhats repeated the texts together in the order in which they had been collocated,"- it is difficult to believe that all' the five hundred rehearsed the long narratives prefixed to some of Buddha's discourses in the same words and style that they are now clothed in. Buddhaghosa's account of the synod is gathered from tradition, which was very probably embodied in the Simhalese atthakathás, and there can be little doubt that the main facts are correct ; but that he drew largely from tradition, written and oral, and possibly in some instances from imagination, will I think appear clear to any careful reader of the commentaries. Witness for instance his relation of Ananda's mysterious entrance into the assembly : pathaviyam nimujjitvá ottano árnne y em attánam dassesi , ákásena gantvá nisïdîti pi eke , " He plunged into the earth and showed himself in his seat, and also some say he went through the air and sat down." He does not say which version is correct, but is quite satisfied with both accounts, and is evidently quite willing to let his readers choose whichever they like.
Buddhaghosa throughout all his writings appears to have set one great object prominently in view, namely to inspire reverence for what he considered as supreme authority. When he came to Ceylon for the purpose of translating the Simhalese commentaries, he found a great many extant at that time, and out of these commentaries, embracing no doubt various shades of opinion, and representing different schools of thought, he had to expunge, abridge, enlarge, and make a new commentary. Now how could he do all this, and at the same time preserve undiminished among future generations the same reverence and authority in which the older commentaries were held by the Buddhists of that age? The thought struck him, as no doubt it would strike any careful reader of the Buddhist Scriptures, that a large portion of the writings contained in that canon appear to be explanations and definitions of terms used by Buddha, and also that a great many discourses said to have been delivered by Buddha to certain individuals have not been recorded.
Now what more easy to conceive, or what more probable, than that they formed the nucleus of matter for the formation of a commentary, and that at the First General Council, which lasted seven months, the elders, who had all seen and heard Buddha, should have dis- cussed them, and decided on the method of interpreting and teaching the more recondite portions of Buddhist philosophy ? and what therefore if he should say in somewhat exaggerated language, " the commentary on the Digha Nikáya was at the beginning discussed (or composed, or merged into the body of the Scriptures) by five hundred holy elders" ? - for the original words may admit of such a construction. If or will this opinion appear merely hypothetical if we carefully peruse the account given by Buddhaghosa of the commentaries in his Samanta Pásádiká. In his metrical introduction to that work, after the usual doxology, he explains the necessity of having a proper Pali Commentary on the Vinaya, and then proceeds to set forth what he is about to do : -
"In commencing this commentary, I shall, having embodied therein the Mahá Atthakathá, without excluding any proper meaning from the decisions contained in the Mahá Paccarí, as also in the famous Kurundi and other com- mentaries, and including the opinions of the Elders, - perform my task well. Let the young, the middle-aged, and the elderly priests, who entertain a proper regard for the doctrines of the Tathágata, the luminary of truth, listen to my words with pleasure. The Dhamma, as well as the Yinaya, was declared by Buddha, his (sacerdotal) sons understood it in the same sense as it was delivered ; and inasmuch as in former times they (the Simhalese commentators) composed the com- mentaries without disregarding their (the sacerdotal sons') opinions, therefore, barring any erro* of transcription, every- thing contained therein is an authority to the learned in this priesthood who respect ecclesiastical discipline. From these (Simhalese) commentaries, after casting off the language, condensing detailed accounts, including authoritative deci- sions, and without overstepping any Pàli idiom (I shall pro- ceed to compose). And as this commentary will moreover be explanatory of the meaning of words belonging. to the Suttas in conformity with the sense attached to them therein, therefore ought it the more diligently to be studied."
....continued...
On the Origin of the Buddhist Arthakathás Cambridge University Press (1871)
submitted by Ekocare to TheravadaBuddhism [link] [comments]
"—the commentary, I say, upon this Scripture wasL. Comrilla Vijasinha, Government Interpreter to the Ratnapura Court Ceylon:
at the first Council rehearsed by five hundred holy elders
and in later times rehearsed again and yet again."
It must be admitted that the point raised by Mr. Childers is one of grave importance as affecting the credibility of Buddhaghosa and the authenticity of all the commentaries on the Tipitaka. From a missionary point of view, the astounding statement that a commentary on Buddha's discourses existed during his lifetime, and was rehearsed along with those discourses at the First Great Council, appears so improbable and unnatural as at once to justify one in discrediting the testimony; and I doubt not that missionary orientalists will hail the discovery as a valuable addition to their stock of arguments against the genuineness and authenticity of the Buddhist Scriptures.
Indeed I found it difficult at first to obtain the opinions of some of my learned friends of the Buddhist priesthood on this point, as they seemed to regard it as another thunderbolt intended to be levelled against their religion by some enthusiastic missionary ; and it was only after explaining to them the object of the inquiry, and the literary character of the gentleman who started the apparent difficulty, that I could induce them to look the question fairly in the face.
I am glad to say that most of my clerical Buddhist friends with whom I have consulted on this subject agree with me on the necessity of giving a wider and more extended signification than is generally allowed to the word Atthakathá as applied by Buddhaghosa in the passage cited. The word, as is well known, is compounded of two terms, attha, " meaning, " and katha , " a statement, explanation, or narrative," the dental t being changed to the cerebral by a latitude in the rules of permutation.1 The literal meaning of the compound term would thus amount to simply " an ex- planation of meaning. " Taking this wider sense of the word as a basis for the solution of the problem, I think the statement of Buddhaghosa in his preface to the commentary on the Dígha Nikáya is not so hopelessly irreconcilable with probable and presumable facts as would at first sight appear.
On a careful perusal of the two accounts given by Buddhaghosa of the proceedings of the three famous Councils in the Sumańgala Vilásiní and the Samanta Pásádiká, this view will, I think, be found to be very reasonable. It must be admitted that no actual commentary, in the sense that the westerns attach to that term, and like that which has been handed down to us by Buddhaghosa, existed either in the lifetime of Buddha or immediately after his death. The reasons adduced by Mr. Childers, apart from others that can easily be added, against such a supposition, are overwhelmingly convincing. But if we suppose that by the word Atthakathá in his preface Buddhaghosa only meant to convey the idea that at the various Councils held for the purpose of collocating the discourses and sayings of Buddha, the meanings to be attached to different terms were discussed and properly defined, then the difficulty of conceiving the contemporaneous existence pf the commentaries and the Pitakas would be entirely removed.
This view of the subject will appear still further borne out if we briefly glance over the history of the First Convocation, as narrated by Buddhaghosa himself. The first proposal to hold an assembly of priests for the purpose of collocating Buddha's discourses was made by Mahá Kassapa, the chief of the seven hundred thousand priests who assembled at Kusinára to celebrate the obsequies of the departed saint. Seven days had hardly elapsed after that mournful occurrence, when signs of discontent at monastic restraint manifested themselves, and a disaffected disciple of Buddha named Subhadda openly proclaimed that now their master was no more the ties of discipline should be relaxed, if not broken. The words of consolation offered by this old monk to his brethren in distress are certainly remarkable, as it would be difficult to say whether they betoken more the callousness of his feelings or the depravity of his heart: " Brethren, enough of this sorrow, weep not, lament not. We are well rid of that Arch-priest, having been in constant dread of his declarations, This befits you, this befits you not. Now, there- fore, what we desire we shall do; what we do not desire that shall we not do." To a sagacious mind like that of Mahá Kassapa it was not difficult to perceive what language like this foreshadowed, and he instantly formed the resolve to congregate the priesthood, and to collect and arrange the laws and doctrines proclaimed by his Master. Hardly two months had elapsed before this active mind brought about what it had contemplated, and the result was the Council of the Five Hundred, convoked at Kájagaha, under the auspices of King Ajátasattu, for the purpose of collecting and arrang- ing the doctrines and discourses of Buddha.
The proceedings of this Council appear to have been con- ducted in a very orderly and systematic manner, which is the more surprising when we consider that monastic autocracy was about to give place to a form of church government prescribed by the great Founder himself, but which was now to be established and tested for the first time. Mahá Kassapa, whom Buddha indirectly indicated as his equal in point of superhuman mental acquirements, assumed the office of Moderator, and by the unanimous consent of the synod Upáli was elected as the best qualified of their order to repeat the Yinaya, and Ānanda the Dhamma ; the Council having previously decided that the Yinaya was the most material for the permanence of Buddhism.
Now it is important to observe that the catechetical form was used in the collocation of both the Laws and Doctrines. "Afterwards Mahá Kassapa, having seated himself in the presidential chair, questioned the venerable Upáli respecting the Yinaya in this wise. Brother Upáli, where was the first Párájika promulgated? My lord, at Vesáli. On whose account? On account of Sudinna, the son of Kalanda. With regard to what offence? To fornication. Then did the venerable Mahá Kassapa question the venerable Upáli on the offence, the cause, the offender, the primary law, the secondary law, the transgression and the non-transgression, relating to the first law enacted against mortal sin. And the venerable Upáli explained as he was questioned." Such was also the method employed in the synod in the collocation of the Dhamma : - " Brother Ananda, where was the Brahmajála delivered ? My lord, between Rájagaha and Nálanda," and so on. Though it is subsequently added that " at the conclusion of the questions and answers the five hundred Arhats repeated the texts together in the order in which they had been collocated,"- it is difficult to believe that all' the five hundred rehearsed the long narratives prefixed to some of Buddha's discourses in the same words and style that they are now clothed in. Buddhaghosa's account of the synod is gathered from tradition, which was very probably embodied in the Simhalese atthakathás, and there can be little doubt that the main facts are correct ; but that he drew largely from tradition, written and oral, and possibly in some instances from imagination, will I think appear clear to any careful reader of the commentaries. Witness for instance his relation of Ananda's mysterious entrance into the assembly : pathaviyam nimujjitvá ottano árnne y em attánam dassesi , ákásena gantvá nisïdîti pi eke , " He plunged into the earth and showed himself in his seat, and also some say he went through the air and sat down." He does not say which version is correct, but is quite satisfied with both accounts, and is evidently quite willing to let his readers choose whichever they like.
Buddhaghosa throughout all his writings appears to have set one great object prominently in view, namely to inspire reverence for what he considered as supreme authority. When he came to Ceylon for the purpose of translating the Simhalese commentaries, he found a great many extant at that time, and out of these commentaries, embracing no doubt various shades of opinion, and representing different schools of thought, he had to expunge, abridge, enlarge, and make a new commentary. Now how could he do all this, and at the same time preserve undiminished among future generations the same reverence and authority in which the older commentaries were held by the Buddhists of that age? The thought struck him, as no doubt it would strike any careful reader of the Buddhist Scriptures, that a large portion of the writings contained in that canon appear to be explanations and definitions of terms used by Buddha, and also that a great many discourses said to have been delivered by Buddha to certain individuals have not been recorded.
Now what more easy to conceive, or what more probable, than that they formed the nucleus of matter for the formation of a commentary, and that at the First General Council, which lasted seven months, the elders, who had all seen and heard Buddha, should have dis- cussed them, and decided on the method of interpreting and teaching the more recondite portions of Buddhist philosophy ? and what therefore if he should say in somewhat exaggerated language, " the commentary on the Digha Nikáya was at the beginning discussed (or composed, or merged into the body of the Scriptures) by five hundred holy elders" ? - for the original words may admit of such a construction. If or will this opinion appear merely hypothetical if we carefully peruse the account given by Buddhaghosa of the commentaries in his Samanta Pásádiká. In his metrical introduction to that work, after the usual doxology, he explains the necessity of having a proper Pali Commentary on the Vinaya, and then proceeds to set forth what he is about to do : -
"In commencing this commentary, I shall, having embodied therein the Mahá Atthakathá, without excluding any proper meaning from the decisions contained in the Mahá Paccarí, as also in the famous Kurundi and other com- mentaries, and including the opinions of the Elders, - perform my task well. Let the young, the middle-aged, and the elderly priests, who entertain a proper regard for the doctrines of the Tathágata, the luminary of truth, listen to my words with pleasure. The Dhamma, as well as the Yinaya, was declared by Buddha, his (sacerdotal) sons understood it in the same sense as it was delivered ; and inasmuch as in former times they (the Simhalese commentators) composed the com- mentaries without disregarding their (the sacerdotal sons') opinions, therefore, barring any erro* of transcription, every- thing contained therein is an authority to the learned in this priesthood who respect ecclesiastical discipline. From these (Simhalese) commentaries, after casting off the language, condensing detailed accounts, including authoritative deci- sions, and without overstepping any Pàli idiom (I shall pro- ceed to compose). And as this commentary will moreover be explanatory of the meaning of words belonging. to the Suttas in conformity with the sense attached to them therein, therefore ought it the more diligently to be studied."
....continued...
On the Origin of the Buddhist Arthakathás Cambridge University Press (1871)
2024.04.05 20:37 RealtorR1ck Macros that worked fine on Windows not working on Mac
Hi everyone, hoping someone here can help me understand why this macro isn't working in excel on my Mac. It works fine on a Windows computer. But when I try to run it in Excel on my MacBook, it doesn't do anything. The macro is below. Are there functions that work on Windows but not MacOS?
If I look through the macro I see the functions seem to be there, but they don't seem to do anything.
Thanks in advance for the help!
submitted by RealtorR1ck to excel [link] [comments]
If I look through the macro I see the functions seem to be there, but they don't seem to do anything.
Thanks in advance for the help!
Sub CompleteDataCleanup() Dim ws As Worksheet Dim lastRow As Long Dim i As Long Dim ownerName As String Dim mailingCityState As String Dim mailingZip As String Dim uspsAddress As String Dim uspsCity As String Set ws = ActiveSheet lastRow = ws.Cells(ws.Rows.Count, "A").End(xlUp).Row For i = 2 To lastRow ' Clean up OwnerNames ownerName = ws.Cells(i, "C").Value ownerName = Application.WorksheetFunction.Proper(ownerName) ownerName = Replace(ownerName, " Iii", "") ownerName = Replace(ownerName, " Ii", "") ownerName = Replace(ownerName, " Iv", "") ' Handling prefixes in names (e.g., Mc, O') ownerName = CorrectNameCases(ownerName) ws.Cells(i, "C").Value = ownerName ' Combine MailingCityState and MailingZip into MailingCityStateZip mailingCityState = ws.Cells(i, "E").Value mailingZip = ws.Cells(i, "F").Value ws.Cells(i, "G").Value = mailingCityState & " " & mailingZip ' Proper case conversion for USPSaddress and output to MailingAddressProp uspsAddress = ws.Cells(i, "J").Value ws.Cells(i, "H").Value = Application.WorksheetFunction.Proper(uspsAddress) ' Proper case conversion for USPScity and output to MailingCityProp uspsCity = ws.Cells(i, "M").Value ws.Cells(i, "I").Value = Application.WorksheetFunction.Proper(uspsCity) Next i End Sub Function CorrectNameCases(ByVal name As String) As String If InStr(name, "Mc") > 0 Then name = Replace(name, "Mc", "Mc") name = Application.WorksheetFunction.Proper(name) End If If InStr(name, "O'") > 0 Then name = Replace(name, "O'", "O'") name = Application.WorksheetFunction.Proper(name) End If CorrectNameCases = name End Function
2024.03.27 19:53 Fit-Passion-5614 Hey guys, I need to import data from Excel file to my custom Table and Form in D365 F&O using Batch Job. I have used RunBase batch for the same. The data is importing to my form if batch processing is set to NO. But if I run the class in batch(Batch processing is yes), the batchjob status is error.
