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

milindapanha

Expand Messages
  • Flavio Costa
    Hi all, I m translating a passage about rebirth from the Milindapanha (more exactly Addhaanavaggo I: Dhammasantatipa~nho), that says: tena na ca so, na ca
    Message 1 of 6 , Sep 1, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi all,

      I'm translating a passage about rebirth from the Milindapanha (more exactly
      Addhaanavaggo I: Dhammasantatipa~nho), that says:

      tena na ca so, na ca a~n~no, purimavi~n~naa.ne pacchimavi~n~naa.na.m
      sa.ngaha.m gacchatii"ti

      I. B. Horner translates this passage as following:

      consequently neither the one [dhamma] nor another is reckoned as the last
      consciousness

      My doubt is about rendering "purimavi~n~naa.ne pacchimavi~n~naa.na.m" as
      "the last consciousness". Wouldn't it rather be translated as something
      like:

      consequently, neither the one [dhamma], nor another, it is reckoned [just]
      as the former and the latest consciousness

      This way, it would mean that the flow of phenomena (dhammasantati) is
      not to be regarded as the same or an entirely different object moving
      through time, but an effect of two moments of consciousness artificially
      linked by the mind.

      Maybe my doubt here is due to misunderstanding about the role
      vi~n~naa.na is playing on this context, so any clarifications are welcome.

      Thank you,

      Flavio Costa
    • abhidhammika@yahoo.com
      Dear Flavio Costa How are you? The context of the Paali line you are translating is: yo uppajjati, so eva so,udaahu añño ti? Is the one who was born
      Message 2 of 6 , Sep 1, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        Dear Flavio Costa

        How are you?

        The context of the Paali line you are translating is:

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

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

        The Paali line you produced is:

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

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


        Hope this translation helps until someone comes up with a better
        translation!


        With regards


        Suan Lu Zaw

        http://www.bodhiology.org




        --- In Pali@y..., "Flavio Costa" <flavio@n...> wrote:
        >
        > Hi all,
        >
        > I'm translating a passage about rebirth from the Milindapanha (more
        exactly
        > Addhaanavaggo I: Dhammasantatipa~nho), that says:
        >
        > tena na ca so, na ca a~n~no, purimavi~n~naa.ne pacchimavi~n~naa.na.m
        > sa.ngaha.m gacchatii"ti
        >
        > I. B. Horner translates this passage as following:
        >
        > consequently neither the one [dhamma] nor another is reckoned as
        the last
        > consciousness
        >
        > My doubt is about rendering "purimavi~n~naa.ne
        pacchimavi~n~naa.na.m" as
        > "the last consciousness". Wouldn't it rather be translated as
        something
        > like:
        >
        > consequently, neither the one [dhamma], nor another, it is reckoned
        [just]
        > as the former and the latest consciousness
        >
        > This way, it would mean that the flow of phenomena
        (dhammasantati) is
        > not to be regarded as the same or an entirely different object
        moving
        > through time, but an effect of two moments of consciousness
        artificially
        > linked by the mind.
        >
        > Maybe my doubt here is due to misunderstanding about the role
        > vi~n~naa.na is playing on this context, so any clarifications are
        welcome.
        >
        > Thank you,
        >
        > Flavio Costa
      • wynn
        Richard Gombrich told me: I translate: Therefore it is neither the same nor different; the last consciousness is comprised in the first consciousness . The
        Message 3 of 6 , Sep 3, 2001
        • 0 Attachment
          Richard Gombrich told me:

          I translate: "Therefore it is neither the same nor different; the last
          consciousness is comprised in the first consciousness". The last
          consciousness would be in the life which is ending, the first would be in
          the life which is beginning.

          KR Norman wrote to me:

          You should note that there is a difference in reading between the Be, which
          you quote, and the Ce and Ee which read: purimaviññå-o
          pacchimaviññå-asa?gahaµ gacchat¥ ti.

          I think the Ce and Ee version means: "In the same way the continuity of
          phenomena joins (them) together. One arises, another passes away. It joins
          them as though one was not earlier, one was not later (i.e. they are
          simultaneous). Therefore not the same nor different, having earlier
          consciousness it goes to connection with the later consciousness."

          Since viññå-a is a neuter noun, purimaviññå-o must be an adjective,
          agreeing with so and añño, which I assume refer to an unexpressed dhammo
          (as you suggest).

          The last sentence of the Be version seems to mean: "The later consciousness
          goes to connection in respect of (i.e. with) the earlier consciousness."

          I think that there is probably little difference in the ultimate meaning of
          the two versions.

          I presume that the passage is a reflection of the idea that it is in the
          form of consciousness (viññå-a) that the individual exists when
          transmigration takes place. Consciousness is always changing, but
          nevertheless it is possible to talk about a continuum of consciousness,
          because as one consciousness passes away it is instantaneously replaced by
          a later consciousness, which has a connection with the earlier one.

          I think, then, that we are in broad agreement about the meaning of this
          passage, which Miss Horner seems not to have fully understood.









