--- In Pali@..., Robert Eddison <robedd@...> wrote:
>
> Welcome to the list.
>
Thanks man ! :)
> In fact both usages are found in Buddhist texts. The only
difference is
> that when it is used in Buddhist texts to mean soul it will
generally be
> part of some passage in which soul theories are rejected, whereas
in a Jain
> text the soul's existence will be asserted. (By the way, although a
few of
> the older Jain texts use aya -- a Prakrit cognate of attaa -- for
the soul,
> the vast majority always use jiiva).
>
Um... From what i gather from the translations i've read (which are
plenty) i've never seen the denial of a soul. I've only seen the
denial to the claim that the soul's abode is within the khandas.
Would you have an example from the Suttas were Buddha says there's no
soul at all? that there's nothing which reaches the other shore?
Thanks in advance.
> As for the use of attaa for the reflexive pronoun, this is not
limited to
> Pali Buddhist texts. You will find exactly the same usage in texts
written
> in other Indian Sanskritic and Prakritic dialects, no matter
whether their
> authors are Buddhist, Hindu or Jain.
>
> Even in a Hindu text that does propound a soul theory, if the text
in
> question has a lot of narrative content (e.g. the Bhagavad Gita,
> Ramayana, Avadhut Gita and suchlike), you will find that the
Sanskrit
> "aatman" more often functions as a reflexive pronoun than as a word
for the
> soul.
>
> Example:
>
> Siitaa-devii praaptaprasavavedanam AATMAANAM atidu.hkhasa.mvegaad
> Gan.gaa-pravaahe nik.siptavatii
>
> "Queen Sita, when the pangs of childbirth were upon her, in the
extremity
> of her suffering, threw *herself* into the Ganges."
Thanks, point taken.
> I wouldn't put it like that. The word attaa/aatman must have had
some
> generally accepted denotations, else it would have been impossible
for
> Buddhists, brahmins and Jains to talk to each other on the subject.
On the
> other hand each sectarian group had its own take on what precisely
the soul
> was, or on whether such a thing existed.
Yeah, thanks for bringing this up, which helps my theory, which is
that Buddha's view on the soul were different from those who preached
that the soul was to be found in the khandas, imho, the Buddha is not
preaching that there's no soul at all. It'd be strange if that were
the case, why do i think this? Because then, what would realize
illumination? what is reborn? what suffers? what is liberated from
suffering?
> In English when I say 'spirit' I might well be referring to gin,
whiskey,
> vodka and suchlike. Strangely, when Germans say 'Geist' (spirit)
they never
> mean anything of the sort. How come German is different?
>
> What exactly are you asking here? How come Pali isn't the same as
Spanish?
>
> And are you seriously suggesting that in Spanish each word has only
one
> meaning? I find it hard to believe the language could be that
impoverished.
> In the case of espiritu does it not also mean espectro, ánimo, alma,
> respiración.... ?
>
> The point to note is that Pali, Sanskrit and related languages
didn't have
> any words that corresponded exactly to reflexives such as 'myself',
> 'himself', 'oneself' etc. So in order to convey the idea of
reflexivity (of
> an action falling back upon the agent) some other method had to be
> employed. One was to use the indeclinable particle saya.m ('by
oneself').
> The other, much more common way, was to use attaa.
>
I'm suggesting that when i use the word Espiritu within a certain
context, in this case a philosophical context, i know the meaning of
the word. For example, to use the example of the english word Spirit,
i'd like to point out that to say Spirit by itself can be interpreted
in the several meanings it has (same in spanish, you are right). But
if i say: "I'm gonna go down the bar and drink spirits" Then i'd know
that you ain't talking about a Soul/Essence.
Within the Buddhist texts, however, the context is philosophically
and religiously inclined to say the least. Thus, the reason why i
asked the question.
> As noted above, it is not a strange characteristic of Pali, but a
shared
> feature of Aryan languages in the Indic group. It is very rare that
> sectarian concerns determine the everyday conventions of usage in
any
> language.
Right, maybe not sectarian concerns, but certainly the context where
words are put will determine their meaning, would not you agree?
>
> Firstly because this is linguistically correct. Secondly because
both of
> the above translators subscribe to the mainstream Buddhist
interpretation
> of anattaa, and not to any of the heterodox variants (e.g. those of
the
> Puggalavadin schools in bygone days, or of Rhys Davids, George
Grimm and
> Ven. Thanissaro in more recent times).
>
So, in fact, there are different interpretations and methods when it
comes down to translating a Buddhist pali text which are dependent
upon which sectarian understanding you subscribe to ?
It seems that there are several linguistically correct ways to
translated the Suttas, but, the meaning they give are sometimes even
contradictory ! What a puzzle !.
> But whoever made such a claim? Though "himelf, oneself, herself,
etc" are
> probably the most common meanings of attaa in narrative passages,
they
> don't by any means exhaust the range of applications this word has
in Pali.
>
Yeah, i was just making sure that within the Buddhist context the
meaning of the word Attan is not dependent upon interpretations,
rather, dependent upon what is it what is the "preacher" trying to
convey. Thanks.
> >What use would there be to say that the 5 skandhas are Anatta if
> >there was no Attan at all?
>
> Because worldlings don't know that there's no attaa at all and this
> non-knowing leads them into suffering.
>
Well, this answer you give me is not really related to pali, but to
your interpretation of why is Anatta used to express that the five
aggregates are empty.
My question begs the answer to the philosophically analysed, because
if the usage of the word Anatta to convey the message that the 5
khandas are not the Attan, is taken for granted, then, we'll leave
too much space for interpretations which may at times conclude things
from things not being said. For example, when it is stated that The 5
khandas are Anatta. Can we really and honestly and without fooling
ourselves arrive at the conclusion that there is no Attan (as in
Animus) at all? not even beyond the khandas?
Thanks in advance.
> Best wishes,
>
> Robert
Thanks for your helpful reply. Hope to hear from you.
Good Day. :)
Samatha Savaka.