Idaṃ this and Idaṃ that

Explore the ancient language of the Tipitaka and Theravāda commentaries
binocular
Posts: 8292
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:13 pm

Re: Idaṃ this and Idaṃ that

Post by binocular »

Dhammanando wrote: Wed Mar 04, 2020 10:06 amBut to me the use of 'that' simply doesn't carry the implication of denoting a referent outside of the said links and it's a mystery to me why Ñāṇananda thinks it would.
But this is what "that" means -- it denotes a referent outside of the immediate context (whereas "other" is something even further removed).
The renditions with this-this make sense to me because they mean that one has two things in view at the same time, and the two are not necessarily in a conditional relationship where would would be the cause of the other.

(Although I, not being a native speaker of English, have a problems with using "this" and "that". Their uses in texts by native speakers are sometimes strange to me.)
Hic Rhodus, hic salta!
User avatar
Dhammanando
Posts: 5701
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:44 pm
Location: Mae Wang Huai Rin, Li District, Lamphun

Re: Idaṃ this and Idaṃ that

Post by Dhammanando »

binocular wrote: Fri Mar 06, 2020 1:10 pm The renditions with this-this make sense to me because they mean that one has two things in view at the same time, and the two are not necessarily in a conditional relationship where would would be the cause of the other.
I take much the same view as Mike. It simply wouldn't cross my mind to use two thises for different referents, except in cases where they're things I can point to with my fingers (but even then I'd still be more likely to use this and that).

Looking at the translations at Sutta Central, I notice that the translators into European languages (except Ñāṇavīra) are unanimous in using "this, that".

English – this ... that
German – dieses ... jenes
Dutch – het een ... het ander
Norwegian – det ene ... det andre
Russian – того ... это
Czech – toto ... ono
French – ceci ... cela
Spanish – esto ... aquello
Portuguese – isso ... aquilo
Italian – questo ... quello

But the Asian translators seem to be divided:

This ... this

Burmese – ဤ ... ဤ [but then in parentheses they add avijjā after the first 'this' and saṅkhāra after the second]
Japanese – これ ... これ
Thai – สิ่งนี้ ... สิ่งนี้
Sinhala – මෙය ... මෙය

This ... that

Indonesian – ini ... itu
Vietnamese – cái này ... cái kia
Chinese – 這個 ... 那個
Svākkhātaṃ brahmacariyaṃ, sandiṭṭhikam’akālikaṃ,
Yattha amoghā pabbajjā, appamattassa sikkhato.


“The holy life is well proclaimed,
directly visible, immediate,
Where not in vain is the going forth
of one who trains heedfully.”
— Sela Sutta
User avatar
SDC
Posts: 6410
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:08 pm

Re: Idaṃ this and Idaṃ that

Post by SDC »

Dhammanando wrote: Fri Mar 06, 2020 1:50 pm
binocular wrote: Fri Mar 06, 2020 1:10 pm The renditions with this-this make sense to me because they mean that one has two things in view at the same time, and the two are not necessarily in a conditional relationship where would would be the cause of the other.
I take much the same view as Mike. It simply wouldn't cross my mind to use two thises for different referents, except in cases where they're things I can point to with my fingers (but even then I'd still be more likely to use this and that).

Looking at the translations at Sutta Central, I notice that the translators into European languages (except Ñāṇavīra) are unanimous in using "this, that".

English – this ... that
German – dieses ... jenes
Dutch – het een ... het ander
Norwegian – det ene ... det andre
Russian – того ... это
Czech – toto ... ono
French – ceci ... cela
Spanish – esto ... aquello
Portuguese – isso ... aquilo
Italian – questo ... quello

But the Asian translators seem to be divided:

This ... this

Burmese – ဤ ... ဤ [but then in parentheses they add avijjā after the first 'this' and saṅkhāra after the second]
Japanese – これ ... これ
Thai – สิ่งนี้ ... สิ่งนี้
Sinhala – මෙය ... මෙය

This ... that

Indonesian – ini ... itu
Vietnamese – cái này ... cái kia
Chinese – 這個 ... 那個
But my curiosity goes beyond the "this, this" vs "this, that". To what extent does the Pali itself imply that the distinction is temporal? For example, giving precedence to the floor, "with this floor as a condition, that table has a place to stand". Does the framework of the Pali have more to it than this?
User avatar
Dhammanando
Posts: 5701
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:44 pm
Location: Mae Wang Huai Rin, Li District, Lamphun

Re: Idaṃ this and Idaṃ that

Post by Dhammanando »

SDC wrote: Fri Mar 06, 2020 2:02 pm To what extent does the Pali itself imply that the distinction is temporal?
The locative absolute wouldn't imply that it is or that it isn't. The use of such a clause is every bit as ambiguous as a "When..." clause is in English. That is, it may express either subsequence or simultaneity, either 'if' or 'when', and either a causal relation or a non-causal one.
Svākkhātaṃ brahmacariyaṃ, sandiṭṭhikam’akālikaṃ,
Yattha amoghā pabbajjā, appamattassa sikkhato.


