Is the PTS a reliable dictionary?

Explore the ancient language of the Tipitaka and Theravāda commentaries
ToVincent
Posts: 1839
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 6:02 pm

Re: Is the PTS a reliable dictionary?

Post by ToVincent »

ssasny wrote: Mon Jan 24, 2022 7:42 pm Perhaps you would be happier looking here:

https://cpd.uni-koeln.de/
They are all based on the PTS.
I know all of them.
.
.
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.
ssasny
Posts: 379
Joined: Thu Jan 23, 2020 10:03 pm

Re: Is the PTS a reliable dictionary?

Post by ssasny »

What do you mean by saying Critical Pali Dictionary was "based on" PED?
Many years of scholarly effort was put into that dictionary.

You seemed to be asking if the Pali Text Society's PED was reliable.
Are you rejecting all dictionaries?
ToVincent
Posts: 1839
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 6:02 pm

Re: Is the PTS a reliable dictionary?

Post by ToVincent »

ssasny wrote: Mon Jan 24, 2022 7:49 pm What do you mean by saying Critical Pali Dictionary was "based on" PED?
Many years of scholarly effort was put into that dictionary.

You seemed to be asking if the Pali Text Society's PED was reliable.
Are you rejecting all dictionaries?
I have to rely on them. But I always follow that with a search on the MW (on which they heavily relied, without discernment), and also in the pre-Buddhist literature, before I can make up my mind.

So reliable, yes! — but with a pinch of salt.

Good night.
.
.
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.
ssasny
Posts: 379
Joined: Thu Jan 23, 2020 10:03 pm

Re: Is the PTS a reliable dictionary?

Post by ssasny »

Could you provide some specific examples of how all dictionaries have "heavily relied, without discernment"
on a different dictionary? (at first you said the reliance was on PED, later MW)
This is a rather strong and inflammatory accusation against major academic institutions, I hope you can provide several well documented examples to back up your claims.
I would specifically like to see mention to Cone's DOP and Critical Pali Dictionary.
ToVincent
Posts: 1839
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 6:02 pm

Re: Is the PTS a reliable dictionary?

Post by ToVincent »

ssasny wrote: Mon Jan 24, 2022 7:58 pm Could you provide some specific examples of how all dictionaries have "heavily relied, without discernment"
on a different dictionary? (at first you said the reliance was on PED, later MW)
This is a rather strong and inflammatory accusation against major academic institutions, I hope you can provide several well documented examples to back up your claims.
I would specifically like to see mention to Cone's DOP and Critical Pali Dictionary.
What I say is that the PTS (Pali Text Society dictionary), relied heavily on the MW (Monier-Williams Sanskrit dictionary) for their entries.

-------

I am going to give you an example of a chronological mistake AND an interpretation mistake altogether - and I am not going to spend more time on that.

First, the chronological fault.

Take "anupassi" (aor. anupassati)

In the PTS, it is translated as: to look at, contemplate, observe.
This is derived from the post-Buddhist definition of the MBh., in the MW.

However, anupaś [ anu-√ paś ], in the pre-Buddhist Sanskrit literature, means to look at , perceive, notice. (RV, ŚBr., BṛĀr.Up, ChUp. ) — as also shown in the MW.
Note that the PTS took the post-Buddhist definition, instead of the pre-Buddhist one.

That's for the chronological error. Namely "looking at" as contemplating, instead of as noticing.
You'll see the nuance below.

--------

As far as the "interpreted" mistake is concerned, take "viharati" that has been translated in the PTS as: to stay, abide, dwell, sojourn.

Viharati in Sanskrit is the present of vihṛ (vi-√ hṛ), which means in the pre-Buddhist literature: to separate, to divide.
It has even the root meaning of fetching (hṛ) apart (vi).

So one is not "dwelling contemplating the body in the body (feelings in feelings … mind in mind … phenomenon in phenomena) — but one fetches apart (distinctively) the body in the bodies (feelings in feelings … mind in mind … phenomenon in phenomena).
SN 47.8.

-------

Let's take the all shebang together.

Ajjhattaṃ vā kāye kāyānupassī viharāhi, etc.

"Body in the body” requires “kaye kayam”, said our old friend Sylvester.

That is perfectly true. But the meaning must also be accurate.
Let me explain:

Indeed what Sylvester says is that anupassin/anupassī is an adjective (as red or happy - that is to say "contemplative" - which is the proper adjective from the verb "contemplate"); then anupassī becomes the "contemplative body", says Sylvester - and the translation might then be:
Internally, he fetches distinctively the contemplative body, in the body.
.....
Internally, he fetches distinctively (separates) the contemplative feeling, in the feelings.
.....
etc.

But that is done using the Post-Buddhist (MBh.) definition of anupassi, (viz. contemplative).