          ----- Original Message -----
          From: Flavio Costa <flavio@...>
          To: Pali <Pali@yahoogroups.com>
          Sent: Saturday, September 01, 2001 6:17 PM
          Subject: [Pali] milindapanha


          >
          > Hi all,
          >
          > I'm translating a passage about rebirth from the Milindapanha (more
          exactly
          > Addhaanavaggo I: Dhammasantatipa~nho), that says:
          >
          > tena na ca so, na ca a~n~no, purimavi~n~naa.ne pacchimavi~n~naa.na.m
          > sa.ngaha.m gacchatii"ti
          >
          > I. B. Horner translates this passage as following:
          >
          > consequently neither the one [dhamma] nor another is reckoned as the last
          > consciousness
          >
          > My doubt is about rendering "purimavi~n~naa.ne pacchimavi~n~naa.na.m"
          as
          > "the last consciousness". Wouldn't it rather be translated as something
          > like:
          >
          > consequently, neither the one [dhamma], nor another, it is reckoned [just]
          > as the former and the latest consciousness
          >
          > This way, it would mean that the flow of phenomena (dhammasantati) is
          > not to be regarded as the same or an entirely different object moving
          > through time, but an effect of two moments of consciousness artificially
          > linked by the mind.
          >
          > Maybe my doubt here is due to misunderstanding about the role
          > vi~n~naa.na is playing on this context, so any clarifications are welcome.
          >
          > Thank you,
          >
          > Flavio Costa
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
          > Yahoo! Groups members can set their delivery options to daily digest or
          web only.
          > [Homepage] http://www.tipitaka.net/pali
          > [Discussion] http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pali
          > [Send Message] pali@yahoogroups.com
          >
          > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
          >
          >
        • Dimitry Ivakhnenko (Äìèòðèé Èâ
          Hi Wynn, w I presume that the passage is a reflection of the idea that it is in the w form of consciousness (viññå-a) that the individual exists when w
          Message 4 of 6 , Sep 3, 2001
          • 0 Attachment
            Hi Wynn,

            w> I presume that the passage is a reflection of the idea that it is in the
            w> form of consciousness (viссе-a) that the individual exists when
            w> transmigration takes place. Consciousness is always changing, but
            w> nevertheless it is possible to talk about a continuum of consciousness,
            w> because as one consciousness passes away it is instantaneously replaced by
            w> a later consciousness, which has a connection with the earlier one.

            It seems to me that this is a misconception. Term 'individual' does
            not apply 'when transmigration takes place'. Consciousness is
            dependently arisen.

            Please see MN 38 Mahaatanhaasankhaya sutta

            http://www.metta.lk\tipitaka\2Sutta-Pitaka\2Majjhima-Nikaya\Majjhima1\037-culatanhasankhaya-sutta-e1.htm

            Metta,
            Dimitry
          • abhidhammika@yahoo.com
            Dear Flavio Costa How are you? The context of the Paali line you are translating is: yo uppajjati, so eva so,udaahu añño ti? Is the one who was born
            Message 5 of 6 , Sep 3, 2001
            • 0 Attachment
              Dear Flavio Costa

              How are you?

              The context of the Paali line you are translating is:

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

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

              The Paali line you produced is:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


              Hope these translations facilitate clarification.

              With regards


              Suan Lu Zaw

              http://www.bodhiology.org






              --- In Pali@y..., "Flavio Costa" <flavio@n...> wrote:
              >
              > Hi all,
              >
              > I'm translating a passage about rebirth from the Milindapanha (more
              exactly
              > Addhaanavaggo I: Dhammasantatipa~nho), that says:
              >
              > tena na ca so, na ca a~n~no, purimavi~n~naa.ne pacchimavi~n~naa.na.m
              > sa.ngaha.m gacchatii"ti
              >
              > I. B. Horner translates this passage as following:
              >
              > consequently neither the one [dhamma] nor another is reckoned as
              the last
              > consciousness
              >
              > My doubt is about rendering "purimavi~n~naa.ne
              pacchimavi~n~naa.na.m" as
              > "the last consciousness". Wouldn't it rather be translated as
              something
              > like:
              >
              > consequently, neither the one [dhamma], nor another, it is reckoned
              [just]
              > as the former and the latest consciousness
              >
              > This way, it would mean that the flow of phenomena
              (dhammasantati) is
              > not to be regarded as the same or an entirely different object
              moving
              > through time, but an effect of two moments of consciousness
              artificially
              > linked by the mind.
              >
              > Maybe my doubt here is due to misunderstanding about the role
              > vi~n~naa.na is playing on this context, so any clarifications are
              welcome.
              >
              > Thank you,
              >
              > Flavio Costa
            • Flavio Costa
              Wynn, Suan Lu Zaw et al, thank you for your responses. It seems that Miss Horner really did not fully comprehend this phrase, simply leaving purimaviññaanam
              Message 6 of 6 , Sep 4, 2001
              • 0 Attachment
                Wynn, Suan Lu Zaw et al,

                thank you for your responses. It seems that Miss Horner really did not
                fully comprehend this phrase, simply leaving purimaviññaanam aside (it's not
                the point here to investigate why she translated this way).

                I found in the PED the exact translation for the expression sangaha.m
                gacchati:

                to be comprised, included, or classified SnA 7, 24, 291. --
                3. inclusion, i. e. constitution of consciousness, phase Miln 40.

                However I still wonder what means "the previous consciousness to be
                included (or comprised) in the latter consciousness". Why "inclusion"? As
                far as I know, the first consciousness in this life arises in dependence on
                the last consciousness in the previous life. Strange to express this
                dependence as a kind of inclusion, but, anyway, the feedback you provided
                helped me to clarify this question.

                Best regards,

                Flavio Costa
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.