The proper translation of Avijjāpaccayā saṅkhārā, etc.

Explore the ancient language of the Tipitaka and Theravāda commentaries
User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 8150
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:55 pm
Location: Whitby, Canada

Re: The proper translation of Avijjāpaccayā saṅkhārā, etc.

Post by Coëmgenu »

"Hard to see" is an understatement. Your etymology of "nidāna" has very little to do with the usage of it in the Buddha's Middle Indic Prākrit.
What is the Uncreated?
Sublime & free, what is that obscured Eternity?
It is the Undying, the Bright, the Isle.
It is an Ocean, a Secret: Reality.
Both life and oblivion, it is Nirvāṇa.
auto
Posts: 4582
Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2017 12:02 pm

Re: The proper translation of Avijjāpaccayā saṅkhārā, etc.

Post by auto »

ToVincent wrote: Fri Dec 03, 2021 5:55 pm Have I said "nidāna" ?

Nidāna (instr. of nidā)
nidā (ni-√ dā)
ni = down , back
√ dā = to bind VS.
Nidāna = (what) binds down (and back).

Down & back.
Both definitions of feedback encompasses that — whose all shebang is indeed hard to see (realize) .
.
.
In other thread, user Lal is making fun of people who translate words literally. But i believe it is tantrum because of his cultural heritage is not taken into account that the pali is from sri lanka script.
ToVincent
Posts: 1839
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 6:02 pm

Re: The proper translation of Avijjāpaccayā saṅkhārā, etc.

Post by ToVincent »

Coëmgenu wrote: Fri Dec 03, 2021 6:06 pm "Hard to see" is an understatement. Your etymology of "nidāna" has very little to do with the usage of it in the Buddha's Middle Indic Prākrit.
I must add to your list of rhetorical fallacies, the "proof by assertion".

AGAIN
I had already told you that "you remind me of a conversation I had with Assaji (at the time using another name).
Assaji was telling me, that I could not use Sanskrit roots to define Pali roots.
And on top of that, he gave me the reference of a book, written by a pundit on Pali roots.
Guess what?
In the introduction of the book, the said pundit was saying that most, if not all the Pali roots are derived from Sanskrit roots.
How absurd was that?"
.
.
In this world, there are many people acting and yearning for the Mara's world; some for the Brahma's world; and very few for the Unborn.
User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 8150
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:55 pm
Location: Whitby, Canada

Re: The proper translation of Avijjāpaccayā saṅkhārā, etc.

Post by Coëmgenu »

It's not absurd at all.

Vedic Sanskrit is not the same language as Classical Sanskrit. Similarly, none of the Prākrits, Pāli included, are the same language as Vedic Sanskrit. But they were descended from a language closely related, very closely related, to Vedic Sanskrit. Because of this, they've roots in common, just like French and Spanish have roots in common. But French and Spanish did not actually evolve from "classical" Latin. They actually evolved from the Vulgar Romance dialects of their regions. The same with Buddhist Prākrit. It is not a direct continuation of Vedic Sanskrit.

I'll post a paper to do with this when I get home. It's a very fruitful avenue of inquiry. I'll post it moreso for the sake of readers who are capable of understanding why this is a relevant point here.
What is the Uncreated?
Sublime & free, what is that obscured Eternity?
It is the Undying, the Bright, the Isle.
It is an Ocean, a Secret: Reality.
Both life and oblivion, it is Nirvāṇa.
ToVincent
Posts: 1839
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 6:02 pm

Re: The proper translation of Avijjāpaccayā saṅkhārā, etc.

Post by ToVincent »

Coëmgenu wrote: Fri Dec 03, 2021 6:17 pm ...
Who cares.
Wasn't Buddha acquainted with Veda?
We are not even sure that he spoke the vernacular Pali.
.
.
In this world, there are many people acting and yearning for the Mara's world; some for the Brahma's world; and very few for the Unborn.
User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 8150
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:55 pm
Location: Whitby, Canada

Re: The proper translation of Avijjāpaccayā saṅkhārā, etc.

Post by Coëmgenu »

The Buddha knew the Vedas. That has no bearing on the Prākrit language he taught in. He didn't teach Vedanta. He has no reason to use Veda-specific meanings and terminology when he has his native Prākrit to use instead, a "language of the folk" rather than a language of the ritual sacrificers.

Tolkien knew Old English. That has no bearing on his use of Modern English.
What is the Uncreated?
Sublime & free, what is that obscured Eternity?
It is the Undying, the Bright, the Isle.
It is an Ocean, a Secret: Reality.
Both life and oblivion, it is Nirvāṇa.
ToVincent
Posts: 1839
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 6:02 pm

Re: The proper translation of Avijjāpaccayā saṅkhārā, etc.

Post by ToVincent »

Coëmgenu wrote: Fri Dec 03, 2021 6:23 pm The Buddha knew the Vedas. That has no bearing on the Prākrit language he taught in. He didn't teach Vedanta. He has no reason to use Veda-specific meanings and terminology when he has his native Prākrit to use instead, a "language of the folk" rather than a language of the ritual sacrificers.
Where did you get those sureties from?
Apart from the first one - which he did practice.

And Vedanta is post-Buddhist. Sure he didn't teach that!?!?!?

What a mess!
.
.
In this world, there are many people acting and yearning for the Mara's world; some for the Brahma's world; and very few for the Unborn.
User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 8150
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:55 pm
Location: Whitby, Canada

Re: The proper translation of Avijjāpaccayā saṅkhārā, etc.

