Dear D.C.,
I think the problem lies in our differences in approach and methodology.
Looking at your proposed definition of "tipitaka" made me think of a hatchet
job as if someone had cut off the branches of a very old and venerable tree.
You seem to want to start at the English end whereas I would normally start
with the signifier and its derivation(s) as explained in the Pali texts
themselves.
We also have to be quite clear on whether such a definition belongs in an
English dictionary or in a Pali-English dictionary. I also think it is too
early to attempt a definition at this stage. My approach is to first study
as many definitions as are already in existence in the writings of Pali,
Sanskrit, and English that we can get a hold of.
The definition or signification is only one component of a dictionary
article and there is often more than one significaion which connects the
signifier to the signified. The signifier also has to be dealt with (word
class, gender, derivation, etc.) and then there are the example sentences.
I will try to understand the approach you've adopted and hopefully I won't
cringe so much :). My approach to studying Pali has been an evolving process
for more than 40 years, I too am an atheist (since my teens) and a Buddhist
(since my mid-20s) . I'm mostly self-taught but studied Pali for a short
while with a Sinhalese who was a Ph.D student of A.K. Warder whom I've met.
I'm a retired bookkeeper (since 1979). I've had to cope with deafness and
blindness since childhood.
Best wishes,
Jim
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dc Wijeratna dcwijeratna@... [palistudy]"
<palistudy@yahoogroups.com>
To: <palistudy@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: November 28, 2014 8:42 AM
Subject: Re: [palistudy] Paali
Dear Jim,
Many thanks for your reply. As usual I have not made myself clear. Let me
try to explain.
The first message was to indicate my approach to the study. It is a new
approach. I am not aware of anybody who has used that approach. Only thing
the method requires is to have clear-cut definitions about all the words we
use in this discussion. If we don't have agreed definitions, we can keep
arguing about things without ever coming to a conclusion.
The second message was intended to adopt a working definition to start the
study. All I have done is to take away the words like sacred, for which no
definition is availabe. [Some people will consider Tipitaka sacred while
others may consider it ancient literature]. Then from a academic point of
view we need agreed primary sources for the discussion. Of course, there is
no need to use PTS Tipitaka. You can suggest any other Tipitaka, for
example, CST4. I think my next task is to refine this definition; may be to
forget about tipitaka and consider the five Nikayas.
I'll put that definition another way: The primary source material for the
study is the Tipitaka published by the PTS. I hope I have clarified my
proposal. By the way, I said "I propose..." The idea was to place it before
the study group.
Best wishes
D.C.