"the Munī, free from the naming from the ci,
You really can't make these things up.
Sam Vara wrote: ↑Thu Jan 21, 2021 9:01 am
chownah wrote: ↑Thu Jan 21, 2021 8:32 am
Thank you so much for looking that up. I am a bit disappointed because from the english I thought that it was likely that "atthi" was used and am surprised to find that it was not. I was kind of excited to think that we would find the rare exception.
Can you tell us how they expressed "there is" in pali without using "atthi".....maybe some meaning can be found from how they do it (or maybe not).
The fact that "atthi" was not used with "nibbana-element" in a context where "atthi" is usually used makes me think even more fully that there is some reason for this and that it is meaningful (although I suppose it could be just some grammatical rule or something like that).
chownah
The Pali is
Dvemā, bhikkhave, nibbānadhātuyo, which means I think something like "Monks, there are these two nibbana-elements". It's the usual way of expressing a state of affairs when it doesn't mean the more emphatic "This exists". I'm inclined to think that this is grammatical in this case, but it still leaves the question as to whether there is a more emphatic expression along the lines of "nibbāna exists"; and if not, why not.
You very rarely need to say the
copula in Pali, the existential quantifier "to be," because there is no need to stress an objects abstract existence. When we want to say "There are two nibbana elements," we have to use the conjugated "to be." Pali can say "there are two" without needing "are" and "there."
A good example is the Sanskrit translation of the Christian Bible, because my Pali is not good enough to show you with Pali.
When Jesus has said to him "You are the annointed son of the living god," in Sanskrit that is the word "tvamamareśvarasyābhiṣiktaputraḥ."
This word means "You, the deathless lord's annointed son." It does not have "are" in it, because that is implied by the declensions. Similarly, "Dvemā, bhikkhave, nibbānadhātuyo" is like "Two of them, monks, the nibbana elements." Because Pali is so declined (and I mean that in the sense of declension), you don't need the verb "to be" most often. Chinese also likes to regularly drop copulas.
If we want to stress the abstract reality of something moreso than as a figure of speech, "asti/atthi" is used as well as "bhavati/hoti," but this is not needed for quick sentences not about existence itself. "John is a butcher" does not need "is a" in Pali or Sanskrit because it is just "John the butcher" and the declension tells you the grammar. The lack of an existential quantifier is not
that big a deal, but it is indeed interesting that the Buddha in the EBTs seems to never use it.
Sam Vara wrote: ↑Thu Jan 21, 2021 9:01 amit still leaves the question as to whether there is a more emphatic expression along the lines of "nibbāna exists"; and if not, why not.
The easiest way would be to say "
atthi nibbānaṃ," which the Buddha never says. As to "if not, why not," it's clearly because the Buddha is a Madhyamaka and doesn't believe that nibbana exists.
I joke. Here we go. Have we found this yet? I don't know.
The Buddha never says "atthi nibbanam," but Venerable Nagasena does.
‘But if so, Nāgasena, then you are only showing us how Nirvāṇa is a condition that does not exist. There can be no such thing as Nirvāṇa.’
‘Nirvāṇa exists, O king. And it is perceptible to the mind. By means of his pure heart, refined and straight, free from the obstacles, free from low cravings, that disciple of the Noble Ones who has fully attained can see Nirvāṇa.’
[“Atthi, mahārāja, nibbānaṃ, manoviññeyyaṃ nibbānaṃ, visuddhena mānasena paṇītena ujukena anāvaraṇena nirāmisena sammāpaṭipanno ariyasāvako nibbānaṃ passatī”ti.]
‘Then what, Sir, is Nirvāṇa? Such a Nirvāṇa (I mean) as can be explained by similes. Convince me by argument how far the fact of its existence can be explained by similes.’
‘Is there such a thing, O king, as wind?’
‘Yes, of course.’
‘Show it me then, I pray you, O king—whether by its colour, or its form, whether as thin or thick, or short or long!’
‘But wind, Nāgasena, cannot be pointed out in that way. It is not of such a nature that it can be taken into the hand or squeezed. But it exists all the same.’
‘If you can’t show me the wind, then there can’t be such a thing.’
‘But I know there is, Nāgasena. That wind exists I am convinced, though I cannot show it you.’
‘Well! just so, O king, does Nirvāṇa exist, though it cannot be shown to you in colour or in form.’
‘Very good, Nāgasena! That is so, and I accept it as you say.’
(Mil 6.2.5)
There is also this sentence: "
Nibbānaṃ atthi, nibbānaṃ nibbānato samāpajjantassa viparītaṃ hotīti?" from
this webpage, but I have no idea what I am looking at. I see "abh" in the URL, so I am assuming it is perhaps a Abhidhamma text?
EDIT: It's Kathāvatthu and is part of the stance recorded therein that
“Nibbāna exists and retains its state as Nibbāna.” It appears to be a polemicized-against Sarvastivadin doctrine.