“The holy life is well proclaimed,
directly visible, immediate,
Where not in vain is the going forth
of one who trains heedfully.”
— Sela Sutta
User avatar
SDC
Posts: 6410
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:08 pm

Re: Idaṃ this and Idaṃ that

Post by SDC »

Dhammanando wrote: Fri Mar 06, 2020 2:17 pm
SDC wrote: Fri Mar 06, 2020 2:02 pm To what extent does the Pali itself imply that the distinction is temporal?
The locative absolute wouldn't imply that it is or that it isn't. The use of such a clause is every bit as ambiguous as a "When..." clause is in English. That is, it may express either subsequence or simultaneity, either 'if' or 'when', and either a causal relation or a non-causal one.
Many thanks, Bhante!
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 17930
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: Idaṃ this and Idaṃ that

Post by mikenz66 »

Dhammanando wrote: Fri Mar 06, 2020 2:17 pm
SDC wrote: Fri Mar 06, 2020 2:02 pm To what extent does the Pali itself imply that the distinction is temporal?
The locative absolute wouldn't imply that it is or that it isn't. The use of such a clause is every bit as ambiguous as a "When..." clause is in English. That is, it may express either subsequence or simultaneity, either 'if' or 'when', and either a causal relation or a non-causal one.
Thanks for that. It's interesting that is so ambiguous, even to the extent of not being clear about causality.

Are there examples that are clear about causality and/or time?

:heart:
Mike
User avatar
Dhammanando
Posts: 5701
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:44 pm
Location: Mae Wang Huai Rin, Li District, Lamphun

Re: Idaṃ this and Idaṃ that

Post by Dhammanando »

mikenz66 wrote: Fri Mar 06, 2020 9:29 pm Are there examples that are clear about causality and/or time?
To unambiguously express a causal relationship one would use an ablative rather than a locative construction, as happens on the second and fourth lines:
[...]
imassuppādā idaṃ uppajjati
[...]
imassa nirodhā idaṃ nirujjhati
And throughout the concrete application of the formula, both with-the-grain:
avijjāpaccayā saṅkhārā;
saṅkhārapaccayā viññāṇaṃ...
and against-the-grain:
avijjāyatveva asesavirāganirodhā saṅkhāranirodho,;
saṅkhāranirodhā viññāṇanirodho
As for the temporal issue, I suspect the ambiguous locative of the first and third lines was used advisedly, for some of the relations that follow, like consciousness and nāmarūpa, may be simultaneous, while others, like birth and death, cannot be so.
Svākkhātaṃ brahmacariyaṃ, sandiṭṭhikam’akālikaṃ,
Yattha amoghā pabbajjā, appamattassa sikkhato.


“The holy life is well proclaimed,
directly visible, immediate,
Where not in vain is the going forth
of one who trains heedfully.”
— Sela Sutta
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 17930
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: Idaṃ this and Idaṃ that

Post by mikenz66 »

Thanks Bhante,

So the second phase in each of the following lines is affirming causality?
‘When this exists, that is; due to the arising of this, that arises.
‘iti imasmiṃ sati idaṃ hoti, imassuppādā idaṃ uppajjati;
When this doesn’t exist, that is not; due to the cessation of this, that ceases. That is:
imasmiṃ asati idaṃ na hoti, imassa nirodhā idaṃ nirujjhati
https://suttacentral.net/sn12.61/en/sujato#5.2
And yes, the temporal issue is clear from your examples.

:heart:
Mike
User avatar
Dhammanando
Posts: 5701
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:44 pm
Location: Mae Wang Huai Rin, Li District, Lamphun

Re: Idaṃ this and Idaṃ that

Post by Dhammanando »

mikenz66 wrote: Sat Mar 07, 2020 7:34 am So the second phase in each of the following lines is affirming causality?
Right.
Svākkhātaṃ brahmacariyaṃ, sandiṭṭhikam’akālikaṃ,
Yattha amoghā pabbajjā, appamattassa sikkhato.


