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

Synecdoche

Expand Messages
  • upasaka@aol.com
    Hi, all - The referring to specific namas and rupas as khandhas is an instance of the linguistic phenomenon called synecdoche . The definition of that is
    Message 1 of 5 , Aug 2, 2012
      Hi, all -

      The referring to specific namas and rupas as khandhas is an instance
      of the linguistic phenomenon called "synecdoche". The definition of that is
      given in the Wikipedia aricle _http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synecdoche_
      (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synecdoche) , as follows:

      Synecdoche ( _/_ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IPA_for_English)
      _s_ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IPA_for_English#Key) _ɪ_
      (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IPA_for_English#Key) _ˈ_
      (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IPA_for_English#Key) _n_
      (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IPA_for_English#Key) _ɛ_
      (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IPA_for_English#Key) _k_
      (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IPA_for_English#Key) _d_ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IPA_for_English#Key)
      _ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IPA_for_English#Key) _k_
      (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IPA_for_English#Key) _iː_
      (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IPA_for_English#Key) _/_
      (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IPA_for_English) , _si-NEK-də-kee_
      (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Pronunciation_respelling_key) ; from _Greek_
      (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Greek) synekdoche (συνεκδοχή), meaning "simultaneous
      understanding", is a _figure of speech_
      (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Figure_of_speech) _[1]_ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synecdoche#cite_note-m-w-0)
      in which a term is used in one of the following ways:
      * Part of something is used to refer to the whole thing (_pars pro
      toto_ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pars_pro_toto) ), or
      * A thing (a "whole") is used to refer to part of it (_totum pro
      parte_ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Totum_pro_parte) ), or
      * A specific class of thing is used to refer to a larger, more
      general class, or
      * A general class of thing is used to refer to a smaller, more
      specific class, or
      * A material is used to refer to an object composed of that material,
      or
      * A container is used to refer to its contents.
      It is the 2nd item in this list that is the case in point. Another
      example of this whole-for-part usage mentioned in the article is the
      following: "He's good people." [Here, the word "people" is used to denote a specific
      instance of people, i.e., a person. So the sentence would be interpreted
      as "He's a good person."]
      Some additional examples from another site are the following:

      At the Olympics, you will hear that the United States won a gold medal in
      an event. That actually means a team from the United States, not the
      country as a whole. If “the world” is not treating you well, that would not be
      the entire world but just a part of it that you've encountered. The word
      "society" is often used to refer to high society or the social elite. The
      word "police" can be used to represent only one or a few police officers. [On
      yet another site is given the example "The police knocked down my door "
      whole (the police) for part (some police officers)] The "pentagon" can refer
      to a few decision-making generals. "Capitol Hill" refers to both the U.S.
      Senate and the House of Representatives.

      With metta,
      Howard

      Seamless Interdependence

      /A change in anything is a change in everything/

      (Anonymous)




      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Dieter Moeller
      Hi Howard , all, thanks for the food for thought , Howard. first thoughts: Howard concludes The referring to specific namas and rupas as khandhas is an
      Message 2 of 5 , Aug 2, 2012
        Hi Howard , all,

        thanks for the food for thought , Howard.


        first thoughts:


        Howard concludes 'The referring to specific namas and rupas as khandhas is an instance of the linguistic phenomenon called "synecdoche".
        Question 1 : is it so?
        Question 2: if yes, what does it say in respect to Ven . Nyanatiloka's definition of the khandhas, in particular:
        "these 5 groups, correctly speaking, merely form an abstract classification by the Buddha" .



        H: 1. synekdoche (συνεκδοχή), meaning "simultaneous understanding", is a _figure of speech_in which a term is used in one of the following ways:
        snip .. It is the 2nd item in this list that is the case in point :* A thing (a "whole") is used to refer to part of it (_totum pro parte
        example of this whole-for-part usage mentioned in the article is the following: "He's good people..
        At the Olympics, you will hear that the United States won a gold medal in an event.

        D:Refering to khandha , example : vinnana khandha = eye - , ear-, tongue- ,nose- , bodily- and mind-consciousness (, involved are the rupa dhammas of sight, sound , scent,taste,tangible and nama dhamma thought.. it is all what the living being can be conscious about , i.e.
        consciousness their common.
        What is constantly arising and ceasing are the phenomena among the 6senses media , sound may cease, scent arise etc. , but - strictly speaking
        the consciousness khandha is not (coma,death exluded) .

        Similar to speak of the U.S. winning a gold medal ( I wonder whether one would speak of US losing a gold medal in case of doping e.g. )
        is a matter of -strictly speaking - incorrect use of the language

        2. Ven. Nyanatiloka:
        "The fact ought to be emphasized here that these 5 groups, correctly speaking, merely form an abstract classification by the Buddha, but that they as such, i.e. as just these 5 complete groups, have no real existence, since only single representatives of these groups, mostly variable, can arise with any state of consciousness. For example, with one and the same unit of consciousness only one single kind of feeling, say joy or sorrow, can be associated and never more than one. Similarly, two different perceptions cannot arise at the same moment. Also, of the various kinds of sense-cognition or consciousness, only one can be present at a time, for example, seeing, hearing or inner consciousness, etc. Of the 50 mental formations, however, a smaller or larger number are always associated with every state of consciousness, as we shall see later on.

        Some writers on Buddhism who have not understood that the five khandha are just classificatory groupings, have conceived them as compact entities ('heaps', 'bundles'), while actually, as stated above, the groups never exist as such, i.e. they never occur in a simultaneous totality of all their constituents. Also those single constituents of a group which are present in any given body- and -mind process, are of an evanescent nature, and so also their varying combinations. Feeling, perception and mental formations are only different aspects and functions of a single unit of consciousness. They are to consciousness what redness, softness, sweetness, etc. are to an apple and have as little separate existence as those qualities."

        My conclusion , the Venerable is right.

        Acc. to the sutta sources the Buddha spoke of rising and ceasing khandhas, but I think he would not have used it when it comes to Abhidhammic

        precession , where concept and reality are distingushed . It was not necessary , because he did not made such distinction and therefore it was

        understood as a figure of speech , likewise when we read that the US won a medal.





        With Metta Dieter


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Dieter Moeller
        test [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        Message 3 of 5 , Aug 2, 2012
          test

          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • upasaka@aol.com
          Hi, Dieter - In a message dated 8/2/2012 2:29:22 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, moellerdieter@gmx.net writes: Acc. to the sutta sources the Buddha spoke of
          Message 4 of 5 , Aug 2, 2012
            Hi, Dieter -

            In a message dated 8/2/2012 2:29:22 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
            moellerdieter@... writes:

            Acc. to the sutta sources the Buddha spoke of rising and ceasing khandhas,
            but I think he would not have used it when it comes to Abhidhammic

            precession , where concept and reality are distingushed . It was not
            necessary , because he did not made such distinction
            -------------------------------------------------------
            HCW:
            You have made me smile, Dieter! ;-)
            ----------------------------------------------------------

            and therefore it was

            understood as a figure of speech , likewise when we read that the US won a
            medal.
            ============================
            With metta,
            Howard


            Seamless Interdependence

            /A change in anything is a change in everything/

            (Anonymous)



            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • upasaka@aol.com
            Passed! With metta, Howard In a message dated 8/2/2012 2:33:10 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, moellerdieter@gmx.net writes: test [Non-text portions of this
            Message 5 of 5 , Aug 2, 2012
              Passed!

              With metta,
              Howard


              In a message dated 8/2/2012 2:33:10 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
              moellerdieter@... writes:

              test



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