However, we've seen that anupaś [ anu-√ paś ], in the pre-Buddhist Sanskrit literature, means to look at , perceive, notice. (RV, ŚBr., BṛĀr.Up, ChUp. ).

So "contemplative" might well be replaced by "perceptive", or "noticeable" (capable of being perceived). The latters being also both adjectives.

So the translation might finally be:
Ajjhattaṃ vā kāye kāyānupassī viharāhi.
Internally, he fetches distinctively the noticeable body, in the body.
...
Ajjhattaṃ vā vedanāsu vedanānupassī viharāhi
Internally, he fetches distinctively the noticeable feeling, in the feelings.
...
Ajjhattaṃ vā citte cittānupassī viharāhi
Internally, he fetches distinctively the noticeable citta , in the citta.
...
Ajjhattaṃ vā dhammesu dhammānupassī viharāhi
Internally, he fetches distinctively the noticeable phenomenon (sing.) , in the phenomena (plur.) .
With:
kāya(m) - kaye = locative singular.
vedanā (f) - vedanāsu = locative plural
citta(nt) - citte = locative singular
dhamma (m) - dhammesu = locative plural

-----

This is how a correct translation should be dealt with, from a proper chronological meaning, and from a non-interpretative reading of the suttas (sticking to the MW definition).
If they relied heavily on the MW, they should have done it consistently, and accurately, (namely with discernment between post-Buddhist and pre-Buddhist definitions).
.
.
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.
ssasny
Posts: 379
Joined: Thu Jan 23, 2020 10:03 pm

Re: Is the PTS a reliable dictionary?

Post by ssasny »

I'm glad you have backed away from your wild accusatory claims about all the Pali English dictionaries available.

As for your provided translations- what can I say? I really have no idea what you mean.

If a language teacher were to be presented with a translation like you offer:

Internally, he fetches distinctively the noticeable body, in the body.

Would this be acceptable? It doesn't read like English.
A translation needs to make sense to a speaker and reader of the target language.
User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 8149
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:55 pm
Location: Whitby, Canada

Re: Is the PTS a reliable dictionary?

Post by Coëmgenu »

As usual, the only meanings that ToVincent will not call "post-Buddhist" are the ones completely made up in his own head based on misunderstood etymology. Viharati does not mean "he fetches" in that pericope. "He dwells" is not "a post-Buddhist meaning."
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.
User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 8149
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:55 pm
Location: Whitby, Canada

Re: Is the PTS a reliable dictionary?

Post by Coëmgenu »

This is the opening of many Pali suttas. If we read "viharati" as "to fetch," like ToVincent suggest, we get this.

On one occasion the Blessed One was fetching at Savatthi in Jeta’s Grove, Anathapiṇḍika’s Park.

It's nonsense.
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: Is the PTS a reliable dictionary?

Post by ToVincent »

ssasny wrote: Mon Jan 24, 2022 10:26 pm Internally, he fetches distinctively the noticeable body, in the body.

Would this be acceptable? It doesn't read like English.
A translation needs to make sense to a speaker and reader of the target language.
Body is an ambiguous term. I have a clear idea of what it means here - but it is a matter of discussion, that I do'nt want to get into.
Let's take phenomena, or feelings instead.
What one is supposed to do is to "separate" a phenomenon among the phenomena - or a feeling among the feelings. One has to "fetch distinctively" the noticeable phenomenon, or the noticeable feeling from the phenomena or the feelings.

Maybe using "among" instead of "in" in English, will make more sense for the locative case.
.
.
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.
ToVincent
Posts: 1839
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 6:02 pm

Re: Is the PTS a reliable dictionary?

Post by ToVincent »

Coëmgenu wrote: Tue Jan 25, 2022 5:39 am This is the opening of many Pali suttas. If we read "viharati" as "to fetch," like ToVincent suggest, we get this.

On one occasion the Blessed One was fetching at Savatthi in Jeta’s Grove, Anathapiṇḍika’s Park.

It's nonsense.
Another pre-Buddhist meaning for viharati (vihṛ / vi-√ hṛ) is "to walk".

"Contemplating" / "Dwelling" are definitely wrong interpretations on the part of the PTS.

Internally, he separates (fetches distinctively) the noticeable feeling, among the feelings.
AND
On one occasion the Blessed One was walking at Savatthi in Jeta’s Grove, Anathapiṇḍika’s Park.

I see no "nonsense" in what I said before, concerning the former use of viharati.
You are putting nonsense in the conversation.
.
.
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: 8149
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:55 pm
Location: Whitby, Canada

Re: Is the PTS a reliable dictionary?

Post by Coëmgenu »

Now you are changing what you feel "viharati" means. "To separate" isn't "to fetch distinctively!"

It doesn't mean "to walk" either.

Nonsense through and through.
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: Is the PTS a reliable dictionary?

