D: The ambience of "and now" is quite different from that of "on the
contrary," but it is interesting that both are glosses for "pana". It
seems to give a special emphasis to what follows: "'And now', listen
to this. Be careful, though. Although it may only appear to be subtly
different from what I said before in the previous sentence, it is
really quite different ('on the contrary')." Does that make sense? I
really need to get this right...
N: I think we have here only the one sentence in isolation and should
translate the whole context, then we shall see it better.<And now>
may be better, because first the Buddha spoke about the cessation,
and now we have the way to be developed. I myself would like the
whole text if possible but we better wait.
--> Dan: Yes, of course. As you suggest, though, I'm not ready to
work through the whole thing yet. In any case, here's a little more
of the context:
1] Ida.m dukkhanirodhagaaminii pa.tipadaa ariyasaccanti me,
bhikkhave, pubbe ananussutesu dhammesu cakkhu.m udapaadi, ~naa.na.m
udapaadi, pa~n~naa udapaadi, vijjaa udapaadi, aaloko udapaadi. [2]
ta.m kho panida.m dukkhanirodhagaaminii pa.tipadaa ariyasacca.m
bhaavetabbanti me, bhikkhave, pubbe ananussutesu dhammesu cakkhu.m
udapaadi, ~naa.na.m udapaadi, pa~n~naa udapaadi, vijjaa udapaadi,
aaloko udapaadi. [3] ta.m kho panida.m dukkhanirodhagaaminii
pa.tipadaa ariyasacca.m bhaavitanti me, bhikkhave, pubbe
ananussutesudhammesu cakkhu.m udapaadi, ~naa.na.m udapaadi, pa~n~naa
udapaadi, vijjaa udapaadi, aaloko udapaadi.
Not only is there this noble truth of the way leading to the
cessation of suffering, but also that noble truth must be fully
understood. The knowing and believing that it is there is one thing,
but fully understanding it is quite another ('pana' to help contrast
[2] with the similar sounding [1]). This is all that I meant.
N: How far are you in Warder? I did all the exercises, but not
English-Pali.
--> Dan: I'm just starting lesson 7 (slow going the past few days
with the holiday this week). At this point, I'm reading through
everything and only half-way memorizing the grammar. The vocabulary
I'm not explicitly memorizing, but I am reading through all the
exercises, several times, doing both the Pali->English and the
English->Pali, and then doing the same exercises in the reverse
direction (i.e. reading the 'answers' in the back and trying to
reconstruct the original exercise). When I get through a little more
(maybe lesson 15 or so), I'll go back and memorize more endings,
usages, contractions, etc. Compounds start on lesson 16, and I would
like to have the basic endings down well before jumping into
compounds.
Funny how translations can get really mixed up by a beginner when
there is no context for the sentence. For example, in lesson 3 Warder
translates "upaasaka.m braahman dhaareti" as "he accepts the priest
as a lay disciple." I had "He remembers the brahmin lay disciple."
Another one: "attha.m dhaareti," which Warder has as "He remembers
the meaning," while I thought about "He has wealth."
I do have a couple of questions that you might be able to help me
with. In lesson 5, Warder talks about how a double negative is
equivalent to a strong affirmation. [Interesting... In English, it's
usually a weak affirmation, and in Greek it would be a strong
negation!] In lesson 6, he then gives the sentence, "n' eso h' atthii
ti vadaami," which he translates as "I don't say, 'This doesn't
exist.'" I'd think a strong affirmation would sound something like
this: "I say, 'This surely exists.'" How can we tell that the
first 'na' negates the 'vadaami' instead of doubling the second 'na'?
Also, in lesson 6 he introduces the "Imperative Tense." I've always
learned that 'imperative' was a 'mood' (along with indicative,
subjunctive, optative) , but tenses were more time oriented (like
present, imperfect, future, past, pluperfect, etc.) I can see a
temporal sense in the imperative (somewhat future-ish), but it still
seems peculiar... Surely, the subjunctive can't be called a tense
too, can it?
Dan