Hi Bryan,

Your suggestion works pretty well in German too. If I take the "etam" to
reference back to "rupam...vinnyanam" but then see the eso as referring to
the speaker himself, he could put that into the nom. masc.:

"Nicht* ist das mein, Nicht dieser (! or: ein solcher) bin ich, Nicht dieser
(or: ein solcher) ist mein Ich."

But you are almost denoting or intending a meaning like "my self (or a self)
is not (or cannot be) of such nature"... This would fit into the Buddha's
question and answer method in many those instances where we see this phrase
being used, where the argument is that all these characteristics (like
having no control over it, suffering through it) disqualify the item from
being the self.


metta,

Lennart

PS: *I put the "not" in front as suggested by Ven. Nyanavira
(link<http://www.nanavira.110mb.com/sn-mama.htm>
)

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]