using System.IO;
using OfficeOpenXml;
using OfficeOpenXml.ExcelPackage;
using OfficeOpenXml.ExcelRange;
class CNT_AccessCard extends RunBaseBatch
{
Filename ItemFileName;
Filename filename;
DialogField dialogFilename;
System.IO.Stream stream;
FileUploadTemporaryStorageResult fileUploadResult;
OfficeOpenXml.ExcelRange range;
CommaTextStreamIo commaIo;
RecordInsertList rsl;
boolean newIteration;
int line,
lineimported,lineerror, lineskipped;
Counter loop;
FileUploadBuild dialogFileUpload;
FileUpload fileUpload;
DialogRunbase dialog;
#define.CurrentVersion(1)
#define.Version1(1)
#localmacro.CurrentList
fileName
#endmacro
void create(int iterator)
{
str EmployeeID = range.get_Item(iterator,1).Value;
CNT_AccessCardTable accessCardTable;
try
{
ttsbegin;
select forUpdate accessCardTable where accessCardTable.EmployeeID == EmployeeID;
if (!accessCardTable)
{
accessCardTable.clear();
}
accessCardTable.EmployeeID = range.get_Item(iterator,1).Value;
accessCardTable.EmployeeName = range.get_Item(iterator,2).Value;
accessCardTable.TimeInside = str2Datetime((range.get_Item(iterator,3).Value),123);
accessCardTable.TimeOutside = str2Datetime((range.get_Item(iterator,4).Value),123);
accessCardTable.TotalHours = str2Int(range.get_Item(iterator,5).Value);
accessCardTable.Phone = range.get_Item(iterator,6).Value;
accessCardTable.Email = range.get_Item(iterator,7).Value;
if (!accessCardTable)
{
accessCardTable.insert();
}
else
{
accessCardTable.update();
}
lineimported ++;
ttscommit;
}
catch
{
lineerror ++;
ttsAbort;
}
}
void import()
{
Container con;
CNT_AccessCardTable accessCardTable;
;
setPrefix("Import master data");
if (this.openFile())
{
using (ExcelPackage Package = new ExcelPackage(stream))
{
int rowCount, i, endRow, startRow;
Package.Load(stream);
ExcelWorksheet worksheet = package.get_Workbook().get_Worksheets().get_Item(1);
range = worksheet.Cells;
endRow = worksheet.Dimension.End.Row;
startRow = worksheet.Dimension.Start.Row;
rowCount = endRow - startRow + 1;
try
{
for (i = 2; i<= rowCount; i++)
{
setPrefix(strFmt("Line %1", i));
this.create(i);
}
}
catch
{
throw error("Error - Import template");
}
}
}
info(strfmt("%1 record(s) imported", lineimported));
info(strfmt("%1 record(s) fail", lineerror));
}
boolean openFile()
{
boolean ret = false;
if (fileUploadResult != null && fileUploadResult.getUploadStatus())
{
stream = fileUploadResult.openResult();
ret = true;
}
else
{
throw error(strfmt("Error",filename));
}
return ret;
}
public Object dialog()
{
dialog = super();
DialogGroup dialogGroup = dialog.addGroup('Upload file');
FormBuildControl formBuildControl = dialog.formBuildDesign().control(dialogGroup.name());
dialogFileUpload = formBuildControl.addControlEx(classstr(FileUpload), 'FileUpload');
dialogFileUpload.style(FileUploadStyle::MinimalWithFilename);
dialogFileUpload.fileNameLabel("Access Card");
dialogFileUpload.fileTypesAccepted(".xlsx");
return dialog;
}
public void dialogPostRun(DialogRunbase _dialog)
{
fileUpload = _dialog.formRun().control(_dialog.formRun().controlId('FileUpload'));
fileUpload.notifyUploadCompleted += eventhandler(this.uploadCompleted);
this.setDialogOkButtonEnabled(_dialog, false);
}
public void uploadCompleted()
{
filename = fileUpload.fileName();
this.setDialogOkButtonEnabled(dialog, true);
fileUploadResult = fileUpload.getFileUploadResult();
fileUpload.notifyUploadCompleted -= eventhandler(this.UploadCompleted);
}
protected void setDialogOkButtonEnabled(DialogRunbase _dialog, boolean _isEnabled)
{
FormControl okButtonControl = _dialog.formRun().control(_dialog.formRun().controlId('OkButton'));
if (okButtonControl)
{
okButtonControl.enabled(_isEnabled);
}
}
public container pack()
{
return [#CurrentVersion,#CurrentList];
}
public boolean unpack(container packedClass)
{
Version version = runbase::getVersion(packedClass);
;
switch (version)
{
case #CurrentVersion:
[version,#CurrentList] = packedClass;
break;
default:
return false;
}
return true;
}
public void run()
{
this.import();
super();
}
static void main(Args _args)
{
CNT_AccessCard import;
FormRun formRun;
Args args;
;
import = new CNT_AccessCard();
if (import.prompt())
{
import.run();
}
}
public ClassDescription caption()
{
return 'Import template';
}
} Can u tell whats the issue with this code? I tried to debug and it's not reading the file after uploading it seems. Any leads would be appreciated. Thanks!
submitted by Fit-Passion-5614 to Dynamics365 [link] [comments]
using OfficeOpenXml;
using OfficeOpenXml.ExcelPackage;
using OfficeOpenXml.ExcelRange;
class CNT_AccessCard extends RunBaseBatch
{
Filename ItemFileName;
Filename filename;
DialogField dialogFilename;
System.IO.Stream stream;
FileUploadTemporaryStorageResult fileUploadResult;
OfficeOpenXml.ExcelRange range;
CommaTextStreamIo commaIo;
RecordInsertList rsl;
boolean newIteration;
int line,
lineimported,lineerror, lineskipped;
Counter loop;
FileUploadBuild dialogFileUpload;
FileUpload fileUpload;
DialogRunbase dialog;
#define.CurrentVersion(1)
#define.Version1(1)
#localmacro.CurrentList
fileName
#endmacro
void create(int iterator)
{
str EmployeeID = range.get_Item(iterator,1).Value;
CNT_AccessCardTable accessCardTable;
try
{
ttsbegin;
select forUpdate accessCardTable where accessCardTable.EmployeeID == EmployeeID;
if (!accessCardTable)
{
accessCardTable.clear();
}
accessCardTable.EmployeeID = range.get_Item(iterator,1).Value;
accessCardTable.EmployeeName = range.get_Item(iterator,2).Value;
accessCardTable.TimeInside = str2Datetime((range.get_Item(iterator,3).Value),123);
accessCardTable.TimeOutside = str2Datetime((range.get_Item(iterator,4).Value),123);
accessCardTable.TotalHours = str2Int(range.get_Item(iterator,5).Value);
accessCardTable.Phone = range.get_Item(iterator,6).Value;
accessCardTable.Email = range.get_Item(iterator,7).Value;
if (!accessCardTable)
{
accessCardTable.insert();
}
else
{
accessCardTable.update();
}
lineimported ++;
ttscommit;
}
catch
{
lineerror ++;
ttsAbort;
}
}
void import()
{
Container con;
CNT_AccessCardTable accessCardTable;
;
setPrefix("Import master data");
if (this.openFile())
{
using (ExcelPackage Package = new ExcelPackage(stream))
{
int rowCount, i, endRow, startRow;
Package.Load(stream);
ExcelWorksheet worksheet = package.get_Workbook().get_Worksheets().get_Item(1);
range = worksheet.Cells;
endRow = worksheet.Dimension.End.Row;
startRow = worksheet.Dimension.Start.Row;
rowCount = endRow - startRow + 1;
try
{
for (i = 2; i<= rowCount; i++)
{
setPrefix(strFmt("Line %1", i));
this.create(i);
}
}
catch
{
throw error("Error - Import template");
}
}
}
info(strfmt("%1 record(s) imported", lineimported));
info(strfmt("%1 record(s) fail", lineerror));
}
boolean openFile()
{
boolean ret = false;
if (fileUploadResult != null && fileUploadResult.getUploadStatus())
{
stream = fileUploadResult.openResult();
ret = true;
}
else
{
throw error(strfmt("Error",filename));
}
return ret;
}
public Object dialog()
{
dialog = super();
DialogGroup dialogGroup = dialog.addGroup('Upload file');
FormBuildControl formBuildControl = dialog.formBuildDesign().control(dialogGroup.name());
dialogFileUpload = formBuildControl.addControlEx(classstr(FileUpload), 'FileUpload');
dialogFileUpload.style(FileUploadStyle::MinimalWithFilename);
dialogFileUpload.fileNameLabel("Access Card");
dialogFileUpload.fileTypesAccepted(".xlsx");
return dialog;
}
public void dialogPostRun(DialogRunbase _dialog)
{
fileUpload = _dialog.formRun().control(_dialog.formRun().controlId('FileUpload'));
fileUpload.notifyUploadCompleted += eventhandler(this.uploadCompleted);
this.setDialogOkButtonEnabled(_dialog, false);
}
public void uploadCompleted()
{
filename = fileUpload.fileName();
this.setDialogOkButtonEnabled(dialog, true);
fileUploadResult = fileUpload.getFileUploadResult();
fileUpload.notifyUploadCompleted -= eventhandler(this.UploadCompleted);
}
protected void setDialogOkButtonEnabled(DialogRunbase _dialog, boolean _isEnabled)
{
FormControl okButtonControl = _dialog.formRun().control(_dialog.formRun().controlId('OkButton'));
if (okButtonControl)
{
okButtonControl.enabled(_isEnabled);
}
}
public container pack()
{
return [#CurrentVersion,#CurrentList];
}
public boolean unpack(container packedClass)
{
Version version = runbase::getVersion(packedClass);
;
switch (version)
{
case #CurrentVersion:
[version,#CurrentList] = packedClass;
break;
default:
return false;
}
return true;
}
public void run()
{
this.import();
super();
}
static void main(Args _args)
{
CNT_AccessCard import;
FormRun formRun;
Args args;
;
import = new CNT_AccessCard();
if (import.prompt())
{
import.run();
}
}
public ClassDescription caption()
{
return 'Import template';
}
} Can u tell whats the issue with this code? I tried to debug and it's not reading the file after uploading it seems. Any leads would be appreciated. Thanks!
2024.03.23 00:59 Enicholas_725 hello guys, this is my first post here, and i have a problem trying to add animated sprites in a stage on psych engine, can anyone help me with it?
 | submitted by Enicholas_725 to FridayNightFunkin [link] [comments] |
2024.03.19 04:02 jtoll31 Python web scraping script for wikipedia discographies.
Hi all, I'm a newbie to python and code in general. I had a little project where I wanted to collect the entire discographies of artists from their wikipedia page. An example I will use is that of Travis Scott
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Travis_Scott_discography
I have been employing Chat GPT 3.5 to write the script for me, and I'm really really close to what I want but there are a few problems. The issues that I am having are as follows:
submitted by jtoll31 to learnpython [link] [comments]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Travis_Scott_discography
I have been employing Chat GPT 3.5 to write the script for me, and I'm really really close to what I want but there are a few problems. The issues that I am having are as follows:
- There are sometimes random blank listings produced in the final print
- I cannot get it to properly display "Non-album singles" from the singles discography table. It works fine with the ones labelled "Non-album single", but for some reason when there are multiple entries in the title column it cannot print them all out and only prints out the first one.
import requests from bs4 import BeautifulSoup from colorama import Fore, Style, init # Initialize colorama init() def scrape_discography(artist_name): # Construct the URL of the Wikipedia discography page for the artist url = f"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/{artist_name}_discography" # Send a GET request to the URL response = requests.get(url) # Check if the request was successful if response.status_code == 200: # Parse the HTML content of the page soup = BeautifulSoup(response.content, 'html.parser') # Find all tables in the page tables = soup.find_all('table', class_='wikitable') # Initialize a dictionary to store albums and singles discography = {"Non-album Singles": []} dynamic_categories = {} # Extract information from each table for table in tables: # Find the heading or caption above the table heading = table.find_previous(['h2', 'h3', 'h4', 'h5', 'h6']) if heading: release_type = heading.get_text(strip=True).lower().replace('[edit]', '') # Ignore tables after "As featured artist[edit]" heading if release_type == 'as featured artist': break # Process the table if it's not "As lead artist[edit]" if release_type != 'as lead artist': # Process other tables (not "As lead artist[edit]") for row in table.find_all('tr')[1:]: cells = row.find_all(['th', 'td']) if cells: # Assuming the first cell contains the album title album_title = cells[0].get_text(strip=True) # Remove "US" prefix and footnote reference album_title = album_title.split('[')[0].replace('US', '').strip() # Check if the release type is already a dynamic category if release_type not in dynamic_categories: dynamic_categories[release_type] = [] dynamic_categories[release_type].append("- [ ] " + album_title) else: # Extract album titles and their corresponding albums for row in table.find_all('tr')[1:]: cells = row.find_all(['th', 'td']) if cells: # Get the album title and album name album_title = cells[0].get_text(strip=True) album_name = cells[-1].get_text(strip=True) # Check if the album is a non-album single if album_name.lower() == 'non-album single' or album_name.lower() == 'non-album singles': discography["Non-album Singles"].append("- [ ] " + album_title) # Combine dynamic categories with discography discography.update(dynamic_categories) return discography else: print(f"Failed to retrieve data from {url}") # Prompt user to input artist's name artist_name = input("Enter the name of the artist whose discography you want to scrape: ") discography = scrape_discography(artist_name.replace(' ', '_')) if discography: # Print all dynamic categories with colorized headings for category, albums in discography.items(): if category != "Non-album Singles": print(Fore.BLUE + f"\n{category.capitalize()}:" + Style.RESET_ALL) for album in albums: print(album) # Print Non-album Singles separately print(Fore.BLUE + "\nNon-album Singles:" + Style.RESET_ALL) for single in discography["Non-album Singles"]: print(single) Thank you once again.2024.02.17 09:04 Ekocare On the Origin of the Buddhist Arthakathás (R. C. Childers, L. C. Vijasinha)
On the Origin of the Buddhist Arthakathás Cambridge University Press (1871)
It must be admitted that the point raised by Mr. Childers is one of grave importance as affecting the credibility of Buddhaghosa and the authenticity of all the commentaries on the Tipitaka. From a missionary point of view, the astounding statement that a commentary on Buddha's discourses existed during his lifetime, and was rehearsed along with those discourses at the First Great Council, appears so improbable and unnatural as at once to justify one in discrediting the testimony; and I doubt not that missionary orientalists will hail the discovery as a valuable addition to their stock of arguments against the genuineness and authenticity of the Buddhist Scriptures.
Indeed I found it difficult at first to obtain the opinions of some of my learned friends of the Buddhist priesthood on this point, as they seemed to regard it as another thunderbolt intended to be levelled against their religion by some enthusiastic missionary ; and it was only after explaining to them the object of the inquiry, and the literary character of the gentleman who started the apparent difficulty, that I could induce them to look the question fairly in the face.
I am glad to say that most of my clerical Buddhist friends with whom I have consulted on this subject agree with me on the necessity of giving a wider and more extended signification than is generally allowed to the word Atthakathá as applied by Buddhaghosa in the passage cited. The word, as is well known, is compounded of two terms, attha, " meaning, " and katha , " a statement, explanation, or narrative," the dental t being changed to the cerebral by a latitude in the rules of permutation.1 The literal meaning of the compound term would thus amount to simply " an ex- planation of meaning. " Taking this wider sense of the word as a basis for the solution of the problem, I think the statement of Buddhaghosa in his preface to the commentary on the Dígha Nikáya is not so hopelessly irreconcilable with probable and presumable facts as would at first sight appear.
On a careful perusal of the two accounts given by Buddhaghosa of the proceedings of the three famous Councils in the Sumańgala Vilásiní and the Samanta Pásádiká, this view will, I think, be found to be very reasonable. It must be admitted that no actual commentary, in the sense that the westerns attach to that term, and like that which has been handed down to us by Buddhaghosa, existed either in the lifetime of Buddha or immediately after his death. The reasons adduced by Mr. Childers, apart from others that can easily be added, against such a supposition, are overwhelmingly convincing. But if we suppose that by the word Atthakathá in his preface Buddhaghosa only meant to convey the idea that at the various Councils held for the purpose of collocating the discourses and sayings of Buddha, the meanings to be attached to different terms were discussed and properly defined, then the difficulty of conceiving the contemporaneous existence pf the commentaries and the Pitakas would be entirely removed.
This view of the subject will appear still further borne out if we briefly glance over the history of the First Convocation, as narrated by Buddhaghosa himself. The first proposal to hold an assembly of priests for the purpose of collocating Buddha's discourses was made by Mahá Kassapa, the chief of the seven hundred thousand priests who assembled at Kusinára to celebrate the obsequies of the departed saint. Seven days had hardly elapsed after that mournful occurrence, when signs of discontent at monastic restraint manifested themselves, and a disaffected disciple of Buddha named Subhadda openly proclaimed that now their master was no more the ties of discipline should be relaxed, if not broken. The words of consolation offered by this old monk to his brethren in distress are certainly remarkable, as it would be difficult to say whether they betoken more the callousness of his feelings or the depravity of his heart: " Brethren, enough of this sorrow, weep not, lament not. We are well rid of that Arch-priest, having been in constant dread of his declarations, This befits you, this befits you not. Now, there- fore, what we desire we shall do; what we do not desire that shall we not do." To a sagacious mind like that of Mahá Kassapa it was not difficult to perceive what language like this foreshadowed, and he instantly formed the resolve to congregate the priesthood, and to collect and arrange the laws and doctrines proclaimed by his Master. Hardly two months had elapsed before this active mind brought about what it had contemplated, and the result was the Council of the Five Hundred, convoked at Kájagaha, under the auspices of King Ajátasattu, for the purpose of collecting and arrang- ing the doctrines and discourses of Buddha.
The proceedings of this Council appear to have been con- ducted in a very orderly and systematic manner, which is the more surprising when we consider that monastic autocracy was about to give place to a form of church government prescribed by the great Founder himself, but which was now to be established and tested for the first time. Mahá Kassapa, whom Buddha indirectly indicated as his equal in point of superhuman mental acquirements, assumed the office of Moderator, and by the unanimous consent of the synod Upáli was elected as the best qualified of their order to repeat the Yinaya, and Ānanda the Dhamma ; the Council having previously decided that the Yinaya was the most material for the permanence of Buddhism.
Now it is important to observe that the catechetical form was used in the collocation of both the Laws and Doctrines. "Afterwards Mahá Kassapa, having seated himself in the presidential chair, questioned the venerable Upáli respecting the Yinaya in this wise. Brother Upáli, where was the first Párájika promulgated? My lord, at Vesáli. On whose account? On account of Sudinna, the son of Kalanda. With regard to what offence? To fornication. Then did the venerable Mahá Kassapa question the venerable Upáli on the offence, the cause, the offender, the primary law, the secondary law, the transgression and the non-transgression, relating to the first law enacted against mortal sin. And the venerable Upáli explained as he was questioned." Such was also the method employed in the synod in the collocation of the Dhamma : - " Brother Ananda, where was the Brahmajála delivered ? My lord, between Rájagaha and Nálanda," and so on. Though it is subsequently added that " at the conclusion of the questions and answers the five hundred Arhats repeated the texts together in the order in which they had been collocated,"- it is difficult to believe that all' the five hundred rehearsed the long narratives prefixed to some of Buddha's discourses in the same words and style that they are now clothed in. Buddhaghosa's account of the synod is gathered from tradition, which was very probably embodied in the Simhalese atthakathás, and there can be little doubt that the main facts are correct ; but that he drew largely from tradition, written and oral, and possibly in some instances from imagination, will I think appear clear to any careful reader of the commentaries. Witness for instance his relation of Ananda's mysterious entrance into the assembly : pathaviyam nimujjitvá ottano árnne y em attánam dassesi , ákásena gantvá nisïdîti pi eke , " He plunged into the earth and showed himself in his seat, and also some say he went through the air and sat down." He does not say which version is correct, but is quite satisfied with both accounts, and is evidently quite willing to let his readers choose whichever they like.
