Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

442Re: milindapanha: Update

Expand Messages
  • abhidhammika@yahoo.com
    Sep 3, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      Dear Flavio Costa

      How are you?

      The context of the Paali line you are translating is:

      "yo uppajjati, so eva so,udaahu añño"ti?"

      "Is the one who was born the same one (from the previous life) or
      a different one (in this life)?

      The Paali line you produced is:

      "tena na ca so, na ca añño, purimaviññaanºe
      pacchimaviññaanºam saªgaham gacchat²"ti."

      1: "Therefore, the one who was born is neither the same one nor a
      different one. (It is just that)the latter consciounsess goes with
      the support of the previous consciounsess."

      In translation 1, I invoked the grammatical allowance of using
      sattamiivibhatti as chatthiivibhatti. I also assumed an
      imaginary "anu" between sangaham and gacchati.

      The above translation used "support", which is one of the meanings
      of "sangaho".

      We could also translate by using other traditional meanings of
      sangaho" such as inclusion, counting, summation.

      2: "Therefore, the one who was born is neither the same one nor a
      different one. (It is just that)the latter consciounsess goes to
      being counted in the previous consciounsess."

      3: "(It is just that)the latter consciounsess goes to summation in
      the previous consciounsess."

      4: "(It is just that)the latter consciounsess goes from the previous
      consciounsess inclusive."

      In translation 4, I invoked the grammatical allowance of using
      sattamiivibhatti as pancamiivibhatti.

      In all cases, pacchimaviññaanºam should not be regarded as the last
      consciousness as we are not discussing the consciounsess of an
      Arahant. Pacchimaviññaanºam should retain the meanings of the latter
      consciousness, or the immediately following consciounsess so as to
      contrast with purimaviññaanam as the former consciousness or the
      immediately preceding consciousness.


      Hope these translations facilitate clarification.

      With regards


      Suan Lu Zaw

      http://www.bodhiology.org






      --- In Pali@y..., "Flavio Costa" <flavio@n...> wrote:
      >
      > Hi all,
      >
      > I'm translating a passage about rebirth from the Milindapanha (more
      exactly
      > Addhaanavaggo I: Dhammasantatipa~nho), that says:
      >
      > tena na ca so, na ca a~n~no, purimavi~n~naa.ne pacchimavi~n~naa.na.m
      > sa.ngaha.m gacchatii"ti
      >
      > I. B. Horner translates this passage as following:
      >
      > consequently neither the one [dhamma] nor another is reckoned as
      the last
      > consciousness
      >
      > My doubt is about rendering "purimavi~n~naa.ne
      pacchimavi~n~naa.na.m" as
      > "the last consciousness". Wouldn't it rather be translated as
      something
      > like:
      >
      > consequently, neither the one [dhamma], nor another, it is reckoned
      [just]
      > as the former and the latest consciousness
      >
      > This way, it would mean that the flow of phenomena
      (dhammasantati) is
      > not to be regarded as the same or an entirely different object
      moving
      > through time, but an effect of two moments of consciousness
      artificially
      > linked by the mind.
      >
      > Maybe my doubt here is due to misunderstanding about the role
      > vi~n~naa.na is playing on this context, so any clarifications are
      welcome.
      >
      > Thank you,
      >
      > Flavio Costa
    • Show all 6 messages in this topic