Re: nesohamasmi

Hi Christos,

This statement is contained in the Mahaavastu in Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit as
follows:

naita.m mama (na eta.m mama) , nai.so ham asmi (na e.so aham asmi) , na etad
ātmeti (na etad aatmaa iti)   (Mahaavastu 3.336)

The etad is not really significant as in the context it is referring back to
rupam or vij~naanam, both neuter nouns. Note that it leaves out "me" ("That is
not the self", as opposed to "That is not my self").


The Tibetan may be found at pecha 45B
(http://www.asianclassics.org/release6/flat/KD0001I4AET_T.TXT) which is that
part of the Vinaya text dealing with the pa~ncavaggiyaktahaa (story of Buddha's
first sermon to the group of five monks)

bdag ma yin  ("the self does not exist"; lit: "the self is not")
bdag ni de ma yin ("that is not the self"). Lit: the self + subject marker ni +
that + not + is. (Lit: self + subject marker + that+ not is
de ni bdag gi bdag ma yin no ("my self is not that"). Lit: that + subject marker
ni + my + self + not is + end of statement marker. Lit: "That - my self is not".

Note that the Tibetan uses de which is "that" whereas the Paali and BHS use etad
which means "this",

My Chinese is not that great; however I looked up one version of the Vinaya and
there they simply said that the skandhas were 非我 (fei wo) which means "not self"
Reference is T22n1421_p0105a19.
Perhaps someone could review what the various versions have to say,

Metta,

Bryan








________________________________
From: k_nizamis <nizamisk@...>
To: palistudy@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wed, July 7, 2010 6:55:18 AM
Subject: [palistudy] 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
>






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