“The holy life is well proclaimed,
directly visible, immediate,
Where not in vain is the going forth
of one who trains heedfully.”
— Sela Sutta
Srilankaputra
Posts: 1087
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2018 3:56 am
Location: Sri Lanka

Re: Idaṃ this and Idaṃ that

Post by Srilankaputra »

mikenz66 wrote: Fri Mar 06, 2020 9:29 pm
Dhammanando wrote: Fri Mar 06, 2020 2:17 pm
SDC wrote: Fri Mar 06, 2020 2:02 pm To what extent does the Pali itself imply that the distinction is temporal?
The locative absolute wouldn't imply that it is or that it isn't. The use of such a clause is every bit as ambiguous as a "When..." clause is in English. That is, it may express either subsequence or simultaneity, either 'if' or 'when', and either a causal relation or a non-causal one.
Thanks for that. It's interesting that is so ambiguous, even to the extent of not being clear about causality.

Are there examples that are clear about causality and/or time?

:heart:
Mike
Hi,
Can you elaborate on what you mean by causality?

Tañhi, bhikkhu, musā yaṃ mosadhammaṃ, taṃ saccaṃ yaṃ amosadhammaṃ nibbānaṃ.

Tasmā evaṃ samannāgato bhikkhu iminā 
paramena saccādhiṭṭhānena samannāgato hoti.

Etañhi, bhikkhu, paramaṃ ariyasaccaṃ yadidaṃ

amosadhammaṃ nibbānaṃ
pulga
Posts: 1344
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 3:02 pm

Re: Idaṃ this and Idaṃ that

Post by pulga »

What are we to make of the passage from the Culasakuludayi Sutta?
`Udayin, if someone should recollect his manifold past life thus: one birth, two births . . . thus with all its details and particulars, should he recollect his manifold past life, then either he might ask me a question about the past, or I might ask him a question about the past, and either his answer to my question might commend itself to my mind, or my answer to his question might commend itself to his mind. And if someone with the heavenly eyesight, which is purified and surpasses the human, should see beings, passing away and reappearing... should understand how beings pass on according to `their kammas, then either he might ask me a question about the future, or I might ask him a question about the future, and his answer to my question might commend itself to my mind, or my answer to his question might commend itself to his mind.

`Rather let the past be, Udayin, and let the future be. I shall teach you the Dhamma: When this exists, that comes to be; with the arising of this, that arises. When this does not exist, that does not come to be; with the cessation of this, that ceases.'

`Venerable sir, I cannot even recall with details and particulars all that I have experienced with this personal existence, so how should I recall my manifold past life: one birth, two births . . . how thus with its details and particulars should I recall my manifold past life as the Blessed
One does? And I cannot now even see a midden-goblin, so how should I with the heavenly eyesight, which js purified and surpasses the human, see beings passing away and reappearing . . how should I understand how beings pass on according to their kammas, as the Blessed One does? But, venerable sir, when the Blessed One told me: "When this exists, that comes to be; with the arising of this, that arises. When this does not exist, that does not come to be; with the cessation of this, that ceases”, that is still more unclear to me. -- MN ii, 23
Isn't the Buddha suggesting the setting aside of talk of such temporal things as past and future births? As I understand him, Ven. Ñanavira believed that "this" and "that" referred to two different orders of being, both present. From his perspective "this" and "that" would wrongly imply things of the same order. Consider this bit of marginalia from his copy of Lavelle's Introduction A l'Ontologie.
p. 10/15-16
[For being to be said of everything in the same way it must not say anything about any thing.] : Precisely, and therefore l'être ne se peut pas se dire de toute chose de la même manière (being cannot be said of every thing in the same way). For example: any part of a given object, and that object as a whole, both are; but they have a different order of being. The object as a whole is itself a part of a more general object.
Given that the locative absolute often times does convey, like the genitive absolute, simultaneity there's nothing technically wrong with his translation other than it violates standard English usage. It does have the advantage of conveying his interpretation more clearly.
User avatar
SDC
Posts: 6410
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:08 pm

Re: Idaṃ this and Idaṃ that

Post by SDC »

mikenz66 wrote: Sat Mar 07, 2020 7:34 am ...
Dhammanando wrote: Sat Mar 07, 2020 7:43 am As for the temporal issue, I suspect the ambiguous locative of the first and third lines was used advisedly, for some of the relations that follow, like consciousness and nāmarūpa, may be simultaneous, while others, like birth and death, cannot be so.
And there is also the question of the description found in in SN 12.67 (the Sheaves of Reeds):
SN 12.67 wrote:Kiṃ nu kho, āvuso sāriputta, sayaṅkatā jāti, paraṅkatā jāti, sayaṅkatā ca paraṅkatā ca jāti, udāhu asayaṅkārā aparaṅkārā adhiccasamuppannā jātī”ti?