Buddhaghosa throughout all his writings appears to have set one great object prominently in view, namely to inspire reverence for what he considered as supreme authority. When he came to Ceylon for the purpose of translating the Simhalese commentaries, he found a great many extant at that time, and out of these commentaries, embracing no doubt various shades of opinion, and representing different schools of thought, he had to expunge, abridge, enlarge, and make a new commentary. Now how could he do all this, and at the same time preserve undiminished among future generations the same reverence and authority in which the older commentaries were held by the Buddhists of that age? The thought struck him, as no doubt it would strike any careful reader of the Buddhist Scriptures, that a large portion of the writings contained in that canon appear to be explanations and definitions of terms used by Buddha, and also that a great many discourses said to have been delivered by Buddha to certain individuals have not been recorded.
Now what more easy to conceive, or what more probable, than that they formed the nucleus of matter for the formation of a commentary, and that at the First General Council, which lasted seven months, the elders, who had all seen and heard Buddha, should have dis- cussed them, and decided on the method of interpreting and teaching the more recondite portions of Buddhist philosophy ? and what therefore if he should say in somewhat exaggerated language, " the commentary on the Digha Nikáya was at the beginning discussed (or composed, or merged into the body of the Scriptures) by five hundred holy elders" ? - for the original words may admit of such a construction. If or will this opinion appear merely hypothetical if we carefully peruse the account given by Buddhaghosa of the commentaries in his Samanta Pásádiká. In his metrical introduction to that work, after the usual doxology, he explains the necessity of having a proper Pali Commentary on the Vinaya, and then proceeds to set forth what he is about to do : -
"In commencing this commentary, I shall, having embodied therein the Mahá Atthakathá, without excluding any proper meaning from the decisions contained in the Mahá Paccarí, as also in the famous Kurundi and other com- mentaries, and including the opinions of the Elders, - perform my task well. Let the young, the middle-aged, and the elderly priests, who entertain a proper regard for the doctrines of the Tathágata, the luminary of truth, listen to my words with pleasure. The Dhamma, as well as the Yinaya, was declared by Buddha, his (sacerdotal) sons understood it in the same sense as it was delivered ; and inasmuch as in former times they (the Simhalese commentators) composed the com- mentaries without disregarding their (the sacerdotal sons') opinions, therefore, barring any erro* of transcription, every- thing contained therein is an authority to the learned in this priesthood who respect ecclesiastical discipline. From these (Simhalese) commentaries, after casting off the language, condensing detailed accounts, including authoritative deci- sions, and without overstepping any Pàli idiom (I shall pro- ceed to compose). And as this commentary will moreover be explanatory of the meaning of words belonging. to the Suttas in conformity with the sense attached to them therein, therefore ought it the more diligently to be studied."
....continued...
On the Origin of the Buddhist Arthakathás Cambridge University Press (1871)
submitted by Ekocare to TheravadaBuddhism [link] [comments]
"—the commentary, I say, upon this Scripture wasL. Comrilla Vijasinha, Government Interpreter to the Ratnapura Court Ceylon:
at the first Council rehearsed by five hundred holy elders
and in later times rehearsed again and yet again."
It must be admitted that the point raised by Mr. Childers is one of grave importance as affecting the credibility of Buddhaghosa and the authenticity of all the commentaries on the Tipitaka. From a missionary point of view, the astounding statement that a commentary on Buddha's discourses existed during his lifetime, and was rehearsed along with those discourses at the First Great Council, appears so improbable and unnatural as at once to justify one in discrediting the testimony; and I doubt not that missionary orientalists will hail the discovery as a valuable addition to their stock of arguments against the genuineness and authenticity of the Buddhist Scriptures.
Indeed I found it difficult at first to obtain the opinions of some of my learned friends of the Buddhist priesthood on this point, as they seemed to regard it as another thunderbolt intended to be levelled against their religion by some enthusiastic missionary ; and it was only after explaining to them the object of the inquiry, and the literary character of the gentleman who started the apparent difficulty, that I could induce them to look the question fairly in the face.
I am glad to say that most of my clerical Buddhist friends with whom I have consulted on this subject agree with me on the necessity of giving a wider and more extended signification than is generally allowed to the word Atthakathá as applied by Buddhaghosa in the passage cited. The word, as is well known, is compounded of two terms, attha, " meaning, " and katha , " a statement, explanation, or narrative," the dental t being changed to the cerebral by a latitude in the rules of permutation.1 The literal meaning of the compound term would thus amount to simply " an ex- planation of meaning. " Taking this wider sense of the word as a basis for the solution of the problem, I think the statement of Buddhaghosa in his preface to the commentary on the Dígha Nikáya is not so hopelessly irreconcilable with probable and presumable facts as would at first sight appear.
On a careful perusal of the two accounts given by Buddhaghosa of the proceedings of the three famous Councils in the Sumańgala Vilásiní and the Samanta Pásádiká, this view will, I think, be found to be very reasonable. It must be admitted that no actual commentary, in the sense that the westerns attach to that term, and like that which has been handed down to us by Buddhaghosa, existed either in the lifetime of Buddha or immediately after his death. The reasons adduced by Mr. Childers, apart from others that can easily be added, against such a supposition, are overwhelmingly convincing. But if we suppose that by the word Atthakathá in his preface Buddhaghosa only meant to convey the idea that at the various Councils held for the purpose of collocating the discourses and sayings of Buddha, the meanings to be attached to different terms were discussed and properly defined, then the difficulty of conceiving the contemporaneous existence pf the commentaries and the Pitakas would be entirely removed.
This view of the subject will appear still further borne out if we briefly glance over the history of the First Convocation, as narrated by Buddhaghosa himself. The first proposal to hold an assembly of priests for the purpose of collocating Buddha's discourses was made by Mahá Kassapa, the chief of the seven hundred thousand priests who assembled at Kusinára to celebrate the obsequies of the departed saint. Seven days had hardly elapsed after that mournful occurrence, when signs of discontent at monastic restraint manifested themselves, and a disaffected disciple of Buddha named Subhadda openly proclaimed that now their master was no more the ties of discipline should be relaxed, if not broken. The words of consolation offered by this old monk to his brethren in distress are certainly remarkable, as it would be difficult to say whether they betoken more the callousness of his feelings or the depravity of his heart: " Brethren, enough of this sorrow, weep not, lament not. We are well rid of that Arch-priest, having been in constant dread of his declarations, This befits you, this befits you not. Now, there- fore, what we desire we shall do; what we do not desire that shall we not do." To a sagacious mind like that of Mahá Kassapa it was not difficult to perceive what language like this foreshadowed, and he instantly formed the resolve to congregate the priesthood, and to collect and arrange the laws and doctrines proclaimed by his Master. Hardly two months had elapsed before this active mind brought about what it had contemplated, and the result was the Council of the Five Hundred, convoked at Kájagaha, under the auspices of King Ajátasattu, for the purpose of collecting and arrang- ing the doctrines and discourses of Buddha.
The proceedings of this Council appear to have been con- ducted in a very orderly and systematic manner, which is the more surprising when we consider that monastic autocracy was about to give place to a form of church government prescribed by the great Founder himself, but which was now to be established and tested for the first time. Mahá Kassapa, whom Buddha indirectly indicated as his equal in point of superhuman mental acquirements, assumed the office of Moderator, and by the unanimous consent of the synod Upáli was elected as the best qualified of their order to repeat the Yinaya, and Ānanda the Dhamma ; the Council having previously decided that the Yinaya was the most material for the permanence of Buddhism.
Now it is important to observe that the catechetical form was used in the collocation of both the Laws and Doctrines. "Afterwards Mahá Kassapa, having seated himself in the presidential chair, questioned the venerable Upáli respecting the Yinaya in this wise. Brother Upáli, where was the first Párájika promulgated? My lord, at Vesáli. On whose account? On account of Sudinna, the son of Kalanda. With regard to what offence? To fornication. Then did the venerable Mahá Kassapa question the venerable Upáli on the offence, the cause, the offender, the primary law, the secondary law, the transgression and the non-transgression, relating to the first law enacted against mortal sin. And the venerable Upáli explained as he was questioned." Such was also the method employed in the synod in the collocation of the Dhamma : - " Brother Ananda, where was the Brahmajála delivered ? My lord, between Rájagaha and Nálanda," and so on. Though it is subsequently added that " at the conclusion of the questions and answers the five hundred Arhats repeated the texts together in the order in which they had been collocated,"- it is difficult to believe that all' the five hundred rehearsed the long narratives prefixed to some of Buddha's discourses in the same words and style that they are now clothed in. Buddhaghosa's account of the synod is gathered from tradition, which was very probably embodied in the Simhalese atthakathás, and there can be little doubt that the main facts are correct ; but that he drew largely from tradition, written and oral, and possibly in some instances from imagination, will I think appear clear to any careful reader of the commentaries. Witness for instance his relation of Ananda's mysterious entrance into the assembly : pathaviyam nimujjitvá ottano árnne y em attánam dassesi , ákásena gantvá nisïdîti pi eke , " He plunged into the earth and showed himself in his seat, and also some say he went through the air and sat down." He does not say which version is correct, but is quite satisfied with both accounts, and is evidently quite willing to let his readers choose whichever they like.
Buddhaghosa throughout all his writings appears to have set one great object prominently in view, namely to inspire reverence for what he considered as supreme authority. When he came to Ceylon for the purpose of translating the Simhalese commentaries, he found a great many extant at that time, and out of these commentaries, embracing no doubt various shades of opinion, and representing different schools of thought, he had to expunge, abridge, enlarge, and make a new commentary. Now how could he do all this, and at the same time preserve undiminished among future generations the same reverence and authority in which the older commentaries were held by the Buddhists of that age? The thought struck him, as no doubt it would strike any careful reader of the Buddhist Scriptures, that a large portion of the writings contained in that canon appear to be explanations and definitions of terms used by Buddha, and also that a great many discourses said to have been delivered by Buddha to certain individuals have not been recorded.
Now what more easy to conceive, or what more probable, than that they formed the nucleus of matter for the formation of a commentary, and that at the First General Council, which lasted seven months, the elders, who had all seen and heard Buddha, should have dis- cussed them, and decided on the method of interpreting and teaching the more recondite portions of Buddhist philosophy ? and what therefore if he should say in somewhat exaggerated language, " the commentary on the Digha Nikáya was at the beginning discussed (or composed, or merged into the body of the Scriptures) by five hundred holy elders" ? - for the original words may admit of such a construction. If or will this opinion appear merely hypothetical if we carefully peruse the account given by Buddhaghosa of the commentaries in his Samanta Pásádiká. In his metrical introduction to that work, after the usual doxology, he explains the necessity of having a proper Pali Commentary on the Vinaya, and then proceeds to set forth what he is about to do : -
"In commencing this commentary, I shall, having embodied therein the Mahá Atthakathá, without excluding any proper meaning from the decisions contained in the Mahá Paccarí, as also in the famous Kurundi and other com- mentaries, and including the opinions of the Elders, - perform my task well. Let the young, the middle-aged, and the elderly priests, who entertain a proper regard for the doctrines of the Tathágata, the luminary of truth, listen to my words with pleasure. The Dhamma, as well as the Yinaya, was declared by Buddha, his (sacerdotal) sons understood it in the same sense as it was delivered ; and inasmuch as in former times they (the Simhalese commentators) composed the com- mentaries without disregarding their (the sacerdotal sons') opinions, therefore, barring any erro* of transcription, every- thing contained therein is an authority to the learned in this priesthood who respect ecclesiastical discipline. From these (Simhalese) commentaries, after casting off the language, condensing detailed accounts, including authoritative deci- sions, and without overstepping any Pàli idiom (I shall pro- ceed to compose). And as this commentary will moreover be explanatory of the meaning of words belonging. to the Suttas in conformity with the sense attached to them therein, therefore ought it the more diligently to be studied."
....continued...
On the Origin of the Buddhist Arthakathás Cambridge University Press (1871)
2024.02.09 23:06 DyslexicUsermane How do I add an incrementing number value to my CSV file?
$path = "C:\Users\me\Documents\AllSubnetsInAVirtualNetwork"
$DateTimeSecond = Get-Date -Format "yyyyMMddHHmmssff"
$subscription = Get-AzSubscription ForEach-Object {
$SubscriptionName = $_.Name
foreach($sub in $SubscriptionName)
{
Set-AzContext -Subscription $sub
$row_count = 1
$excel = New-Object -ComObject excel.application
$excel.visible = $True
$workbook = $excel.Workbooks.Add()
$uregwksht= $workbook.Worksheets.Item(1)
$uregwksht.Name = 'SubnetsAndTheirAddresses'
$uregwksht.Cells.Item(1,1).Font.Bold=$True
$uregwksht.Cells.Item(1,1)= 'Subscription'
$uregwksht.Cells.Item(1,2).Font.Bold=$True
$uregwksht.Cells.Item(1,2)= 'VirtualNetwork'
$uregwksht.Cells.Item(1,3).Font.Bold=$True
$uregwksht.Cells.Item(1,3)= 'SubnetName'
$uregwksht.Cells.Item(1,4).Font.Bold=$True
$uregwksht.Cells.Item(1,4)= 'SubnetAddressSpace'
$vNets = Get-AzVirtualNetwork
foreach ($vNet in $vNets){
$vNetExpanded = Get-AzVirtualNetwork -Name $vNet.Name -ResourceGroupName $vNet.ResourceGroupName -ExpandResource 'subnets/ipConfigurations'
foreach ($Subnet in $vNetExpanded.Subnets){
$SubnetName = $subnet.Name
$SubnetAddressPrefix = $subnet.AddressPrefix Out-String
$row_count++
$uregwksht.Cells.item($row_count,1)=$sub
$uregwksht.Cells.item($row_count,2)=$vNet.Name
$uregwksht.Cells.item($row_count,3)=$SubnetName
$uregwksht.Cells.item($row_count,4)=$SubnetAddressPrefix
}
}
$workbook.SaveAs("$path\$sub-subnets-$DateTimeSecond.xlsx")
$excel.Quit()
}
}
I have a script to do some Azure stuff which works the way I want it to. The issue comes when saving the CSV file - some subscriptions have the same name and that causes Excel to pop up every time asking if I want to overwrite the existing file. What I did originally to try and get around this was to just add the date, time, with hours and seconds. What it actually did was just add the time value from when I started the script to the file name.
Could I implement a counter++ value somewhere so that I can have a unique file name each time?
Edit: XLSX file not CSV. Sorry.
submitted by DyslexicUsermane to PowerShell [link] [comments]
$DateTimeSecond = Get-Date -Format "yyyyMMddHHmmssff"
$subscription = Get-AzSubscription ForEach-Object {
$SubscriptionName = $_.Name
foreach($sub in $SubscriptionName)
{
Set-AzContext -Subscription $sub
$row_count = 1
$excel = New-Object -ComObject excel.application
$excel.visible = $True
$workbook = $excel.Workbooks.Add()
$uregwksht= $workbook.Worksheets.Item(1)
$uregwksht.Name = 'SubnetsAndTheirAddresses'
$uregwksht.Cells.Item(1,1).Font.Bold=$True
$uregwksht.Cells.Item(1,1)= 'Subscription'
$uregwksht.Cells.Item(1,2).Font.Bold=$True
$uregwksht.Cells.Item(1,2)= 'VirtualNetwork'
$uregwksht.Cells.Item(1,3).Font.Bold=$True
$uregwksht.Cells.Item(1,3)= 'SubnetName'
$uregwksht.Cells.Item(1,4).Font.Bold=$True
$uregwksht.Cells.Item(1,4)= 'SubnetAddressSpace'
$vNets = Get-AzVirtualNetwork
foreach ($vNet in $vNets){
$vNetExpanded = Get-AzVirtualNetwork -Name $vNet.Name -ResourceGroupName $vNet.ResourceGroupName -ExpandResource 'subnets/ipConfigurations'
foreach ($Subnet in $vNetExpanded.Subnets){
$SubnetName = $subnet.Name
$SubnetAddressPrefix = $subnet.AddressPrefix Out-String
$row_count++
$uregwksht.Cells.item($row_count,1)=$sub
$uregwksht.Cells.item($row_count,2)=$vNet.Name
$uregwksht.Cells.item($row_count,3)=$SubnetName
$uregwksht.Cells.item($row_count,4)=$SubnetAddressPrefix
}
}
$workbook.SaveAs("$path\$sub-subnets-$DateTimeSecond.xlsx")
$excel.Quit()
}
}
I have a script to do some Azure stuff which works the way I want it to. The issue comes when saving the CSV file - some subscriptions have the same name and that causes Excel to pop up every time asking if I want to overwrite the existing file. What I did originally to try and get around this was to just add the date, time, with hours and seconds. What it actually did was just add the time value from when I started the script to the file name.