Post by ToVincent »

Coëmgenu wrote: Tue Jan 25, 2022 8:51 am Now you are changing what you feel "viharati" means. "To separate" isn't "to fetch distinctively!"
I haven't change a thing - As noted by me previously:
viewtopic.php?p=663491#p663491
Viharati in Sanskrit is the present of vihṛ (vi-√ hṛ), which means in the pre-Buddhist literature: to separate, to divide.
It has even the root meaning of fetching (hṛ) apart (vi).
I just find the underlying root meaning of "fetching apart" more telling, more meaningful, when it comes for instance, to separate a phenomenon among phenomena. You really have to bring that phenomenon back to you, after having separated it from the bunch of phenomena.

------
Coëmgenu wrote:It doesn't mean "to walk" either.
Yes it does! — in a pre-Buddhist text.
https://www.sanskritdictionary.com/vih% ... B/219294/1

-------

You're just preposterously eel-wriggling here.
The nonsense is still on 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: 8149
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:55 pm
Location: Whitby, Canada

Re: Is the PTS a reliable dictionary?

Post by Coëmgenu »

"To fetch apart" is not a pre-Buddhist meaning. "To fetch apart" is not a Buddhist meaning.

There is no eel-wriggling. This is something you say to make your interlocutor seem wrong. It is just fluff, like when you accuse people who actually know what they are talking about of "using post-Buddhist meanings."

It's a meaning you made up.

It's doesn't mean "walk" in Buddhist texts. It doesn't mean "to fetch apart." As "Buddhist meanings," you made these up by misusing a dictionary and misunderstanding etymology.

Lastly, the English verb "to separate" does not mean "to fetch distinctively."
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: Is the PTS a reliable dictionary?

Post by ToVincent »

Coëmgenu wrote: Tue Jan 25, 2022 1:43 pm "To fetch apart" is not a pre-Buddhist meaning. "To fetch apart" is not a Buddhist meaning.
...
It's a meaning you made up.

It's doesn't mean "walk" in Buddhist texts. It doesn't mean "to fetch apart." As "Buddhist meanings," you made these up by misusing a dictionary and misunderstanding etymology.

Lastly, the English verb "to separate" does not mean "to fetch distinctively."
Who cares about the English verb's underlying meanings. What imports is the Sanskrit underlying meanings.
Westerners' bias as usual.

-------

What you don't understand is that a Sanskrit word has always the underlying meaning of the root on which it is built.

I didn't MAKE UP "fetch distinctively" —"fetch" (or "convey") is a pre-Buddhist meaning of √ hṛ.
"Vi" is used as a prefix to verbs or nouns and other parts of speech derived from verbs , to express " division " , " distinction ".

The verb vihṛ (p. viharati,) means "separate" in the pre-Buddhist litterature — with an underlying meaning of: "to fetch (convey) with distinction".
Nothing MADE UP here.

√ hṛ has also the meaning of to "take to one's self", to come into possesion.
Like in the word hṛdya, that means internal , inward.
Like in hṛdaya, that means "to take to the mind" (as the seat of mental operations).


Therefore viharati has this underlying meaning of conveying (with distinction,) to oneself (internally) - for instance, a feeling among feelings.

-----

Therefore one is not "dwelling" (?) contemplating a feeling among feelings. Instead, one is "separating and conveying to himself internally", a noticeable feeling among feelings, (for instance).

"Dwelling" (as "sojourning",) is a PTS' interpretation; that might have been derived wrongly, from the post-Buddhist meaning in MBh.: "to roam , wander through".

-----

"Separating" (and conveying to himself internally) might even be what the Buddha was doing when he was "walking" (the other pre-Buddhist meaning of viharati [√ hṛ] ), in those parks.
The Buddha was just into walking meditation - making sure to convey internally his own feeling (etc.).

-----
I walked meditation up and down the path,
serene, inside myself.
Thag 4.2


How can you understand those subtleties ?
.
.
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: 8149
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:55 pm
Location: Whitby, Canada

Re: Is the PTS a reliable dictionary?

Post by Coëmgenu »

ToVincent wrote: Tue Jan 25, 2022 3:49 pmWho cares about the English verb's underlying meanings.
You are making English translations. The entirely incorrect translation of "kāye kāyānupassī viharati" was an incorrect English translation. That you don't understand this is astounding.
ToVincent wrote: Tue Jan 25, 2022 3:49 pmI didn't MAKE UP "fetch distinctively" —"fetch" (or "convey") is a pre-Buddhist meaning of √ hṛ.
"Vi" is used as a prefix to verbs or nouns and other parts of speech derived from verbs , to express " division " , " distinction ".
No. This is wrong. You made up a new meaning based on your misunderstanding of etymology and morphology.

There are no subtleties in what you've just given the forum. There are only blunders.
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.
Post Reply