“Na kho, āvuso koṭṭhika, sayaṅkatā jāti, na paraṅkatā jāti, na sayaṅkatā ca paraṅkatā ca jāti, nāpi asayaṅkārā aparaṅkārā adhiccasamuppannā jāti. Api ca bhavapaccayā jātī”ti.

“Kiṃ nu kho, āvuso sāriputta, sayaṅkato bhavo … pe … sayaṅkataṃ upādānaṃ … sayaṅkatā taṇhā … sayaṅkatā vedanā … sayaṅkato phasso … sayaṅkataṃ saḷāyatanaṃ … sayaṅkataṃ nāmarūpaṃ, paraṅkataṃ nāmarūpaṃ, sayaṅkatañca paraṅkatañca nāmarūpaṃ, udāhu asayaṅkāraṃ aparaṅkāraṃ adhiccasamuppannaṃ nāmarūpan”ti?

How is it, friend Sāriputta: Is birth created by oneself … Is existence … clinging … craving … feeling … contact … the six sense bases … name-and-form created by oneself, or is it created by another, or is it created both by oneself and by another, or has it arisen fortuitously, being created neither by oneself nor by another?”

“Name-and-form, friend Koṭṭhita, is not created by oneself, nor is it created by another, nor is it created both by oneself and by another, nor has it arisen fortuitously, being created neither by oneself nor by another; but rather, with consciousness as condition, name-and-form comes to be.”
What are we to make of "not created by another"? Does that mean another person or another thing? Is it possible this takes process and creation off the table completely?

Further down it seems to imply that the dependency is the same sort for each pair:
SN 12.67 wrote:Idāneva ca pana mayaṃ āyasmato sāriputtassa bhāsitaṃ evaṃ ājānāma: ‘na khvāvuso koṭṭhika, sayaṅkataṃ viññāṇaṃ, na paraṅkataṃ viññāṇaṃ, na sayaṅkatañca paraṅkatañca viññāṇaṃ, nāpi asayaṅkāraṃ aparaṅkāraṃ adhiccasamuppannaṃ viññāṇaṃ. Api ca nāmarūpapaccayā viññāṇan’ti.

Yathā kathaṃ panāvuso sāriputta, imassa bhāsitassa attho daṭṭhabbo”ti?

“Tenahāvuso, upamaṃ te karissāmi. Upamāyapidhekacce viññū purisā bhāsitassa atthaṃ jānanti. Seyyathāpi, āvuso, dve naḷakalāpiyo aññamaññaṃ nissāya tiṭṭheyyuṃ.

Evameva kho, āvuso, nāmarūpapaccayā viññāṇaṃ; viññāṇapaccayā nāmarūpaṃ; nāmarūpapaccayā saḷāyatanaṃ; saḷāyatanapaccayā phasso … pe … evametassa kevalassa dukkhakkhandhassa samudayo hoti. Tāsañce, āvuso, naḷakalāpīnaṃ ekaṃ ākaḍḍheyya, ekā papateyya; aparañce ākaḍḍheyya, aparā papateyya.

Now we understand the Venerable Sāriputta’s statement thus: ‘Name-and-form, friend Koṭṭhita, is not created by oneself … but rather, with consciousness as condition, name-and-form comes to be.’ Now we also understand the Venerable Sāriputta’s other statement thus: ‘Consciousness, friend Koṭṭhita, is not created by oneself … but rather, with name-and-form as condition, consciousness comes to be.’ But how, friend Sāriputta, should the meaning of this statement be seen?”

“Well then, friend, I will make up a simile for you, for some intelligent people here understand the meaning of a statement by means of a simile. Just as two sheaves of reeds might stand leaning against each other, so too, with name-and-form as condition, consciousness comes to be; with consciousness as condition, name-and-form comes to be. With name-and-form as condition, the six sense bases come to be; with the six sense bases as condition, contact…. Such is the origin of this whole mass of suffering.
Yet there is clearly a uniqueness to the layer of vinnana/nama-rupa not found in the others:
SN 12.65 wrote:Tassa mayhaṃ, bhikkhave, etadahosi— paccudāvattati kho idaṃ viññāṇaṃ nāmarūpamhā na paraṃ gacchati. Ettāvatā jāyetha vā jīyetha vā mīyetha vā cavetha vā upapajjetha vā, yadidaṃ nāmarūpapaccayā viññāṇaṃ; viññāṇapaccayā nāmarūpaṃ; nāmarūpapaccayā saḷāyatanaṃ; saḷāyatanapaccayā phasso … pe … evametassa kevalassa dukkhakkhandhassa samudayo hoti. ‘Samudayo, samudayo’ti kho me, bhikkhave, pubbe ananussutesu dhammesu cakkhuṃ udapādi ñāṇaṃ udapādi paññā udapādi vijjā udapādi āloko udapādi.