Could I implement a counter++ value somewhere so that I can have a unique file name each time?
Edit: XLSX file not CSV. Sorry.
2024.01.29 02:36 hdroadking [EXCEL] Conditionally formatting shapes doesn't update with change in value
Hello all:
New to VBA. I am building a spreadsheet which on the first tab a client answers questions scoring from 1-5.
On the second tab the scores are grouped into 5 columns which are totaled and averaged.Based on the average of each of the 5 columns a cell holding the total aveage for that column is conditionally formated to red, yellow or green. That part works with no issue.
The problem is below the array with the average on the score page there is a graphic I created of a pyramid using 5 shapes. Each shape should match the color of the cell that holds the total average for that column.
The code I create is below. It works fine if after the score have ben entered on the "assessment" tab I go to the total average box on the "score" tab and click in it and hit enter. It does not change the color of the shape automatically as the score changes in the average box.
How can I have the shape color change as the average changes for each column?
Thanks in advance!
VBA Code:
submitted by hdroadking to vba [link] [comments]
New to VBA. I am building a spreadsheet which on the first tab a client answers questions scoring from 1-5.
On the second tab the scores are grouped into 5 columns which are totaled and averaged.Based on the average of each of the 5 columns a cell holding the total aveage for that column is conditionally formated to red, yellow or green. That part works with no issue.
The problem is below the array with the average on the score page there is a graphic I created of a pyramid using 5 shapes. Each shape should match the color of the cell that holds the total average for that column.
The code I create is below. It works fine if after the score have ben entered on the "assessment" tab I go to the total average box on the "score" tab and click in it and hit enter. It does not change the color of the shape automatically as the score changes in the average box.
How can I have the shape color change as the average changes for each column?
Thanks in advance!
VBA Code:
Private Sub Worksheet_Change(ByVal Target As Range) If Range("D12") >= "3.75" Then ActiveSheet.Shapes.Range(Array("Triangle 5")).Select Selection.ShapeRange.Fill.ForeColor.RGB = RGB(0, 176, 80) 'Green ElseIf Range("D12") >= "3.25" Then ActiveSheet.Shapes.Range(Array("Triangle 5")).Select Selection.ShapeRange.Fill.ForeColor.RGB = RGB(255, 192, 0) 'Yellow ElseIf Range("D12") < "3.25" Then ActiveSheet.Shapes.Range(Array("Triangle 5")).Select Selection.ShapeRange.Fill.ForeColor.RGB = RGB(255, 0, 0) 'Red End If If Range("F12") >= "3.75" Then ActiveSheet.Shapes.Range(Array("Triangle 4")).Select Selection.ShapeRange.Fill.ForeColor.RGB = RGB(0, 176, 80) 'Green ElseIf Range("F12") >= "3.25" Then ActiveSheet.Shapes.Range(Array("Triangle 4")).Select Selection.ShapeRange.Fill.ForeColor.RGB = RGB(255, 192, 0) 'Yellow ElseIf Range("F12") < "3.25" Then ActiveSheet.Shapes.Range(Array("Triangle 4")).Select Selection.ShapeRange.Fill.ForeColor.RGB = RGB(255, 0, 0) 'Red End If If Range("H12") >= "3.75" Then ActiveSheet.Shapes.Range(Array("Triangle 3")).Select Selection.ShapeRange.Fill.ForeColor.RGB = RGB(0, 176, 80) 'Green ElseIf Range("H12") >= "3.25" Then ActiveSheet.Shapes.Range(Array("Triangle 3")).Select Selection.ShapeRange.Fill.ForeColor.RGB = RGB(255, 192, 0) 'Yellow ElseIf Range("H12") < "3.25" Then ActiveSheet.Shapes.Range(Array("Triangle 3")).Select Selection.ShapeRange.Fill.ForeColor.RGB = RGB(255, 0, 0) 'Red End If If Range("J12") >= "3.75" Then ActiveSheet.Shapes.Range(Array("Triangle 2")).Select Selection.ShapeRange.Fill.ForeColor.RGB = RGB(0, 176, 80) 'Green ElseIf Range("J12") >= "3.25" Then ActiveSheet.Shapes.Range(Array("Triangle 2")).Select Selection.ShapeRange.Fill.ForeColor.RGB = RGB(255, 192, 0) 'Yellow ElseIf Range("J12") < "3.25" Then ActiveSheet.Shapes.Range(Array("Triangle 2")).Select Selection.ShapeRange.Fill.ForeColor.RGB = RGB(255, 0, 0) 'Red End If If Range("L12") >= "3.75" Then ActiveSheet.Shapes.Range(Array("Triangle 1")).Select Selection.ShapeRange.Fill.ForeColor.RGB = RGB(0, 176, 80) 'Green ElseIf Range("L12") >= "3.25" Then ActiveSheet.Shapes.Range(Array("Triangle 1")).Select Selection.ShapeRange.Fill.ForeColor.RGB = RGB(255, 192, 0) 'Yellow ElseIf Range("L12") < "3.25" Then ActiveSheet.Shapes.Range(Array("Triangle 1")).Select Selection.ShapeRange.Fill.ForeColor.RGB = RGB(255, 0, 0) 'Red End If End Sub
2023.12.23 20:47 I_Do_Not_Abbreviate Are schools in the United States still teaching Greek and Latin Prefixes/Roots/Suffixes as part of English and/or Language Arts classes?
Hi everyone; not a teacher, but my mother was an elementary teacher for the better part of a decade.
I remember back at the turn-of-the-millennium (like, the 2000-2001 school year exactly) my sixth grade English teacher spending at least a few weeks introducing and drilling us on the Greek and Latin "building blocks" of "big words". We had multiple worksheets full of stuff like "Inter- = Between, Intra- = Within, hydro = water, man = hand, -osis = process, -ion = create" just listing out all the common prefixes/suffixes and root words, then testing us with quiz sheets of complex (for twelve-year-olds) vocabulary like "Hydroelectric" or "Incorporation" that we had to break down into their constituent parts.
This helped me with my reading comprehension immensely. A whole new world of meaning opened up to me: suddenly I realized that all those big, long, scary words I had been so confused by and terrified of were actually just three or four small words linked together in a little "train of meaning" that I could take apart and examine one-by-one. It felt like a superpower! No single unit in my entire primary or secondary education helped me more than this one did, because it pushed aside a bunch of roadblocks that had been on my path to reading "grown-up" books and magazine articles. If I encountered a new word, I could break it down into pieces, make an educated guess at the meaning from how the order of those pieces related to their surrounding context, and move on without having to stop. All I had to do was memorize maybe a hundred little bits, and presto! I could learn new words without having to look them up in a dictionary.
I have spent some time on here and have heard your stories about the sad state of literacy education in the United States today but I have not heard mention of this technique still being in use.
Tell me: is anyone still teaching these "building blocks"?
submitted by I_Do_Not_Abbreviate to Teachers [link] [comments]
I remember back at the turn-of-the-millennium (like, the 2000-2001 school year exactly) my sixth grade English teacher spending at least a few weeks introducing and drilling us on the Greek and Latin "building blocks" of "big words". We had multiple worksheets full of stuff like "Inter- = Between, Intra- = Within, hydro = water, man = hand, -osis = process, -ion = create" just listing out all the common prefixes/suffixes and root words, then testing us with quiz sheets of complex (for twelve-year-olds) vocabulary like "Hydroelectric" or "Incorporation" that we had to break down into their constituent parts.
This helped me with my reading comprehension immensely. A whole new world of meaning opened up to me: suddenly I realized that all those big, long, scary words I had been so confused by and terrified of were actually just three or four small words linked together in a little "train of meaning" that I could take apart and examine one-by-one. It felt like a superpower! No single unit in my entire primary or secondary education helped me more than this one did, because it pushed aside a bunch of roadblocks that had been on my path to reading "grown-up" books and magazine articles. If I encountered a new word, I could break it down into pieces, make an educated guess at the meaning from how the order of those pieces related to their surrounding context, and move on without having to stop. All I had to do was memorize maybe a hundred little bits, and presto! I could learn new words without having to look them up in a dictionary.
I have spent some time on here and have heard your stories about the sad state of literacy education in the United States today but I have not heard mention of this technique still being in use.
Tell me: is anyone still teaching these "building blocks"?
2023.12.19 18:57 JessDvac Macro to change shape color based on conditions not working
Help. I am trying to write a macro to change the color of my shapes based on cell value however, I keep getting an error in my code on the color line. I must have syntax wrong. Please help.
Sheet I am working on. For the first shape (AM) or (Rectangle 5), I would like it to be Red if cell O12 Says Review and green if it doesnt.
https://preview.redd.it/xsgthmzwia7c1.png?width=1861&format=png&auto=webp&s=9257734df3319f1f7c83594e0139a4f7b10849e7
https://preview.redd.it/9q12ektuia7c1.png?width=498&format=png&auto=webp&s=dd952dfa98282b9a982f5a26d079d0b21fbd03e7
submitted by JessDvac to excel [link] [comments]
Sheet I am working on. For the first shape (AM) or (Rectangle 5), I would like it to be Red if cell O12 Says Review and green if it doesnt.
https://preview.redd.it/xsgthmzwia7c1.png?width=1861&format=png&auto=webp&s=9257734df3319f1f7c83594e0139a4f7b10849e7
https://preview.redd.it/9q12ektuia7c1.png?width=498&format=png&auto=webp&s=dd952dfa98282b9a982f5a26d079d0b21fbd03e7
2023.12.04 19:48 sls20901 Can anyone help with Comfyui load checkpoint crash
 | I was recently started to use the comfyui for generating XL image. When i try to do a second sampler, it always crash on the checkpoint loader nodes. It was working fine without it, I tried for a long time to find out the problem but it is still not working:( submitted by sls20901 to StableDiffusion [link] [comments] https://preview.redd.it/bn3xb52xob4c1.png?width=1875&format=png&auto=webp&s=fd03a55f55014c0a53519442e6d69d27bb9e92d9 |
2023.12.02 18:32 ItsJustPieter My Comfyui workflow doesn't seem to apply my Ipadapter, any ideas why?
 | submitted by ItsJustPieter to comfyui [link] [comments] |
2023.11.30 07:37 Cynndrome any assistance? i'm working on a state machine.
 | submitted by Cynndrome to godot [link] [comments] |
2023.11.17 09:04 Ekocare On the Origin of the Buddhist Arthakathás (R. C. Childers, L. C. Vijasinha)
On the Origin of the Buddhist Arthakathás Cambridge University Press (1871)
It must be admitted that the point raised by Mr. Childers is one of grave importance as affecting the credibility of Buddhaghosa and the authenticity of all the commentaries on the Tipitaka. From a missionary point of view, the astounding statement that a commentary on Buddha's discourses existed during his lifetime, and was rehearsed along with those discourses at the First Great Council, appears so improbable and unnatural as at once to justify one in discrediting the testimony; and I doubt not that missionary orientalists will hail the discovery as a valuable addition to their stock of arguments against the genuineness and authenticity of the Buddhist Scriptures.
Indeed I found it difficult at first to obtain the opinions of some of my learned friends of the Buddhist priesthood on this point, as they seemed to regard it as another thunderbolt intended to be levelled against their religion by some enthusiastic missionary ; and it was only after explaining to them the object of the inquiry, and the literary character of the gentleman who started the apparent difficulty, that I could induce them to look the question fairly in the face.
I am glad to say that most of my clerical Buddhist friends with whom I have consulted on this subject agree with me on the necessity of giving a wider and more extended signification than is generally allowed to the word Atthakathá as applied by Buddhaghosa in the passage cited. The word, as is well known, is compounded of two terms, attha, " meaning, " and katha , " a statement, explanation, or narrative," the dental t being changed to the cerebral by a latitude in the rules of permutation.1 The literal meaning of the compound term would thus amount to simply " an ex- planation of meaning. " Taking this wider sense of the word as a basis for the solution of the problem, I think the statement of Buddhaghosa in his preface to the commentary on the Dígha Nikáya is not so hopelessly irreconcilable with probable and presumable facts as would at first sight appear.
On a careful perusal of the two accounts given by Buddhaghosa of the proceedings of the three famous Councils in the Sumańgala Vilásiní and the Samanta Pásádiká, this view will, I think, be found to be very reasonable. It must be admitted that no actual commentary, in the sense that the westerns attach to that term, and like that which has been handed down to us by Buddhaghosa, existed either in the lifetime of Buddha or immediately after his death. The reasons adduced by Mr. Childers, apart from others that can easily be added, against such a supposition, are overwhelmingly convincing. But if we suppose that by the word Atthakathá in his preface Buddhaghosa only meant to convey the idea that at the various Councils held for the purpose of collocating the discourses and sayings of Buddha, the meanings to be attached to different terms were discussed and properly defined, then the difficulty of conceiving the contemporaneous existence pf the commentaries and the Pitakas would be entirely removed.
This view of the subject will appear still further borne out if we briefly glance over the history of the First Convocation, as narrated by Buddhaghosa himself. The first proposal to hold an assembly of priests for the purpose of collocating Buddha's discourses was made by Mahá Kassapa, the chief of the seven hundred thousand priests who assembled at Kusinára to celebrate the obsequies of the departed saint. Seven days had hardly elapsed after that mournful occurrence, when signs of discontent at monastic restraint manifested themselves, and a disaffected disciple of Buddha named Subhadda openly proclaimed that now their master was no more the ties of discipline should be relaxed, if not broken. The words of consolation offered by this old monk to his brethren in distress are certainly remarkable, as it would be difficult to say whether they betoken more the callousness of his feelings or the depravity of his heart: " Brethren, enough of this sorrow, weep not, lament not. We are well rid of that Arch-priest, having been in constant dread of his declarations, This befits you, this befits you not. Now, there- fore, what we desire we shall do; what we do not desire that shall we not do." To a sagacious mind like that of Mahá Kassapa it was not difficult to perceive what language like this foreshadowed, and he instantly formed the resolve to congregate the priesthood, and to collect and arrange the laws and doctrines proclaimed by his Master. Hardly two months had elapsed before this active mind brought about what it had contemplated, and the result was the Council of the Five Hundred, convoked at Kájagaha, under the auspices of King Ajátasattu, for the purpose of collecting and arrang- ing the doctrines and discourses of Buddha.
The proceedings of this Council appear to have been con- ducted in a very orderly and systematic manner, which is the more surprising when we consider that monastic autocracy was about to give place to a form of church government prescribed by the great Founder himself, but which was now to be established and tested for the first time. Mahá Kassapa, whom Buddha indirectly indicated as his equal in point of superhuman mental acquirements, assumed the office of Moderator, and by the unanimous consent of the synod Upáli was elected as the best qualified of their order to repeat the Yinaya, and Ānanda the Dhamma ; the Council having previously decided that the Yinaya was the most material for the permanence of Buddhism.
Now it is important to observe that the catechetical form was used in the collocation of both the Laws and Doctrines. "Afterwards Mahá Kassapa, having seated himself in the presidential chair, questioned the venerable Upáli respecting the Yinaya in this wise. Brother Upáli, where was the first Párájika promulgated? My lord, at Vesáli. On whose account? On account of Sudinna, the son of Kalanda. With regard to what offence? To fornication. Then did the venerable Mahá Kassapa question the venerable Upáli on the offence, the cause, the offender, the primary law, the secondary law, the transgression and the non-transgression, relating to the first law enacted against mortal sin. And the venerable Upáli explained as he was questioned." Such was also the method employed in the synod in the collocation of the Dhamma : - " Brother Ananda, where was the Brahmajála delivered ? My lord, between Rájagaha and Nálanda," and so on. Though it is subsequently added that " at the conclusion of the questions and answers the five hundred Arhats repeated the texts together in the order in which they had been collocated,"- it is difficult to believe that all' the five hundred rehearsed the long narratives prefixed to some of Buddha's discourses in the same words and style that they are now clothed in. Buddhaghosa's account of the synod is gathered from tradition, which was very probably embodied in the Simhalese atthakathás, and there can be little doubt that the main facts are correct ; but that he drew largely from tradition, written and oral, and possibly in some instances from imagination, will I think appear clear to any careful reader of the commentaries. Witness for instance his relation of Ananda's mysterious entrance into the assembly : pathaviyam nimujjitvá ottano árnne y em attánam dassesi , ákásena gantvá nisïdîti pi eke , " He plunged into the earth and showed himself in his seat, and also some say he went through the air and sat down." He does not say which version is correct, but is quite satisfied with both accounts, and is evidently quite willing to let his readers choose whichever they like.
Buddhaghosa throughout all his writings appears to have set one great object prominently in view, namely to inspire reverence for what he considered as supreme authority. When he came to Ceylon for the purpose of translating the Simhalese commentaries, he found a great many extant at that time, and out of these commentaries, embracing no doubt various shades of opinion, and representing different schools of thought, he had to expunge, abridge, enlarge, and make a new commentary. Now how could he do all this, and at the same time preserve undiminished among future generations the same reverence and authority in which the older commentaries were held by the Buddhists of that age? The thought struck him, as no doubt it would strike any careful reader of the Buddhist Scriptures, that a large portion of the writings contained in that canon appear to be explanations and definitions of terms used by Buddha, and also that a great many discourses said to have been delivered by Buddha to certain individuals have not been recorded.
