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

About 'neta.m mama, nesoham asmi, na meso attaa'ti

Expand Messages
  • Khristos Nizamis
    Hello. I have a question about the very frequent and obviously fundamentally important formula: neta.m mama, nesoham asmi, na meso attaa which I read: na eta.m
    Message 1 of 26 , Jun 27, 2010
      Hello.

      I have a question about the very frequent and obviously fundamentally
      important formula:

      neta.m mama, nesoham asmi, na meso attaa

      which I read:

      na eta.m mama, na eso aham asmi, na me eso attaa

      I take 'eta.m' in the first clause to be the nom. neut. sg. demonstrative
      pronoun (nom. because 'eta.m' should be the subject of the clause); 'eso' in
      the second and third clauses to be nom. masc. sg.

      If this is correct, then my question follows. Would someone be willing to
      share with me their understanding of why the gender of the demonstrative
      pronoun alters between the first and the other clauses?

      Respectfully,
      with metta,

      Khristos


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Nina van Gorkom
      Dear Khristos, You remarked this very well. ... N: Let us analyse this without the negative. ... 1 represents tanhaa, clinging. 2 represents conceit. 3
      Message 2 of 26 , Jun 29, 2010
        Dear Khristos,
        You remarked this very well.

        Op 28-jun-2010, om 2:50 heeft Khristos Nizamis het volgende geschreven:

        > neta.m mama, nesoham asmi, na meso attaa
        >
        > which I read:
        >
        > na eta.m mama, na eso aham asmi, na me eso attaa
        >
        > I take 'eta.m' in the first clause to be the nom. neut. sg.
        > demonstrative
        > pronoun (nom. because 'eta.m' should be the subject of the clause);
        > 'eso' in
        > the second and third clauses to be nom. masc. sg.
        >
        > If this is correct, then my question follows. Would someone be
        > willing to
        > share with me their understanding of why the gender of the
        > demonstrative
        > pronoun alters between the first and the other clauses?
        -----------
        N: Let us analyse this without the negative.
        > 1. eta.m mama,

        > 2. esoham asmi,

        > 3.eso me attaa

        1 represents tanhaa, clinging. 2 represents conceit. 3 represents
        di.t.thi.
        As to 1: clinging appropriates something as its property. This
        (eta.m) belongs to me.

        2: in the case of conceit one considers oneself as better, equal or
        less and one clings to the importance of oneself. I am thus or thus.
        This am I. Eso aham asmi. Eso is predicative.

        3: 'I am' stands for a self view. One identifies oneself with the
        five khandhas.

        Conceit is different from wrong view. The person who has reached the
        first stage of enlightenment eradicates wrong view, but not conceit.
        Only the arahat has eradicated conceit, maana.
        Nina.



        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • k_nizamis
        Hi Nina, thank you very much for taking the time to provide a response to my question. I feel that your answer is a very good one, from a doctrinal and
        Message 3 of 26 , Jun 29, 2010
          Hi Nina,

          thank you very much for taking the time to provide a response to my question. I feel that your answer is a very good one, from a doctrinal and theoretical point of view. And it clearly accords with the teachings and concepts that are so strongly evident and so important in the Sutta Pi.taka. I agree with your understanding of the general or applied meaning of each clause in terms of ta.nhaa, maana, and di.t.thi. This is clearly a good and correct reading of the doctrinal sense of each clause. So, I'm satisfied at this intuitive doctrinal/theoretical level.

          Yet, please be patient with me a moment more, because I'm not yet completely satisfied with the explanation at an intuitive linguistic level. I'm still trying to understand the `sense' of the one nt. nom. sg. and the two masc. nom. sg. demonstrative pronouns in this formula.

          Before I began to study the Paa.li texts directly, I had always assumed that, in the English translations of this formula, which is usually along the lines of "This is not mine, this is not what I am, this is not my self", the demonstrative pronoun `this' referred back identically to the same subject-term, be it `form', `feeling', `perception', `mental formations', `consciousness', or whatever. But once I began to study the Paa.li texts, I was surprised to find that what in English seems to be one and the same pronoun, "this . . . this . . . this", is, in Paa.li, "eta.m . . . eso . . . eso". Intuitively, to me, this means that `eso' is not referring to the same term that eta.m is referring to, since `eso' is masc. nom. sg. and `eta.m' is nt. nom. sg. (in this context).

          Suppose that this formula has just been applied to one of the pa~ncakkhandhaa: take vi~n~naa.na, for example, which is a nt. noun. In English, which has no gendered nouns and pronouns, it sounds as if, in the formula "This is not mine, this is not what I am, this is not my self", the pronoun `this' refers in each instance to vi~n~naa.na. But in Paa.li, it doesn't look like that at all, because vi~n~naa.na is nt., but only the first pronoun is nt.

          As a kind of intuitive experiment, I tried translating the `neta.m mama...' formula into Greek (I'm of Greek background, you see) because, as in Paa.li, Greek nouns and pronouns are gendered and it's a highly inflected language. I used a nt. pronoun in the 1st clause, and masc. pronouns in the 2nd and 3rd clauses. When I did this, the sentence felt rather odd, and especially so if I placed it into the context where it followed after, and referred back to, well, pretty much any other term, no matter what gender . . . as long as I assumed that the demonstrative pronouns were supposed to be referring back to that term. In the Greek, at least, it's sort of just possible that a neuter demonstrative might be used (a bit loosely) to refer back to a masc., fem., or nt. subject, but definitely not a masc. pronoun! It sounds wacky.

          May I include a textual sample here? There are numerous possible examples, as you know, and very many of them are applied to the pa~ncakkhandhaa, although not always just to these. I've chosen, pretty much at random, a passage from SN III.1.2.1.7 Anattalakkha.na Sutta, also known as Pa~ncavaggiya Sutta, etc. (22.59; PTS S iii.66).

          The following complex sentence occurs virtually identically (with only minor necessary grammatical changes) for each one of the pa~ncakkhandhaa, but I have chosen the sentence dealing with vi~n~naa.na as a representative sample.

          It's worth noting, however, that since each of the khandha is, in turn, the main subject of this larger sentence pattern, this means that the gender of the subject changes: ruupa (nt.), vedanaa (f.), sa~n~naa (f.), sa"nkhaaraa (m. pl.), vi~n~naa.na (nt.). Note that only one of these terms is masculine (and is plural). But the formula `neta.m mama, nesohamasmi, na meso attaa'ti does not alter to accommodate these grammatical changes in the gender of the respective subject-terms (and as far as I can see, it seems never to alter in any context, anywhere in the suttaani: it is like a permanently fixed formula, which is perhaps an interesting clue).

          The passage (sentence) reads as follows:

          Ya.m ki~nci | vi~n~naa.na.m | atiita-anaagata-paccuppanna.m | ajjhatta.m vaa bahiddhaa vaa | o.laarika.m vaa sukhuma.m vaa | hiina.m vaa pa.niita.m vaa | ya.m duure santike vaa, | sabba.m | vi~n~naa.na.m | `neta.m mama nesohamasmi na meso attaa'ti | evam | eta.m | yatthaabhuuta.m | sammappa~n~naaya | da.t.thabba.m

          Whatsoever | consciousness | gone by – not yet come – having arisen (i.e., past, future, present) | internal or external | gross or subtle | inferior or sublime | which (is) distant or present, | all | consciousness | `not this (nt.) mine, not this (m.) I am, not of me this (m.) self' | thus | this (nt.) | just as it has come to be (i.e., in truth, in reality) | with right wisdom | should be seen (i.e., viewed).

          I'd like to focus just on this part:

          sabba.m | vi~n~naa.na.m | `neta.m mama nesohamasmi na meso attaa'ti | evam | eta.m | yatthaabhuuta.m | sammappa~n~naaya | da.t.thabba.m

          All | consciousness | `not this (nt.) mine, not this (m.) I am, not of me this (m.) self' | thus | this (nt.) | just as it has come to be (i.e., in truth, in reality) | with right wisdom | should be seen (i.e., viewed).

          Intuitively, if each of the three demonstratives (even when predicative, as in `na eso aham asmi') were pointing back to vi~n~naa.na, couldn't the formula easily have read as follows (i.e., with nt. pronouns all the way through)?

          na eta.m mama, na eta.m aham asmi, na me eta.m attaa

          or in the affirmative sense (which, of course, is not our view):

          eta.m mama, eta.m aham asmi, eta.m me attaa

          But the formula doesn't read like this; and of course, it never changes, no matter what gender or number the previous subject-term might be. If a native Greek were to use this formula to refer back to subject-terms of differing gender and number, he or she would automatically and unthinkingly change the gender and number of the demonstrative pronouns to match. For a native speaker, it would be unthinkable to use one fixed formula – and with pronouns of mixed gender, what's more – in each and every different context. It would just sound `wrong'.

          Reflecting on this, there are probably at least a couple of possible (essentially historical) explanations for the unchanging form of this formula, in whatever context it occurs.

          But I also wonder, sometimes, whether there is an `internal logic' to the grammar of this formula. This is because `atta.m' is masc. (with stem in `an'). `Aha.m', as the first personal pronoun, is, if taken purely as a pronoun, not gendered; but if it were nominalised (e.g., as something to be referred to, discussed, analysed, etc.), then wouldn't it be treated as a noun with the same stem as `atta.m', and therefore masc.? Is it at all conceivable, I wonder, and is it grammatically possible, that perhaps `eso' corresponds to `aham' in "na eso aham asmi", and that `eso' corresponds to `atta.m' in "na me eso atta.m"? If so, then these could be translated: "I am (asmi) not this `I'", and "This self is not of me (mine)", respectively? In this case, the `I' that `I am not' is the one identified with the khandhaa, etc.; and the `self' that is not `of me' is again the one identified with the khandhaa, etc.

          Please don't misunderstand me, here, however: I'm definitely not suggesting that there is another `I' or `self' entity separate from the khandhaa. By no means: the suttaani are unambiguous on this point. Rather, the point is that if we completely drop every sense of `I' and `self' that is identified with anything at all, there is still `something' left over, so to speak, but the terms `I' and `self' can no longer be used for `it', because the terms `I' and `self' have no sense or reference unless we attach them to something that we can think or perceive or feel, etc. But if we refuse to attach them to any phenomenon whatsoever, their sense undergoes a radical and fundamental transformation, because they can no longer `point' to anything, and yet, `something', which is not any `thing', can still `use them' (in the loka-vohaara-attha).

          I suppose you may think this is a very foolish reading, and I don't mind at all of you think so and say so. I find it very helpful to test all possibilities, as long as I think that they are logically and intuitively possible, plausible, and meaningful.

          Very respectfully,
          with deep metta,

          Khristos


          --- In Pali@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom <vangorko@...> wrote:
          >
          > Dear Khristos,
          > You remarked this very well.
          >
          > Op 28-jun-2010, om 2:50 heeft Khristos Nizamis het volgende geschreven:
          >
          > > neta.m mama, nesoham asmi, na meso attaa
          > >
          > > which I read:
          > >
          > > na eta.m mama, na eso aham asmi, na me eso attaa
          > >
          > > I take 'eta.m' in the first clause to be the nom. neut. sg.
          > > demonstrative
          > > pronoun (nom. because 'eta.m' should be the subject of the clause);
          > > 'eso' in
          > > the second and third clauses to be nom. masc. sg.
          > >
          > > If this is correct, then my question follows. Would someone be
          > > willing to
          > > share with me their understanding of why the gender of the
          > > demonstrative
          > > pronoun alters between the first and the other clauses?
          > -----------
          > N: Let us analyse this without the negative.
          > > 1. eta.m mama,
          >
          > > 2. esoham asmi,
          >
          > > 3.eso me attaa
          >
          > 1 represents tanhaa, clinging. 2 represents conceit. 3 represents
          > di.t.thi.
          > As to 1: clinging appropriates something as its property. This
          > (eta.m) belongs to me.
          >
          > 2: in the case of conceit one considers oneself as better, equal or
          > less and one clings to the importance of oneself. I am thus or thus.
          > This am I. Eso aham asmi. Eso is predicative.
          >
          > 3: 'I am' stands for a self view. One identifies oneself with the
          > five khandhas.
          >
          > Conceit is different from wrong view. The person who has reached the
          > first stage of enlightenment eradicates wrong view, but not conceit.
          > Only the arahat has eradicated conceit, maana.
          > Nina.
          >
          >
          >
          > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          >
        • Bryan Levman
          Dear Khristos, Grammatically, as you have suggested, eso in the third statement modifies attaa, ( This self is not mine ) so the form is correct. The second
          Message 4 of 26 , Jun 30, 2010
            Dear Khristos,

            Grammatically, as you have suggested, eso in the third statement modifies attaa, ("This self is not mine") so the form is correct. The second statement is usually translated something like "This I am not", but if is were translated "This self (eso aham), I am not (na... asmi)", then eso would be correct, as "aham" would default to a first person masculine pronoun (although it could be feminine as well, depending on the speaker, but in this case the speaker is always masculine). So I think that is the solution to your grammatical problem. As you say, in Pali as in Greek, the adjectives/pronouns must agree with the noun to which they refer,

            Metta,

            Bryan






            ________________________________
            From: k_nizamis <nizamisk@...>
            To: Pali@yahoogroups.com
            Sent: Tue, June 29, 2010 8:57:20 PM
            Subject: [Pali] Re: About 'neta.m mama, nesoham asmi, na meso attaa'ti


            Hi Nina,

            thank you very much for taking the time to provide a response to my question. I feel that your answer is a very good one, from a doctrinal and theoretical point of view. And it clearly accords with the teachings and concepts that are so strongly evident and so important in the Sutta Pi.taka. I agree with your understanding of the general or applied meaning of each clause in terms of ta.nhaa, maana, and di.t.thi. This is clearly a good and correct reading of the doctrinal sense of each clause. So, I'm satisfied at this intuitive doctrinal/theoretical level.

            Yet, please be patient with me a moment more, because I'm not yet completely satisfied with the explanation at an intuitive linguistic level. I'm still trying to understand the `sense' of the one nt. nom. sg. and the two masc. nom. sg. demonstrative pronouns in this formula.

            Before I began to study the Paa.li texts directly, I had always assumed that, in the English translations of this formula, which is usually along the lines of "This is not mine, this is not what I am, this is not my self", the demonstrative pronoun `this' referred back identically to the same subject-term, be it `form', `feeling', `perception', `mental formations', `consciousness', or whatever. But once I began to study the Paa.li texts, I was surprised to find that what in English seems to be one and the same pronoun, "this . . . this . . . this", is, in Paa.li, "eta.m . . . eso . . . eso". Intuitively, to me, this means that `eso' is not referring to the same term that eta.m is referring to, since `eso' is masc. nom. sg. and `eta.m' is nt. nom. sg. (in this context).

            Suppose that this formula has just been applied to one of the pa~ncakkhandhaa: take vi~n~naa.na, for example, which is a nt. noun. In English, which has no gendered nouns and pronouns, it sounds as if, in the formula "This is not mine, this is not what I am, this is not my self", the pronoun `this' refers in each instance to vi~n~naa.na. But in Paa.li, it doesn't look like that at all, because vi~n~naa.na is nt., but only the first pronoun is nt.

            As a kind of intuitive experiment, I tried translating the `neta.m mama...' formula into Greek (I'm of Greek background, you see) because, as in Paa.li, Greek nouns and pronouns are gendered and it's a highly inflected language. I used a nt. pronoun in the 1st clause, and masc. pronouns in the 2nd and 3rd clauses. When I did this, the sentence felt rather odd, and especially so if I placed it into the context where it followed after, and referred back to, well, pretty much any other term, no matter what gender . . . as long as I assumed that the demonstrative pronouns were supposed to be referring back to that term. In the Greek, at least, it's sort of just possible that a neuter demonstrative might be used (a bit loosely) to refer back to a masc., fem., or nt. subject, but definitely not a masc. pronoun! It sounds wacky.

            May I include a textual sample here? There are numerous possible examples, as you know, and very many of them are applied to the pa~ncakkhandhaa, although not always just to these. I've chosen, pretty much at random, a passage from SN III.1.2.1.7 Anattalakkha.na Sutta, also known as Pa~ncavaggiya Sutta, etc. (22.59; PTS S iii.66).

            The following complex sentence occurs virtually identically (with only minor necessary grammatical changes) for each one of the pa~ncakkhandhaa, but I have chosen the sentence dealing with vi~n~naa.na as a representative sample.

            It's worth noting, however, that since each of the khandha is, in turn, the main subject of this larger sentence pattern, this means that the gender of the subject changes: ruupa (nt.), vedanaa (f.), sa~n~naa (f.), sa"nkhaaraa (m. pl.), vi~n~naa.na (nt.). Note that only one of these terms is masculine (and is plural). But the formula `neta.m mama, nesohamasmi, na meso attaa'ti does not alter to accommodate these grammatical changes in the gender of the respective subject-terms (and as far as I can see, it seems never to alter in any context, anywhere in the suttaani: it is like a permanently fixed formula, which is perhaps an interesting clue).

