Re: 'Neta.m mama'

Dear Khristos,

Thanks very much for this. The correspondence is fascinating. You might also
like to look at Johannes Bronkhorst's 2007 work Greater Magadha where he
discusses the so-called influence of the Upanishads on the Buddha's teachings
and concludes that it was probably the other way around - that the teachings of
religions in what he calls Greater Magadha - Buddhism, Jainism and the
Aajiavikas (with respect to karmic retribution, reincarnation and the universal
I) were incorporated into Vedic thought. (pages 112-35). He also questions the
traditional date of the Upanisads as pre-Buddhist (page 175f),

Metta, Bryan





________________________________
From: Khristos Nizamis <nizamisk@...>
To: palistudy@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thu, July 29, 2010 7:27:48 AM
Subject: Re: [palistudy] Re: 'Neta.m mama'

  
Dear Jim, Bryan, Lennart, and other friends: I’m keen to share this with
you, I think you’ll find it quite interesting.  Here is the first half of
B.rhadāraṇyaka Upani.sad, I.iv.1.  I’ve transliterated both the sandhi and
the sandhi-free versions and I’ve provided my own – what I hope is a fairly
literal and reasonably correct – translation.

ātmaivedamagra āsītpuru.savidha.h  |1a

ātmā eva idam agre āsīt puru.savidhas  |1a

so 'nuvīk.sya nānyadātmano 'pa"syat so 'hamasmītyagre vyāharat  |1b

sas anuvīk.sya na anyad ātmanas apa"syat sas aham asmi iti agre vyāharat
|1b

tasmādapyetarhāmantrito 'hamayamityevagra uktvā 'thānyannāma prabrūte
yadasya bhavati  |1c

tasmād api etarhi āmantritas aham ayam iti eva agre uktvā atha anyad nāma
prabrūte yad asya bhavati  |1c

Translation:

In the beginning [agre] was the self [ātmā], only this [eva idam], in the
likeness of a man [puru.sa-vidha.h].  |1a

He, looking around, saw nothing other than self [ātmana.h]: in the beginning
[agre] he uttered: ‘I am this I’ /or/ ‘I AM’  [so ’ham asmi iti].  |1b

Because of that, even now [api etarhi], having been addressed [āmantrita.h],
‘This (is) I’ [aham ayam iti], indeed, is first spoken, and then [atha] he
announces [prabrūte] any other name [anyat nāma] which happens to be his
[yad asya bhavati].  |1c

This wonderful and resonant connection has been brought to my attention by
the excellent work of S. Collins (1990), *Selfless Persons*, §324, p. 101;
he, in turn, is indebted to J. A. B. van Buitenen (1957), ‘Studies in Sāṃkhya
II’, *Journal of the American Oriental Society*, LXXVII.

The link to B.rhadāraṇyaka, I.iv.1, turns up in a section in which Collins
discusses three possible interpretations of the expression ‘ahaṃkāra’:

(1) by way of resemblance to expressions such as ‘kumbha-kāra’, ‘pot-maker’;

(2) by way of resemblance to expressions such as ‘puru.sa-kāra’, ‘the action
of man’.  (These two interpretations are not mutually exclusive.)

(3) J. van Buitenen was perhaps the first to suggest a very interesting
alternative interpretation of the expression ‘ahaṃkāra’: by way of
resemblance to expressions such as ‘oṃkāra’, ‘svāhākāra’, which may be
understood to mean: ‘the utterance (of) ‘oṃ’’, ‘the utterance of
‘svāhā’’.  (Note
the religious and ritual significance of this particular meaning.)  Thus,
‘ahaṃkāra’ could be understood to mean ‘the utterance ‘I’’.  (Of course,
'kāra' has another closely connected use: as a suffix to name letters and
particles: e.g., 'a-kāra'.)

Collins does note the very obvious similarity between the expression “so
’ham asmi” in the B.rhadāraṇyaka passage and the 2nd part of the Pāḷi
formula “eso ’ham asmi”.  However, it is interesting that he has nothing
further to say about the overall grammatical structure of this fascinating
formula.

Even so, I feel as though at least one more very helpful key has now been
nicely placed into the lock of one more door of interest, and it is now just
a matter of giving it a careful turn.

With my best wishes and metta,

Khristos

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






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