Re: milindapanha: Update
- 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
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
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.
Suan Lu Zaw
--- In Pali@y..., "Flavio Costa" <flavio@n...> wrote:
> Hi all,
> I'm translating a passage about rebirth from the Milindapanha (more
> 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
> My doubt is about rendering "purimavi~n~naa.ne
> "the last consciousness". Wouldn't it rather be translated as
> consequently, neither the one [dhamma], nor another, it is reckoned
> as the former and the latest consciousness
> This way, it would mean that the flow of phenomena
> not to be regarded as the same or an entirely different object
> through time, but an effect of two moments of consciousness
> 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
> Thank you,
> 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 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
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.