            The passage (sentence) reads as follows:

            Ya.m ki~nci | vi~n~naa.na.m | atiita-anaagata-paccuppanna.m | ajjhatta.m vaa bahiddhaa vaa | o.laarika.m vaa sukhuma.m vaa | hiina.m vaa pa.niita.m vaa | ya.m duure santike vaa, | sabba.m | vi~n~naa.na.m | `neta.m mama nesohamasmi na meso attaa'ti | evam | eta.m | yatthaabhuuta.m | sammappa~n~naaya | da.t.thabba.m

            Whatsoever | consciousness | gone by – not yet come – having arisen (i.e., past, future, present) | internal or external | gross or subtle | inferior or sublime | which (is) distant or present, | all | consciousness | `not this (nt.) mine, not this (m.) I am, not of me this (m.) self' | thus | this (nt.) | just as it has come to be (i.e., in truth, in reality) | with right wisdom | should be seen (i.e., viewed).

            I'd like to focus just on this part:

            sabba.m | vi~n~naa.na.m | `neta.m mama nesohamasmi na meso attaa'ti | evam | eta.m | yatthaabhuuta.m | sammappa~n~naaya | da.t.thabba.m

            All | consciousness | `not this (nt.) mine, not this (m.) I am, not of me this (m.) self' | thus | this (nt.) | just as it has come to be (i.e., in truth, in reality) | with right wisdom | should be seen (i.e., viewed).

            Intuitively, if each of the three demonstratives (even when predicative, as in `na eso aham asmi') were pointing back to vi~n~naa.na, couldn't the formula easily have read as follows (i.e., with nt. pronouns all the way through)?

            na eta.m mama, na eta.m aham asmi, na me eta.m attaa

            or in the affirmative sense (which, of course, is not our view):

            eta.m mama, eta.m aham asmi, eta.m me attaa

            But the formula doesn't read like this; and of course, it never changes, no matter what gender or number the previous subject-term might be. If a native Greek were to use this formula to refer back to subject-terms of differing gender and number, he or she would automatically and unthinkingly change the gender and number of the demonstrative pronouns to match. For a native speaker, it would be unthinkable to use one fixed formula – and with pronouns of mixed gender, what's more – in each and every different context. It would just sound `wrong'.

            Reflecting on this, there are probably at least a couple of possible (essentially historical) explanations for the unchanging form of this formula, in whatever context it occurs.

            But I also wonder, sometimes, whether there is an `internal logic' to the grammar of this formula. This is because `atta.m' is masc. (with stem in `an'). `Aha.m', as the first personal pronoun, is, if taken purely as a pronoun, not gendered; but if it were nominalised (e.g., as something to be referred to, discussed, analysed, etc.), then wouldn't it be treated as a noun with the same stem as `atta.m', and therefore masc.? Is it at all conceivable, I wonder, and is it grammatically possible, that perhaps `eso' corresponds to `aham' in "na eso aham asmi", and that `eso' corresponds to `atta.m' in "na me eso atta.m"? If so, then these could be translated: "I am (asmi) not this `I'", and "This self is not of me (mine)", respectively? In this case, the `I' that `I am not' is the one identified with the khandhaa, etc.; and the `self' that is not `of me' is again the one identified with the khandhaa, etc.

            Please don't misunderstand me, here, however: I'm definitely not suggesting that there is another `I' or `self' entity separate from the khandhaa. By no means: the suttaani are unambiguous on this point. Rather, the point is that if we completely drop every sense of `I' and `self' that is identified with anything at all, there is still `something' left over, so to speak, but the terms `I' and `self' can no longer be used for `it', because the terms `I' and `self' have no sense or reference unless we attach them to something that we can think or perceive or feel, etc. But if we refuse to attach them to any phenomenon whatsoever, their sense undergoes a radical and fundamental transformation, because they can no longer `point' to anything, and yet, `something', which is not any `thing', can still `use them' (in the loka-vohaara-attha).

            I suppose you may think this is a very foolish reading, and I don't mind at all of you think so and say so. I find it very helpful to test all possibilities, as long as I think that they are logically and intuitively possible, plausible, and meaningful.

            Very respectfully,
            with deep metta,

            Khristos

            --- In Pali@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom <vangorko@...> wrote:
            >
            > Dear Khristos,
            > You remarked this very well.
            >
            > Op 28-jun-2010, om 2:50 heeft Khristos Nizamis het volgende geschreven:
            >
            > > neta.m mama, nesoham asmi, na meso attaa
            > >
            > > which I read:
            > >
            > > na eta.m mama, na eso aham asmi, na me eso attaa
            > >
            > > I take 'eta.m' in the first clause to be the nom. neut. sg.
            > > demonstrative
            > > pronoun (nom. because 'eta.m' should be the subject of the clause);
            > > 'eso' in
            > > the second and third clauses to be nom. masc. sg.
            > >
            > > If this is correct, then my question follows. Would someone be
            > > willing to
            > > share with me their understanding of why the gender of the
            > > demonstrative
            > > pronoun alters between the first and the other clauses?
            > -----------
            > N: Let us analyse this without the negative.
            > > 1. eta.m mama,
            >
            > > 2. esoham asmi,
            >
            > > 3.eso me attaa
            >
            > 1 represents tanhaa, clinging. 2 represents conceit. 3 represents
            > di.t.thi.
            > As to 1: clinging appropriates something as its property. This
            > (eta.m) belongs to me.
            >
            > 2: in the case of conceit one considers oneself as better, equal or
            > less and one clings to the importance of oneself. I am thus or thus.
            > This am I. Eso aham asmi. Eso is predicative.
            >
            > 3: 'I am' stands for a self view. One identifies oneself with the
            > five khandhas.
            >
            > Conceit is different from wrong view. The person who has reached the
            > first stage of enlightenment eradicates wrong view, but not conceit.
            > Only the arahat has eradicated conceit, maana.
            > Nina.
            >
            >
            >
            > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            >






            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • Lennart Lopin
            What about neta.m mama nesohamasmi na meso attaa ti taking etam as acc? That is not mine Especially in combination with the genetive? Does anyone know of a
            Message 5 of 26 , Jun 30, 2010
              What about

              neta.m mama nesohamasmi na meso attaa'ti

              taking "etam" as acc? "That is not mine" Especially in combination with the
              genetive? Does anyone know of a combination of acc+gen in this way?

              The "eso" (nom) is then used, as Nina suggested, as a predicate "I am not
              this" (=> eso has to be in the nominative for this to apply)

              In the last part too, the demonstrative pronoun is used in the nominative
              stating: "This is not my Self" (with the idea of: This can not be my Self).

              That (!sic) way it seems to be pretty straightforward?!





              On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 9:15 AM, Bryan Levman <bryan.levman@...>wrote:

              >
              >
              > Dear Khristos,
              >
              > Grammatically, as you have suggested, eso in the third statement modifies
              > attaa, ("This self is not mine") so the form is correct. The second
              > statement is usually translated something like "This I am not", but if is
              > were translated "This self (eso aham), I am not (na... asmi)", then eso
              > would be correct, as "aham" would default to a first person masculine
              > pronoun (although it could be feminine as well, depending on the speaker,
              > but in this case the speaker is always masculine). So I think that is the
              > solution to your grammatical problem. As you say, in Pali as in Greek, the
              > adjectives/pronouns must agree with the noun to which they refer,
              >
              > Metta,
              >
              > Bryan
              >
              > ________________________________
              > From: k_nizamis <nizamisk@... <nizamisk%40gmail.com>>
              > To: Pali@yahoogroups.com <Pali%40yahoogroups.com>
              > Sent: Tue, June 29, 2010 8:57:20 PM
              > Subject: [Pali] Re: About 'neta.m mama, nesoham asmi, na meso attaa'ti
              >
              >
              > Hi Nina,
              >
              > thank you very much for taking the time to provide a response to my
              > question. I feel that your answer is a very good one, from a doctrinal and
              > theoretical point of view. And it clearly accords with the teachings and
              > concepts that are so strongly evident and so important in the Sutta Pi.taka.
              > I agree with your understanding of the general or applied meaning of each
              > clause in terms of ta.nhaa, maana, and di.t.thi. This is clearly a good and
              > correct reading of the doctrinal sense of each clause. So, I'm satisfied at
              > this intuitive doctrinal/theoretical level.
              >
              > Yet, please be patient with me a moment more, because I'm not yet
              > completely satisfied with the explanation at an intuitive linguistic level.
              > I'm still trying to understand the `sense' of the one nt. nom. sg. and the
              > two masc. nom. sg. demonstrative pronouns in this formula.
              >
              > Before I began to study the Paa.li texts directly, I had always assumed
              > that, in the English translations of this formula, which is usually along
              > the lines of "This is not mine, this is not what I am, this is not my self",
              > the demonstrative pronoun `this' referred back identically to the same
              > subject-term, be it `form', `feeling', `perception', `mental formations',
              > `consciousness', or whatever. But once I began to study the Paa.li texts, I
              > was surprised to find that what in English seems to be one and the same
              > pronoun, "this . . . this . . . this", is, in Paa.li, "eta.m . . . eso . . .
              > eso". Intuitively, to me, this means that `eso' is not referring to the same
              > term that eta.m is referring to, since `eso' is masc. nom. sg. and `eta.m'
              > is nt. nom. sg. (in this context).
              >
              > Suppose that this formula has just been applied to one of the
              > pa~ncakkhandhaa: take vi~n~naa.na, for example, which is a nt. noun. In
              > English, which has no gendered nouns and pronouns, it sounds as if, in the
              > formula "This is not mine, this is not what I am, this is not my self", the
              > pronoun `this' refers in each instance to vi~n~naa.na. But in Paa.li, it
              > doesn't look like that at all, because vi~n~naa.na is nt., but only the
              > first pronoun is nt.
              >
              > As a kind of intuitive experiment, I tried translating the `neta.m mama...'
              > formula into Greek (I'm of Greek background, you see) because, as in Paa.li,
              > Greek nouns and pronouns are gendered and it's a highly inflected language.
              > I used a nt. pronoun in the 1st clause, and masc. pronouns in the 2nd and
              > 3rd clauses. When I did this, the sentence felt rather odd, and especially
              > so if I placed it into the context where it followed after, and referred
              > back to, well, pretty much any other term, no matter what gender . . . as
              > long as I assumed that the demonstrative pronouns were supposed to be
              > referring back to that term. In the Greek, at least, it's sort of just
              > possible that a neuter demonstrative might be used (a bit loosely) to refer
              > back to a masc., fem., or nt. subject, but definitely not a masc. pronoun!
              > It sounds wacky.
              >
              > May I include a textual sample here? There are numerous possible examples,
              > as you know, and very many of them are applied to the pa~ncakkhandhaa,
              > although not always just to these. I've chosen, pretty much at random, a
              > passage from SN III.1.2.1.7 Anattalakkha.na Sutta, also known as
              > Pa~ncavaggiya Sutta, etc. (22.59; PTS S iii.66).
              >
              > The following complex sentence occurs virtually identically (with only
              > minor necessary grammatical changes) for each one of the pa~ncakkhandhaa,
              > but I have chosen the sentence dealing with vi~n~naa.na as a
              > representative sample.
              >
              > It's worth noting, however, that since each of the khandha is, in turn, the
              > main subject of this larger sentence pattern, this means that the gender of
              > the subject changes: ruupa (nt.), vedanaa (f.), sa~n~naa (f.), sa"nkhaaraa
              > (m. pl.), vi~n~naa.na (nt.). Note that only one of these terms is
              > masculine (and is plural). But the formula `neta.m mama, nesohamasmi, na
              > meso attaa'ti does not alter to accommodate these grammatical changes in the
              > gender of the respective subject-terms (and as far as I can see, it seems
              > never to alter in any context, anywhere in the suttaani: it is like a
              > permanently fixed formula, which is perhaps an interesting clue).
              >
              > The passage (sentence) reads as follows:
              >
              > Ya.m ki~nci | vi~n~naa.na.m | atiita-anaagata-paccuppanna.m | ajjhatta.m
              > vaa bahiddhaa vaa | o.laarika.m vaa sukhuma.m vaa | hiina.m vaa pa.niita.m
              > vaa | ya.m duure santike vaa, | sabba.m | vi~n~naa.na.m | `neta.m mama
              > nesohamasmi na meso attaa'ti | evam | eta.m | yatthaabhuuta.m |
              > sammappa~n~naaya | da.t.thabba.m
              >
              > Whatsoever | consciousness | gone by � not yet come � having arisen (i.e.,
              > past, future, present) | internal or external | gross or subtle | inferior
              > or sublime | which (is) distant or present, | all | consciousness | `not
              > this (nt.) mine, not this (m.) I am, not of me this (m.) self' | thus | this
              > (nt.) | just as it has come to be (i.e., in truth, in reality) | with right
              > wisdom | should be seen (i.e., viewed).
              >
              > I'd like to focus just on this part:
              >
              > sabba.m | vi~n~naa.na.m | `neta.m mama nesohamasmi na meso attaa'ti | evam
              > | eta.m | yatthaabhuuta.m | sammappa~n~naaya | da.t.thabba.m
              >
              > All | consciousness | `not this (nt.) mine, not this (m.) I am, not of me
              > this (m.) self' | thus | this (nt.) | just as it has come to be (i.e., in
              > truth, in reality) | with right wisdom | should be seen (i.e., viewed).
              >
              > Intuitively, if each of the three demonstratives (even when predicative, as
              > in `na eso aham asmi') were pointing back to vi~n~naa.na, couldn't the
              > formula easily have read as follows (i.e., with nt. pronouns all the way
              > through)?
              >
              > na eta.m mama, na eta.m aham asmi, na me eta.m attaa
              >
              > or in the affirmative sense (which, of course, is not our view):
              >
              > eta.m mama, eta.m aham asmi, eta.m me attaa
              >
              > But the formula doesn't read like this; and of course, it never changes, no
              > matter what gender or number the previous subject-term might be. If a native
              > Greek were to use this formula to refer back to subject-terms of differing
              > gender and number, he or she would automatically and unthinkingly change the
              > gender and number of the demonstrative pronouns to match. For a native
              > speaker, it would be unthinkable to use one fixed formula � and with
              > pronouns of mixed gender, what's more � in each and every different context.
              > It would just sound `wrong'.
              >
              > Reflecting on this, there are probably at least a couple of possible
              > (essentially historical) explanations for the unchanging form of this
              > formula, in whatever context it occurs.
              >
              > But I also wonder, sometimes, whether there is an `internal logic' to the
              > grammar of this formula. This is because `atta.m' is masc. (with stem in
              > `an'). `Aha.m', as the first personal pronoun, is, if taken purely as a
              > pronoun, not gendered; but if it were nominalised (e.g., as something to be
              > referred to, discussed, analysed, etc.), then wouldn't it be treated as a
              > noun with the same stem as `atta.m', and therefore masc.? Is it at all
              > conceivable, I wonder, and is it grammatically possible, that perhaps `eso'
              > corresponds to `aham' in "na eso aham asmi", and that `eso' corresponds to
              > `atta.m' in "na me eso atta.m"? If so, then these could be translated: "I am
              > (asmi) not this `I'", and "This self is not of me (mine)", respectively? In
              > this case, the `I' that `I am not' is the one identified with the khandhaa,
              > etc.; and the `self' that is not `of me' is again the one identified with
              > the khandhaa, etc.
              >
              > Please don't misunderstand me, here, however: I'm definitely not suggesting
              > that there is another `I' or `self' entity separate from the khandhaa. By no
              > means: the suttaani are unambiguous on this point. Rather, the point is that
              > if we completely drop every sense of `I' and `self' that is identified with
              > anything at all, there is still `something' left over, so to speak, but the
              > terms `I' and `self' can no longer be used for `it', because the terms `I'
              > and `self' have no sense or reference unless we attach them to something
              > that we can think or perceive or feel, etc. But if we refuse to attach them
              > to any phenomenon whatsoever, their sense undergoes a radical and
              > fundamental transformation, because they can no longer `point' to anything,
              > and yet, `something', which is not any `thing', can still `use them' (in the
              > loka-vohaara-attha).
              >
              > I suppose you may think this is a very foolish reading, and I don't mind at
              > all of you think so and say so. I find it very helpful to test all
              > possibilities, as long as I think that they are logically and intuitively
              > possible, plausible, and meaningful.
              >
              > Very respectfully,
              > with deep metta,
              >
              > Khristos
              >
              > --- In Pali@yahoogroups.com <Pali%40yahoogroups.com>, Nina van Gorkom
              > <vangorko@...> wrote:
              > >
              > > Dear Khristos,
              > > You remarked this very well.
              > >
              > > Op 28-jun-2010, om 2:50 heeft Khristos Nizamis het volgende geschreven:
              > >
              > > > neta.m mama, nesoham asmi, na meso attaa
              > > >
              > > > which I read:
              > > >
              > > > na eta.m mama, na eso aham asmi, na me eso attaa
              > > >
              > > > I take 'eta.m' in the first clause to be the nom. neut. sg.
              > > > demonstrative
              > > > pronoun (nom. because 'eta.m' should be the subject of the clause);
              > > > 'eso' in
              > > > the second and third clauses to be nom. masc. sg.
              > > >
              > > > If this is correct, then my question follows. Would someone be
              > > > willing to
              > > > share with me their understanding of why the gender of the
              > > > demonstrative
              > > > pronoun alters between the first and the other clauses?
              > > -----------
              > > N: Let us analyse this without the negative.
              > > > 1. eta.m mama,
              > >
              > > > 2. esoham asmi,
              > >
              > > > 3.eso me attaa
              > >
              > > 1 represents tanhaa, clinging. 2 represents conceit. 3 represents
              > > di.t.thi.
              > > As to 1: clinging appropriates something as its property. This
              > > (eta.m) belongs to me.
              > >
              > > 2: in the case of conceit one considers oneself as better, equal or
              > > less and one clings to the importance of oneself. I am thus or thus.
              > > This am I. Eso aham asmi. Eso is predicative.
              > >
              > > 3: 'I am' stands for a self view. One identifies oneself with the
              > > five khandhas.
              > >
              > > Conceit is different from wrong view. The person who has reached the
              > > first stage of enlightenment eradicates wrong view, but not conceit.
              > > Only the arahat has eradicated conceit, maana.
              > > Nina.
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              > >
              >
              > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              >
              >
              >


              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • Gunnar Gällmo
              ... Accusative? Hardly; I don t see any subject-object relation here. No, I think eta.m must be nominativum neutrum, and eso nominativum masculinum; so the two
              Message 6 of 26 , Jun 30, 2010
                --- Den ons 2010-06-30 skrev Lennart Lopin <novalis78@...>:

                > neta.m mama nesohamasmi na meso attaa'ti
                >
                > taking "etam" as acc? "That is not mine" Especially in
                > combination with the
                > genetive? Does anyone know of a combination of acc+gen in
                > this way?

