Dear Khristos,
You remarked this very well.

Op 28-jun-2010, om 2:50 heeft Khristos Nizamis het volgende geschreven:

> neta.m mama, nesoham asmi, na meso attaa
>
> which I read:
>
> na eta.m mama, na eso aham asmi, na me eso attaa
>
> I take 'eta.m' in the first clause to be the nom. neut. sg.
> demonstrative
> pronoun (nom. because 'eta.m' should be the subject of the clause);
> 'eso' in
> the second and third clauses to be nom. masc. sg.
>
> If this is correct, then my question follows. Would someone be
> willing to
> share with me their understanding of why the gender of the
> demonstrative
> pronoun alters between the first and the other clauses?

-----------
N: Let us analyse this without the negative.

> 1. eta.m mama,

> 2. esoham asmi,

> 3.eso me attaa

1 represents tanhaa, clinging. 2 represents conceit. 3 represents
di.t.thi.
As to 1: clinging appropriates something as its property. This
(eta.m) belongs to me.

2: in the case of conceit one considers oneself as better, equal or
less and one clings to the importance of oneself. I am thus or thus.
This am I. Eso aham asmi. Eso is predicative.

3: 'I am' stands for a self view. One identifies oneself with the
five khandhas.

Conceit is different from wrong view. The person who has reached the
first stage of enlightenment eradicates wrong view, but not conceit.
Only the arahat has eradicated conceit, maana.
Nina.



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]