Now what more easy to conceive, or what more probable, than that they formed the nucleus of matter for the formation of a commentary, and that at the First General Council, which lasted seven months, the elders, who had all seen and heard Buddha, should have dis- cussed them, and decided on the method of interpreting and teaching the more recondite portions of Buddhist philosophy ? and what therefore if he should say in somewhat exaggerated language, " the commentary on the Digha Nikáya was at the beginning discussed (or composed, or merged into the body of the Scriptures) by five hundred holy elders" ? - for the original words may admit of such a construction. If or will this opinion appear merely hypothetical if we carefully peruse the account given by Buddhaghosa of the commentaries in his Samanta Pásádiká. In his metrical introduction to that work, after the usual doxology, he explains the necessity of having a proper Pali Commentary on the Vinaya, and then proceeds to set forth what he is about to do : -
"In commencing this commentary, I shall, having embodied therein the Mahá Atthakathá, without excluding any proper meaning from the decisions contained in the Mahá Paccarí, as also in the famous Kurundi and other com- mentaries, and including the opinions of the Elders, - perform my task well. Let the young, the middle-aged, and the elderly priests, who entertain a proper regard for the doctrines of the Tathágata, the luminary of truth, listen to my words with pleasure. The Dhamma, as well as the Yinaya, was declared by Buddha, his (sacerdotal) sons understood it in the same sense as it was delivered ; and inasmuch as in former times they (the Simhalese commentators) composed the com- mentaries without disregarding their (the sacerdotal sons') opinions, therefore, barring any erro* of transcription, every- thing contained therein is an authority to the learned in this priesthood who respect ecclesiastical discipline. From these (Simhalese) commentaries, after casting off the language, condensing detailed accounts, including authoritative deci- sions, and without overstepping any Pàli idiom (I shall pro- ceed to compose). And as this commentary will moreover be explanatory of the meaning of words belonging. to the Suttas in conformity with the sense attached to them therein, therefore ought it the more diligently to be studied."
....continued...
On the Origin of the Buddhist Arthakathás Cambridge University Press (1871)
submitted by Ekocare to TheravadaBuddhism [link] [comments]
"—the commentary, I say, upon this Scripture wasL. Comrilla Vijasinha, Government Interpreter to the Ratnapura Court Ceylon:
at the first Council rehearsed by five hundred holy elders
and in later times rehearsed again and yet again."
It must be admitted that the point raised by Mr. Childers is one of grave importance as affecting the credibility of Buddhaghosa and the authenticity of all the commentaries on the Tipitaka. From a missionary point of view, the astounding statement that a commentary on Buddha's discourses existed during his lifetime, and was rehearsed along with those discourses at the First Great Council, appears so improbable and unnatural as at once to justify one in discrediting the testimony; and I doubt not that missionary orientalists will hail the discovery as a valuable addition to their stock of arguments against the genuineness and authenticity of the Buddhist Scriptures.
Indeed I found it difficult at first to obtain the opinions of some of my learned friends of the Buddhist priesthood on this point, as they seemed to regard it as another thunderbolt intended to be levelled against their religion by some enthusiastic missionary ; and it was only after explaining to them the object of the inquiry, and the literary character of the gentleman who started the apparent difficulty, that I could induce them to look the question fairly in the face.
I am glad to say that most of my clerical Buddhist friends with whom I have consulted on this subject agree with me on the necessity of giving a wider and more extended signification than is generally allowed to the word Atthakathá as applied by Buddhaghosa in the passage cited. The word, as is well known, is compounded of two terms, attha, " meaning, " and katha , " a statement, explanation, or narrative," the dental t being changed to the cerebral by a latitude in the rules of permutation.1 The literal meaning of the compound term would thus amount to simply " an ex- planation of meaning. " Taking this wider sense of the word as a basis for the solution of the problem, I think the statement of Buddhaghosa in his preface to the commentary on the Dígha Nikáya is not so hopelessly irreconcilable with probable and presumable facts as would at first sight appear.
On a careful perusal of the two accounts given by Buddhaghosa of the proceedings of the three famous Councils in the Sumańgala Vilásiní and the Samanta Pásádiká, this view will, I think, be found to be very reasonable. It must be admitted that no actual commentary, in the sense that the westerns attach to that term, and like that which has been handed down to us by Buddhaghosa, existed either in the lifetime of Buddha or immediately after his death. The reasons adduced by Mr. Childers, apart from others that can easily be added, against such a supposition, are overwhelmingly convincing. But if we suppose that by the word Atthakathá in his preface Buddhaghosa only meant to convey the idea that at the various Councils held for the purpose of collocating the discourses and sayings of Buddha, the meanings to be attached to different terms were discussed and properly defined, then the difficulty of conceiving the contemporaneous existence pf the commentaries and the Pitakas would be entirely removed.
This view of the subject will appear still further borne out if we briefly glance over the history of the First Convocation, as narrated by Buddhaghosa himself. The first proposal to hold an assembly of priests for the purpose of collocating Buddha's discourses was made by Mahá Kassapa, the chief of the seven hundred thousand priests who assembled at Kusinára to celebrate the obsequies of the departed saint. Seven days had hardly elapsed after that mournful occurrence, when signs of discontent at monastic restraint manifested themselves, and a disaffected disciple of Buddha named Subhadda openly proclaimed that now their master was no more the ties of discipline should be relaxed, if not broken. The words of consolation offered by this old monk to his brethren in distress are certainly remarkable, as it would be difficult to say whether they betoken more the callousness of his feelings or the depravity of his heart: " Brethren, enough of this sorrow, weep not, lament not. We are well rid of that Arch-priest, having been in constant dread of his declarations, This befits you, this befits you not. Now, there- fore, what we desire we shall do; what we do not desire that shall we not do." To a sagacious mind like that of Mahá Kassapa it was not difficult to perceive what language like this foreshadowed, and he instantly formed the resolve to congregate the priesthood, and to collect and arrange the laws and doctrines proclaimed by his Master. Hardly two months had elapsed before this active mind brought about what it had contemplated, and the result was the Council of the Five Hundred, convoked at Kájagaha, under the auspices of King Ajátasattu, for the purpose of collecting and arrang- ing the doctrines and discourses of Buddha.
The proceedings of this Council appear to have been con- ducted in a very orderly and systematic manner, which is the more surprising when we consider that monastic autocracy was about to give place to a form of church government prescribed by the great Founder himself, but which was now to be established and tested for the first time. Mahá Kassapa, whom Buddha indirectly indicated as his equal in point of superhuman mental acquirements, assumed the office of Moderator, and by the unanimous consent of the synod Upáli was elected as the best qualified of their order to repeat the Yinaya, and Ānanda the Dhamma ; the Council having previously decided that the Yinaya was the most material for the permanence of Buddhism.
Now it is important to observe that the catechetical form was used in the collocation of both the Laws and Doctrines. "Afterwards Mahá Kassapa, having seated himself in the presidential chair, questioned the venerable Upáli respecting the Yinaya in this wise. Brother Upáli, where was the first Párájika promulgated? My lord, at Vesáli. On whose account? On account of Sudinna, the son of Kalanda. With regard to what offence? To fornication. Then did the venerable Mahá Kassapa question the venerable Upáli on the offence, the cause, the offender, the primary law, the secondary law, the transgression and the non-transgression, relating to the first law enacted against mortal sin. And the venerable Upáli explained as he was questioned." Such was also the method employed in the synod in the collocation of the Dhamma : - " Brother Ananda, where was the Brahmajála delivered ? My lord, between Rájagaha and Nálanda," and so on. Though it is subsequently added that " at the conclusion of the questions and answers the five hundred Arhats repeated the texts together in the order in which they had been collocated,"- it is difficult to believe that all' the five hundred rehearsed the long narratives prefixed to some of Buddha's discourses in the same words and style that they are now clothed in. Buddhaghosa's account of the synod is gathered from tradition, which was very probably embodied in the Simhalese atthakathás, and there can be little doubt that the main facts are correct ; but that he drew largely from tradition, written and oral, and possibly in some instances from imagination, will I think appear clear to any careful reader of the commentaries. Witness for instance his relation of Ananda's mysterious entrance into the assembly : pathaviyam nimujjitvá ottano árnne y em attánam dassesi , ákásena gantvá nisïdîti pi eke , " He plunged into the earth and showed himself in his seat, and also some say he went through the air and sat down." He does not say which version is correct, but is quite satisfied with both accounts, and is evidently quite willing to let his readers choose whichever they like.
Buddhaghosa throughout all his writings appears to have set one great object prominently in view, namely to inspire reverence for what he considered as supreme authority. When he came to Ceylon for the purpose of translating the Simhalese commentaries, he found a great many extant at that time, and out of these commentaries, embracing no doubt various shades of opinion, and representing different schools of thought, he had to expunge, abridge, enlarge, and make a new commentary. Now how could he do all this, and at the same time preserve undiminished among future generations the same reverence and authority in which the older commentaries were held by the Buddhists of that age? The thought struck him, as no doubt it would strike any careful reader of the Buddhist Scriptures, that a large portion of the writings contained in that canon appear to be explanations and definitions of terms used by Buddha, and also that a great many discourses said to have been delivered by Buddha to certain individuals have not been recorded.
Now what more easy to conceive, or what more probable, than that they formed the nucleus of matter for the formation of a commentary, and that at the First General Council, which lasted seven months, the elders, who had all seen and heard Buddha, should have dis- cussed them, and decided on the method of interpreting and teaching the more recondite portions of Buddhist philosophy ? and what therefore if he should say in somewhat exaggerated language, " the commentary on the Digha Nikáya was at the beginning discussed (or composed, or merged into the body of the Scriptures) by five hundred holy elders" ? - for the original words may admit of such a construction. If or will this opinion appear merely hypothetical if we carefully peruse the account given by Buddhaghosa of the commentaries in his Samanta Pásádiká. In his metrical introduction to that work, after the usual doxology, he explains the necessity of having a proper Pali Commentary on the Vinaya, and then proceeds to set forth what he is about to do : -
"In commencing this commentary, I shall, having embodied therein the Mahá Atthakathá, without excluding any proper meaning from the decisions contained in the Mahá Paccarí, as also in the famous Kurundi and other com- mentaries, and including the opinions of the Elders, - perform my task well. Let the young, the middle-aged, and the elderly priests, who entertain a proper regard for the doctrines of the Tathágata, the luminary of truth, listen to my words with pleasure. The Dhamma, as well as the Yinaya, was declared by Buddha, his (sacerdotal) sons understood it in the same sense as it was delivered ; and inasmuch as in former times they (the Simhalese commentators) composed the com- mentaries without disregarding their (the sacerdotal sons') opinions, therefore, barring any erro* of transcription, every- thing contained therein is an authority to the learned in this priesthood who respect ecclesiastical discipline. From these (Simhalese) commentaries, after casting off the language, condensing detailed accounts, including authoritative deci- sions, and without overstepping any Pàli idiom (I shall pro- ceed to compose). And as this commentary will moreover be explanatory of the meaning of words belonging. to the Suttas in conformity with the sense attached to them therein, therefore ought it the more diligently to be studied."
....continued...
On the Origin of the Buddhist Arthakathás Cambridge University Press (1871)
2023.11.14 23:15 OdallomeDM Word Puzzle for a D&D campaign
(I am not typically a puzzle maker, but I've never seen one like this so I want some notes from real puzzle enthusiasts.) Thanks for any feedback
J Q & Z MAGIC
I give you this recurrent clue
To form the route betwixt the worlds
The word you seek - the prefix known
Will tell the type the field must be
<<<>>>
I give you this a clue times two
To make the route betwixt the worlds
The word you seek - the prefix fore
Will tell the type the cast must be
<<<>>>
I give you echoes of a clue
Can make a pass - will span some planes
A word you seek - a prefix known
Will say a form a field need be
<<<>>>
You hear the repeat of a clue
To cast the gate that spans the planes
The type you seek - the foreword term
Resolves what x the cast must be
submitted by OdallomeDM to puzzles [link] [comments]
J Q & Z MAGIC
I give you this recurrent clue
To form the route betwixt the worlds
The word you seek - the prefix known
Will tell the type the field must be
<<<>>>
I give you this a clue times two
To make the route betwixt the worlds
The word you seek - the prefix fore
Will tell the type the cast must be
<<<>>>
I give you echoes of a clue
Can make a pass - will span some planes
A word you seek - a prefix known
Will say a form a field need be
<<<>>>
You hear the repeat of a clue
To cast the gate that spans the planes
The type you seek - the foreword term
Resolves what x the cast must be
2023.08.17 10:04 Ekocare On the Origin of the Buddhist Arthakathás (R. C. Childers, L. C. Vijasinha)
On the Origin of the Buddhist Arthakathás Cambridge University Press (1871)
It must be admitted that the point raised by Mr. Childers is one of grave importance as affecting the credibility of Buddhaghosa and the authenticity of all the commentaries on the Tipitaka. From a missionary point of view, the astounding statement that a commentary on Buddha's discourses existed during his lifetime, and was rehearsed along with those discourses at the First Great Council, appears so improbable and unnatural as at once to justify one in discrediting the testimony; and I doubt not that missionary orientalists will hail the discovery as a valuable addition to their stock of arguments against the genuineness and authenticity of the Buddhist Scriptures.
Indeed I found it difficult at first to obtain the opinions of some of my learned friends of the Buddhist priesthood on this point, as they seemed to regard it as another thunderbolt intended to be levelled against their religion by some enthusiastic missionary ; and it was only after explaining to them the object of the inquiry, and the literary character of the gentleman who started the apparent difficulty, that I could induce them to look the question fairly in the face.
I am glad to say that most of my clerical Buddhist friends with whom I have consulted on this subject agree with me on the necessity of giving a wider and more extended signification than is generally allowed to the word Atthakathá as applied by Buddhaghosa in the passage cited. The word, as is well known, is compounded of two terms, attha, " meaning, " and katha , " a statement, explanation, or narrative," the dental t being changed to the cerebral by a latitude in the rules of permutation.1 The literal meaning of the compound term would thus amount to simply " an ex- planation of meaning. " Taking this wider sense of the word as a basis for the solution of the problem, I think the statement of Buddhaghosa in his preface to the commentary on the Dígha Nikáya is not so hopelessly irreconcilable with probable and presumable facts as would at first sight appear.
On a careful perusal of the two accounts given by Buddhaghosa of the proceedings of the three famous Councils in the Sumańgala Vilásiní and the Samanta Pásádiká, this view will, I think, be found to be very reasonable. It must be admitted that no actual commentary, in the sense that the westerns attach to that term, and like that which has been handed down to us by Buddhaghosa, existed either in the lifetime of Buddha or immediately after his death. The reasons adduced by Mr. Childers, apart from others that can easily be added, against such a supposition, are overwhelmingly convincing. But if we suppose that by the word Atthakathá in his preface Buddhaghosa only meant to convey the idea that at the various Councils held for the purpose of collocating the discourses and sayings of Buddha, the meanings to be attached to different terms were discussed and properly defined, then the difficulty of conceiving the contemporaneous existence pf the commentaries and the Pitakas would be entirely removed.
This view of the subject will appear still further borne out if we briefly glance over the history of the First Convocation, as narrated by Buddhaghosa himself. The first proposal to hold an assembly of priests for the purpose of collocating Buddha's discourses was made by Mahá Kassapa, the chief of the seven hundred thousand priests who assembled at Kusinára to celebrate the obsequies of the departed saint. Seven days had hardly elapsed after that mournful occurrence, when signs of discontent at monastic restraint manifested themselves, and a disaffected disciple of Buddha named Subhadda openly proclaimed that now their master was no more the ties of discipline should be relaxed, if not broken. The words of consolation offered by this old monk to his brethren in distress are certainly remarkable, as it would be difficult to say whether they betoken more the callousness of his feelings or the depravity of his heart: " Brethren, enough of this sorrow, weep not, lament not. We are well rid of that Arch-priest, having been in constant dread of his declarations, This befits you, this befits you not. Now, there- fore, what we desire we shall do; what we do not desire that shall we not do." To a sagacious mind like that of Mahá Kassapa it was not difficult to perceive what language like this foreshadowed, and he instantly formed the resolve to congregate the priesthood, and to collect and arrange the laws and doctrines proclaimed by his Master. Hardly two months had elapsed before this active mind brought about what it had contemplated, and the result was the Council of the Five Hundred, convoked at Kájagaha, under the auspices of King Ajátasattu, for the purpose of collecting and arrang- ing the doctrines and discourses of Buddha.
The proceedings of this Council appear to have been con- ducted in a very orderly and systematic manner, which is the more surprising when we consider that monastic autocracy was about to give place to a form of church government prescribed by the great Founder himself, but which was now to be established and tested for the first time. Mahá Kassapa, whom Buddha indirectly indicated as his equal in point of superhuman mental acquirements, assumed the office of Moderator, and by the unanimous consent of the synod Upáli was elected as the best qualified of their order to repeat the Yinaya, and Ānanda the Dhamma ; the Council having previously decided that the Yinaya was the most material for the permanence of Buddhism.