                Accusative? Hardly; I don't see any subject-object relation here.

                No, I think eta.m must be nominativum neutrum, and eso nominativum masculinum; so the two pronouns can't point to exactly the same thing, at least not grammatically.

                Which I think was what the question was about.

                Gunnar
              • Lennart Lopin
                ... Hi Gunnar, The context though seems to suggest that the pronouns do not point to different things... In all instances this formular is applied it seems to
                Message 7 of 26 , Jun 30, 2010
                  >
                  >
                  > > neta.m mama nesohamasmi na meso attaa'ti
                  > >
                  > > taking "etam" as acc? "That is not mine" Especially in
                  > > combination with the
                  > > genetive? Does anyone know of a combination of acc+gen in
                  > > this way?
                  >
                  > Accusative? Hardly; I don't see any subject-object relation here.
                  >
                  > No, I think eta.m must be nominativum neutrum, and eso nominativum
                  > masculinum; so the two pronouns can't point to exactly the same thing, at
                  > least not grammatically.
                  >
                  > Which I think was what the question was about.
                  >
                  > Gunnar
                  >

                  Hi Gunnar,

                  The context though seems to suggest that the pronouns do not point to
                  different things... In all instances this formular is applied it seems to be
                  applied equally to every item listed. What would your explanation be?

                  metta,
                  Lennart


                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • Lennart Lopin
                  Hi Bryan, Your suggestion works pretty well in German too. If I take the etam to reference back to rupam...vinnyanam but then see the eso as referring to
                  Message 8 of 26 , Jun 30, 2010
                    Hi Bryan,

                    Your suggestion works pretty well in German too. If I take the "etam" to
                    reference back to "rupam...vinnyanam" but then see the eso as referring to
                    the speaker himself, he could put that into the nom. masc.:

                    "Nicht* ist das mein, Nicht dieser (! or: ein solcher) bin ich, Nicht dieser
                    (or: ein solcher) ist mein Ich."

                    But you are almost denoting or intending a meaning like "my self (or a self)
                    is not (or cannot be) of such nature"... This would fit into the Buddha's
                    question and answer method in many those instances where we see this phrase
                    being used, where the argument is that all these characteristics (like
                    having no control over it, suffering through it) disqualify the item from
                    being the self.


                    metta,

                    Lennart

                    PS: *I put the "not" in front as suggested by Ven. Nyanavira
                    (link<http://www.nanavira.110mb.com/sn-mama.htm>
                    )


                    On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 9:15 AM, Bryan Levman <bryan.levman@...>wrote:

                    >
                    >
                    > Dear Khristos,
                    >
                    > Grammatically, as you have suggested, eso in the third statement modifies
                    > attaa, ("This self is not mine") so the form is correct. The second
                    > statement is usually translated something like "This I am not", but if is
                    > were translated "This self (eso aham), I am not (na... asmi)", then eso
                    > would be correct, as "aham" would default to a first person masculine
                    > pronoun (although it could be feminine as well, depending on the speaker,
                    > but in this case the speaker is always masculine). So I think that is the
                    > solution to your grammatical problem. As you say, in Pali as in Greek, the
                    > adjectives/pronouns must agree with the noun to which they refer,
                    >
                    > Metta,
                    >
                    > Bryan
                    >
                    > ________________________________
                    > From: k_nizamis <nizamisk@... <nizamisk%40gmail.com>>
                    > To: Pali@yahoogroups.com <Pali%40yahoogroups.com>
                    > Sent: Tue, June 29, 2010 8:57:20 PM
                    > Subject: [Pali] Re: About 'neta.m mama, nesoham asmi, na meso attaa'ti
                    >
                    >
                    > Hi Nina,
                    >
                    > thank you very much for taking the time to provide a response to my
                    > question. I feel that your answer is a very good one, from a doctrinal and
                    > theoretical point of view. And it clearly accords with the teachings and
                    > concepts that are so strongly evident and so important in the Sutta Pi.taka.
                    > I agree with your understanding of the general or applied meaning of each
                    > clause in terms of ta.nhaa, maana, and di.t.thi. This is clearly a good and
                    > correct reading of the doctrinal sense of each clause. So, I'm satisfied at
                    > this intuitive doctrinal/theoretical level.
                    >
                    > Yet, please be patient with me a moment more, because I'm not yet
                    > completely satisfied with the explanation at an intuitive linguistic level.
                    > I'm still trying to understand the `sense' of the one nt. nom. sg. and the
                    > two masc. nom. sg. demonstrative pronouns in this formula.
                    >
                    > Before I began to study the Paa.li texts directly, I had always assumed
                    > that, in the English translations of this formula, which is usually along
                    > the lines of "This is not mine, this is not what I am, this is not my self",
                    > the demonstrative pronoun `this' referred back identically to the same
                    > subject-term, be it `form', `feeling', `perception', `mental formations',
                    > `consciousness', or whatever. But once I began to study the Paa.li texts, I
                    > was surprised to find that what in English seems to be one and the same
                    > pronoun, "this . . . this . . . this", is, in Paa.li, "eta.m . . . eso . . .
                    > eso". Intuitively, to me, this means that `eso' is not referring to the same
                    > term that eta.m is referring to, since `eso' is masc. nom. sg. and `eta.m'
                    > is nt. nom. sg. (in this context).
                    >
                    > Suppose that this formula has just been applied to one of the
                    > pa~ncakkhandhaa: take vi~n~naa.na, for example, which is a nt. noun. In
                    > English, which has no gendered nouns and pronouns, it sounds as if, in the
                    > formula "This is not mine, this is not what I am, this is not my self", the
                    > pronoun `this' refers in each instance to vi~n~naa.na. But in Paa.li, it
                    > doesn't look like that at all, because vi~n~naa.na is nt., but only the
                    > first pronoun is nt.
                    >
                    > As a kind of intuitive experiment, I tried translating the `neta.m mama...'
                    > formula into Greek (I'm of Greek background, you see) because, as in Paa.li,
                    > Greek nouns and pronouns are gendered and it's a highly inflected language.
                    > I used a nt. pronoun in the 1st clause, and masc. pronouns in the 2nd and
                    > 3rd clauses. When I did this, the sentence felt rather odd, and especially
                    > so if I placed it into the context where it followed after, and referred
                    > back to, well, pretty much any other term, no matter what gender . . . as
                    > long as I assumed that the demonstrative pronouns were supposed to be
                    > referring back to that term. In the Greek, at least, it's sort of just
                    > possible that a neuter demonstrative might be used (a bit loosely) to refer
                    > back to a masc., fem., or nt. subject, but definitely not a masc. pronoun!
                    > It sounds wacky.
                    >
                    > May I include a textual sample here? There are numerous possible examples,
                    > as you know, and very many of them are applied to the pa~ncakkhandhaa,
                    > although not always just to these. I've chosen, pretty much at random, a
                    > passage from SN III.1.2.1.7 Anattalakkha.na Sutta, also known as
                    > Pa~ncavaggiya Sutta, etc. (22.59; PTS S iii.66).
                    >
                    > The following complex sentence occurs virtually identically (with only
                    > minor necessary grammatical changes) for each one of the pa~ncakkhandhaa,
                    > but I have chosen the sentence dealing with vi~n~naa.na as a
                    > representative sample.
                    >
                    > It's worth noting, however, that since each of the khandha is, in turn, the
                    > main subject of this larger sentence pattern, this means that the gender of
                    > the subject changes: ruupa (nt.), vedanaa (f.), sa~n~naa (f.), sa"nkhaaraa
                    > (m. pl.), vi~n~naa.na (nt.). Note that only one of these terms is
                    > masculine (and is plural). But the formula `neta.m mama, nesohamasmi, na
                    > meso attaa'ti does not alter to accommodate these grammatical changes in the
                    > gender of the respective subject-terms (and as far as I can see, it seems
                    > never to alter in any context, anywhere in the suttaani: it is like a
                    > permanently fixed formula, which is perhaps an interesting clue).
                    >
                    > The passage (sentence) reads as follows:
                    >
                    > Ya.m ki~nci | vi~n~naa.na.m | atiita-anaagata-paccuppanna.m | ajjhatta.m
                    > vaa bahiddhaa vaa | o.laarika.m vaa sukhuma.m vaa | hiina.m vaa pa.niita.m
                    > vaa | ya.m duure santike vaa, | sabba.m | vi~n~naa.na.m | `neta.m mama
                    > nesohamasmi na meso attaa'ti | evam | eta.m | yatthaabhuuta.m |
                    > sammappa~n~naaya | da.t.thabba.m
                    >
                    > Whatsoever | consciousness | gone by � not yet come � having arisen (i.e.,
                    > past, future, present) | internal or external | gross or subtle | inferior
                    > or sublime | which (is) distant or present, | all | consciousness | `not
                    > this (nt.) mine, not this (m.) I am, not of me this (m.) self' | thus | this
                    > (nt.) | just as it has come to be (i.e., in truth, in reality) | with right
                    > wisdom | should be seen (i.e., viewed).
                    >
                    > I'd like to focus just on this part:
                    >
                    > sabba.m | vi~n~naa.na.m | `neta.m mama nesohamasmi na meso attaa'ti | evam
                    > | eta.m | yatthaabhuuta.m | sammappa~n~naaya | da.t.thabba.m
                    >
                    > All | consciousness | `not this (nt.) mine, not this (m.) I am, not of me
                    > this (m.) self' | thus | this (nt.) | just as it has come to be (i.e., in
                    > truth, in reality) | with right wisdom | should be seen (i.e., viewed).
                    >
                    > Intuitively, if each of the three demonstratives (even when predicative, as
                    > in `na eso aham asmi') were pointing back to vi~n~naa.na, couldn't the
                    > formula easily have read as follows (i.e., with nt. pronouns all the way
                    > through)?
                    >
                    > na eta.m mama, na eta.m aham asmi, na me eta.m attaa
                    >
                    > or in the affirmative sense (which, of course, is not our view):
                    >
                    > eta.m mama, eta.m aham asmi, eta.m me attaa
                    >
                    > But the formula doesn't read like this; and of course, it never changes, no
                    > matter what gender or number the previous subject-term might be. If a native
                    > Greek were to use this formula to refer back to subject-terms of differing
                    > gender and number, he or she would automatically and unthinkingly change the
                    > gender and number of the demonstrative pronouns to match. For a native
                    > speaker, it would be unthinkable to use one fixed formula � and with
                    > pronouns of mixed gender, what's more � in each and every different context.
                    > It would just sound `wrong'.
                    >
                    > Reflecting on this, there are probably at least a couple of possible
                    > (essentially historical) explanations for the unchanging form of this
                    > formula, in whatever context it occurs.
                    >
                    > But I also wonder, sometimes, whether there is an `internal logic' to the
                    > grammar of this formula. This is because `atta.m' is masc. (with stem in
                    > `an'). `Aha.m', as the first personal pronoun, is, if taken purely as a
                    > pronoun, not gendered; but if it were nominalised (e.g., as something to be
                    > referred to, discussed, analysed, etc.), then wouldn't it be treated as a
                    > noun with the same stem as `atta.m', and therefore masc.? Is it at all
                    > conceivable, I wonder, and is it grammatically possible, that perhaps `eso'
                    > corresponds to `aham' in "na eso aham asmi", and that `eso' corresponds to
                    > `atta.m' in "na me eso atta.m"? If so, then these could be translated: "I am
                    > (asmi) not this `I'", and "This self is not of me (mine)", respectively? In
                    > this case, the `I' that `I am not' is the one identified with the khandhaa,
                    > etc.; and the `self' that is not `of me' is again the one identified with
                    > the khandhaa, etc.
                    >
                    > Please don't misunderstand me, here, however: I'm definitely not suggesting
                    > that there is another `I' or `self' entity separate from the khandhaa. By no
                    > means: the suttaani are unambiguous on this point. Rather, the point is that
                    > if we completely drop every sense of `I' and `self' that is identified with
                    > anything at all, there is still `something' left over, so to speak, but the
                    > terms `I' and `self' can no longer be used for `it', because the terms `I'
                    > and `self' have no sense or reference unless we attach them to something
                    > that we can think or perceive or feel, etc. But if we refuse to attach them
                    > to any phenomenon whatsoever, their sense undergoes a radical and
                    > fundamental transformation, because they can no longer `point' to anything,
                    > and yet, `something', which is not any `thing', can still `use them' (in the
                    > loka-vohaara-attha).
                    >
                    > I suppose you may think this is a very foolish reading, and I don't mind at
                    > all of you think so and say so. I find it very helpful to test all
                    > possibilities, as long as I think that they are logically and intuitively
                    > possible, plausible, and meaningful.
                    >
                    > Very respectfully,
                    > with deep metta,
                    >
                    > Khristos
                    >
                    > --- In Pali@yahoogroups.com <Pali%40yahoogroups.com>, Nina van Gorkom
                    > <vangorko@...> wrote:
                    > >
                    > > Dear Khristos,
                    > > You remarked this very well.
                    > >
                    > > Op 28-jun-2010, om 2:50 heeft Khristos Nizamis het volgende geschreven:
                    > >
                    > > > neta.m mama, nesoham asmi, na meso attaa
                    > > >
                    > > > which I read:
                    > > >
                    > > > na eta.m mama, na eso aham asmi, na me eso attaa
                    > > >
                    > > > I take 'eta.m' in the first clause to be the nom. neut. sg.
                    > > > demonstrative
                    > > > pronoun (nom. because 'eta.m' should be the subject of the clause);
                    > > > 'eso' in
                    > > > the second and third clauses to be nom. masc. sg.
                    > > >
                    > > > If this is correct, then my question follows. Would someone be
                    > > > willing to
                    > > > share with me their understanding of why the gender of the
                    > > > demonstrative
                    > > > pronoun alters between the first and the other clauses?
                    > > -----------
                    > > N: Let us analyse this without the negative.
                    > > > 1. eta.m mama,
                    > >
                    > > > 2. esoham asmi,
                    > >
                    > > > 3.eso me attaa
                    > >
                    > > 1 represents tanhaa, clinging. 2 represents conceit. 3 represents
                    > > di.t.thi.
                    > > As to 1: clinging appropriates something as its property. This
                    > > (eta.m) belongs to me.
                    > >
                    > > 2: in the case of conceit one considers oneself as better, equal or
                    > > less and one clings to the importance of oneself. I am thus or thus.
                    > > This am I. Eso aham asmi. Eso is predicative.
                    > >
                    > > 3: 'I am' stands for a self view. One identifies oneself with the
                    > > five khandhas.
                    > >
                    > > Conceit is different from wrong view. The person who has reached the
                    > > first stage of enlightenment eradicates wrong view, but not conceit.
                    > > Only the arahat has eradicated conceit, maana.
                    > > Nina.
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    > >
                    >
                    > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    >
                    >
                    >


                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  • Магуба
                    Dear friends, Could it be that second and third clause are referring to the same object but as more general term like khandha or dhamma (in the sense of
                    Message 9 of 26 , Jun 30, 2010
                      Dear friends,

                      Could it be that second and third clause are referring to the same object but as more general term like khandha or dhamma (in the sense of "phenomenon") ?
                      Thus it would be something like: "This [thing, f.e. ruupa or viññaa.na - nt.] is not mine. I am not this [khandha or dhamma - masc.]. It [lit. "he" because it's masculine] is not myself".

