Where in my post did I say "that which is born"? It is bad kama to misrepresent a grammar nazi.clw_uk wrote:Sylvester wrote:I'm trying to see how you managed to transform either of Ven T's or BB's translation into "That which is born" or "Whatever is born". Your rewording has changed the subject of the sentence from jāti/birth to the thing that is born. SN 12.2's explanation concerns the event of birth, not to the thingie that was born. For your reading to work, it wouldn't say "sattānaṃ ... jāti" (birth of beings), but would need to say "jātā sattā" (beings that are born), inflecting the substantive noun and its adjective into the nominative plural to indicate that that is the subject of the sentence (see eg the explanation of the 3 bhavā, all of which are in the nominative).clw_uk wrote: "That which is born" however still makes my point
"That which is born"
"Whatever is born"
Seems to say that same thing, or am I wrong?
It came from your post, however I'll settle for birth of beings
To be Buddhist you must accept kamma and rebirth?
Re: To be Buddhist you must accept kamma and rebirth?
Re: To be Buddhist you must accept kamma and rebirth?
Yes, it leads to rebirth in the hell of irregular verb forms...Sylvester wrote: Where in my post did I say "that which is born"? It is bad kama to misrepresent a grammar nazi.
Mike
-
- Posts: 10154
- Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
- Location: Andromeda looks nice
Re: To be Buddhist you must accept kamma and rebirth?
mikenz66 wrote:Yes, it leads to rebirth in the hell of irregular verb forms...Sylvester wrote: Where in my post did I say "that which is born"? It is bad kama to misrepresent a grammar nazi.
Mike
Buddha save me from new-agers!
Re: To be Buddhist you must accept kamma and rebirth?
mikenz66 wrote:Yes, it leads to rebirth in the hell of irregular verb forms...Sylvester wrote: Where in my post did I say "that which is born"? It is bad kama to misrepresent a grammar nazi.
Mike
OMG! I just realised I mistyped kamma as kama. I hope he doesn't think I meant to say that it is bad sex to misrepresent me. That would be quite another type of hell to endure.
Re: To be Buddhist you must accept kamma and rebirth?
I assumed it based on what you wrote hereWhere in my post did I say "that which is born"? It is bad kama to misrepresent a grammar nazi.
In order to read as a universal "whatever", the text in red should have read "yā yā", instead of "yā tesaṃ". When you have a demonstrative pronoun immediately following the relative pronoun as above, that is just for emphatic effect and can be understood in the sense of "that which is ..." (Warder p.72). Ven T's translation should be understood as simply making an emphatic, rather than a universal proposition.
Sylvester
“The teacher willed that this world appear to me
as impermanent, unstable, insubstantial.
Mind, let me leap into the victor’s teaching,
carry me over the great flood, so hard to pass.”
as impermanent, unstable, insubstantial.
Mind, let me leap into the victor’s teaching,
carry me over the great flood, so hard to pass.”
Re: To be Buddhist you must accept kamma and rebirth?
Sigh. If in the post - http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... 60#p320914, I was discussing your misreliance on Ven T's translation of the passage that dealt with the subject -
How on earth can I be responsible for your misreading or change of subject?
whatever made you think I would change the subject to the thing "which is born"?birth, taking birth, descent, coming-to-be, coming-forth, appearance of aggregates, & acquisition of [sense] media of the various beings in this or that group of beings
How on earth can I be responsible for your misreading or change of subject?
Re: To be Buddhist you must accept kamma and rebirth?
Because you said it can be understood in the sense of "that which is", unless I'm just being really dense
However you did ask where you stated "that which is" and I showed you. I guess the only question is why you used the phrase in your post?
N.B. I know your obviously not implying a thingie that is reborn.
Instead of giving the obvious answer I'll just assume your being rhetorical
However you did ask where you stated "that which is" and I showed you. I guess the only question is why you used the phrase in your post?
N.B. I know your obviously not implying a thingie that is reborn.
How on earth can I be responsible for your misreading or change of subject?
Instead of giving the obvious answer I'll just assume your being rhetorical
“The teacher willed that this world appear to me
as impermanent, unstable, insubstantial.
Mind, let me leap into the victor’s teaching,
carry me over the great flood, so hard to pass.”
as impermanent, unstable, insubstantial.
Mind, let me leap into the victor’s teaching,
carry me over the great flood, so hard to pass.”
Re: To be Buddhist you must accept kamma and rebirth?
Tsk tsk tsk tsk.However you did ask where you stated "that which is" and I showed you. I guess the only question is why you used the phrase in your post?
If you had bothered to ready my query in that post - http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... 80#p321114, I 'd had asked :
Or were you detained by the promise of bad sex in the next sentence?Where in my post did I say "that which is born"?
Re: To be Buddhist you must accept kamma and rebirth?
Tsk tsk tsk tsk.
If you had bothered to ready my query in that post - viewtopic.php?f=16&t=1022&start=180#p321114, I 'd had asked :
Where in my post did I say "that which is born"?
Here
...In order to read as a universal "whatever", the text in red should have read "yā yā", instead of "yā tesaṃ". When you have a demonstrative pronoun immediately following the relative pronoun as above, that is just for emphatic effect and can be understood in the sense of "that which is ..." (Warder p.72). Ven T's translation should be understood as simply making an emphatic, rather than a universal proposition.
Sylvester
hardlyOr were you detained by the promise of bad sex in the next sentence?
“The teacher willed that this world appear to me
as impermanent, unstable, insubstantial.
Mind, let me leap into the victor’s teaching,
carry me over the great flood, so hard to pass.”
as impermanent, unstable, insubstantial.
Mind, let me leap into the victor’s teaching,
carry me over the great flood, so hard to pass.”
Re: To be Buddhist you must accept kamma and rebirth?
Perhaps the distinction being missed is "that which is birth" versus "that which is born".clw_uk wrote:Because you said it can be understood in the sense of "that which is", unless I'm just being really dense