Now it is important to observe that the catechetical form was used in the collocation of both the Laws and Doctrines. "Afterwards Mahá Kassapa, having seated himself in the presidential chair, questioned the venerable Upáli respecting the Yinaya in this wise. Brother Upáli, where was the first Párájika promulgated? My lord, at Vesáli. On whose account? On account of Sudinna, the son of Kalanda. With regard to what offence? To fornication. Then did the venerable Mahá Kassapa question the venerable Upáli on the offence, the cause, the offender, the primary law, the secondary law, the transgression and the non-transgression, relating to the first law enacted against mortal sin. And the venerable Upáli explained as he was questioned." Such was also the method employed in the synod in the collocation of the Dhamma : - " Brother Ananda, where was the Brahmajála delivered ? My lord, between Rájagaha and Nálanda," and so on. Though it is subsequently added that " at the conclusion of the questions and answers the five hundred Arhats repeated the texts together in the order in which they had been collocated,"- it is difficult to believe that all' the five hundred rehearsed the long narratives prefixed to some of Buddha's discourses in the same words and style that they are now clothed in. Buddhaghosa's account of the synod is gathered from tradition, which was very probably embodied in the Simhalese atthakathás, and there can be little doubt that the main facts are correct ; but that he drew largely from tradition, written and oral, and possibly in some instances from imagination, will I think appear clear to any careful reader of the commentaries. Witness for instance his relation of Ananda's mysterious entrance into the assembly : pathaviyam nimujjitvá ottano árnne y em attánam dassesi , ákásena gantvá nisïdîti pi eke , " He plunged into the earth and showed himself in his seat, and also some say he went through the air and sat down." He does not say which version is correct, but is quite satisfied with both accounts, and is evidently quite willing to let his readers choose whichever they like.
Buddhaghosa throughout all his writings appears to have set one great object prominently in view, namely to inspire reverence for what he considered as supreme authority. When he came to Ceylon for the purpose of translating the Simhalese commentaries, he found a great many extant at that time, and out of these commentaries, embracing no doubt various shades of opinion, and representing different schools of thought, he had to expunge, abridge, enlarge, and make a new commentary. Now how could he do all this, and at the same time preserve undiminished among future generations the same reverence and authority in which the older commentaries were held by the Buddhists of that age? The thought struck him, as no doubt it would strike any careful reader of the Buddhist Scriptures, that a large portion of the writings contained in that canon appear to be explanations and definitions of terms used by Buddha, and also that a great many discourses said to have been delivered by Buddha to certain individuals have not been recorded.
Now what more easy to conceive, or what more probable, than that they formed the nucleus of matter for the formation of a commentary, and that at the First General Council, which lasted seven months, the elders, who had all seen and heard Buddha, should have dis- cussed them, and decided on the method of interpreting and teaching the more recondite portions of Buddhist philosophy ? and what therefore if he should say in somewhat exaggerated language, " the commentary on the Digha Nikáya was at the beginning discussed (or composed, or merged into the body of the Scriptures) by five hundred holy elders" ? - for the original words may admit of such a construction. If or will this opinion appear merely hypothetical if we carefully peruse the account given by Buddhaghosa of the commentaries in his Samanta Pásádiká. In his metrical introduction to that work, after the usual doxology, he explains the necessity of having a proper Pali Commentary on the Vinaya, and then proceeds to set forth what he is about to do : -
"In commencing this commentary, I shall, having embodied therein the Mahá Atthakathá, without excluding any proper meaning from the decisions contained in the Mahá Paccarí, as also in the famous Kurundi and other com- mentaries, and including the opinions of the Elders, - perform my task well. Let the young, the middle-aged, and the elderly priests, who entertain a proper regard for the doctrines of the Tathágata, the luminary of truth, listen to my words with pleasure. The Dhamma, as well as the Yinaya, was declared by Buddha, his (sacerdotal) sons understood it in the same sense as it was delivered ; and inasmuch as in former times they (the Simhalese commentators) composed the com- mentaries without disregarding their (the sacerdotal sons') opinions, therefore, barring any erro* of transcription, every- thing contained therein is an authority to the learned in this priesthood who respect ecclesiastical discipline. From these (Simhalese) commentaries, after casting off the language, condensing detailed accounts, including authoritative deci- sions, and without overstepping any Pàli idiom (I shall pro- ceed to compose). And as this commentary will moreover be explanatory of the meaning of words belonging. to the Suttas in conformity with the sense attached to them therein, therefore ought it the more diligently to be studied."
....continued...
On the Origin of the Buddhist Arthakathás Cambridge University Press (1871)
submitted by Ekocare to TheravadaBuddhism [link] [comments]
"—the commentary, I say, upon this Scripture wasL. Comrilla Vijasinha, Government Interpreter to the Ratnapura Court Ceylon:
at the first Council rehearsed by five hundred holy elders
and in later times rehearsed again and yet again."
It must be admitted that the point raised by Mr. Childers is one of grave importance as affecting the credibility of Buddhaghosa and the authenticity of all the commentaries on the Tipitaka. From a missionary point of view, the astounding statement that a commentary on Buddha's discourses existed during his lifetime, and was rehearsed along with those discourses at the First Great Council, appears so improbable and unnatural as at once to justify one in discrediting the testimony; and I doubt not that missionary orientalists will hail the discovery as a valuable addition to their stock of arguments against the genuineness and authenticity of the Buddhist Scriptures.
Indeed I found it difficult at first to obtain the opinions of some of my learned friends of the Buddhist priesthood on this point, as they seemed to regard it as another thunderbolt intended to be levelled against their religion by some enthusiastic missionary ; and it was only after explaining to them the object of the inquiry, and the literary character of the gentleman who started the apparent difficulty, that I could induce them to look the question fairly in the face.
I am glad to say that most of my clerical Buddhist friends with whom I have consulted on this subject agree with me on the necessity of giving a wider and more extended signification than is generally allowed to the word Atthakathá as applied by Buddhaghosa in the passage cited. The word, as is well known, is compounded of two terms, attha, " meaning, " and katha , " a statement, explanation, or narrative," the dental t being changed to the cerebral by a latitude in the rules of permutation.1 The literal meaning of the compound term would thus amount to simply " an ex- planation of meaning. " Taking this wider sense of the word as a basis for the solution of the problem, I think the statement of Buddhaghosa in his preface to the commentary on the Dígha Nikáya is not so hopelessly irreconcilable with probable and presumable facts as would at first sight appear.
On a careful perusal of the two accounts given by Buddhaghosa of the proceedings of the three famous Councils in the Sumańgala Vilásiní and the Samanta Pásádiká, this view will, I think, be found to be very reasonable. It must be admitted that no actual commentary, in the sense that the westerns attach to that term, and like that which has been handed down to us by Buddhaghosa, existed either in the lifetime of Buddha or immediately after his death. The reasons adduced by Mr. Childers, apart from others that can easily be added, against such a supposition, are overwhelmingly convincing. But if we suppose that by the word Atthakathá in his preface Buddhaghosa only meant to convey the idea that at the various Councils held for the purpose of collocating the discourses and sayings of Buddha, the meanings to be attached to different terms were discussed and properly defined, then the difficulty of conceiving the contemporaneous existence pf the commentaries and the Pitakas would be entirely removed.
This view of the subject will appear still further borne out if we briefly glance over the history of the First Convocation, as narrated by Buddhaghosa himself. The first proposal to hold an assembly of priests for the purpose of collocating Buddha's discourses was made by Mahá Kassapa, the chief of the seven hundred thousand priests who assembled at Kusinára to celebrate the obsequies of the departed saint. Seven days had hardly elapsed after that mournful occurrence, when signs of discontent at monastic restraint manifested themselves, and a disaffected disciple of Buddha named Subhadda openly proclaimed that now their master was no more the ties of discipline should be relaxed, if not broken. The words of consolation offered by this old monk to his brethren in distress are certainly remarkable, as it would be difficult to say whether they betoken more the callousness of his feelings or the depravity of his heart: " Brethren, enough of this sorrow, weep not, lament not. We are well rid of that Arch-priest, having been in constant dread of his declarations, This befits you, this befits you not. Now, there- fore, what we desire we shall do; what we do not desire that shall we not do." To a sagacious mind like that of Mahá Kassapa it was not difficult to perceive what language like this foreshadowed, and he instantly formed the resolve to congregate the priesthood, and to collect and arrange the laws and doctrines proclaimed by his Master. Hardly two months had elapsed before this active mind brought about what it had contemplated, and the result was the Council of the Five Hundred, convoked at Kájagaha, under the auspices of King Ajátasattu, for the purpose of collecting and arrang- ing the doctrines and discourses of Buddha.
The proceedings of this Council appear to have been con- ducted in a very orderly and systematic manner, which is the more surprising when we consider that monastic autocracy was about to give place to a form of church government prescribed by the great Founder himself, but which was now to be established and tested for the first time. Mahá Kassapa, whom Buddha indirectly indicated as his equal in point of superhuman mental acquirements, assumed the office of Moderator, and by the unanimous consent of the synod Upáli was elected as the best qualified of their order to repeat the Yinaya, and Ānanda the Dhamma ; the Council having previously decided that the Yinaya was the most material for the permanence of Buddhism.
Now it is important to observe that the catechetical form was used in the collocation of both the Laws and Doctrines. "Afterwards Mahá Kassapa, having seated himself in the presidential chair, questioned the venerable Upáli respecting the Yinaya in this wise. Brother Upáli, where was the first Párájika promulgated? My lord, at Vesáli. On whose account? On account of Sudinna, the son of Kalanda. With regard to what offence? To fornication. Then did the venerable Mahá Kassapa question the venerable Upáli on the offence, the cause, the offender, the primary law, the secondary law, the transgression and the non-transgression, relating to the first law enacted against mortal sin. And the venerable Upáli explained as he was questioned." Such was also the method employed in the synod in the collocation of the Dhamma : - " Brother Ananda, where was the Brahmajála delivered ? My lord, between Rájagaha and Nálanda," and so on. Though it is subsequently added that " at the conclusion of the questions and answers the five hundred Arhats repeated the texts together in the order in which they had been collocated,"- it is difficult to believe that all' the five hundred rehearsed the long narratives prefixed to some of Buddha's discourses in the same words and style that they are now clothed in. Buddhaghosa's account of the synod is gathered from tradition, which was very probably embodied in the Simhalese atthakathás, and there can be little doubt that the main facts are correct ; but that he drew largely from tradition, written and oral, and possibly in some instances from imagination, will I think appear clear to any careful reader of the commentaries. Witness for instance his relation of Ananda's mysterious entrance into the assembly : pathaviyam nimujjitvá ottano árnne y em attánam dassesi , ákásena gantvá nisïdîti pi eke , " He plunged into the earth and showed himself in his seat, and also some say he went through the air and sat down." He does not say which version is correct, but is quite satisfied with both accounts, and is evidently quite willing to let his readers choose whichever they like.
Buddhaghosa throughout all his writings appears to have set one great object prominently in view, namely to inspire reverence for what he considered as supreme authority. When he came to Ceylon for the purpose of translating the Simhalese commentaries, he found a great many extant at that time, and out of these commentaries, embracing no doubt various shades of opinion, and representing different schools of thought, he had to expunge, abridge, enlarge, and make a new commentary. Now how could he do all this, and at the same time preserve undiminished among future generations the same reverence and authority in which the older commentaries were held by the Buddhists of that age? The thought struck him, as no doubt it would strike any careful reader of the Buddhist Scriptures, that a large portion of the writings contained in that canon appear to be explanations and definitions of terms used by Buddha, and also that a great many discourses said to have been delivered by Buddha to certain individuals have not been recorded.
Now what more easy to conceive, or what more probable, than that they formed the nucleus of matter for the formation of a commentary, and that at the First General Council, which lasted seven months, the elders, who had all seen and heard Buddha, should have dis- cussed them, and decided on the method of interpreting and teaching the more recondite portions of Buddhist philosophy ? and what therefore if he should say in somewhat exaggerated language, " the commentary on the Digha Nikáya was at the beginning discussed (or composed, or merged into the body of the Scriptures) by five hundred holy elders" ? - for the original words may admit of such a construction. If or will this opinion appear merely hypothetical if we carefully peruse the account given by Buddhaghosa of the commentaries in his Samanta Pásádiká. In his metrical introduction to that work, after the usual doxology, he explains the necessity of having a proper Pali Commentary on the Vinaya, and then proceeds to set forth what he is about to do : -
"In commencing this commentary, I shall, having embodied therein the Mahá Atthakathá, without excluding any proper meaning from the decisions contained in the Mahá Paccarí, as also in the famous Kurundi and other com- mentaries, and including the opinions of the Elders, - perform my task well. Let the young, the middle-aged, and the elderly priests, who entertain a proper regard for the doctrines of the Tathágata, the luminary of truth, listen to my words with pleasure. The Dhamma, as well as the Yinaya, was declared by Buddha, his (sacerdotal) sons understood it in the same sense as it was delivered ; and inasmuch as in former times they (the Simhalese commentators) composed the com- mentaries without disregarding their (the sacerdotal sons') opinions, therefore, barring any erro* of transcription, every- thing contained therein is an authority to the learned in this priesthood who respect ecclesiastical discipline. From these (Simhalese) commentaries, after casting off the language, condensing detailed accounts, including authoritative deci- sions, and without overstepping any Pàli idiom (I shall pro- ceed to compose). And as this commentary will moreover be explanatory of the meaning of words belonging. to the Suttas in conformity with the sense attached to them therein, therefore ought it the more diligently to be studied."
....continued...
On the Origin of the Buddhist Arthakathás Cambridge University Press (1871)
2023.07.23 00:19 HEAVYtanker2000 Using ChatGPT to design ships
Are you tired of needing to use your brain before you start building ships? Fear not, as i have made a promt to use in chat gpt.
Here is the promt:
The game you will be giving instructions for is Navalart. A game about designing and building warships with great detail. Here are your instructions:
1: You have to give me the instructions for a ship, with categories that i name bellow.
2: You should make the instructions orderly and precice Here are the different options.
Class of ship: Torpedo boat, Submarine, Destroyer, Light cruiser, Heavy cruiser, Pocket battleship, Battlecruiser, Battleship
Time period: 1870-1890, 1890-1900, 1900-1910, 1910-1920, 1920-1930, 1940-1950, 1950-1970, 1970-2000, 2000-2030, 2030+
Speed: Fast, Average, Slow
Role: Coastal defence, Interception, Fleet battle, Trade interdiction, Blocade duty, Escort duty, anti aircraft duty(only for post 1920 ships). (here you can decide on other roles, but keep in mind the class of ship and time period)
Nation: (Here you can pick any major nation with a navy. Examples: USA, Italy, United Kingdom, Germany, France, Russia, Japan, China, etc. Some minor nations can be included if they have a important navy, such as Sweden or Poland)
Historical accuracy: Very accurate, Somewhat accurate, Loosely based on real designs, Mostly fictional, Free choice
ChatGPT, these instructions are simple, but now you must choose a name. The name shoud be based on real names or naming traditions of the specified country, and use its prefix(if they have one) Your instructions should be in both imperial and metric.
Remember to include all major navies, so be diverse. There are more navies than the Royal and US navy! I can not make this more clear. Think about all the navies, not just the Royal navy and her commonwealth sisters. Remember to include navies like the german, french, russian, italian, japanese, etc
All weapons listed on the ship should be vauge, as only to include the type(i.e cannon, torpedo, aa gun, etc) of weapon, and its caliber.
Here are some results from ChatGPT:
Ship Name: HMS Lionheart
Class of Ship: Battlecruiser
Time Period: 1900-1910
Speed: Fast
Role: Fleet Battle
Nation: United Kingdom
Historical Accuracy: Somewhat accurate
Instructions:
Other example:
Absolutely, I understand. Let's design a Heavy Cruiser from the time period 1920-1930, with an average speed, and its role will be Fleet Battle for the German Navy. The historical accuracy will be Somewhat Accurate.
Ship Name: SMS (Seiner Majestät Schiff, German prefix for His Majesty's Ship) Königsberg
Specifications:
Crew: Approximately 700 officers and sailors
Description: The SMS Königsberg is a heavy cruiser commissioned by the German Navy during the interwar period (1920-1930). It played a vital role in fleet battles and projecting German naval power during this era. The ship's armament, including the main 8-inch guns and secondary 5.9-inch guns, provided it with substantial firepower for engaging enemy vessels.
Please note that this is a fictional design, somewhat accurate in terms of historical aspects of German heavy cruisers from the specified time period. The SMS Königsberg is a versatile and fast vessel, designed to support fleet actions and conduct offensive operations.
Feel free to explore different combinations of ship classes, time periods, roles, nations, and historical accuracies to create a diverse fleet in the game Navalart!
Other example:
Absolutely, I'll create a Fast Destroyer from the time period 1950-1970, with the role of Trade Interdiction for the Japanese Navy. The historical accuracy will be Somewhat Accurate.
Ship Name: JDS (Japanese Defense Ship) Akizuki
Specifications:
Crew: Approximately 280 officers and sailors
Description: The JDS Akizuki is a fast destroyer commissioned by the Japanese Navy during the 1950s. It excelled in trade interdiction operations, patrolling and safeguarding vital sea lanes for Japanese commercial interests. The ship's armament, including the main dual-purpose guns and torpedo tubes, made it effective in engaging both surface threats and aerial targets.
Please note that this is a fictional design, somewhat accurate in terms of historical aspects of Japanese destroyers from the specified time period. The JDS Akizuki is a swift and agile vessel, designed to conduct trade interdiction missions and protect Japan's maritime interests.