                      Metta,
                      Ardavarz

                      --- On Wed, 6/30/10, Lennart Lopin <novalis78@...> wrote:

                      From: Lennart Lopin <novalis78@...>
                      Subject: Re: [Pali] Re: About 'neta.m mama, nesoham asmi, na meso attaa'ti
                      To: Pali@yahoogroups.com
                      Date: Wednesday, June 30, 2010, 7:09 PM

                      Hi Bryan,

                      Your suggestion works pretty well in German too. If I take the "etam" to
                      reference back to "rupam...vinnyanam" but then see the eso as referring to
                      the speaker himself, he could put that into the nom. masc.:

                      "Nicht* ist das mein, Nicht dieser (! or: ein solcher) bin ich, Nicht dieser
                      (or: ein solcher) ist mein Ich."

                      But you are almost denoting or intending a meaning like "my self (or a self)
                      is not (or cannot be) of such nature"... This would fit into the Buddha's
                      question and answer method in many those instances where we see this phrase
                      being used, where the argument is that all these characteristics (like
                      having no control over it, suffering through it) disqualify the item from
                      being the self.


                      metta,

                      Lennart

                      PS: *I put the "not" in front as suggested by Ven. Nyanavira
                      (link<http://www.nanavira.110mb.com/sn-mama.htm>
                      )


                      On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 9:15 AM, Bryan Levman <bryan.levman@...>wrote:

                      >
                      >
                      > Dear Khristos,
                      >
                      > Grammatically, as you have suggested, eso in the third statement modifies
                      > attaa, ("This self is not mine") so the form is correct. The second
                      > statement is usually translated something like "This I am not", but if is
                      > were translated "This self (eso aham), I am not (na... asmi)", then eso
                      > would be correct, as "aham" would default to a first person masculine
                      > pronoun (although it could be feminine as well, depending on the speaker,
                      > but in this case the speaker is always masculine). So I think that is the
                      > solution to your grammatical problem. As you say, in Pali as in Greek, the
                      > adjectives/pronouns must agree with the noun to which they refer,
                      >
                      > Metta,
                      >
                      > Bryan
                      >
                      > ________________________________
                      > From: k_nizamis <nizamisk@... <nizamisk%40gmail.com>>
                      > To: Pali@yahoogroups.com <Pali%40yahoogroups.com>
                      > Sent: Tue, June 29, 2010 8:57:20 PM
                      > Subject: [Pali] Re: About 'neta.m mama, nesoham asmi, na meso attaa'ti
                      >
                      >
                      > Hi Nina,
                      >
                      > thank you very much for taking the time to provide a response to my
                      > question. I feel that your answer is a very good one, from a doctrinal and
                      > theoretical point of view. And it clearly accords with the teachings and
                      > concepts that are so strongly evident and so important in the Sutta Pi.taka.
                      > I agree with your understanding of the general or applied meaning of each
                      > clause in terms of ta.nhaa, maana, and di.t.thi. This is clearly a good and
                      > correct reading of the doctrinal sense of each clause. So, I'm satisfied at
                      > this intuitive doctrinal/theoretical level.
                      >
                      > Yet, please be patient with me a moment more, because I'm not yet
                      > completely satisfied with the explanation at an intuitive linguistic level.
                      > I'm still trying to understand the `sense' of the one nt. nom. sg. and the
                      > two masc. nom. sg. demonstrative pronouns in this formula.
                      >
                      > Before I began to study the Paa.li texts directly, I had always assumed
                      > that, in the English translations of this formula, which is usually along
                      > the lines of "This is not mine, this is not what I am, this is not my self",
                      > the demonstrative pronoun `this' referred back identically to the same
                      > subject-term, be it `form', `feeling', `perception', `mental formations',
                      > `consciousness', or whatever. But once I began to study the Paa.li texts, I
                      > was surprised to find that what in English seems to be one and the same
                      > pronoun, "this . . . this . . . this", is, in Paa.li, "eta.m . . . eso . . .
                      > eso". Intuitively, to me, this means that `eso' is not referring to the same
                      > term that eta.m is referring to, since `eso' is masc. nom. sg. and `eta.m'
                      > is nt. nom. sg. (in this context).
                      >
                      > Suppose that this formula has just been applied to one of the
                      > pa~ncakkhandhaa: take vi~n~naa.na, for example, which is a nt. noun. In
                      > English, which has no gendered nouns and pronouns, it sounds as if, in the
                      > formula "This is not mine, this is not what I am, this is not my self", the
                      > pronoun `this' refers in each instance to vi~n~naa.na. But in Paa.li, it
                      > doesn't look like that at all, because vi~n~naa.na is nt., but only the
                      > first pronoun is nt.
                      >
                      > As a kind of intuitive experiment, I tried translating the `neta.m mama...'
                      > formula into Greek (I'm of Greek background, you see) because, as in Paa.li,
                      > Greek nouns and pronouns are gendered and it's a highly inflected language.
                      > I used a nt. pronoun in the 1st clause, and masc. pronouns in the 2nd and
                      > 3rd clauses. When I did this, the sentence felt rather odd, and especially
                      > so if I placed it into the context where it followed after, and referred
                      > back to, well, pretty much any other term, no matter what gender . . . as
                      > long as I assumed that the demonstrative pronouns were supposed to be
                      > referring back to that term. In the Greek, at least, it's sort of just
                      > possible that a neuter demonstrative might be used (a bit loosely) to refer
                      > back to a masc., fem., or nt. subject, but definitely not a masc. pronoun!
                      > It sounds wacky.
                      >
                      > May I include a textual sample here? There are numerous possible examples,
                      > as you know, and very many of them are applied to the pa~ncakkhandhaa,
                      > although not always just to these. I've chosen, pretty much at random, a
                      > passage from SN III.1.2.1.7 Anattalakkha.na Sutta, also known as
                      > Pa~ncavaggiya Sutta, etc. (22.59; PTS S iii.66).
                      >
                      > The following complex sentence occurs virtually identically (with only
                      > minor necessary grammatical changes) for each one of the pa~ncakkhandhaa,
                      > but I have chosen the sentence dealing with vi~n~naa.na as a
                      > representative sample.
                      >
                      > It's worth noting, however, that since each of the khandha is, in turn, the
                      > main subject of this larger sentence pattern, this means that the gender of
                      > the subject changes: ruupa (nt.), vedanaa (f.), sa~n~naa (f.), sa"nkhaaraa
                      > (m. pl.), vi~n~naa.na (nt.). Note that only one of these terms is
                      > masculine (and is plural). But the formula `neta.m mama, nesohamasmi, na
                      > meso attaa'ti does not alter to accommodate these grammatical changes in the
                      > gender of the respective subject-terms (and as far as I can see, it seems
                      > never to alter in any context, anywhere in the suttaani: it is like a
                      > permanently fixed formula, which is perhaps an interesting clue).
                      >
                      > The passage (sentence) reads as follows:
                      >
                      > Ya.m ki~nci | vi~n~naa.na.m | atiita-anaagata-paccuppanna.m | ajjhatta.m
                      > vaa bahiddhaa vaa | o.laarika.m vaa sukhuma.m vaa | hiina.m vaa pa.niita.m
                      > vaa | ya.m duure santike vaa, | sabba.m | vi~n~naa.na.m | `neta.m mama
                      > nesohamasmi na meso attaa'ti | evam | eta.m | yatthaabhuuta.m |
                      > sammappa~n~naaya | da.t.thabba.m
                      >
                      > Whatsoever | consciousness | gone by – not yet come – having arisen (i.e.,
                      > past, future, present) | internal or external | gross or subtle | inferior
                      > or sublime | which (is) distant or present, | all | consciousness | `not
                      > this (nt.) mine, not this (m.) I am, not of me this (m.) self' | thus | this
                      > (nt.) | just as it has come to be (i.e., in truth, in reality) | with right
                      > wisdom | should be seen (i.e., viewed).
                      >
                      > I'd like to focus just on this part:
                      >
                      > sabba.m | vi~n~naa.na.m | `neta.m mama nesohamasmi na meso attaa'ti | evam
                      > | eta.m | yatthaabhuuta.m | sammappa~n~naaya | da.t.thabba.m
                      >
                      > All | consciousness | `not this (nt.) mine, not this (m.) I am, not of me
                      > this (m.) self' | thus | this (nt.) | just as it has come to be (i.e., in
                      > truth, in reality) | with right wisdom | should be seen (i.e., viewed).
                      >
                      > Intuitively, if each of the three demonstratives (even when predicative, as
                      > in `na eso aham asmi') were pointing back to vi~n~naa.na, couldn't the
                      > formula easily have read as follows (i.e., with nt. pronouns all the way
                      > through)?
                      >
                      > na eta.m mama, na eta.m aham asmi, na me eta.m attaa
                      >
                      > or in the affirmative sense (which, of course, is not our view):
                      >
                      > eta.m mama, eta.m aham asmi, eta.m me attaa
                      >
                      > But the formula doesn't read like this; and of course, it never changes, no
                      > matter what gender or number the previous subject-term might be. If a native
                      > Greek were to use this formula to refer back to subject-terms of differing
                      > gender and number, he or she would automatically and unthinkingly change the
                      > gender and number of the demonstrative pronouns to match. For a native
                      > speaker, it would be unthinkable to use one fixed formula – and with
                      > pronouns of mixed gender, what's more – in each and every different context.
                      > It would just sound `wrong'.
                      >
                      > Reflecting on this, there are probably at least a couple of possible
                      > (essentially historical) explanations for the unchanging form of this
                      > formula, in whatever context it occurs.
                      >
                      > But I also wonder, sometimes, whether there is an `internal logic' to the
                      > grammar of this formula. This is because `atta.m' is masc. (with stem in
                      > `an'). `Aha.m', as the first personal pronoun, is, if taken purely as a
                      > pronoun, not gendered; but if it were nominalised (e.g., as something to be
                      > referred to, discussed, analysed, etc.), then wouldn't it be treated as a
                      > noun with the same stem as `atta.m', and therefore masc.? Is it at all
                      > conceivable, I wonder, and is it grammatically possible, that perhaps `eso'
                      > corresponds to `aham' in "na eso aham asmi", and that `eso' corresponds to
                      > `atta.m' in "na me eso atta.m"? If so, then these could be translated: "I am
                      > (asmi) not this `I'", and "This self is not of me (mine)", respectively? In
                      > this case, the `I' that `I am not' is the one identified with the khandhaa,
                      > etc.; and the `self' that is not `of me' is again the one identified with
                      > the khandhaa, etc.
                      >
                      > Please don't misunderstand me, here, however: I'm definitely not suggesting
                      > that there is another `I' or `self' entity separate from the khandhaa. By no
                      > means: the suttaani are unambiguous on this point. Rather, the point is that
                      > if we completely drop every sense of `I' and `self' that is identified with
                      > anything at all, there is still `something' left over, so to speak, but the
                      > terms `I' and `self' can no longer be used for `it', because the terms `I'
                      > and `self' have no sense or reference unless we attach them to something
                      > that we can think or perceive or feel, etc. But if we refuse to attach them
                      > to any phenomenon whatsoever, their sense undergoes a radical and
                      > fundamental transformation, because they can no longer `point' to anything,
                      > and yet, `something', which is not any `thing', can still `use them' (in the
                      > loka-vohaara-attha).
                      >
                      > I suppose you may think this is a very foolish reading, and I don't mind at
                      > all of you think so and say so. I find it very helpful to test all
                      > possibilities, as long as I think that they are logically and intuitively
                      > possible, plausible, and meaningful.
                      >
                      > Very respectfully,
                      > with deep metta,
                      >
                      > Khristos
                      >
                      > --- In Pali@yahoogroups.com <Pali%40yahoogroups.com>, Nina van Gorkom
                      > <vangorko@...> wrote:
                      > >
                      > > Dear Khristos,
                      > > You remarked this very well.
                      > >
                      > > Op 28-jun-2010, om 2:50 heeft Khristos Nizamis het volgende geschreven:
                      > >
                      > > > neta.m mama, nesoham asmi, na meso attaa
                      > > >
                      > > > which I read:
                      > > >
                      > > > na eta.m mama, na eso aham asmi, na me eso attaa
                      > > >
                      > > > I take 'eta.m' in the first clause to be the nom. neut. sg.
                      > > > demonstrative
                      > > > pronoun (nom. because 'eta.m' should be the subject of the clause);
                      > > > 'eso' in
                      > > > the second and third clauses to be nom. masc. sg.
                      > > >
                      > > > If this is correct, then my question follows. Would someone be
                      > > > willing to
                      > > > share with me their understanding of why the gender of the
                      > > > demonstrative
                      > > > pronoun alters between the first and the other clauses?
                      > > -----------
                      > > N: Let us analyse this without the negative.
                      > > > 1. eta.m mama,
                      > >
                      > > > 2. esoham asmi,
                      > >
                      > > > 3.eso me attaa
                      > >
                      > > 1 represents tanhaa, clinging. 2 represents conceit. 3 represents
                      > > di.t.thi.
                      > > As to 1: clinging appropriates something as its property. This
                      > > (eta.m) belongs to me.
                      > >
                      > > 2: in the case of conceit one considers oneself as better, equal or
                      > > less and one clings to the importance of oneself. I am thus or thus.
                      > > This am I. Eso aham asmi. Eso is predicative.
                      > >
                      > > 3: 'I am' stands for a self view. One identifies oneself with the
                      > > five khandhas.
                      > >
                      > > Conceit is different from wrong view. The person who has reached the
                      > > first stage of enlightenment eradicates wrong view, but not conceit.
                      > > Only the arahat has eradicated conceit, maana.
                      > > Nina.
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      > >
                      >
                      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      >

                      >


                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



                      ------------------------------------

                      - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                      Paa.li-Parisaa - The Pali Collective
                      [Homepage] http://www.tipitaka.net
                      [Pali Document Framework] http://www.tipitaka.net/forge/pdf/
                      [Files] http://www.geocities.com/paligroup/
                      [Send Message] pali@yahoogroups.com
                      Yahoo! Groups members can set their delivery options to daily digest or web only.Yahoo! Groups Links








                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    • Bryan Levman
                      Hi Lennart, Yes it s very similar; if one used the noun Selbst for the third part,I
                      Message 10 of 26 , Jun 30, 2010
                        Hi Lennart,

                        Yes it's very similar; if one used the noun Selbst for the third part,I presume it would read "Das (dieses) is nicht mein Selbst", changing to Das because Selbst is neuter. What do you think? (I'm not a native speaker, so that might be too awkward in German).

                        Metta,

                        Bryan





                        ________________________________
                        From: Lennart Lopin <novalis78@...>
                        To: Pali@yahoogroups.com
                        Sent: Wed, June 30, 2010 9:09:43 AM
                        Subject: Re: [Pali] Re: About 'neta.m mama, nesoham asmi, na meso attaa'ti

                        Hi Bryan,

                        Your suggestion works pretty well in German too. If I take the "etam" to
                        reference back to "rupam...vinnyanam" but then see the eso as referring to
                        the speaker himself, he could put that into the nom. masc.:

                        "Nicht* ist das mein, Nicht dieser (! or: ein solcher) bin ich, Nicht dieser
                        (or: ein solcher) ist mein Ich."

                        But you are almost denoting or intending a meaning like "my self (or a self)
                        is not (or cannot be) of such nature"... This would fit into the Buddha's
                        question and answer method in many those instances where we see this phrase
                        being used, where the argument is that all these characteristics (like
                        having no control over it, suffering through it) disqualify the item from
                        being the self.


