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/
>
>