First let me explain why I have written the above. I used to write "Dear Nina" as I was taught in school. Moreover, I noticed quite a few polite people wrote that way. However, I was instructed, I am sure by a person who has the powers, the I should write to the Group. I was told "MESSAGE NOT APPROVED" Please take the phrase on top as "Dear Nina".
"N: Interesting that you say this, because just this morning I have
been thinking of language and context. When we just analyse words
into particles, it seems that language is something not alive. A word
has different meanings in different contexts. And also, the way we
translate depends on how we see the practice.
I do not know much of your background, are you living in Sri Lanka? I
visited twice many years ago, with Acharn Sujin and I have a weak
spot for this country. I was so impressed by the Pali knowledge of
many people there. And there is such a tradition of the Abhidhamma,
with the late Ven. Nyanaponika, and the Buddhist Publication Society
in Kandy."
Actually words are mere symbols. They acquire meaning only within a certain context and in a communication.
Here is the little I know of comparative philology.
It is based on the theory that languages can be classified into families. One such family is called Indo-European--Sanskrit, Avesta, Latin, Greek and the modern Modern versions of these languages. A theory developed in the 18th century says that all these languages are descendent of a 'Proto' language. For the Indo-Eropean family that language is called Proto-Indian-European or PIE. That language was never written down, so nothing there is no evidence. It is purely conjectured (imaginary). So they construct words of this language with the help of similar sounding words from Latin, Greek, Old English, Irish, German etc. However, when you dig into it, meanings are given to these constructions by modern English etc. Then when they want to give a meaning to a similar sounding word, in say Sanskrit, they use the reconstructed word and give it a meaning. So ultimately, you attach a few english words to a Sanskrit word. What a beautiful circular
process.
By the way a philosphical treatment of language and meaning is given in "Philosophical Investigations" by Ludwig Wittgenstein", the most respected philosopher of the last century.
Yes. I am Sri Lankan traditional Sinhala Buddhist. I learnt dhamma in Sinhala. My first teacher was my mother. She didn't teach books, She told us we should not kill etc. We obeyed, not because we feared "niraya" but we would get a good scolding and we would go down in her eyes. I had a scientific education, I have got a couple of degrees in Buddhist Studies and Pali. As of now, I consciously never break the five precepts (I have paid heavily in worldly terms for that but have gained peace of mind) and observe the eight precepts on Poya days (uposatha). Now I am not a Theravaadin. I accept only the Paali discourses of the Buddha or His immediate disciples which have been approved by Him. Why I don't accept sectarian Buddhism is a simple conviction of mine. There is only one truth. So there can't be divisions.
The most respected Abhidhamma master in this country was Ven. Rerukaane Chandavimala. He translated Pa.t.thaanaprakara.naya to Sinhala. Their are numerous other books by him on every possible subject on Dhamma and Vinaya. He is no more. It is from his books that I learnt Dhamma.
Yes, I have read and own quite a few books by Ven. Nyanaponika. For him Abhidhamma was a philosophy. See his Abhidhamma Studies.
I have written quite a long e-m, thank you for asking me about our.
Mettaa to you, ans all,
D. G. D. C. Wijeratna
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]