                        metta,

                        Lennart

                        PS: *I put the "not" in front as suggested by Ven. Nyanavira
                        (link<http://www.nanavira.110mb.com/sn-mama.htm>
                        )


                        On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 9:15 AM, Bryan Levman <bryan.levman@...>wrote:

                        >
                        >
                        > Dear Khristos,
                        >
                        > Grammatically, as you have suggested, eso in the third statement modifies
                        > attaa, ("This self is not mine") so the form is correct. The second
                        > statement is usually translated something like "This I am not", but if is
                        > were translated "This self (eso aham), I am not (na... asmi)", then eso
                        > would be correct, as "aham" would default to a first person masculine
                        > pronoun (although it could be feminine as well, depending on the speaker,
                        > but in this case the speaker is always masculine). So I think that is the
                        > solution to your grammatical problem. As you say, in Pali as in Greek, the
                        > adjectives/pronouns must agree with the noun to which they refer,
                        >
                        > Metta,
                        >
                        > Bryan
                        >
                        > ________________________________
                        > From: k_nizamis <nizamisk@... <nizamisk%40gmail.com>>
                        > To: Pali@yahoogroups.com <Pali%40yahoogroups.com>
                        > Sent: Tue, June 29, 2010 8:57:20 PM
                        > Subject: [Pali] Re: About 'neta.m mama, nesoham asmi, na meso attaa'ti
                        >
                        >
                        > Hi Nina,
                        >
                        > thank you very much for taking the time to provide a response to my
                        > question. I feel that your answer is a very good one, from a doctrinal and
                        > theoretical point of view. And it clearly accords with the teachings and
                        > concepts that are so strongly evident and so important in the Sutta Pi.taka.
                        > I agree with your understanding of the general or applied meaning of each
                        > clause in terms of ta.nhaa, maana, and di.t.thi. This is clearly a good and
                        > correct reading of the doctrinal sense of each clause. So, I'm satisfied at
                        > this intuitive doctrinal/theoretical level.
                        >
                        > Yet, please be patient with me a moment more, because I'm not yet
                        > completely satisfied with the explanation at an intuitive linguistic level.
                        > I'm still trying to understand the `sense' of the one nt. nom. sg. and the
                        > two masc. nom. sg. demonstrative pronouns in this formula.
                        >
                        > Before I began to study the Paa.li texts directly, I had always assumed
                        > that, in the English translations of this formula, which is usually along
                        > the lines of "This is not mine, this is not what I am, this is not my self",
                        > the demonstrative pronoun `this' referred back identically to the same
                        > subject-term, be it `form', `feeling', `perception', `mental formations',
                        > `consciousness', or whatever. But once I began to study the Paa.li texts, I
                        > was surprised to find that what in English seems to be one and the same
                        > pronoun, "this . . . this . . . this", is, in Paa.li, "eta.m . . . eso . . .
                        > eso". Intuitively, to me, this means that `eso' is not referring to the same
                        > term that eta.m is referring to, since `eso' is masc. nom. sg. and `eta.m'
                        > is nt. nom. sg. (in this context).
                        >
                        > Suppose that this formula has just been applied to one of the
                        > pa~ncakkhandhaa: take vi~n~naa.na, for example, which is a nt. noun. In
                        > English, which has no gendered nouns and pronouns, it sounds as if, in the
                        > formula "This is not mine, this is not what I am, this is not my self", the
                        > pronoun `this' refers in each instance to vi~n~naa.na. But in Paa.li, it
                        > doesn't look like that at all, because vi~n~naa.na is nt., but only the
                        > first pronoun is nt.
                        >
                        > As a kind of intuitive experiment, I tried translating the `neta.m mama...'
                        > formula into Greek (I'm of Greek background, you see) because, as in Paa.li,
                        > Greek nouns and pronouns are gendered and it's a highly inflected language.
                        > I used a nt. pronoun in the 1st clause, and masc. pronouns in the 2nd and
                        > 3rd clauses. When I did this, the sentence felt rather odd, and especially
                        > so if I placed it into the context where it followed after, and referred
                        > back to, well, pretty much any other term, no matter what gender . . . as
                        > long as I assumed that the demonstrative pronouns were supposed to be
                        > referring back to that term. In the Greek, at least, it's sort of just
                        > possible that a neuter demonstrative might be used (a bit loosely) to refer
                        > back to a masc., fem., or nt. subject, but definitely not a masc. pronoun!
                        > It sounds wacky.
                        >
                        > May I include a textual sample here? There are numerous possible examples,
                        > as you know, and very many of them are applied to the pa~ncakkhandhaa,
                        > although not always just to these. I've chosen, pretty much at random, a
                        > passage from SN III.1.2.1.7 Anattalakkha.na Sutta, also known as
                        > Pa~ncavaggiya Sutta, etc. (22.59; PTS S iii.66).
                        >
                        > The following complex sentence occurs virtually identically (with only
                        > minor necessary grammatical changes) for each one of the pa~ncakkhandhaa,
                        > but I have chosen the sentence dealing with vi~n~naa.na as a
                        > representative sample.
                        >
                        > It's worth noting, however, that since each of the khandha is, in turn, the
                        > main subject of this larger sentence pattern, this means that the gender of
                        > the subject changes: ruupa (nt.), vedanaa (f.), sa~n~naa (f.), sa"nkhaaraa
                        > (m. pl.), vi~n~naa.na (nt.). Note that only one of these terms is
                        > masculine (and is plural). But the formula `neta.m mama, nesohamasmi, na
                        > meso attaa'ti does not alter to accommodate these grammatical changes in the
                        > gender of the respective subject-terms (and as far as I can see, it seems
                        > never to alter in any context, anywhere in the suttaani: it is like a
                        > permanently fixed formula, which is perhaps an interesting clue).
                        >
                        > The passage (sentence) reads as follows:
                        >
                        > Ya.m ki~nci | vi~n~naa.na.m | atiita-anaagata-paccuppanna.m | ajjhatta.m
                        > vaa bahiddhaa vaa | o.laarika.m vaa sukhuma.m vaa | hiina.m vaa pa.niita.m
                        > vaa | ya.m duure santike vaa, | sabba.m | vi~n~naa.na.m | `neta.m mama
                        > nesohamasmi na meso attaa'ti | evam | eta.m | yatthaabhuuta.m |
                        > sammappa~n~naaya | da.t.thabba.m
                        >
                        > Whatsoever | consciousness | gone by – not yet come – having arisen (i.e.,
                        > past, future, present) | internal or external | gross or subtle | inferior
                        > or sublime | which (is) distant or present, | all | consciousness | `not
                        > this (nt.) mine, not this (m.) I am, not of me this (m.) self' | thus | this
                        > (nt.) | just as it has come to be (i.e., in truth, in reality) | with right
                        > wisdom | should be seen (i.e., viewed).
                        >
                        > I'd like to focus just on this part:
                        >
                        > sabba.m | vi~n~naa.na.m | `neta.m mama nesohamasmi na meso attaa'ti | evam
                        > | eta.m | yatthaabhuuta.m | sammappa~n~naaya | da.t.thabba.m
                        >
                        > All | consciousness | `not this (nt.) mine, not this (m.) I am, not of me
                        > this (m.) self' | thus | this (nt.) | just as it has come to be (i.e., in
                        > truth, in reality) | with right wisdom | should be seen (i.e., viewed).
                        >
                        > Intuitively, if each of the three demonstratives (even when predicative, as
                        > in `na eso aham asmi') were pointing back to vi~n~naa.na, couldn't the
                        > formula easily have read as follows (i.e., with nt. pronouns all the way
                        > through)?
                        >
                        > na eta.m mama, na eta.m aham asmi, na me eta.m attaa
                        >
                        > or in the affirmative sense (which, of course, is not our view):
                        >
                        > eta.m mama, eta.m aham asmi, eta.m me attaa
                        >
                        > But the formula doesn't read like this; and of course, it never changes, no
                        > matter what gender or number the previous subject-term might be. If a native
                        > Greek were to use this formula to refer back to subject-terms of differing
                        > gender and number, he or she would automatically and unthinkingly change the
                        > gender and number of the demonstrative pronouns to match. For a native
                        > speaker, it would be unthinkable to use one fixed formula – and with
                        > pronouns of mixed gender, what's more – in each and every different context.
                        > It would just sound `wrong'.
                        >
                        > Reflecting on this, there are probably at least a couple of possible
                        > (essentially historical) explanations for the unchanging form of this
                        > formula, in whatever context it occurs.
                        >
                        > But I also wonder, sometimes, whether there is an `internal logic' to the
                        > grammar of this formula. This is because `atta.m' is masc. (with stem in
                        > `an'). `Aha.m', as the first personal pronoun, is, if taken purely as a
                        > pronoun, not gendered; but if it were nominalised (e.g., as something to be
                        > referred to, discussed, analysed, etc.), then wouldn't it be treated as a
                        > noun with the same stem as `atta.m', and therefore masc.? Is it at all
                        > conceivable, I wonder, and is it grammatically possible, that perhaps `eso'
                        > corresponds to `aham' in "na eso aham asmi", and that `eso' corresponds to
                        > `atta.m' in "na me eso atta.m"? If so, then these could be translated: "I am
                        > (asmi) not this `I'", and "This self is not of me (mine)", respectively? In
                        > this case, the `I' that `I am not' is the one identified with the khandhaa,
                        > etc.; and the `self' that is not `of me' is again the one identified with
                        > the khandhaa, etc.
                        >
                        > Please don't misunderstand me, here, however: I'm definitely not suggesting
                        > that there is another `I' or `self' entity separate from the khandhaa. By no
                        > means: the suttaani are unambiguous on this point. Rather, the point is that
                        > if we completely drop every sense of `I' and `self' that is identified with
                        > anything at all, there is still `something' left over, so to speak, but the
                        > terms `I' and `self' can no longer be used for `it', because the terms `I'
                        > and `self' have no sense or reference unless we attach them to something
                        > that we can think or perceive or feel, etc. But if we refuse to attach them
                        > to any phenomenon whatsoever, their sense undergoes a radical and
                        > fundamental transformation, because they can no longer `point' to anything,
                        > and yet, `something', which is not any `thing', can still `use them' (in the
                        > loka-vohaara-attha).
                        >
                        > I suppose you may think this is a very foolish reading, and I don't mind at
                        > all of you think so and say so. I find it very helpful to test all
                        > possibilities, as long as I think that they are logically and intuitively
                        > possible, plausible, and meaningful.
                        >
                        > Very respectfully,
                        > with deep metta,
                        >
                        > Khristos
                        >
                        > --- In Pali@yahoogroups.com <Pali%40yahoogroups.com>, Nina van Gorkom
                        > <vangorko@...> wrote:
                        > >
                        > > Dear Khristos,
                        > > You remarked this very well.
                        > >
                        > > Op 28-jun-2010, om 2:50 heeft Khristos Nizamis het volgende geschreven:
                        > >
                        > > > neta.m mama, nesoham asmi, na meso attaa
                        > > >
                        > > > which I read:
                        > > >
                        > > > na eta.m mama, na eso aham asmi, na me eso attaa
                        > > >
                        > > > I take 'eta.m' in the first clause to be the nom. neut. sg.
                        > > > demonstrative
                        > > > pronoun (nom. because 'eta.m' should be the subject of the clause);
                        > > > 'eso' in
                        > > > the second and third clauses to be nom. masc. sg.
                        > > >
                        > > > If this is correct, then my question follows. Would someone be
                        > > > willing to
                        > > > share with me their understanding of why the gender of the
                        > > > demonstrative
                        > > > pronoun alters between the first and the other clauses?
                        > > -----------
                        > > N: Let us analyse this without the negative.
                        > > > 1. eta.m mama,
                        > >
                        > > > 2. esoham asmi,
                        > >
                        > > > 3.eso me attaa
                        > >
                        > > 1 represents tanhaa, clinging. 2 represents conceit. 3 represents
                        > > di.t.thi.
                        > > As to 1: clinging appropriates something as its property. This
                        > > (eta.m) belongs to me.
                        > >
                        > > 2: in the case of conceit one considers oneself as better, equal or
                        > > less and one clings to the importance of oneself. I am thus or thus.
                        > > This am I. Eso aham asmi. Eso is predicative.
                        > >
                        > > 3: 'I am' stands for a self view. One identifies oneself with the
                        > > five khandhas.
                        > >
                        > > Conceit is different from wrong view. The person who has reached the
                        > > first stage of enlightenment eradicates wrong view, but not conceit.
                        > > Only the arahat has eradicated conceit, maana.
                        > > Nina.
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        > >
                        >
                        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        >
                        >
                        >


                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



                        ------------------------------------

                        - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                        Paa.li-Parisaa - The Pali Collective
                        [Homepage] http://www.tipitaka.net
                        [Pali Document Framework] http://www.tipitaka.net/forge/pdf/
                        [Files] http://www.geocities.com/paligroup/
                        [Send Message] pali@yahoogroups.com
                        Yahoo! Groups members can set their delivery options to daily digest or web only.Yahoo! Groups Links





                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      • Lennart Lopin
                        Hi Bryan, Yes, that is exactly correct. Unfortunately, in German too, the Self is neuter...and so it sounds again exactly like in the English translation (if
                        Message 11 of 26 , Jun 30, 2010
                          Hi Bryan,

                          Yes, that is exactly correct. Unfortunately, in German too, the Self is
                          neuter...and so it sounds again exactly like in the English translation (if
                          one uses 'Selbst') so it would read "*Das *ist nicht mein, *Das *ist nicht
                          mein Selbst". The distinction is much more obvious in Pali/German or any
                          other inflected language if I'd say

                          "*Das *ist nicht mein (neuter nom.) - na etam mama. Here I am clearly
                          pointing back to the list of items...

                          Ich bin *dieser *nicht (masc nom) - na eso aham asmi [but in German, if you
                          do it that way, it sounds more like: I am not such a one, I am not thus ->
                          "so whatever I might be, I am definitely not thus". Which does not mean you
                          believe in a soul outside of what you observe, you just make a rational
                          observation of what you definitely cannot be from the view point of
                          self-delusion]

                          Nicht *dieser *(ist) mein Seelenkern (masc nom) - na eso me atta - Here too
                          it sounds as if I want to say something like "not of such a nature is my
                          soul or rather "not of such a nature can my soul be".

                          Sounds overall a little bit more like the emphatic semantics of etad are
                          used here "not such (a one) I am" - "not such is my self". Maybe the Pali
                          demonstrative pronoun expresses such a shade of meaning here.

                          metta,

                          Lennart


                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        • Lennart Lopin
                          forgot: http://perseus.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getobject.pl?c.1:5:3:2.perseusmonographs
                          Message 12 of 26 , Jun 30, 2010
                            forgot:

                            http://perseus.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getobject.pl?c.1:5:3:2.perseusmonographs

                            <http://perseus.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getobject.pl?c.1:5:3:2.perseusmonographs>says
                            the same :-)

                            On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 5:51 PM, Lennart Lopin <lenni_lop@...> wrote:

                            > Hi Bryan,
                            >
                            > Yes, that is exactly correct. Unfortunately, in German too, the Self is
                            > neuter...and so it sounds again exactly like in the English translation (if
                            > one uses 'Selbst') so it would read "*Das *ist nicht mein, *Das *ist nicht
                            > mein Selbst". The distinction is much more obvious in Pali/German or any
                            > other inflected language if I'd say
                            >
                            > "*Das *ist nicht mein (neuter nom.) - na etam mama. Here I am clearly
                            > pointing back to the list of items...
                            >
                            > Ich bin *dieser *nicht (masc nom) - na eso aham asmi [but in German, if
                            > you do it that way, it sounds more like: I am not such a one, I am not thus
                            > -> "so whatever I might be, I am definitely not thus". Which does not mean
                            > you believe in a soul outside of what you observe, you just make a rational
                            > observation of what you definitely cannot be from the view point of
                            > self-delusion]
                            >
                            > Nicht *dieser *(ist) mein Seelenkern (masc nom) - na eso me atta - Here
                            > too it sounds as if I want to say something like "not of such a nature is my
                            > soul or rather "not of such a nature can my soul be".
                            >
                            > Sounds overall a little bit more like the emphatic semantics of etad are
                            > used here "not such (a one) I am" - "not such is my self". Maybe the Pali
                            > demonstrative pronoun expresses such a shade of meaning here.
                            >
                            > metta,
                            >
                            > Lennart
                            >


                            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          • Bryan Levman
                            Thanks very much, Lennart for your observations and comments; the phrase seems to make sense now, at least to me, Metta, Bryan ________________________________
                            Message 13 of 26 , Jun 30, 2010
                              Thanks very much, Lennart for your observations and comments; the phrase seems to make sense now, at least to me,

                              Metta, Bryan







                              ________________________________
                              From: Lennart Lopin <novalis78@...>
                              To: Pali@yahoogroups.com
                              Sent: Wed, June 30, 2010 2:51:52 PM
                              Subject: Re: [Pali] Re: About 'neta.m mama, nesoham asmi, na meso attaa'ti


                              Hi Bryan,

                              Yes, that is exactly correct. Unfortunately, in German too, the Self is
                              neuter...and so it sounds again exactly like in the English translation (if
                              one uses 'Selbst') so it would read "*Das *ist nicht mein, *Das *ist nicht
                              mein Selbst". The distinction is much more obvious in Pali/German or any
                              other inflected language if I'd say

                              "*Das *ist nicht mein (neuter nom.) - na etam mama. Here I am clearly
                              pointing back to the list of items...

