What about

neta.m mama nesohamasmi na meso attaa'ti

taking "etam" as acc? "That is not mine" Especially in combination with the
genetive? Does anyone know of a combination of acc+gen in this way?

The "eso" (nom) is then used, as Nina suggested, as a predicate "I am not
this" (=> eso has to be in the nominative for this to apply)

In the last part too, the demonstrative pronoun is used in the nominative
stating: "This is not my Self" (with the idea of: This can not be my Self).

That (!sic) way it seems to be pretty straightforward?!

On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 9:15 AM, Bryan Levman <bryan.levman@...>wrote:

>
>
> Dear Khristos,
>
> Grammatically, as you have suggested, eso in the third statement modifies
> attaa, ("This self is not mine") so the form is correct. The second
> statement is usually translated something like "This I am not", but if is
> were translated "This self (eso aham), I am not (na... asmi)", then eso
> would be correct, as "aham" would default to a first person masculine
> pronoun (although it could be feminine as well, depending on the speaker,
> but in this case the speaker is always masculine). So I think that is the
> solution to your grammatical problem. As you say, in Pali as in Greek, the
> adjectives/pronouns must agree with the noun to which they refer,
>
> Metta,
>
> Bryan
>
> ________________________________
> From: k_nizamis <nizamisk@... <nizamisk%40gmail.com>>
> To: Pali@yahoogroups.com <Pali%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Tue, June 29, 2010 8:57:20 PM
> Subject: [Pali] Re: About 'neta.m mama, nesoham asmi, na meso attaa'ti
>
>
> Hi Nina,
>
> thank you very much for taking the time to provide a response to my
> question. I feel that your answer is a very good one, from a doctrinal and
> theoretical point of view. And it clearly accords with the teachings and
> concepts that are so strongly evident and so important in the Sutta Pi.taka.
> I agree with your understanding of the general or applied meaning of each
> clause in terms of ta.nhaa, maana, and di.t.thi. This is clearly a good and
> correct reading of the doctrinal sense of each clause. So, I'm satisfied at
> this intuitive doctrinal/theoretical level.
>
> Yet, please be patient with me a moment more, because I'm not yet
> completely satisfied with the explanation at an intuitive linguistic level.
> I'm still trying to understand the `sense' of the one nt. nom. sg. and the
> two masc. nom. sg. demonstrative pronouns in this formula.
>
> Before I began to study the Paa.li texts directly, I had always assumed
> that, in the English translations of this formula, which is usually along
> the lines of "This is not mine, this is not what I am, this is not my self",
> the demonstrative pronoun `this' referred back identically to the same
> subject-term, be it `form', `feeling', `perception', `mental formations',
> `consciousness', or whatever. But once I began to study the Paa.li texts, I
> was surprised to find that what in English seems to be one and the same
> pronoun, "this . . . this . . . this", is, in Paa.li, "eta.m . . . eso . . .
> eso". Intuitively, to me, this means that `eso' is not referring to the same
> term that eta.m is referring to, since `eso' is masc. nom. sg. and `eta.m'
> is nt. nom. sg. (in this context).
>
> Suppose that this formula has just been applied to one of the
> pa~ncakkhandhaa: take vi~n~naa.na, for example, which is a nt. noun. In
> English, which has no gendered nouns and pronouns, it sounds as if, in the
> formula "This is not mine, this is not what I am, this is not my self", the
> pronoun `this' refers in each instance to vi~n~naa.na. But in Paa.li, it
> doesn't look like that at all, because vi~n~naa.na is nt., but only the
> first pronoun is nt.
>
> As a kind of intuitive experiment, I tried translating the `neta.m mama...'
> formula into Greek (I'm of Greek background, you see) because, as in Paa.li,
> Greek nouns and pronouns are gendered and it's a highly inflected language.
> I used a nt. pronoun in the 1st clause, and masc. pronouns in the 2nd and
> 3rd clauses. When I did this, the sentence felt rather odd, and especially
> so if I placed it into the context where it followed after, and referred
> back to, well, pretty much any other term, no matter what gender . . . as
> long as I assumed that the demonstrative pronouns were supposed to be
> referring back to that term. In the Greek, at least, it's sort of just
> possible that a neuter demonstrative might be used (a bit loosely) to refer
> back to a masc., fem., or nt. subject, but definitely not a masc. pronoun!
> It sounds wacky.
>
> May I include a textual sample here? There are numerous possible examples,
> as you know, and very many of them are applied to the pa~ncakkhandhaa,
> although not always just to these. I've chosen, pretty much at random, a
> passage from SN III.1.2.1.7 Anattalakkha.na Sutta, also known as
> Pa~ncavaggiya Sutta, etc. (22.59; PTS S iii.66).
>
> The following complex sentence occurs virtually identically (with only
> minor necessary grammatical changes) for each one of the pa~ncakkhandhaa,
> but I have chosen the sentence dealing with vi~n~naa.na as a
> representative sample.
>
> It's worth noting, however, that since each of the khandha is, in turn, the