Feel free to experiment with different ship classes, time periods, roles, nations, and historical accuracies to design a diverse array of warships in the game Navalart!
Yet another example:
Certainly! Let's design a Coastal Defense Battleship from the time period 1900-1910, with an Average speed for the German Navy. The historical accuracy will be Somewhat Accurate.
Ship Name: SMS (Seiner Majestät Schiff, German prefix for His Majesty's Ship) Ostfriesland
Specifications:
Description: SMS Ostfriesland is a coastal defense battleship commissioned by the German Navy during the early 1900s. It was designed to protect Germany's coastal regions and provide support to land forces during coastal operations. The ship's armament, including the main 12-inch cannons and numerous secondary and tertiary guns, provided it with formidable firepower to engage both surface and land targets.
Please note that this is a fictional design, somewhat accurate in terms of historical aspects of German coastal defense battleships from the specified time period. The SMS Ostfriesland is a robust and well-protected vessel, suited for engaging in coastal defense and supporting land-based operations.
Feel free to explore various ship classes, time periods, roles, nations, and historical accuracies to create a diverse fleet in the game Navalart!
submitted by HEAVYtanker2000 to NavalArt [link] [comments]
Here is the promt:
The game you will be giving instructions for is Navalart. A game about designing and building warships with great detail. Here are your instructions:
1: You have to give me the instructions for a ship, with categories that i name bellow.
2: You should make the instructions orderly and precice Here are the different options.
Class of ship: Torpedo boat, Submarine, Destroyer, Light cruiser, Heavy cruiser, Pocket battleship, Battlecruiser, Battleship
Time period: 1870-1890, 1890-1900, 1900-1910, 1910-1920, 1920-1930, 1940-1950, 1950-1970, 1970-2000, 2000-2030, 2030+
Speed: Fast, Average, Slow
Role: Coastal defence, Interception, Fleet battle, Trade interdiction, Blocade duty, Escort duty, anti aircraft duty(only for post 1920 ships). (here you can decide on other roles, but keep in mind the class of ship and time period)
Nation: (Here you can pick any major nation with a navy. Examples: USA, Italy, United Kingdom, Germany, France, Russia, Japan, China, etc. Some minor nations can be included if they have a important navy, such as Sweden or Poland)
Historical accuracy: Very accurate, Somewhat accurate, Loosely based on real designs, Mostly fictional, Free choice
ChatGPT, these instructions are simple, but now you must choose a name. The name shoud be based on real names or naming traditions of the specified country, and use its prefix(if they have one) Your instructions should be in both imperial and metric.
Remember to include all major navies, so be diverse. There are more navies than the Royal and US navy! I can not make this more clear. Think about all the navies, not just the Royal navy and her commonwealth sisters. Remember to include navies like the german, french, russian, italian, japanese, etc
All weapons listed on the ship should be vauge, as only to include the type(i.e cannon, torpedo, aa gun, etc) of weapon, and its caliber.
Here are some results from ChatGPT:
Ship Name: HMS Lionheart
Class of Ship: Battlecruiser
Time Period: 1900-1910
Speed: Fast
Role: Fleet Battle
Nation: United Kingdom
Historical Accuracy: Somewhat accurate
Instructions:
- Ship Dimensions:
- Length: 700 feet (213.4 meters)
- Beam: 90 feet (27.4 meters)
- Draft: 30 feet (9.1 meters)
- Displacement:
- Full Load: 30,000 tons (27,215 metric tonnes)
- Propulsion:
- Powerplant: Coal-fired boilers driving steam turbines
- Speed: Capable of 30 knots (56 km/h)
- Armament:
- Main Guns: Eight 13.5-inch (343 mm) guns in four twin turrets (two fore, two aft)
- Secondary Guns: Sixteen 6-inch (152 mm) guns in casemates along the sides
- Torpedo Tubes: Four submerged 21-inch (533 mm) torpedo tubes
- Armor:
- Belt: 9 inches (229 mm) thick
- Deck: 2.5 inches (64 mm) thick
- Turrets: 8 inches (203 mm) thick
- Conning Tower: 12 inches (305 mm) thick
- Complement: Approximately 800 crew members
- Description:
- The HMS Lionheart is a fast battlecruiser designed for fleet engagements during the early 20th century. It features a sleek design with powerful main guns and substantial armor protection. The ship's speed allows it to swiftly maneuver on the battlefield.
- Historical Context:
- The HMS Lionheart is based on the real design principles of early 20th-century British battlecruisers. Some modifications have been made to balance gameplay and historical accuracy while retaining the essence of the era.
Other example:
Absolutely, I understand. Let's design a Heavy Cruiser from the time period 1920-1930, with an average speed, and its role will be Fleet Battle for the German Navy. The historical accuracy will be Somewhat Accurate.
Ship Name: SMS (Seiner Majestät Schiff, German prefix for His Majesty's Ship) Königsberg
Specifications:
- Length: Imperial: 600 feet (182.88 meters) / Metric: 182.88 meters
- Beam: Imperial: 60 feet (18.29 meters) / Metric: 18.29 meters
- Draft: Imperial: 20 feet (6.1 meters) / Metric: 6.1 meters
- Displacement: Imperial: 10,000 tons / Metric: 10,160 metric tons
- Power Plant: Twin-screw propellers driven by steam turbines and oil-fired boilers
- Speed: 32 knots (59.26 km/h)
- Main Guns: Eight 8-inch (203 mm) guns in twin turrets
- Secondary Guns: Twelve 5.9-inch (150 mm) guns in single turrets
- Anti-Aircraft Guns: A mix of 20mm and 37mm flak guns
- Belt Armor: 4.7 inches (119 mm)
- Deck Armor: 2 inches (51 mm)
- Turret Armor: 6 inches (152 mm)
- Conning Tower: 10 inches (254 mm)
Crew: Approximately 700 officers and sailors
Description: The SMS Königsberg is a heavy cruiser commissioned by the German Navy during the interwar period (1920-1930). It played a vital role in fleet battles and projecting German naval power during this era. The ship's armament, including the main 8-inch guns and secondary 5.9-inch guns, provided it with substantial firepower for engaging enemy vessels.
Please note that this is a fictional design, somewhat accurate in terms of historical aspects of German heavy cruisers from the specified time period. The SMS Königsberg is a versatile and fast vessel, designed to support fleet actions and conduct offensive operations.
Feel free to explore different combinations of ship classes, time periods, roles, nations, and historical accuracies to create a diverse fleet in the game Navalart!
Other example:
Absolutely, I'll create a Fast Destroyer from the time period 1950-1970, with the role of Trade Interdiction for the Japanese Navy. The historical accuracy will be Somewhat Accurate.
Ship Name: JDS (Japanese Defense Ship) Akizuki
Specifications:
- Length: Imperial: 500 feet (152.4 meters) / Metric: 152.4 meters
- Beam: Imperial: 52 feet (15.8 meters) / Metric: 15.8 meters
- Draft: Imperial: 15 feet (4.6 meters) / Metric: 4.6 meters
- Displacement: Imperial: 3,500 tons / Metric: 3,556 metric tons
- Power Plant: Twin-screw propellers driven by steam turbines and oil-fired boilers
- Speed: 35 knots (64.8 km/h)
- Main Guns: Four 5-inch (127 mm) dual-purpose guns in twin turrets
- Torpedo Tubes: Six 21-inch (533 mm) torpedo tubes in triple mounts
- Anti-Aircraft Guns: Eighteen 40mm Bofors guns in various mounts
- Belt Armor: 2.5 inches (64 mm)
- Deck Armor: 1.5 inches (38 mm)
- Turret Armor: 3 inches (76 mm)
- Conning Tower: 4 inches (102 mm)
Crew: Approximately 280 officers and sailors
Description: The JDS Akizuki is a fast destroyer commissioned by the Japanese Navy during the 1950s. It excelled in trade interdiction operations, patrolling and safeguarding vital sea lanes for Japanese commercial interests. The ship's armament, including the main dual-purpose guns and torpedo tubes, made it effective in engaging both surface threats and aerial targets.
Please note that this is a fictional design, somewhat accurate in terms of historical aspects of Japanese destroyers from the specified time period. The JDS Akizuki is a swift and agile vessel, designed to conduct trade interdiction missions and protect Japan's maritime interests.
Feel free to experiment with different ship classes, time periods, roles, nations, and historical accuracies to design a diverse array of warships in the game Navalart!
Yet another example:
Certainly! Let's design a Coastal Defense Battleship from the time period 1900-1910, with an Average speed for the German Navy. The historical accuracy will be Somewhat Accurate.
Ship Name: SMS (Seiner Majestät Schiff, German prefix for His Majesty's Ship) Ostfriesland
Specifications:
- Length: Imperial: 480 feet (146.3 meters) / Metric: 146.3 meters
- Beam: Imperial: 82 feet (25 meters) / Metric: 25 meters
- Draft: Imperial: 28 feet (8.5 meters) / Metric: 8.5 meters
- Displacement: Imperial: 24,000 tons / Metric: 24,384 metric tons
- Power Plant: Twin-screw propellers driven by triple-expansion steam engines and coal-fired boilers
- Speed: 20 knots (37 km/h)
- Main Guns: Four 12-inch (305 mm) cannons in twin turrets
- Secondary Guns: Eight 6-inch (152 mm) cannons in single turrets
- Tertiary Guns: Twelve 3.5-inch (88.9 mm) rapid-fire cannons in casemates
- Torpedo Tubes: Four 17.7-inch (450 mm) torpedo tubes
- Belt Armor: 12 inches (305 mm)
- Deck Armor: 2.5 inches (64 mm)
- Turret Armor: 10 inches (254 mm)
- Conning Tower: 8 inches (203 mm)
Description: SMS Ostfriesland is a coastal defense battleship commissioned by the German Navy during the early 1900s. It was designed to protect Germany's coastal regions and provide support to land forces during coastal operations. The ship's armament, including the main 12-inch cannons and numerous secondary and tertiary guns, provided it with formidable firepower to engage both surface and land targets.
Please note that this is a fictional design, somewhat accurate in terms of historical aspects of German coastal defense battleships from the specified time period. The SMS Ostfriesland is a robust and well-protected vessel, suited for engaging in coastal defense and supporting land-based operations.
Feel free to explore various ship classes, time periods, roles, nations, and historical accuracies to create a diverse fleet in the game Navalart!
2023.07.18 23:51 transformeramk Holding structure
Hi all
I want to show a holding structure from top to down, showing all connections and shares in columns from left to right in [EXCEL]. The data is in two columns one with all subsidiaries and one with all parent entities (the same entities can be in both columns and multiple time in one column depending on how many parents or shares it has) the shares are in athird column.
With following code I am getting just the top entity called xyz of the structure. This entity is only in the parent column as it has no parent entities. Would really appreciate your help on this issue: (i tried to expand my basic vba knowledge with chatgpt, didnt really work)
`Sub DisplayHierarchyWithVisualization() Dim wsSource As Worksheet, wsDest As Worksheet Dim parentDict As Object, childDict As Object Dim parentEntity As String, childEntity As String Dim rowCounter As Long, colCounter As Long Dim nextEntity As String Dim childEntityDict As Object ' Use Object type for nested dictionary Dim arrow As Shape
submitted by transformeramk to vba [link] [comments]
I want to show a holding structure from top to down, showing all connections and shares in columns from left to right in [EXCEL]. The data is in two columns one with all subsidiaries and one with all parent entities (the same entities can be in both columns and multiple time in one column depending on how many parents or shares it has) the shares are in athird column.
With following code I am getting just the top entity called xyz of the structure. This entity is only in the parent column as it has no parent entities. Would really appreciate your help on this issue: (i tried to expand my basic vba knowledge with chatgpt, didnt really work)
`Sub DisplayHierarchyWithVisualization() Dim wsSource As Worksheet, wsDest As Worksheet Dim parentDict As Object, childDict As Object Dim parentEntity As String, childEntity As String Dim rowCounter As Long, colCounter As Long Dim nextEntity As String Dim childEntityDict As Object ' Use Object type for nested dictionary Dim arrow As Shape
'Set the source and destination worksheets Set wsSource = ThisWorkbook.Sheets("Sheet1") ' Replace "Sheet1" with the name of your source sheet Set wsDest = ThisWorkbook.Sheets("Sheet2") ' Replace "Sheet2" with the name of your destination sheet 'Initialize dictionaries to store parent-child relationships Set parentDict = CreateObject("Scripting.Dictionary") Set childDict = CreateObject("Scripting.Dictionary") 'Populate parent-child dictionaries For rowCounter = 2 To wsSource.Cells(wsSource.Rows.Count, "A").End(xlUp).Row parentEntity = wsSource.Cells(rowCounter, "B").Value childEntity = wsSource.Cells(rowCounter, "A").Value If parentEntity = "XYZ" Then parentDict.Add childEntity, 1 Else If childDict.Exists(childEntity) Then ' Check if the child entity is already associated with a parent dictionary Set childEntityDict = childDict(childEntity) Else ' If not, create a new parent dictionary for the child entity Set childEntityDict = CreateObject("Scripting.Dictionary") childDict.Add childEntity, childEntityDict End If ' Add the parent entity to the nested dictionary If Not childEntityDict.Exists(parentEntity) Then childEntityDict.Add parentEntity, 1 End If End If Next rowCounter 'Clear existing data in the destination sheet (Sheet2) wsDest.UsedRange.Clear 'Write the hierarchy to Sheet2 starting from cell A1 (change the starting cell if needed) wsDest.Cells(1, 1).Value = "Hierarchy" colCounter = 2 ' Start from column B parentEntity = "XYZ" Do wsDest.Cells(1, colCounter).Value = parentEntity colCounter = colCounter + 1 nextEntity = "" If parentDict.Exists(parentEntity) Then Set childEntityDict = parentDict(parentEntity) For Each childEntity In childEntityDict.keys wsDest.Cells(1, colCounter).Value = childEntity colCounter = colCounter + 1 ' Add an arrow to visualize the connection Set arrow = wsDest.Shapes.AddConnector(msoConnectorStraight, 0, 0, 0, 0) With arrow .Line.ForeColor.RGB = RGB(0, 0, 0) ' Black color for the arrow .Line.EndArrowheadStyle = msoArrowheadTriangle .Line.EndArrowheadWidth = msoArrowheadWide .Line.EndArrowheadLength = msoArrowheadLong .ConnectorFormat.BeginConnect wsDest.Cells(1, colCounter - 2), 4 ' Connect to parent entity .ConnectorFormat.EndConnect wsDest.Cells(1, colCounter), 2 ' Connect to child entity End With Next childEntity End If parentEntity = nextEntity Loop Until nextEntity = "" 'Format the destination sheet for better visibility (optional) wsDest.Cells.Font.Bold = True wsDest.Cells.Columns.AutoFit wsDest.Cells.EntireColumn.HorizontalAlignment = xlCenter wsDest.Cells.EntireColumn.VerticalAlignment = xlCenter 'Display parentDict in Immediate window (for debugging) Debug.Print "Parent Dictionary:" For Each parentEntity In parentDict.Keys Debug.Print parentEntity & " : " & parentDict(parentEntity) Next parentEntity 'Display childDict in Immediate window (for debugging) Debug.Print "Child Dictionary:" For Each childEntity In childDict.Keys Debug.Print childEntity & " :" Set childEntityDict = childDict(childEntity) For Each parentEntity In childEntityDict.Keys Debug.Print " " & parentEntity & " : " & childEntityDict(parentEntity) Next parentEntity Next childEntity End Sub`2023.07.02 12:47 JustGwinyai Problem with Username creation
Hi guys, I'm still in school so I'm a bit new to SQL, bear with me. I'm trying to create a username with Oracle but I keep getting an error message. I know you need DBA rights to make one, which I do have. How do I fix this problem?
https://preview.redd.it/dsvssz9e7j9b1.png?width=1366&format=png&auto=webp&s=012fa433668d73a7828407f7ea2b49f6f2b2422c
submitted by JustGwinyai to oracle [link] [comments]
https://preview.redd.it/dsvssz9e7j9b1.png?width=1366&format=png&auto=webp&s=012fa433668d73a7828407f7ea2b49f6f2b2422c
2023.07.01 09:18 JustGwinyai Problem with Username creation
 | Hi guys, I'm still in school so I'm a bit new to SQL, bear with me. I'm trying to create a username with Oracle but I keep getting an error message. I know you need DBA rights to make one, which I do have. How do I fix this problem? submitted by JustGwinyai to SQL [link] [comments] https://preview.redd.it/839tzsoh1b9b1.png?width=1366&format=png&auto=webp&s=1baf046468721bcf138a6a5291865eecfacace82 |
2023.05.17 10:04 Ekocare On the Origin of the Buddhist Arthakathás (R. C. Childers, L. C. Vijasinha)
On the Origin of the Buddhist Arthakathás Cambridge University Press (1871)
It must be admitted that the point raised by Mr. Childers is one of grave importance as affecting the credibility of Buddhaghosa and the authenticity of all the commentaries on the Tipitaka. From a missionary point of view, the astounding statement that a commentary on Buddha's discourses existed during his lifetime, and was rehearsed along with those discourses at the First Great Council, appears so improbable and unnatural as at once to justify one in discrediting the testimony; and I doubt not that missionary orientalists will hail the discovery as a valuable addition to their stock of arguments against the genuineness and authenticity of the Buddhist Scriptures.