                              Ich bin *dieser *nicht (masc nom) - na eso aham asmi [but in German, if you
                              do it that way, it sounds more like: I am not such a one, I am not thus ->
                              "so whatever I might be, I am definitely not thus". Which does not mean you
                              believe in a soul outside of what you observe, you just make a rational
                              observation of what you definitely cannot be from the view point of
                              self-delusion]

                              Nicht *dieser *(ist) mein Seelenkern (masc nom) - na eso me atta - Here too
                              it sounds as if I want to say something like "not of such a nature is my
                              soul or rather "not of such a nature can my soul be".

                              Sounds overall a little bit more like the emphatic semantics of etad are
                              used here "not such (a one) I am" - "not such is my self". Maybe the Pali
                              demonstrative pronoun expresses such a shade of meaning here.

                              metta,

                              Lennart

                              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]






                              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                            • Jim Anderson
                              Dear Khristos and all, I thought I d check a Pali commentary to see if there was any explanation for the difference of eta.m and eso in the formula and found
                              Message 14 of 26 , Jun 30, 2010
                                Dear Khristos and all,

                                I thought I'd check a Pali commentary to see if there was any
                                explanation for the difference of eta.m and eso in the formula and
                                found something in an old .tiikaa (Ps-p.t I 286 (Be)) that seems to
                                help clarify. From my search of the formula in the Suttantapi.taka,
                                the first occurence is found at M I 40 in the Sallekhasutta. The
                                a.t.thakathaa (Ps I 182-3) devotes about half a page to explaining the
                                formula including an explanation similar to Nina's earlier
                                explanation. I will focus primarily on the middle clause (nesohamasmi)
                                of the formula because it is the easiest one to deal with.

                                For "nesohamasmi", the a.t.thakathaa (Ps I 182) gives "ahampi eso na
                                asmi" which doesn't explain, at least to me, the change from eta.m in
                                the first clause to eso in the middle one. Now, the .tiikaa expands on
                                this with the following comment:

                                Ahampi eso na asmiiti eso pañcakkhandhapabhedo ahampi na asmi,
                                ahanti so gahetabbo na hotiiti attho. (Ps-p.t I 286 (Be))

                                I would translate "eso pañcakkhandhapabhedo ahampi na asmi," as "this
                                I, too, consisting of the five aggregates does not exist,". For the
                                last part, which is not so clear, I would suggest "the meaning is that
                                this "I" is not to be grasped." or perhaps "the meaning of 'aha.m'
                                is that it should not be grasped". So from these comments, one could
                                translate "nesohamasmi" as "this I does not exist" which is quite
                                different from saying "this I am not". For "eta.m" in the first
                                clause, the same .tiikaa gives "eta.m khandhapa~ncaka.m".

                                Best wishes,
                                Jim
                              • k_nizamis
                                Hello Jim, thanks very much for looking up and sharing this information, it s quite interesting, indeed. I ll give it some more thought. Just quickly, though,
                                Message 15 of 26 , Jun 30, 2010
                                  Hello Jim, thanks very much for looking up and sharing this information, it's quite interesting, indeed. I'll give it some more thought.

                                  Just quickly, though, "eso pañcakkhandhapabhedo ahampi na asmi" perhaps rather "This 'I' consisting of the five aggregates, I am not" (than 'does not exist', 'na atthi'), which would agree exactly with what we've been saying.

                                  Thank you also Lennart and Bryan for your thoughts (the German examples were very useful, too) and further references. Lennart's interpretation seems to be very close to the one I was suggesting, which is encouraging.

                                  respectfully, with metta
                                  Khristos






                                  --- In Pali@yahoogroups.com, "Jim Anderson" <jimanderson.on@...> wrote:
                                  >
                                  > Dear Khristos and all,
                                  >
                                  > I thought I'd check a Pali commentary to see if there was any
                                  > explanation for the difference of eta.m and eso in the formula and
                                  > found something in an old .tiikaa (Ps-p.t I 286 (Be)) that seems to
                                  > help clarify. From my search of the formula in the Suttantapi.taka,
                                  > the first occurence is found at M I 40 in the Sallekhasutta. The
                                  > a.t.thakathaa (Ps I 182-3) devotes about half a page to explaining the
                                  > formula including an explanation similar to Nina's earlier
                                  > explanation. I will focus primarily on the middle clause (nesohamasmi)
                                  > of the formula because it is the easiest one to deal with.
                                  >
                                  > For "nesohamasmi", the a.t.thakathaa (Ps I 182) gives "ahampi eso na
                                  > asmi" which doesn't explain, at least to me, the change from eta.m in
                                  > the first clause to eso in the middle one. Now, the .tiikaa expands on
                                  > this with the following comment:
                                  >
                                  > Ahampi eso na asmiiti eso pañcakkhandhapabhedo ahampi na asmi,
                                  > ahanti so gahetabbo na hotiiti attho. (Ps-p.t I 286 (Be))
                                  >
                                  > I would translate "eso pañcakkhandhapabhedo ahampi na asmi," as "this
                                  > I, too, consisting of the five aggregates does not exist,". For the
                                  > last part, which is not so clear, I would suggest "the meaning is that
                                  > this "I" is not to be grasped." or perhaps "the meaning of 'aha.m'
                                  > is that it should not be grasped". So from these comments, one could
                                  > translate "nesohamasmi" as "this I does not exist" which is quite
                                  > different from saying "this I am not". For "eta.m" in the first
                                  > clause, the same .tiikaa gives "eta.m khandhapa~ncaka.m".
                                  >
                                  > Best wishes,
                                  > Jim
                                  >
                                • Nina van Gorkom
                                  Dear Khristos and all, Thank you for your interesting observations. Khristos, I admire your keen observance, before I never gave this matter a thought. In fact
                                  Message 16 of 26 , Jul 1, 2010
                                    Dear Khristos and all,
                                    Thank you for your interesting observations.
                                    Khristos, I admire your keen observance, before I never gave this
                                    matter a thought. In fact your question makes me penetrate more
                                    deeply into the meaning of the text.
                                    For the sake of analysing I find it easier not to use the negation.
                                    The neuter eta.m as object of tanhaa can comprise so many things,
                                    even pa~n~nattis, which are not realities. Is it a solution to think
                                    of sabba.m? I cling to this or that, whatever appears. So, perhaps we
                                    can say that the neutre gender is sufficient, no need for another
                                    gender.
                                    'This is of me'.

                                    I consulted 'The Root of Existence', Bikkhu Bodhi's translation of
                                    the Muulapariyaaya Sutta , and in his intro he says: <The construct
                                    'this is mine' is a projection born of craving, for it is craving's
                                    function to appropriate things as the property of the self. >
                                    <Under the influence of conceit it becomes manifest in judgements and
                                    comparisons whereby we rank ourselves in relation to others as
                                    superior, equal of inferior. and under the influence of views, i.e.
                                    the theoretical bent of thought, the ego-bias issues in dogmas,
                                    tenets, and speculations concerning reality and nature of the
                                    personal self and its locus, the world.>

                                    N: As to conceit, esoham asmi, here the eso is correct, because one
                                    thinks of oneself to be thus or thus. I think of the 'I am conceit",
                                    asmi maana.
                                    As to the wrong view of self, one sees the self as controller (as
                                    Lennart mentioned), as possessor. For instance, one believes that
                                    there is a self who can at will induce the arising of Pa~n~naa.
                                    Whereas pa~n~naa is a cetasika that can only arise because of the
                                    appropriate conditions.
                                    Nina.

                                    Op 30-jun-2010, om 5:57 heeft k_nizamis het volgende geschreven:

                                    > Yet, please be patient with me a moment more, because I'm not yet
                                    > completely satisfied with the explanation at an intuitive
                                    > linguistic level. I'm still trying to understand the `sense' of the
                                    > one nt. nom. sg. and the two masc. nom. sg. demonstrative pronouns
                                    > in this formula.



                                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                  • Lennart Lopin
                                    Dear Jim, Now that is very interesting. Yesterday night, just by accident I was reading MN 5, Bhayabherava and came across this stock phrase: *Esāhaṃ
                                    Message 17 of 26 , Jul 1, 2010
                                      Dear Jim,

                                      Now that is very interesting. Yesterday night, just by "accident" I was
                                      reading MN 5, Bhayabherava and came across this stock phrase:

                                      *Esāhaṃ *bhavantaṃ gotamaṃ saraṇaṃ gacchāmi dhammañca bhikkhusaṅghañca.

                                      It seems that here too, eso is not used pointing back but to just emphasize
                                      the "I". "This me (= I ) takes refuge to the Ven. Gotama, the Dhamma and
                                      monk Sangha.

                                      So do we have to translate then:

                                      "That is not mine, I am not, I have no self" => where eso+aham would just
                                      mean its an emphasized "I" and so we are actually to read "na aham asmi" and
                                      "na me atta [atthi]"

                                      Jim, correct me if I am wrong, but that is how I understood it from the
                                      quotes you cited from the Commentaries.

                                      Much more straightforward however, still seems to be the simple explanation
                                      Bryan had suggested and also found in Latin:

                                      An adjective pronoun usually agrees with an appositive or predicate noun, if
                                      > there be one, rather than with the word to which it refers (cf. § cross<http://perseus.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getobject.pl?c.1:5:3:2.perseusmonographs>
                                      > 306):—

                                      hīc locus est ūnus quō perfugiant; *hīc* portus, *haec** *arx, *haec** *āra
                                      sociōrum (Verr. 5.126) , this is the only place to which they can flee for
                                      refuge; this is the haven, this the citadel, this the altar of the allies.

                                      [link<http://perseus.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getobject.pl?c.1:5:3:2.perseusmonographs>
                                      ]



                                      metta,

                                      Lennart


                                      I would translate "eso pañcakkhandhapabhedo ahampi na asmi," as "this
                                      > I, too, consisting of the five aggregates does not exist,". For the
                                      > last part, which is not so clear, I would suggest "the meaning is that
                                      > this "I" is not to be grasped." or perhaps "the meaning of 'aha.m'
                                      > is that it should not be grasped". So from these comments, one could
                                      > translate "nesohamasmi" as "this I does not exist" which is quite
                                      > different from saying "this I am not". For "eta.m" in the first
                                      > clause, the same .tiikaa gives "eta.m khandhapa~ncaka.m".
                                      >
                                      > Best wishes,
                                      > Jim
                                      >


                                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                    • Jim Anderson
                                      Dear Lennart, Yes, I have been thinking that the eso in nesohamasmi could be a pronoun pointing emphatically at aha.m which I think the .tiikaa passage
                                      Message 18 of 26 , Jul 1, 2010
                                        Dear Lennart,

                                        Yes, I have been thinking that the "eso" in "nesohamasmi" could be a
                                        pronoun pointing emphatically at "aha.m" which I think the .tiikaa
                                        passage I quoted may support if I've understood correctly. I could be
                                        wrong. I'm also looking at the other possibility: "I am not this"
                                        which has its problems too.

                                        On the pronoun used as an emphasizer, Warder has something on p. 29
                                        and gives "so 'ha.m" as an example. Also, CPD s.v. esa has something
                                        on its pleonastic use and gives "esaaha.m" as an example.

                                        Anyways, I still have some mulling over to do and re-reading some of
                                        the posts before I can get a clearer picture.

                                        Thanks for the Latin quote.

                                        Best wishes,
                                        Jim

                                        ----- Original Message -----
                                        From: "Lennart Lopin" <novalis78@...>
                                        To: <Pali@yahoogroups.com>
                                        Sent: Thursday, July 01, 2010 8:30 AM
                                        Subject: Re: [Pali] Re: About 'neta.m mama, nesoham asmi, na meso
                                        attaa'ti


                                        Dear Jim,

                                        Now that is very interesting. Yesterday night, just by "accident" I
                                        was
                                        reading MN 5, Bhayabherava and came across this stock phrase:

                                        *Esāhaṃ *bhavantaṃ gotamaṃ saraṇaṃ gacchāmi dhammañca
                                        bhikkhusaṅghañca.
                                      • Dhammadarsa
                                        Ven Sirs and Ladies and Kind Sirs and Ladies I appreciate everyone s enquiring mind and contribution to this question. As we know Pali has elements from
                                        Message 19 of 26 , Jul 2, 2010
                                          Ven Sirs and Ladies and Kind Sirs and Ladies



                                          I appreciate everyone's enquiring mind and contribution to this question.



                                          As we know Pali has elements from different languages, e.g. Vedic and I have
                                          read, maybe some other Prakrits, e.g. the vocative form 'Bhikkhave'. The
                                          irregularity we have been discussing may also be related to another Prakrit
                                          and the form could have been frozen due to later misunderstanding, thus
                                          accounting for its unchanged appearance in many contexts in the Pali texts.



                                          One thing I think is useful when we come to such questions is comparison
                                          with other versions, e.g. Sanskrit. Sometimes such comparison can throw
                                          light on irregularities in texts, but that may be beyond the scope of this
                                          list. In any case, I'm not the one to do that, but I do know a Sanskrit
                                          lecturer at a university here in Thailand I could ask, if people wished to
                                          know.



                                          Kind Regards







                                          <http://www.vicnet.net.au/~dhammadarsa> Integrating Emotion and Intellect =
                                          Intelligence




                                          Dhammadarsa [Darsa] Bhikkhu
                                          Buddhist Monk

                                          Mahachulalongkornrajavidyalaya University
                                          Wang Noi
                                          Ayuthaya
                                          Thailand


                                          <http://www.vicnet.net.au/~dhammadarsa> www.vicnet.net.au/~dhammadarsa


                                          mobile:

                                          +66850941669





                                          <https://www.plaxo.com/add_me?u=210453914412&src=client_sig_212_1_card_join&
                                          invite=1&lang=en> Always have my latest info

                                          <http://www.plaxo.com/signature?src=client_sig_212_1_card_sig&lang=en> Want
                                          a signature like this?



                                          From: Pali@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Pali@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Nina
                                          van Gorkom
                                          Sent: Thursday, 1 July 2010 4:09 PM
                                          To: Pali@yahoogroups.com
                                          Subject: Re: [Pali] Re: About 'neta.m mama, nesoham asmi, na meso attaa'ti





                                          Dear Khristos and all,
                                          Thank you for your interesting observations.
                                          Khristos, I admire your keen observance, before I never gave this
                                          matter a thought. In fact your question makes me penetrate more
                                          deeply into the meaning of the text.
                                          For the sake of analysing I find it easier not to use the negation.
                                          The neuter eta.m as object of tanhaa can comprise so many things,
                                          even pa~n~nattis, which are not realities. Is it a solution to think
                                          of sabba.m? I cling to this or that, whatever appears. So, perhaps we
                                          can say that the neutre gender is sufficient, no need for another
                                          gender.
                                          'This is of me'.

                                          I consulted 'The Root of Existence', Bikkhu Bodhi's translation of
                                          the Muulapariyaaya Sutta , and in his intro he says: <The construct
                                          'this is mine' is a projection born of craving, for it is craving's
                                          function to appropriate things as the property of the self. >
                                          <Under the influence of conceit it becomes manifest in judgements and
                                          comparisons whereby we rank ourselves in relation to others as
                                          superior, equal of inferior. and under the influence of views, i.e.
                                          the theoretical bent of thought, the ego-bias issues in dogmas,
                                          tenets, and speculations concerning reality and nature of the
                                          personal self and its locus, the world.>

                                          N: As to conceit, esoham asmi, here the eso is correct, because one
                                          thinks of oneself to be thus or thus. I think of the 'I am conceit",
                                          asmi maana.
                                          As to the wrong view of self, one sees the self as controller (as
                                          Lennart mentioned), as possessor. For instance, one believes that
                                          there is a self who can at will induce the arising of Pa~n~naa.
                                          Whereas pa~n~naa is a cetasika that can only arise because of the
                                          appropriate conditions.
                                          Nina.

                                          Op 30-jun-2010, om 5:57 heeft k_nizamis het volgende geschreven:

                                          > Yet, please be patient with me a moment more, because I'm not yet
                                          > completely satisfied with the explanation at an intuitive
                                          > linguistic level. I'm still trying to understand the `sense' of the
                                          > one nt. nom. sg. and the two masc. nom. sg. demonstrative pronouns
                                          > in this formula.