> main subject of this larger sentence pattern, this means that the gender of
> the subject changes: ruupa (nt.), vedanaa (f.), sa~n~naa (f.), sa"nkhaaraa
> (m. pl.), vi~n~naa.na (nt.). Note that only one of these terms is
> masculine (and is plural). But the formula `neta.m mama, nesohamasmi, na
> meso attaa'ti does not alter to accommodate these grammatical changes in the
> gender of the respective subject-terms (and as far as I can see, it seems
> never to alter in any context, anywhere in the suttaani: it is like a
> permanently fixed formula, which is perhaps an interesting clue).
>
> The passage (sentence) reads as follows:
>
> Ya.m ki~nci | vi~n~naa.na.m | atiita-anaagata-paccuppanna.m | ajjhatta.m
> vaa bahiddhaa vaa | o.laarika.m vaa sukhuma.m vaa | hiina.m vaa pa.niita.m
> vaa | ya.m duure santike vaa, | sabba.m | vi~n~naa.na.m | `neta.m mama
> nesohamasmi na meso attaa'ti | evam | eta.m | yatthaabhuuta.m |
> sammappa~n~naaya | da.t.thabba.m
>
> Whatsoever | consciousness | gone by � not yet come � having arisen (i.e.,
> past, future, present) | internal or external | gross or subtle | inferior
> or sublime | which (is) distant or present, | all | consciousness | `not
> this (nt.) mine, not this (m.) I am, not of me this (m.) self' | thus | this
> (nt.) | just as it has come to be (i.e., in truth, in reality) | with right
> wisdom | should be seen (i.e., viewed).
>
> I'd like to focus just on this part:
>
> sabba.m | vi~n~naa.na.m | `neta.m mama nesohamasmi na meso attaa'ti | evam
> | eta.m | yatthaabhuuta.m | sammappa~n~naaya | da.t.thabba.m
>
> All | consciousness | `not this (nt.) mine, not this (m.) I am, not of me
> this (m.) self' | thus | this (nt.) | just as it has come to be (i.e., in
> truth, in reality) | with right wisdom | should be seen (i.e., viewed).
>
> Intuitively, if each of the three demonstratives (even when predicative, as
> in `na eso aham asmi') were pointing back to vi~n~naa.na, couldn't the
> formula easily have read as follows (i.e., with nt. pronouns all the way
> through)?
>
> na eta.m mama, na eta.m aham asmi, na me eta.m attaa
>
> or in the affirmative sense (which, of course, is not our view):
>
> eta.m mama, eta.m aham asmi, eta.m me attaa
>
> But the formula doesn't read like this; and of course, it never changes, no
> matter what gender or number the previous subject-term might be. If a native
> Greek were to use this formula to refer back to subject-terms of differing
> gender and number, he or she would automatically and unthinkingly change the
> gender and number of the demonstrative pronouns to match. For a native
> speaker, it would be unthinkable to use one fixed formula � and with
> pronouns of mixed gender, what's more � in each and every different context.
> It would just sound `wrong'.
>
> Reflecting on this, there are probably at least a couple of possible
> (essentially historical) explanations for the unchanging form of this
> formula, in whatever context it occurs.
>
> But I also wonder, sometimes, whether there is an `internal logic' to the
> grammar of this formula. This is because `atta.m' is masc. (with stem in
> `an'). `Aha.m', as the first personal pronoun, is, if taken purely as a
> pronoun, not gendered; but if it were nominalised (e.g., as something to be
> referred to, discussed, analysed, etc.), then wouldn't it be treated as a
> noun with the same stem as `atta.m', and therefore masc.? Is it at all
> conceivable, I wonder, and is it grammatically possible, that perhaps `eso'
> corresponds to `aham' in "na eso aham asmi", and that `eso' corresponds to
> `atta.m' in "na me eso atta.m"? If so, then these could be translated: "I am
> (asmi) not this `I'", and "This self is not of me (mine)", respectively? In
> this case, the `I' that `I am not' is the one identified with the khandhaa,
> etc.; and the `self' that is not `of me' is again the one identified with
> the khandhaa, etc.
>
> Please don't misunderstand me, here, however: I'm definitely not suggesting
> that there is another `I' or `self' entity separate from the khandhaa. By no
> means: the suttaani are unambiguous on this point. Rather, the point is that
> if we completely drop every sense of `I' and `self' that is identified with
> anything at all, there is still `something' left over, so to speak, but the
> terms `I' and `self' can no longer be used for `it', because the terms `I'
> and `self' have no sense or reference unless we attach them to something
> that we can think or perceive or feel, etc. But if we refuse to attach them
> to any phenomenon whatsoever, their sense undergoes a radical and
> fundamental transformation, because they can no longer `point' to anything,
> and yet, `something', which is not any `thing', can still `use them' (in the
> loka-vohaara-attha).
>
> I suppose you may think this is a very foolish reading, and I don't mind at
> all of you think so and say so. I find it very helpful to test all
> possibilities, as long as I think that they are logically and intuitively
> possible, plausible, and meaningful.
>
> Very respectfully,
> with deep metta,
>
> Khristos
>
> --- In Pali@yahoogroups.com <Pali%40yahoogroups.com>, Nina van Gorkom
> <vangorko@...> wrote:
> >
> > 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]
> >
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>


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