Re: Paali

"Interesting discussion! I think trying to pin-point the definition is not very
useful" [Florian]

I wrote my e-m because I felt that it is not possible to communicate meaningfully (writer, reader) without agreed definitions. Otherwise the meaning intended by the writer will not be understood by the writer.

My proposal was to consider the Tipitaka as the corpus of the language. It may be defined as Pali. [ My knowledge of liguistics is very limited. I come from a science/engineering background. In computing, all general-purpose computer languages are very strictly defined. My thinking is based on that]. Consider law; if legal terms are not properly defined where would we be; the court system is not required.

The sound paali is given in the commentaries (Theravada). PTSD is of the opinion that Paali is the "literaray language" of the early Buddhists. This I do not think is correct [Early Buddhists didn't have a literary language]. However, to establish beyond doubt what it means it is necessary to write a full-length paper with all the trappings of a scholarly paper.

I agree with you fully that Abhidhamma is a philosophy.

Kind regards

D.C.

On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 12:39 AM, Florian Weps fmw@... [palistudy] <palistudy@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 06:58:27PM +0530, Dc Wijeratna dcwijeratna@... [palistudy] wrote:
> This is further to my e-m.
> I have uncovered another stumbling book.
> OD defines Buddhism as “A widespread Asian religion or philosophy.”
> Alternative 1: Pali is a liturgical language
> Alternative 2: Pali is the language of the Tipitaka. Therefore, Tipitaka is
> the philosophy of Buddhism.
> To me Alternative1 is realistic. I am not sure whether anybody has
> attempted it or it is feasible.
> Alternative 2. Not feasible. There is no unique meaningful definition for
> Philosophy of Buddhism. [Philosophers don't usually agree on anything]
> If we cannot settle this matter giving a definition to Pali may be
> impossible.
>
> Any thoughts?

Interesting discussion! I think trying to pin-point the definition is not very
useful. My take is that it is a broad term, and that the semantic fields will
not overlap exactly between 21st century, Victorian, and the various strata of
traditional Eastern understandings anyway.

I am perfectly comfortable with the notion that the word refers to a language
(phonology, grammar, syntax, dictionary, dialects, chronological development);
as well as to a corpus of texts preserved in that language, as well as to the
contemporary aesthetic use in liturgy, devotion, religions and/or spiritual
practice; as well as non-religious scholarly works on and even in the language
(such as the traditional grammars).

As to philosophers, while they tend to disagree and discuss their ideas a lot,
my working definition is that Philosophy is the engagement with the ideas of
philosophers, disagreements and all. For example, the debates about Abhidhamma,
preserved in Pali and other languages of that period of Buddhist history, are
to my understanding distinctly philosophical, as are questions about who, or
what, is liberated, or for that matter reborn, if at all. Again, this is not a
pinpoint definition. I don't think human language generally works by means of
such highly exclusive definitions, unlike formal logic and mathematics.

Kind regards,
Florian

------------------------------------
Posted by: Florian Weps <fmw@...>

------------------------------------

------------------------------------

Yahoo Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/palistudy/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/palistudy/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
palistudy-digest@yahoogroups.com
palistudy-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
palistudy-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo Groups is subject to:
https://info.yahoo.com/legal/us/yahoo/utos/terms/

Metta is being friendly to everybody