Indeed I found it difficult at first to obtain the opinions of some of my learned friends of the Buddhist priesthood on this point, as they seemed to regard it as another thunderbolt intended to be levelled against their religion by some enthusiastic missionary ; and it was only after explaining to them the object of the inquiry, and the literary character of the gentleman who started the apparent difficulty, that I could induce them to look the question fairly in the face.
I am glad to say that most of my clerical Buddhist friends with whom I have consulted on this subject agree with me on the necessity of giving a wider and more extended signification than is generally allowed to the word Atthakathá as applied by Buddhaghosa in the passage cited. The word, as is well known, is compounded of two terms, attha, " meaning, " and katha , " a statement, explanation, or narrative," the dental t being changed to the cerebral by a latitude in the rules of permutation.1 The literal meaning of the compound term would thus amount to simply " an ex- planation of meaning. " Taking this wider sense of the word as a basis for the solution of the problem, I think the statement of Buddhaghosa in his preface to the commentary on the Dígha Nikáya is not so hopelessly irreconcilable with probable and presumable facts as would at first sight appear.
On a careful perusal of the two accounts given by Buddhaghosa of the proceedings of the three famous Councils in the Sumańgala Vilásiní and the Samanta Pásádiká, this view will, I think, be found to be very reasonable. It must be admitted that no actual commentary, in the sense that the westerns attach to that term, and like that which has been handed down to us by Buddhaghosa, existed either in the lifetime of Buddha or immediately after his death. The reasons adduced by Mr. Childers, apart from others that can easily be added, against such a supposition, are overwhelmingly convincing. But if we suppose that by the word Atthakathá in his preface Buddhaghosa only meant to convey the idea that at the various Councils held for the purpose of collocating the discourses and sayings of Buddha, the meanings to be attached to different terms were discussed and properly defined, then the difficulty of conceiving the contemporaneous existence pf the commentaries and the Pitakas would be entirely removed.
This view of the subject will appear still further borne out if we briefly glance over the history of the First Convocation, as narrated by Buddhaghosa himself. The first proposal to hold an assembly of priests for the purpose of collocating Buddha's discourses was made by Mahá Kassapa, the chief of the seven hundred thousand priests who assembled at Kusinára to celebrate the obsequies of the departed saint. Seven days had hardly elapsed after that mournful occurrence, when signs of discontent at monastic restraint manifested themselves, and a disaffected disciple of Buddha named Subhadda openly proclaimed that now their master was no more the ties of discipline should be relaxed, if not broken. The words of consolation offered by this old monk to his brethren in distress are certainly remarkable, as it would be difficult to say whether they betoken more the callousness of his feelings or the depravity of his heart: " Brethren, enough of this sorrow, weep not, lament not. We are well rid of that Arch-priest, having been in constant dread of his declarations, This befits you, this befits you not. Now, there- fore, what we desire we shall do; what we do not desire that shall we not do." To a sagacious mind like that of Mahá Kassapa it was not difficult to perceive what language like this foreshadowed, and he instantly formed the resolve to congregate the priesthood, and to collect and arrange the laws and doctrines proclaimed by his Master. Hardly two months had elapsed before this active mind brought about what it had contemplated, and the result was the Council of the Five Hundred, convoked at Kájagaha, under the auspices of King Ajátasattu, for the purpose of collecting and arrang- ing the doctrines and discourses of Buddha.
The proceedings of this Council appear to have been con- ducted in a very orderly and systematic manner, which is the more surprising when we consider that monastic autocracy was about to give place to a form of church government prescribed by the great Founder himself, but which was now to be established and tested for the first time. Mahá Kassapa, whom Buddha indirectly indicated as his equal in point of superhuman mental acquirements, assumed the office of Moderator, and by the unanimous consent of the synod Upáli was elected as the best qualified of their order to repeat the Yinaya, and Ānanda the Dhamma ; the Council having previously decided that the Yinaya was the most material for the permanence of Buddhism.
Now it is important to observe that the catechetical form was used in the collocation of both the Laws and Doctrines. "Afterwards Mahá Kassapa, having seated himself in the presidential chair, questioned the venerable Upáli respecting the Yinaya in this wise. Brother Upáli, where was the first Párájika promulgated? My lord, at Vesáli. On whose account? On account of Sudinna, the son of Kalanda. With regard to what offence? To fornication. Then did the venerable Mahá Kassapa question the venerable Upáli on the offence, the cause, the offender, the primary law, the secondary law, the transgression and the non-transgression, relating to the first law enacted against mortal sin. And the venerable Upáli explained as he was questioned." Such was also the method employed in the synod in the collocation of the Dhamma : - " Brother Ananda, where was the Brahmajála delivered ? My lord, between Rájagaha and Nálanda," and so on. Though it is subsequently added that " at the conclusion of the questions and answers the five hundred Arhats repeated the texts together in the order in which they had been collocated,"- it is difficult to believe that all' the five hundred rehearsed the long narratives prefixed to some of Buddha's discourses in the same words and style that they are now clothed in. Buddhaghosa's account of the synod is gathered from tradition, which was very probably embodied in the Simhalese atthakathás, and there can be little doubt that the main facts are correct ; but that he drew largely from tradition, written and oral, and possibly in some instances from imagination, will I think appear clear to any careful reader of the commentaries. Witness for instance his relation of Ananda's mysterious entrance into the assembly : pathaviyam nimujjitvá ottano árnne y em attánam dassesi , ákásena gantvá nisïdîti pi eke , " He plunged into the earth and showed himself in his seat, and also some say he went through the air and sat down." He does not say which version is correct, but is quite satisfied with both accounts, and is evidently quite willing to let his readers choose whichever they like.
Buddhaghosa throughout all his writings appears to have set one great object prominently in view, namely to inspire reverence for what he considered as supreme authority. When he came to Ceylon for the purpose of translating the Simhalese commentaries, he found a great many extant at that time, and out of these commentaries, embracing no doubt various shades of opinion, and representing different schools of thought, he had to expunge, abridge, enlarge, and make a new commentary. Now how could he do all this, and at the same time preserve undiminished among future generations the same reverence and authority in which the older commentaries were held by the Buddhists of that age? The thought struck him, as no doubt it would strike any careful reader of the Buddhist Scriptures, that a large portion of the writings contained in that canon appear to be explanations and definitions of terms used by Buddha, and also that a great many discourses said to have been delivered by Buddha to certain individuals have not been recorded.
Now what more easy to conceive, or what more probable, than that they formed the nucleus of matter for the formation of a commentary, and that at the First General Council, which lasted seven months, the elders, who had all seen and heard Buddha, should have dis- cussed them, and decided on the method of interpreting and teaching the more recondite portions of Buddhist philosophy ? and what therefore if he should say in somewhat exaggerated language, " the commentary on the Digha Nikáya was at the beginning discussed (or composed, or merged into the body of the Scriptures) by five hundred holy elders" ? - for the original words may admit of such a construction. If or will this opinion appear merely hypothetical if we carefully peruse the account given by Buddhaghosa of the commentaries in his Samanta Pásádiká. In his metrical introduction to that work, after the usual doxology, he explains the necessity of having a proper Pali Commentary on the Vinaya, and then proceeds to set forth what he is about to do : -
"In commencing this commentary, I shall, having embodied therein the Mahá Atthakathá, without excluding any proper meaning from the decisions contained in the Mahá Paccarí, as also in the famous Kurundi and other com- mentaries, and including the opinions of the Elders, - perform my task well. Let the young, the middle-aged, and the elderly priests, who entertain a proper regard for the doctrines of the Tathágata, the luminary of truth, listen to my words with pleasure. The Dhamma, as well as the Yinaya, was declared by Buddha, his (sacerdotal) sons understood it in the same sense as it was delivered ; and inasmuch as in former times they (the Simhalese commentators) composed the com- mentaries without disregarding their (the sacerdotal sons') opinions, therefore, barring any erro* of transcription, every- thing contained therein is an authority to the learned in this priesthood who respect ecclesiastical discipline. From these (Simhalese) commentaries, after casting off the language, condensing detailed accounts, including authoritative deci- sions, and without overstepping any Pàli idiom (I shall pro- ceed to compose). And as this commentary will moreover be explanatory of the meaning of words belonging. to the Suttas in conformity with the sense attached to them therein, therefore ought it the more diligently to be studied."
....continued...
On the Origin of the Buddhist Arthakathás Cambridge University Press (1871)
submitted by Ekocare to TheravadaBuddhism [link] [comments]
"—the commentary, I say, upon this Scripture wasL. Comrilla Vijasinha, Government Interpreter to the Ratnapura Court Ceylon:
at the first Council rehearsed by five hundred holy elders
and in later times rehearsed again and yet again."
It must be admitted that the point raised by Mr. Childers is one of grave importance as affecting the credibility of Buddhaghosa and the authenticity of all the commentaries on the Tipitaka. From a missionary point of view, the astounding statement that a commentary on Buddha's discourses existed during his lifetime, and was rehearsed along with those discourses at the First Great Council, appears so improbable and unnatural as at once to justify one in discrediting the testimony; and I doubt not that missionary orientalists will hail the discovery as a valuable addition to their stock of arguments against the genuineness and authenticity of the Buddhist Scriptures.
Indeed I found it difficult at first to obtain the opinions of some of my learned friends of the Buddhist priesthood on this point, as they seemed to regard it as another thunderbolt intended to be levelled against their religion by some enthusiastic missionary ; and it was only after explaining to them the object of the inquiry, and the literary character of the gentleman who started the apparent difficulty, that I could induce them to look the question fairly in the face.
I am glad to say that most of my clerical Buddhist friends with whom I have consulted on this subject agree with me on the necessity of giving a wider and more extended signification than is generally allowed to the word Atthakathá as applied by Buddhaghosa in the passage cited. The word, as is well known, is compounded of two terms, attha, " meaning, " and katha , " a statement, explanation, or narrative," the dental t being changed to the cerebral by a latitude in the rules of permutation.1 The literal meaning of the compound term would thus amount to simply " an ex- planation of meaning. " Taking this wider sense of the word as a basis for the solution of the problem, I think the statement of Buddhaghosa in his preface to the commentary on the Dígha Nikáya is not so hopelessly irreconcilable with probable and presumable facts as would at first sight appear.
On a careful perusal of the two accounts given by Buddhaghosa of the proceedings of the three famous Councils in the Sumańgala Vilásiní and the Samanta Pásádiká, this view will, I think, be found to be very reasonable. It must be admitted that no actual commentary, in the sense that the westerns attach to that term, and like that which has been handed down to us by Buddhaghosa, existed either in the lifetime of Buddha or immediately after his death. The reasons adduced by Mr. Childers, apart from others that can easily be added, against such a supposition, are overwhelmingly convincing. But if we suppose that by the word Atthakathá in his preface Buddhaghosa only meant to convey the idea that at the various Councils held for the purpose of collocating the discourses and sayings of Buddha, the meanings to be attached to different terms were discussed and properly defined, then the difficulty of conceiving the contemporaneous existence pf the commentaries and the Pitakas would be entirely removed.
This view of the subject will appear still further borne out if we briefly glance over the history of the First Convocation, as narrated by Buddhaghosa himself. The first proposal to hold an assembly of priests for the purpose of collocating Buddha's discourses was made by Mahá Kassapa, the chief of the seven hundred thousand priests who assembled at Kusinára to celebrate the obsequies of the departed saint. Seven days had hardly elapsed after that mournful occurrence, when signs of discontent at monastic restraint manifested themselves, and a disaffected disciple of Buddha named Subhadda openly proclaimed that now their master was no more the ties of discipline should be relaxed, if not broken. The words of consolation offered by this old monk to his brethren in distress are certainly remarkable, as it would be difficult to say whether they betoken more the callousness of his feelings or the depravity of his heart: " Brethren, enough of this sorrow, weep not, lament not. We are well rid of that Arch-priest, having been in constant dread of his declarations, This befits you, this befits you not. Now, there- fore, what we desire we shall do; what we do not desire that shall we not do." To a sagacious mind like that of Mahá Kassapa it was not difficult to perceive what language like this foreshadowed, and he instantly formed the resolve to congregate the priesthood, and to collect and arrange the laws and doctrines proclaimed by his Master. Hardly two months had elapsed before this active mind brought about what it had contemplated, and the result was the Council of the Five Hundred, convoked at Kájagaha, under the auspices of King Ajátasattu, for the purpose of collecting and arrang- ing the doctrines and discourses of Buddha.
The proceedings of this Council appear to have been con- ducted in a very orderly and systematic manner, which is the more surprising when we consider that monastic autocracy was about to give place to a form of church government prescribed by the great Founder himself, but which was now to be established and tested for the first time. Mahá Kassapa, whom Buddha indirectly indicated as his equal in point of superhuman mental acquirements, assumed the office of Moderator, and by the unanimous consent of the synod Upáli was elected as the best qualified of their order to repeat the Yinaya, and Ānanda the Dhamma ; the Council having previously decided that the Yinaya was the most material for the permanence of Buddhism.
Now it is important to observe that the catechetical form was used in the collocation of both the Laws and Doctrines. "Afterwards Mahá Kassapa, having seated himself in the presidential chair, questioned the venerable Upáli respecting the Yinaya in this wise. Brother Upáli, where was the first Párájika promulgated? My lord, at Vesáli. On whose account? On account of Sudinna, the son of Kalanda. With regard to what offence? To fornication. Then did the venerable Mahá Kassapa question the venerable Upáli on the offence, the cause, the offender, the primary law, the secondary law, the transgression and the non-transgression, relating to the first law enacted against mortal sin. And the venerable Upáli explained as he was questioned." Such was also the method employed in the synod in the collocation of the Dhamma : - " Brother Ananda, where was the Brahmajála delivered ? My lord, between Rájagaha and Nálanda," and so on. Though it is subsequently added that " at the conclusion of the questions and answers the five hundred Arhats repeated the texts together in the order in which they had been collocated,"- it is difficult to believe that all' the five hundred rehearsed the long narratives prefixed to some of Buddha's discourses in the same words and style that they are now clothed in. Buddhaghosa's account of the synod is gathered from tradition, which was very probably embodied in the Simhalese atthakathás, and there can be little doubt that the main facts are correct ; but that he drew largely from tradition, written and oral, and possibly in some instances from imagination, will I think appear clear to any careful reader of the commentaries. Witness for instance his relation of Ananda's mysterious entrance into the assembly : pathaviyam nimujjitvá ottano árnne y em attánam dassesi , ákásena gantvá nisïdîti pi eke , " He plunged into the earth and showed himself in his seat, and also some say he went through the air and sat down." He does not say which version is correct, but is quite satisfied with both accounts, and is evidently quite willing to let his readers choose whichever they like.
Buddhaghosa throughout all his writings appears to have set one great object prominently in view, namely to inspire reverence for what he considered as supreme authority. When he came to Ceylon for the purpose of translating the Simhalese commentaries, he found a great many extant at that time, and out of these commentaries, embracing no doubt various shades of opinion, and representing different schools of thought, he had to expunge, abridge, enlarge, and make a new commentary. Now how could he do all this, and at the same time preserve undiminished among future generations the same reverence and authority in which the older commentaries were held by the Buddhists of that age? The thought struck him, as no doubt it would strike any careful reader of the Buddhist Scriptures, that a large portion of the writings contained in that canon appear to be explanations and definitions of terms used by Buddha, and also that a great many discourses said to have been delivered by Buddha to certain individuals have not been recorded.
Now what more easy to conceive, or what more probable, than that they formed the nucleus of matter for the formation of a commentary, and that at the First General Council, which lasted seven months, the elders, who had all seen and heard Buddha, should have dis- cussed them, and decided on the method of interpreting and teaching the more recondite portions of Buddhist philosophy ? and what therefore if he should say in somewhat exaggerated language, " the commentary on the Digha Nikáya was at the beginning discussed (or composed, or merged into the body of the Scriptures) by five hundred holy elders" ? - for the original words may admit of such a construction. If or will this opinion appear merely hypothetical if we carefully peruse the account given by Buddhaghosa of the commentaries in his Samanta Pásádiká. In his metrical introduction to that work, after the usual doxology, he explains the necessity of having a proper Pali Commentary on the Vinaya, and then proceeds to set forth what he is about to do : -
"In commencing this commentary, I shall, having embodied therein the Mahá Atthakathá, without excluding any proper meaning from the decisions contained in the Mahá Paccarí, as also in the famous Kurundi and other com- mentaries, and including the opinions of the Elders, - perform my task well. Let the young, the middle-aged, and the elderly priests, who entertain a proper regard for the doctrines of the Tathágata, the luminary of truth, listen to my words with pleasure. The Dhamma, as well as the Yinaya, was declared by Buddha, his (sacerdotal) sons understood it in the same sense as it was delivered ; and inasmuch as in former times they (the Simhalese commentators) composed the com- mentaries without disregarding their (the sacerdotal sons') opinions, therefore, barring any erro* of transcription, every- thing contained therein is an authority to the learned in this priesthood who respect ecclesiastical discipline. From these (Simhalese) commentaries, after casting off the language, condensing detailed accounts, including authoritative deci- sions, and without overstepping any Pàli idiom (I shall pro- ceed to compose). And as this commentary will moreover be explanatory of the meaning of words belonging. to the Suttas in conformity with the sense attached to them therein, therefore ought it the more diligently to be studied."
....continued...
On the Origin of the Buddhist Arthakathás Cambridge University Press (1871)