>
> LS> What I was interested in is, not if the translation is correct, but if
> there
> LS> would be any reason for the second "knowing" that he puts there.
> LS> I know his translations sometimes are a bit "loony" :-) But sometimes
> they
> LS> are also quite interesting. He actually has some fourty years of
> experience
> LS> in the Pali, so one should expect at least to find something of value
> here
> LS> and there.
>
> I understand his logic in this case. Indeed vi~n~nana is a
> pre-knowing, since mano (intellect) is one of the sense doors it
> opens up. Yet it also opens up other doors, without this double
> function.
>

Another thing is that he often takes "vi-" to mean "re-" like vipassana
"re-view". And also some person I know takes vibhava as "re-becoming". But in the
PED I don't find "vi" ever meaning "re". How do they get to that?

Lars

--
+++ GMX - Mail, Messaging & more http://www.gmx.net +++
Bitte lächeln! Fotogalerie online mit GMX ohne eigene Homepage!