Re: milindapanha

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@..., "Flavio Costa" <flavio@...> 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