                                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





                                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                        • Jim Anderson
                                          Hi Khristos, You wrote:
                                          Message 20 of 26 , Jul 3, 2010
                                            Hi Khristos,

                                            You wrote:
                                            << Just quickly, though, "eso pañcakkhandhapabhedo ahampi na asmi"
                                            perhaps rather "This 'I' consisting of the five aggregates, I am not"
                                            (than 'does not exist', 'na atthi'), which would agree exactly with
                                            what we've been saying.>>

                                            Yes, I agree. Your translation of this commentarial extract from
                                            Ps-p.t I 286 as well as the Pali orignial supports your translation:
                                            "I am (asmi) not this `I'" for "nesohamasmi" in your earlier reply to
                                            Nina:

                                            << If so, then these could be translated: "I am (asmi) not this `I'",
                                            and "This self is not of me (mine)", respectively? In this case, the
                                            `I' that `I am not' is the one identified with the khandhaa, etc.; and
                                            the `self' that is not `of me' is again the one identified with the
                                            khandhaa, etc. >>

                                            Thanks for raising this interesting grammatical question concerning
                                            "eso" and "eta.m".

                                            Best wishes,
                                            Jim
                                          • k_nizamis
                                            Hi Nina: I admire and respect your devotion to working with the texts and understanding them in your actual practice. You must be busy, and I don t want to
                                            Message 21 of 26 , Jul 4, 2010
                                              Hi Nina: I admire and respect your devotion to working with the texts and understanding them in your actual practice. You must be busy, and I don't want to distract you or add more to your plate. But your example just raised two thoughts. You wrote:

                                              << As to the wrong view of self, one sees the self as controller ... as possessor. For instance, one believes that there is a self who can at will induce the arising of Pa~n~naa. Whereas pa~n~naa is a cetasika that can only arise because of the appropriate conditions.>>

                                              Maybe we should be careful, though, not to throw the bathwater out with the baby.

                                              ((I hope my quotations are legible this time. I've cited from a UTF8 text.))

                                              1. Agreed that paññā is a `cetasika' (in Abhidhamma terminology), inasmuch as, in the Suttaani, it is referred to as a dhamma: e.g., MN 43 says (at i.292): "Paññā yañca viññāṇaṃ ime dhammā saṃsaṭṭhā no visaṃsaṭṭhā. . . . Yañcāvuso pajānāti taṃ vijānāti. Yaṃ vijānāti taṃ pajānāti." "Paññā and viññāṇaṃ - these dhammā are conjoined, not disjoined. . . . For, friend, what one wisely understands, that one cognises, and what one cognises, that one wisely understands."

                                              This may or may not raise a question about whether paññā and viññāṇa in the first sentence should be taken to refer primarily to what might very roughly be called `mental content' (your `cetasika'); Ven. Bodhi translates dhammā here as `states', which can only be understood as `mental states'; whereas the verbs pajānāti and vijānāti refer primarily to function and experience, i.e., to the `consciousness-of' that `mental content' or `mental state'. Perhaps this is supported by the following passage, a little farther on in the same text (i.293):

                                              "Neyyaṃ panāvuso dhammaṃ kena pajānātī"ti.
                                              Neyyaṃ kho āvuso dhammaṃ paññācakkhunā pajānātīti.
                                              "Paññā panāvuso kimatthiyā"ti?
                                              Paññā kho āvuso abhiññatthā pariññatthā pahānatthāti.

                                              "Friend, with what does one wisely understand a dhamma that can be known?"
                                              "Friend, one understands a dhamma that can be wisely known with the `wisdom-eye' (paññācakkhunā)."
                                              "Friend, what is the purpose of paññā?"
                                              "The purpose of paññā, friend, is direct knowledge, its purpose is full understanding, its purpose is abandoning." (Ven. Nyanamoli's & Ven. Bodhi's trans. modified)

                                              Of course, it is very difficult (well, impossible) to separate out `mental content' or `mental state' from the act of `knowing', of `recognising', of `intuiting'; but, at the same time, there is surely an important distinction to be recognised between the act of `knowing' and what is `known' in and through that act.

                                              2. Again, since paññā is a dhamma (of the type `cetasika', according to Abhidhamma), it is paticca-samuppanna, dependently co-arisen, it is dependent upon conditions. But it does not arise arbitrarily, nor does it arise merely automatically or deterministically. We can't just sit and wait, hoping that paññā will just happent to conditionally arise some day. MN 43 again says (at i.293): "paññā bhāvetabbā, viññāṇaṃ pariññeyyaṃ", "paññā is to be developed (cultivated), viññāṇa is to be thoroughly understood". This raises the deep and fascinating problem of `agency'. True, we cannot just `will' paññā to arise. But we can, and we are exhorted to, develop and cultivate the conditions that will be conducive for paññā to arise: that is a matter for which we have some volitional responsibility, and also some volitional effectivity. Just a couple of classical examples, with which you will be familiar, of this sense of agency, are the following:

                                              MN 32 (M i.215) "Idhāvuso . . . bhikkhu cittaṃ vasaṃ vatteti, no ca bhikkhu cittassa vasena vattati." "Here, friend, . . . a bhikkhu wields mastery over his mind, he does not let the mind wield mastery over him."

                                              And again, MN 20 (M i.120-121): "cetasā cittaṃ abhiniggaṇhitabbaṃ abhinippīḷetabbaṃ abhisantāpetabbaṃ", "he beats down, constrains, and crushes mind with mind"

                                              There are several instances in the Sutāni where the doctrine or view of the moral efficacy of doing and not doing acts (of body, speech, and intellect) is ascribed to the Buddha. The strongest example is at A i.62: "Kiriyavādī cāhaṃ brāhmaṇa akiriyavādī cāti. . . . Akiriyaṃ kho ahaṃ brāhmaṇa vadāmi kāyaduccaritassa vacīduccaritassa manoduccaritassa, anekavihitānaṃ pāpakānaṃ akusalānaṃ dhammānaṃ akiriyaṃ vadāmi. Kiriyañca kho ahaṃ brāhmaṇa vadāmi kāyasucaritassa vacīsucaritassa manosucaritassa, anekavihitānaṃ kusalānaṃ dhammānaṃ kiriyaṃ vadāmi. Evaṃ kho ahaṃ brāhmaṇa kiriyavādī ca akiriyavādī cāti." "I am one who preaches action [kiriya], Brahmin, and one who preaches non-action [akiriya]. . . . I say `non-action', Brahmin, of wrongdoing by body, wrongdoing by speech, wrongdoing by thought; of manifold evil and unwholesome thoughts [dhammā], I say `non-action'. And I say `action', Brahmin, of doing good by body, doing good by speech, doing good by thought; of manifold wholesome thoughts, I say `action'. In this way, Brahmin, I am one who preaches `action' and one who preaches `non-action'." (My trans.)

                                              There's also a quite humorous instance (MN 71, at i.483), where Vaccha asks the Buddha if any Aajivaka (`Fatalist', who doesn't believe that willed action has any effect upon a person's 'destiny') has ever gone to heaven after death. The Buddha replies: "Ito kho so vaccha ekanavuto kappo yamahaṃ anussarāmi nābhijānāmi kañci ājīvakaṃ saggūpagaṃ aññatra ekena, sopāsi kammavādī kiriyavādīti." "When I recollect the past ninety-one aeons, Vaccha, I do not recall any Aajivaka who, on the dissolution of the body, went to heaven, with one exception, and he held the doctrine of the moral efficacy of action, the doctrine of the moral efficacy of deeds." (Ven. Nyanamoli's and Ven. Bodhi's trans.)

                                              If we take the import of questions 1 and 2 together, we are invited to comprehend the nature of `knowing' and of `doing' in a way that admits their reality and efficacy, yet without having to posit an ontologically independent, separate, self-existing entity called an `attā', to which the pronoun `ahaṃ' refers as though it were a name for an `object'.

                                              Respectfully, with metta,
                                              Khristos
                                            • k_nizamis
                                              Dear Jim thank you for looking into and thinking about this. And the other kind people, too. That s a very peaceful result, methinks. To my mind, it has more
                                              Message 22 of 26 , Jul 4, 2010
                                                Dear Jim

                                                thank you for looking into and thinking about this. And the other kind people, too.

                                                That's a very peaceful result, methinks. To my mind, it has more lived meaning than any other for "neta.m mama...". Not all will think so, I would guess, but that some careful others can independently come to the same conclusion is peaceful.

                                                Best wishes,
                                                metta,
                                                Khristos



                                                --- In Pali@yahoogroups.com, "Jim Anderson" <jimanderson.on@...> wrote:
                                                >
                                                > Hi Khristos,
                                                >
                                                > You wrote:
                                                > << Just quickly, though, "eso pañcakkhandhapabhedo ahampi na asmi"
                                                > perhaps rather "This 'I' consisting of the five aggregates, I am not"
                                                > (than 'does not exist', 'na atthi'), which would agree exactly with
                                                > what we've been saying.>>
                                                >
                                                > Yes, I agree. Your translation of this commentarial extract from
                                                > Ps-p.t I 286 as well as the Pali orignial supports your translation:
                                                > "I am (asmi) not this `I'" for "nesohamasmi" in your earlier reply to
                                                > Nina:
                                                >
                                                > << If so, then these could be translated: "I am (asmi) not this `I'",
                                                > and "This self is not of me (mine)", respectively? In this case, the
                                                > `I' that `I am not' is the one identified with the khandhaa, etc.; and
                                                > the `self' that is not `of me' is again the one identified with the
                                                > khandhaa, etc. >>
                                                >
                                                > Thanks for raising this interesting grammatical question concerning
                                                > "eso" and "eta.m".
                                                >
                                                > Best wishes,
                                                > Jim
                                                >
                                              • k_nizamis
                                                **Dear Nina and Moderator: again, citations in my post seem to look like `alphanumeric soup . Sorry, I haven t quite worked out what the technical problem is
                                                Message 23 of 26 , Jul 4, 2010
                                                  **Dear Nina and Moderator: again, citations in my post seem to look like `alphanumeric soup'. Sorry, I haven't quite worked out what the technical problem is with pasting UTF-8 text into posts. Rather than waste your time and give you headaches, I've reformatted this post using good old Velthius.** :-)

                                                  Hi Nina: I admire and respect your devotion to working with the texts and understanding them in your actual practice. You must be busy, and I don't want to distract you or add more to your plate. But your example just raised two thoughts.

                                                  In your post you wrote:

                                                  "As to the wrong view of self, one sees the self as controller ... as possessor. For instance, one believes that there is a self who can at will induce the arising of pa~n~naa. Whereas pa~n~naa is a cetasika that can only arise because of the appropriate conditions."

                                                  Maybe we should be careful, though, not to throw the bathwater out with the baby.

                                                  1. Agreed that pa~n~naa is a `cetasika' (in the Abhidhamma sense), inasmuch as, in the Suttaani, it is referred to as a dhamma: e.g., MN 43 says (at i.292):

                                                  "Pa~n~naa ya~nca vi~n~naa.na.m ime dhammaa sa.msa.t.thaa no visa.msa.t.thaa. . . . Ya~ncaavuso pajaanaati ta.m vijaanaati. Ya.m vijaanaati ta.m pajaanaati."

                                                  "Pa~n~naa and vi~n~naa.na.m - these dhammaa are conjoined, not disjoined. . . . For, friend, what one wisely understands, that one cognizes, and what one cognizes, that one wisely understands."

                                                  This may or may not raise a question about whether pa~n~naa and vi~n~naa.na.m in the first sentence should be taken to refer primarily to what might very roughly be called `mental content' (your `cetasika'); Ven. Bodhi translates dhammaa here as `states', which can only be understood as `mental states'; whereas the verbs pajaanaati and vijaanaati refer primarily to function and experience, i.e., to the `consciousness-of' that `mental content' or `mental state'. Perhaps this is supported by the following passage, a little farther on in the same text (i.293):

                                                  "Neyya.m panaavuso dhamma.m kena pajaanaatii"ti.
                                                  Neyya.m kho aavuso dhamma.m pa~n~naacakkhunaa pajaanaatiiti.
                                                  "Pa~n~naa panaavuso kimatthiyaa"ti?
                                                  Pa~n~naa kho aavuso abhi~n~natthaa pari~n~natthaa pahaanatthaati.

                                                  "Friend, with what does one wisely understand a dhamma that can be wisely known?"
                                                  "Friend, one understands a dhamma that can be wisely known with the `wisdom-eye' (pa~n~naacakkhunaa)."
                                                  "Friend, what is the purpose of pa~n~naa?"
                                                  "The purpose of pa~n~naa, friend, is direct knowledge, its purpose is full understanding, its purpose is abandoning."

                                                  Of course, it is very difficult (well, impossible) to separate out `mental content' or `mental state' from the act of `knowing', of `recognising', of `intuiting'; but, at the same time, there is surely an important distinction to be recognised between the act of `knowing' and what is `known' in and through that act.

                                                  2. Again, since pa~n~naa is a dhamma (of the type `cetasika', according to Abhidhamma), it is paticca-samuppanna, dependently co-arisen, it is dependent upon conditions. But it does not arise arbitrarily, nor does it arise merely automatically or deterministically. MN 43 again says (at i.293):

                                                  "pa~n~naa bhaavetabbaa, vi~n~naa.na.m pari~n~neyya.m",

                                                  "pa~n~naa is to be developed (cultivated), vi~n~naa.na is to be thoroughly understood".

                                                  This raises the deep and fascinating problem of `agency'. True, we cannot just `will' pa~n~naa to arise. But we can, and we are exhorted to, develop and cultivate the conditions that will be conducive for pa~n~naa to arise: that is a matter for which we have some volitional responsibility, and also some volitional effectivity. Just a couple of classical examples, with which you will be familiar, of this sense of agency, are the following:

                                                  MN 32 (M i.215) "Idhaavuso . . . bhikkhu citta.m vasa.m vatteti, no ca bhikkhu cittassa vasena vattati."

                                                  "Here, friend, . . . a bhikkhu wields mastery over his mind, he does not let the mind wield mastery over him."

                                                  And again, MN 20 (M i.120-121):

                                                  "cetasaa citta.m abhinigga.nhitabba.m abhinippii.letabba.m abhisantaapetabba.m",
                                                  "he should beat down, constrain, and crush mind with mind".

                                                  There are several instances in the Suttaani where the doctrine or view of the moral efficacy of doing and not doing actions (of body, speech, and intellect) is ascribed to the Buddha. The strongest example is AN 2.1.4.3 (A i.62):

                                                  "Kiriyavaadii caaha.m braahma.na akiriyavaadii caati. . . . Akiriya.m kho aha.m braahma.na vadaami kaayaduccaritassa vaciiduccaritassa manoduccaritassa, anekavihitaana.m paapakaana.m akusalaana.m dhammaana.m akiriya.m vadaami. Kiriya~nca kho aha.m braahma.na vadaami kaayasucaritassa vaciisucaritassa manosucaritassa, anekavihitaana.m kusalaana.m dhammaana.m kiriya.m vadaami. Eva.m kho aha.m braahma.na kiriyavaadii ca akiriyavaadii caati."

                                                  "I am one who preaches action [kiriya], Brahmin, and one who preaches non-action [akiriya]. . . . I say `non-action', Brahmin, of wrongdoing by body, wrongdoing by speech, wrongdoing by thought; of manifold evil and unwholesome thoughts [dhammaa], I say `non-action'. And I say `action', Brahmin, of doing good by body, doing good by speech, doing good by thought; of manifold wholesome thoughts, I say `action'. In this way, Brahmin, I am one who preaches `action' and one who preaches `non-action'." (My trans.)

                                                  There's also a quite humorous instance (MN 71, at i.483), where Vaccha asks the Buddha if any aajivaka (`fatalist', who doesn't believe that willed action has any effect) has ever gone to heaven after death. The Buddha replies:

                                                  "Ito kho so vaccha ekanavuto kappo yamaha.m anussaraami naabhijaanaami ka~nci aajiivaka.m sagguupaga.m a~n~natra ekena, sopaasi kammavaadii kiriyavaadiiti."

                                                  "When I recollect the past ninety-one aeons, Vaccha, I do not recall any aajivaka who, on the dissolution of the body, went to heaven, with one exception, and he held the doctrine of the moral efficacy of action, the doctrine of the moral efficacy of deeds." (Ven. Nyanamoli's and Ven. Bodhi's trans.)

                                                  If we take the import of questions 1 and 2 together, we are invited to comprehend the nature of `knowing' and of `doing' in a way that admits their reality and efficacy, yet without having to posit an ontologically independent, separate, self-existing entity called an `attaa', to which the pronoun `aha.m' refers as though it were a name for an `object'.