Tassa mayhaṃ, bhikkhave, etadahosi: ‘kimhi nu kho asati, jarāmaraṇaṃ na hoti; kissa nirodhā jarāmaraṇanirodho’ti? Tassa mayhaṃ, bhikkhave, yoniso manasikārā ahu paññāya abhisamayo: ‘jātiyā kho asati, jarāmaraṇaṃ na hoti; jātinirodhā jarāmaraṇanirodho’ti. Tassa mayhaṃ, bhikkhave, etadahosi: ‘kimhi nu kho asati jāti na hoti … pe … bhavo na hoti … upādānaṃ na hoti … taṇhā na hoti … vedanā na hoti … phasso na hoti … saḷāyatanaṃ na hoti … nāmarūpaṃ na hoti. Kissa nirodhā nāmarūpanirodho’ti? Tassa mayhaṃ, bhikkhave, yoniso manasikārā ahu paññāya abhisamayo: ‘viññāṇe kho asati, nāmarūpaṃ na hoti; viññāṇanirodhā nāmarūpanirodho’ti.

Then, bhikkhus, it occurred to me: ‘When what exists does consciousness come to be? By what is consciousness conditioned? ’ Then, bhikkhus, through careful attention, there took place in me a breakthrough by wisdom: ‘When there is name-and-form, consciousness comes to be; consciousness has name-and-form as its condition.’

5“Then, bhikkhus, it occurred to me: ‘This consciousness turns back; it does not go further than name-and-form. It is to this extent that one may be born and age and die, pass away and be reborn, that is, when there is consciousness with name-and-form as its condition, and name-and-form with consciousness as its condition. With name-and-form as condition, the six sense bases; with the six sense bases as condition, contact…. Such is the origin of this whole mass of suffering.’
I think this is quite a direct description of the fact that a separate thing cannot move about arrangement described. That is not to say the dependency is not discernable, but that it is not observable from an outside POV.

I wish I could offer more on the Pali, but my skills are far too soft at this point.
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 17930
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: Idaṃ this and Idaṃ that

Post by mikenz66 »

Srilankaputra wrote: Sat Mar 07, 2020 12:52 pm Can you elaborate on what you mean by causality?
Consider:
‘When this exists, that is; due to the arising of this, that arises.
‘iti imasmiṃ sati idaṃ hoti, imassuppādā idaṃ uppajjati;
"when this exists, that is", doesn't necessarily mean that the second is caused by the first. It may be just a correlation.

"due to the arising of this, that arises" means that the second is caused by the first.

:heart:
Mike
Srilankaputra
Posts: 1087
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2018 3:56 am
Location: Sri Lanka

Re: Idaṃ this and Idaṃ that

Post by Srilankaputra »

mikenz66 wrote: Sat Mar 07, 2020 7:51 pm
Srilankaputra wrote: Sat Mar 07, 2020 12:52 pm Can you elaborate on what you mean by causality?
Consider:
‘When this exists, that is; due to the arising of this, that arises.
‘iti imasmiṃ sati idaṃ hoti, imassuppādā idaṃ uppajjati;
"when this exists, that is", doesn't necessarily mean that the second is caused by the first. It may be just a correlation.

"due to the arising of this, that arises" means that the second is caused by the first.

:heart:
Mike
Thanks, but I don't feel very comfortable with the idea of causation. If we take for example a burning oil lamp. Putting aside which came first or after, would the relation that exist between the oil and the flame be classed as a causal relationship?

Tañhi, bhikkhu, musā yaṃ mosadhammaṃ, taṃ saccaṃ yaṃ amosadhammaṃ nibbānaṃ.

Tasmā evaṃ samannāgato bhikkhu iminā 
paramena saccādhiṭṭhānena samannāgato hoti.

Etañhi, bhikkhu, paramaṃ ariyasaccaṃ yadidaṃ

amosadhammaṃ nibbānaṃ
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 17930
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: Idaṃ this and Idaṃ that

Post by mikenz66 »

An example of causation would be a match lighting a lamp. Without the match the lamp would not light.

"Due to the match the lamp is alight."

Correlation would be if that after the lamp was lighted there would be both smoke and heat.

"When there is smoke there is also heat."

Mike
Post Reply