Re: nesohamasmi

Hi Jim and friends,

I thought you'd be interested in the following bits of information which might help us to move a little farther on with this question.  I've listed them from what I think is the least relevant/interesting to the most relevant/interesting for this particular question.

1. F. Edgerton, Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit Grammar and Dictionary, Vol. 1 Grammar (1953/1993)

Edgerton does have a reference to a peculiar usage of the nom.-acc. sg. nt. in 'Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit'.  He notes: “The masc. ‘so’ replaces ‘tad’, e.g. Saddharmapu.n.dariika 62.7.”  (But this is a much later Mahaayaana text.)  Similarly, with some variant forms: e.g., ‘se’ and ‘su’ (variants of ‘so’), Edgerton indicates a text Apabhra.m’sa or Apadaana (which he identifies as a Paa.li text); he also cites these examples: ‘su bhava.nu’, ‘ehu’ for ‘etad’, in Sanatkumaaracaritam (Apabhra.m’sa or Apadaana).  (Edgerton, p. 114, 21.10.)   I suspect that it is because of these examples that, in his table of paradigms (p. 116, 21.46), he includes ‘so’ along with ‘ta.m’ under the forms for the Nt. Sg. Nom.-Acc., as well as giving it as the main form of the Masc. Sg. Nom.

2. T. Oberlies, Pali: A Grammar of the Language of the Theravaada Tipi.taka (2001)

(i) He notes an 'eastern' form of both 'so' and 'ta.m', i.e., 'se', which is also part of 'seyyathaa - sayathaa' (Th 412).  To this he adds a footnote: "se = ta.m is wrongly translated as so (nesa.m bhavissati uposathakamma.m) Vin I 102,30.  (I haven't yet followed up this reference.)  (Oberlies, p. 185, and fn. 1.)

(ii) On the other hand, Oberlies notes (citing Geiger and von Hinuber): "The pronouns so, saa, ta.m (etc.) are "used to strengthen other pronouns", usually preceding them, and "so may refer also to the person contained in a verbal form: so karohi '(you) do!', Dhp 236, so tato cuto amutra upapaadi.m 'departed from there I was born again at that place', D I 13,23" (Geiger para. 106)."  (Oberlies, p. 184, fn. 7.)

3. W. D. Whitney, Sanskrit Grammar (2nd ed. 1889/1993)

Whitney, in his section on Demonstrative Pronouns, writes: "Though the demonstrative root ‘ta’ is prevailingly of the third person, it is also freely used, both in the earlier language and in the later, as qualifying the pronouns of the first and second person, giving emphasis to them: thus, ‘so 'ham’, 'this I', or 'I here'; ‘sa’ or ‘saa tvam’, 'thou there'; ‘te vayam’, 'we here'; ‘tasya mama’, 'of me here', ‘tasmi”ns tvayi’, 'in thee there', and so on."  (Whitney, p. 495, para. 498.)

I think this last one is very nice.

It would also be quite interesting to see how the formula is translated into Chinese (I've asked a friend to look it up for me and send me the text in Chinese characters - perhaps there's someone on this list who could also do that?) and into Tibetan (anyone?).  What about Thai (but this presumably would be based on the Paa.li in any case)?

Let you know anything else that turns up...

Metta,
Khristos











--- In palistudy@yahoogroups.com, "Jim Anderson" <jimanderson_on@...> wrote:
>
> Dear Members,
>
> The statement "nesohamasmi" (= na eso ahaṃ asmi) is found in the third
> discourse of the Buddha, the Anattalakkhaṇasutta (or Pañcasutta) S III
> 68, and elsewhere in the Tipiṭaka. A typical translation is "this am I
> not" (MLS, i 52). Could not "eso" be a demonstrative pronominal
> adjective pointing at "ahaṃ"? This would give us the translation: I am
> (asmi) not (na) this "I" (esohaṃ). I think Ps-pṭ I 286 (Be) (eso
> pañcakkhandhapabhedo ahampi na asmi) supports this.
>
> Best wishes,
> Jim
>