Post by Coëmgenu »

Why would he have "practiced" any Veda at all?

You seem to like to attribute nonsense theses to me. Is this the aforementioned stone fallacy that you dost protest too much concerning?

"Vedanta" actually originally referred to the religion of the Upanishads before it was used by Adishankar et al.
What is the Uncreated?
Sublime & free, what is that obscured Eternity?
It is the Undying, the Bright, the Isle.
It is an Ocean, a Secret: Reality.
Both life and oblivion, it is Nirvāṇa.
ToVincent
Posts: 1839
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 6:02 pm

Re: The proper translation of Avijjāpaccayā saṅkhārā, etc.

Post by ToVincent »

Coëmgenu wrote: Fri Dec 03, 2021 6:52 pm Why would he have "practiced" any Veda at all?

You seem to like to attribute nonsense theses to me. Is this the aforementioned stone fallacy that you dost protest too much concerning?

"Vedanta" actually originally referred to the religion of the Upanishads before it was used by Adishankar et al.
Oh Lord! — Another on the fly quick web scholar.
Vedanta — although using the late Vedic (Vedānta) Mukhya Upanishads among their scriptures — is post-Buddhist.
There is no mention of teaching "Vedānta" in Veda. Late Vedic (Vedānta) is a post late-Vedic appelation - for these early texts of the Vedanta creed.
And Vedanta is the religion that appeared later on.

---------

I’ve given up kindling firewood, brahmin,
Hitvā ahaṁ brāhmaṇa dārudāhaṁ,
now I just light the inner flame.
Ajjhattamevujjalayāmi jotiṁ;
SN 7.9

That's how Buddha did "practice" Veda — as a kshatriya — before he became a samaṇa.
.
.
In this world, there are many people acting and yearning for the Mara's world; some for the Brahma's world; and very few for the Unborn.
User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 8150
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:55 pm
Location: Whitby, Canada

Re: The proper translation of Avijjāpaccayā saṅkhārā, etc.

Post by Coëmgenu »

Obviously the philosophy of Adishankar is post-Buddhist. I wasn't talking about that.
What is the Uncreated?
Sublime & free, what is that obscured Eternity?
It is the Undying, the Bright, the Isle.
It is an Ocean, a Secret: Reality.
Both life and oblivion, it is Nirvāṇa.
ToVincent
Posts: 1839
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 6:02 pm

Re: The proper translation of Avijjāpaccayā saṅkhārā, etc.

Post by ToVincent »

Coëmgenu wrote: Fri Dec 03, 2021 7:34 pm Obviously the philosophy of Adishankar is post-Buddhist. I wasn't talking about that.
Obviously not!
You were talking about my "stone fallacy" about Buddha practicing Veda.
Smart boy!

________

Listen! —It did not get better since this previous post:
viewtopic.php?p=656318#p656318

I suppose it won't.

Bye!
.
.
In this world, there are many people acting and yearning for the Mara's world; some for the Brahma's world; and very few for the Unborn.
User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 8150
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:55 pm
Location: Whitby, Canada

Re: The proper translation of Avijjāpaccayā saṅkhārā, etc.

Post by Coëmgenu »

Your "stone fallacy" was actually claiming that I claimed that the Buddha practiced Vedic religion. Do try to keep up.
What is the Uncreated?
Sublime & free, what is that obscured Eternity?
It is the Undying, the Bright, the Isle.
It is an Ocean, a Secret: Reality.
Both life and oblivion, it is Nirvāṇa.
ToVincent
Posts: 1839
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 6:02 pm

Re: The proper translation of Avijjāpaccayā saṅkhārā, etc.

Post by ToVincent »

Coëmgenu wrote: Fri Dec 03, 2021 7:43 pm Your "stone fallacy" was actually claiming that I claimed that the Buddha practiced Vedic religion. Do try to keep up.
You said Buddha knew Veda.

Then you said: "Why would he have "practiced" any Veda at all?"

I'm off with you.
.
.
In this world, there are many people acting and yearning for the Mara's world; some for the Brahma's world; and very few for the Unborn.
User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 8150
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:55 pm
Location: Whitby, Canada

Re: The proper translation of Avijjāpaccayā saṅkhārā, etc.

Post by Coëmgenu »

Yes. You aren't following the conversation. You said, "Where did you get those sureties from? Apart from the first one - which he did practice."

I stated that the Buddha would have known their contents. You stated a question indicating that you thought that I said that he practiced them. Like I said earlier, do try to keep up.
What is the Uncreated?
Sublime & free, what is that obscured Eternity?
It is the Undying, the Bright, the Isle.
It is an Ocean, a Secret: Reality.
Both life and oblivion, it is Nirvāṇa.
ToVincent
Posts: 1839
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 6:02 pm

Re: The proper translation of Avijjāpaccayā saṅkhārā, etc.

Post by ToVincent »

Coëmgenu wrote: Fri Dec 03, 2021 7:49 pm you thought that I said that he practiced them.
Where did I say (or thought) that?!?!?!
I said Buddha practiced Veda.

You replied "Why would he have "practiced" any Veda at all?"" — Adding:
You seem to like to attribute nonsense theses to me. Is this the aforementioned stone fallacy that you dost protest too much concerning?

I gave you a sutta, that proves he did practice Veda.

________


.
.
In this world, there are many people acting and yearning for the Mara's world; some for the Brahma's world; and very few for the Unborn.
Post Reply