                                                  Respectfully, with metta,
                                                  Khristos


                                                  --- In Pali@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom <vangorko@...> wrote:
                                                  >
                                                  > Dear Khristos and all,
                                                  > Thank you for your interesting observations.
                                                  > Khristos, I admire your keen observance, before I never gave this
                                                  > matter a thought. In fact your question makes me penetrate more
                                                  > deeply into the meaning of the text.
                                                  > For the sake of analysing I find it easier not to use the negation.
                                                  > The neuter eta.m as object of tanhaa can comprise so many things,
                                                  > even pa~n~nattis, which are not realities. Is it a solution to think
                                                  > of sabba.m? I cling to this or that, whatever appears. So, perhaps we
                                                  > can say that the neutre gender is sufficient, no need for another
                                                  > gender.
                                                  > 'This is of me'.
                                                  >
                                                  > I consulted 'The Root of Existence', Bikkhu Bodhi's translation of
                                                  > the Muulapariyaaya Sutta , and in his intro he says: <The construct
                                                  > 'this is mine' is a projection born of craving, for it is craving's
                                                  > function to appropriate things as the property of the self. >
                                                  > <Under the influence of conceit it becomes manifest in judgements and
                                                  > comparisons whereby we rank ourselves in relation to others as
                                                  > superior, equal of inferior. and under the influence of views, i.e.
                                                  > the theoretical bent of thought, the ego-bias issues in dogmas,
                                                  > tenets, and speculations concerning reality and nature of the
                                                  > personal self and its locus, the world.>
                                                  >
                                                  > N: As to conceit, esoham asmi, here the eso is correct, because one
                                                  > thinks of oneself to be thus or thus. I think of the 'I am conceit",
                                                  > asmi maana.
                                                  > As to the wrong view of self, one sees the self as controller (as
                                                  > Lennart mentioned), as possessor. For instance, one believes that
                                                  > there is a self who can at will induce the arising of Pa~n~naa.
                                                  > Whereas pa~n~naa is a cetasika that can only arise because of the
                                                  > appropriate conditions.
                                                  > Nina.
                                                  >
                                                  > Op 30-jun-2010, om 5:57 heeft k_nizamis het volgende geschreven:
                                                  >
                                                  > > Yet, please be patient with me a moment more, because I'm not yet
                                                  > > completely satisfied with the explanation at an intuitive
                                                  > > linguistic level. I'm still trying to understand the `sense' of the
                                                  > > one nt. nom. sg. and the two masc. nom. sg. demonstrative pronouns
                                                  > > in this formula.
                                                  >
                                                  >
                                                  >
                                                  > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                                  >
                                                • k_nizamis
                                                  Dear Ven. Dhammadarsa, You have raised a very good point, and made an excellent recommendation with respect to checking the Sanskrit (especially seeking a
                                                  Message 24 of 26 , Jul 5, 2010
                                                    Dear Ven. Dhammadarsa,

                                                    You have raised a very good point, and made an excellent recommendation with respect to checking the Sanskrit (especially seeking a Sanskrit rendering of this formula). But I wonder, too, whether the Thai and other Asian translations of the Pali reveal anything in this respect?

                                                    In my reply to Nina's first response to this question, I had flagged the historical problem, but didn't pursue it: <<Reflecting on this, there are probably at least a couple of possible (essentially historical) explanations for the unchanging form of this formula,in whatever context it occurs.>> (14809) But your message has kicked that idea back into gear for me! Of course, any interpretation is going to have to square itself also with the historical-linguistic dimension. Thank you.

                                                    If you have the opportunity to put the question to your friend who teaches Sanskrit, that would be very interesting and helpful. I will report here some information I have just found, which might be useful to pass on to your friend, too; and also a further suggestion.

                                                    My first reference is to F. Edgerton, Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit Grammar and Dictionary, Vol. 1 Grammar (originally published 1953, reprinted 1993). No doubt Indic language studies have moved on since 1953. In any case, Edgerton explains that Buddhadhamma has been preserved in at least 4 Indic languages: standard Sanskrit, two middle Indic languages, Pali and Prakrit (of course 'Pali' is not the name of a language, but has come to be used for the language of the 'Pali Canon'), and Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit (BHS), which was used in the North, although Edgerton supposes it was based on an otherwise unidentifiable Middle Indic vernacular. (Edgerton, p. 1, 1.1-1.4).

                                                    It seems that very little of the 'early Buddhist canon' has been preserved in Sanskrit, and what has been preserved is not easily accessible to most of us. However, the Tibetan and Chinese canons are supposed to be translations of 'Sanskrit canons'. It should be kept in mind, thought, that these translations were made from written texts; the earlier oral canons had therefore already been inscribed, and so there is also the question of the historical development of the oral texts to be kept in mind.

                                                    Still, it would of course be informative (but not conclusive, for a number of reasons) to know how `eta.m mama...' has been translated into Chinese and Tibetan within those respective Asian canons. If someone were able to check on this, it would be very helpful (I know a couple of people I can pass this request on to).

                                                    As for BHS, in his section on BHS pronouns, Edgerton does have a reference to a peculiar usage of the nom.-acc. sg. nt. He notes: "The masc. `so' replaces `tad', e.g. Saddharmapu.n.dariika 62.7." But of course, this is a later Mahaayaana text. Similarly, Edgerton cites the use of some variant forms of 'so': e.g., with `se' and `su', he indicates a text Apabhra.m'sa or Apadaana (which he identifies as a Paa.li text?); he also cites these examples: `su bhava.nu', `ehu' for `etad', in Sanatkumaaracaritam (Apabhra.m'sa or Apadaana). (Edgerton, p. 114, 21.10.) I suspect that it is because of these examples that, in his table of paradigms for the 'generic pronouns' (p. 116, 21.46), he includes `so' along with `ta.m' under the forms for the Nt. Sg. Nom.-Acc., as well as giving it as the main form of the Mas. Sg. Nom. I was hoping Edgerton might cited the BHS version of 'eta.m mama...' in his Grammar or Dictionary, but so far, I haven't found anything.

                                                    Edgerton's references are interesting, but perhaps a bit far away from our question. They might suggest another 'substitution' possibility (cf. Edgerton, p. 114, 21.2): if anyone is well-versed in Paa.li metrics, they might want to check the `neta.m mama...' formula metrically; but it seems very improbable that `metri causa' could be any adequate explanation of `eso' here.

                                                    On the other hand, a very interesting reference emerges from W. D. Whitney, Sanskrit Grammar (2nd ed. 1889, reprinted 1993), in the section on Demonstrative Pronouns, which reads:

                                                    "Though the demonstrative root `ta' is prevailingly of the third person, it is also freely used, both in the earlier language and in the later, as qualifying the pronouns of the first and second person, giving emphasis to them: thus, `so 'ham', `this I', or `I here'; `sa' or `saa tvam', `thou there'; `te vayam', `we here'; `tasya mama', `of me here', `tasmi"ns tvayi', `in thee there', and so on." (Whitney, p. 495, para. 498.)

                                                    I'll inquire further into this and let you know whatever else I find out.

                                                    Respectfully, with metta,
                                                    Khristos


                                                    --- In Pali@yahoogroups.com, "Dhammadarsa" <dhammadaso@...> wrote:
                                                    >
                                                    > Ven Sirs and Ladies and Kind Sirs and Ladies
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    > I appreciate everyone's enquiring mind and contribution to this question.
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    > As we know Pali has elements from different languages, e.g. Vedic and I have
                                                    > read, maybe some other Prakrits, e.g. the vocative form 'Bhikkhave'. The
                                                    > irregularity we have been discussing may also be related to another Prakrit
                                                    > and the form could have been frozen due to later misunderstanding, thus
                                                    > accounting for its unchanged appearance in many contexts in the Pali texts.
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    > One thing I think is useful when we come to such questions is comparison
                                                    > with other versions, e.g. Sanskrit. Sometimes such comparison can throw
                                                    > light on irregularities in texts, but that may be beyond the scope of this
                                                    > list. In any case, I'm not the one to do that, but I do know a Sanskrit
                                                    > lecturer at a university here in Thailand I could ask, if people wished to
                                                    > know.
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    > Kind Regards
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    > <http://www.vicnet.net.au/~dhammadarsa> Integrating Emotion and Intellect =
                                                    > Intelligence
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    > Dhammadarsa [Darsa] Bhikkhu
                                                    > Buddhist Monk
                                                    >
                                                    > Mahachulalongkornrajavidyalaya University
                                                    > Wang Noi
                                                    > Ayuthaya
                                                    > Thailand
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    > <http://www.vicnet.net.au/~dhammadarsa> www.vicnet.net.au/~dhammadarsa
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    > mobile:
                                                    >
                                                    > +66850941669
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    > <https://www.plaxo.com/add_me?u=210453914412&src=client_sig_212_1_card_join&
                                                    > invite=1&lang=en> Always have my latest info
                                                    >
                                                    > <http://www.plaxo.com/signature?src=client_sig_212_1_card_sig&lang=en> Want
                                                    > a signature like this?
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    > From: Pali@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Pali@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Nina
                                                    > van Gorkom
                                                    > Sent: Thursday, 1 July 2010 4:09 PM
                                                    > To: Pali@yahoogroups.com
                                                    > Subject: Re: [Pali] Re: About 'neta.m mama, nesoham asmi, na meso attaa'ti
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    > Dear Khristos and all,
                                                    > Thank you for your interesting observations.
                                                    > Khristos, I admire your keen observance, before I never gave this
                                                    > matter a thought. In fact your question makes me penetrate more
                                                    > deeply into the meaning of the text.
                                                    > For the sake of analysing I find it easier not to use the negation.
                                                    > The neuter eta.m as object of tanhaa can comprise so many things,
                                                    > even pa~n~nattis, which are not realities. Is it a solution to think
                                                    > of sabba.m? I cling to this or that, whatever appears. So, perhaps we
                                                    > can say that the neutre gender is sufficient, no need for another
                                                    > gender.
                                                    > 'This is of me'.
                                                    >
                                                    > I consulted 'The Root of Existence', Bikkhu Bodhi's translation of
                                                    > the Muulapariyaaya Sutta , and in his intro he says: <The construct
                                                    > 'this is mine' is a projection born of craving, for it is craving's
                                                    > function to appropriate things as the property of the self. >
                                                    > <Under the influence of conceit it becomes manifest in judgements and
                                                    > comparisons whereby we rank ourselves in relation to others as
                                                    > superior, equal of inferior. and under the influence of views, i.e.
                                                    > the theoretical bent of thought, the ego-bias issues in dogmas,
                                                    > tenets, and speculations concerning reality and nature of the
                                                    > personal self and its locus, the world.>
                                                    >
                                                    > N: As to conceit, esoham asmi, here the eso is correct, because one
                                                    > thinks of oneself to be thus or thus. I think of the 'I am conceit",
                                                    > asmi maana.
                                                    > As to the wrong view of self, one sees the self as controller (as
                                                    > Lennart mentioned), as possessor. For instance, one believes that
                                                    > there is a self who can at will induce the arising of Pa~n~naa.
                                                    > Whereas pa~n~naa is a cetasika that can only arise because of the
                                                    > appropriate conditions.
                                                    > Nina.
                                                    >
                                                    > Op 30-jun-2010, om 5:57 heeft k_nizamis het volgende geschreven:
                                                    >
                                                    > > Yet, please be patient with me a moment more, because I'm not yet
                                                    > > completely satisfied with the explanation at an intuitive
                                                    > > linguistic level. I'm still trying to understand the `sense' of the
                                                    > > one nt. nom. sg. and the two masc. nom. sg. demonstrative pronouns
                                                    > > in this formula.
                                                    >
                                                    > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                                    >
                                                  • Nina van Gorkom
                                                    Dear Khristos, Thank you for your replay. I am just back from a trip and shall consider your post later on. Nina. ... [Non-text portions of this message have
                                                    Message 25 of 26 , Jul 12, 2010
                                                      Dear Khristos,
                                                      Thank you for your replay. I am just back from a trip and shall
                                                      consider your post later on.
                                                      Nina.
                                                      Op 5-jul-2010, om 5:26 heeft k_nizamis het volgende geschreven:

                                                      > Hi Nina: I admire and respect your devotion to working with the
                                                      > texts and understanding them in your actual practice. You must be
                                                      > busy, and I don't want to distract you or add more to your plate.
                                                      > But your example just raised two thoughts.



                                                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                                    • Nina van Gorkom
                                                      Dear Khristos, Thank you for all the useful texts with the Pali and your interesting remarks. ... N: True, pa~n~naa can accompany vi~n~naa.na. It could not
                                                      Message 26 of 26 , Jul 13, 2010
                                                        Dear Khristos,
                                                        Thank you for all the useful texts with the Pali and your interesting
                                                        remarks.
                                                        Op 5-jul-2010, om 5:26 heeft k_nizamis het volgende geschreven:
                                                        > In your post you wrote:
                                                        >
                                                        > 1. Agreed that pa~n~naa is a `cetasika' (in the Abhidhamma sense),
                                                        > inasmuch as, in the Suttaani, it is referred to as a dhamma: e.g.,
                                                        > MN 43 says (at i.292):
                                                        >
                                                        > "Pa~n~naa ya~nca vi~n~naa.na.m ime dhammaa sa.msa.t.thaa no
                                                        > visa.msa.t.thaa. . . . Ya~ncaavuso pajaanaati ta.m vijaanaati. Ya.m
                                                        > vijaanaati ta.m pajaanaati."
                                                        >
                                                        > "Pa~n~naa and vi~n~naa.na.m - these dhammaa are conjoined, not
                                                        > disjoined. . . . For, friend, what one wisely understands, that one
                                                        > cognizes, and what one cognizes, that one wisely understands."
                                                        --------
                                                        N: True, pa~n~naa can accompany vi~n~naa.na. It could not arise
                                                        without citta. Vi~n~naa.na or citta cognizes the object and pa~n~naa
                                                        penetrates its true nature. Pa~n~naa illuminates the darkness of
                                                        ignorance.
                                                        I like your quote:
                                                        > <"Friend, with what does one wisely understand a dhamma that can be
                                                        > wisely known?"
                                                        > "Friend, one understands a dhamma that can be wisely known with the
                                                        > `wisdom-eye' (pa~n~naacakkhunaa)."
                                                        > "Friend, what is the purpose of pa~n~naa?"
                                                        > "The purpose of pa~n~naa, friend, is direct knowledge, its purpose
                                                        > is full understanding, its purpose is abandoning.">
                                                        > -----------
                                                        >
                                                        > 2. Again, since pa~n~naa is a dhamma (of the type `cetasika',
                                                        > according to Abhidhamma), it is paticca-samuppanna, dependently co-
                                                        > arisen, it is dependent upon conditions. But it does not arise
                                                        > arbitrarily, nor does it arise merely automatically or
                                                        > deterministically. ...
                                                        > This raises the deep and fascinating problem of `agency'. True, we
                                                        > cannot just `will' pa~n~naa to arise. But we can, and we are
                                                        > exhorted to, develop and cultivate the conditions that will be
                                                        > conducive for pa~n~naa to arise
                                                        -------
                                                        N: Yes, that is quite right.
                                                        ------
                                                        > K: that is a matter for which we have some volitional
                                                        > responsibility, and also some volitional effectivity. Just a couple
                                                        > of classical examples, with which you will be familiar, of this
                                                        > sense of agency, are the following:
                                                        >
                                                        > MN 32 (M i.215) "Idhaavuso . . . bhikkhu citta.m vasa.m vatteti, no
                                                        > ca bhikkhu cittassa vasena vattati."
                                                        >
                                                        > "Here, friend, . . . a bhikkhu wields mastery over his mind, he
                                                        > does not let the mind wield mastery over him."
                                                        ----------
                                                        N: All your quoted texts are very good. The Buddha also spoke daily
                                                        language to help the listeners. His disciples had no
                                                        misunderstandings about anattaa. Such daily language is very
                                                        effective. For instance, when I say to you: take courage, do the best
                                                        you can, it is more direct than if I would say: let the five khandhas
                                                        be courageous and not be disheartened. So, we can take this in the
                                                        right way: "Here, friend, . . . a bhikkhu wields mastery over his
                                                        mind, he does not let the mind wield mastery over him."
                                                        This is said in a very impressive way. It is something we can remember.
                                                        When we read the many lists of classifications of the Abhidhamma we
                                                        may think it dry and not so effective. But also this we can take in
                                                        the right way, see through it to get the deep meaning. Whatever we
                                                        read refers to the understanding of the reality of the present
                                                        moment, it refers to our life at this moment. In this way the
                                                        Abhidhamma can become very lively. It is not just in the book.
                                                        Nina.




                                                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.