Is paññā, prajñā or prāṇa ?

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths - what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
User avatar
Volo
Posts: 1065
Joined: Sat Jul 28, 2018 9:32 am

Re: Is paññā, prajñā or prāṇa ?

Post by Volo »

ToVincent wrote: Thu Dec 13, 2018 11:37 pm https://i.imgur.com/XaxkJCq_d.jpg?maxwi ... ity=medium
(see above post)

Then I suppose that in the Pāṇini vs. Volovsky case, Volovsky has won.
First, my first comment referred to your derivation of nirvāṇa as "Nir+vā+ņa", where you interpreted ņa as knowledge. I replied that it is the same as deriving thinking from thin+king. In quote you showed Panini doesn't say ņa is knowledge.

Second, in my second post I commented on your etymology of prajñā from prāṇa (or other way around). Please, provide quotation where Panini gives such derivation in order to support your claim that I'm contradicting to Panini.

Thanks.
ToVincent
Posts: 1839
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 6:02 pm

Re: Is paññā, prajñā or prāṇa ?

Post by ToVincent »

Volovsky wrote: Fri Dec 14, 2018 3:19 am
First, my first comment referred to your derivation of nirvāṇa as "Nir+vā+ņa", where you interpreted ņa as knowledge. I replied that it is the same as deriving thinking from thin+king. In quote you showed Panini doesn't say ņa is knowledge.

Second, in my second post I commented on your etymology of prajñā from prāṇa (or other way around). Please, provide quotation where Panini gives such derivation in order to support your claim that I'm contradicting to Panini.
A noun doesn't have to have just one word to express itself.
When you add the participial kṛt affix ण ṇa, to the root वा √ vā, to make the noun निर्वाण nirvāṇa, you still have to give the affix a meaning.
In the word nirvāṇa, there is the meaning of the preposition, the root, and the affix. So, strictly speaking, the affix is not a noun, but it has this meaning. Maybe I should have used "knowing" instead of "knowledge", to make it more "agent like".


As far as prāṇa is concerned, I have already said that my title was a bit misleading.
I do not equate prajñā with prāṇa.
I just wanted to equate paññā/prajñā with "the knowledge of prāṇa". Not with the vagueness of "wisdom".
Equating prajñā with prāṇa would be ridiculously ignoring the basic rules of sandhi.
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
Volo
Posts: 1065
Joined: Sat Jul 28, 2018 9:32 am

Re: Is paññā, prajñā or prāṇa ?

Post by Volo »

ToVincent wrote: Fri Dec 14, 2018 12:35 pm When you add the participial kṛt affix ण ṇa, to the root वा √ vā, to make the noun निर्वाण nirvāṇa, you still have to give the affix a meaning.
In the word nirvāṇa, there is the meaning of the preposition, the root, and the affix. So, strictly speaking, the affix is not a noun, but it has this meaning. Maybe I should have used "knowing" instead of "knowledge", to make it more "agent like".
Not like this. Affix doesn't have a special meaning, different from the root. For example: the word "kindness" has affix "ness", which turns "kind" into an abstract noun. You cannot interpret it as noun "ness" or "nest"
I just wanted to equate paññā/prajñā with "the knowledge of prāṇa". Not with the vagueness of "wisdom".
But from where does "prana" come from then in your definition? Why is it "knowledge of prana"? Why not "knowledge of (let's say) space"?
ToVincent
Posts: 1839
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 6:02 pm

Re: Is paññā, prajñā or prāṇa ?

Post by ToVincent »

Volovsky wrote: Fri Dec 14, 2018 1:31 pm
ToVincent wrote: Fri Dec 14, 2018 12:35 pm When you add the participial kṛt affix ण ṇa, to the root वा √ vā, to make the noun निर्वाण nirvāṇa, you still have to give the affix a meaning.
In the word nirvāṇa, there is the meaning of the preposition, the root, and the affix. So, strictly speaking, the affix is not a noun, but it has this meaning. Maybe I should have used "knowing" instead of "knowledge", to make it more "agent like".
Not like this. Affix doesn't have a special meaning, different from the root. For example: the word "kindness" has affix "ness", which turns "kind" into an abstract noun. You cannot interpret it as noun "ness" or "nest"
I just wanted to equate paññā/prajñā with "the knowledge of prāṇa". Not with the vagueness of "wisdom".
But from where does "prana" come from then in your definition? Why is it "knowledge of prana"? Why not "knowledge of (let's say) space"?
Instead of the Kṛt affix, whose meanings can be various, in its general function of making the compound the agent of the verb ; I will take the more simple example of the Taddhita affix "a" that can give different new meanings to a word when used, but whose principal meaning is commonly given as: "descendent of", "follower of", or "belonging to".

Affixes are not devoid of underlying meanings.

Let's consider the Kṛt affix "at" in bhavat.
bhav + at = bhavat ("becoming" or "being", in the sense of "something or someone who becomes or is").
Isn't there in that affix, the underlying meaning of the root "अत् at", that means "to go" ? - The idea of a process "going on".

_______

Let's put it simply.
Is paññā/prajñā "Wisdom" - or- Is paññā/prajñā the "knowledge of prāṇa".
That was the idea behind my lousy formulated title.
-----
Why breath and not space?
Because √ अन् an and वा √ vā convey the same underlying meaning.
BREATH
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 paññā, prajñā or prāṇa ?

Post by Coëmgenu »

Volovsky wrote: Fri Dec 14, 2018 1:31 pm
ToVincent wrote: Fri Dec 14, 2018 12:35 pmWhen you add the participial kṛt affix ण ṇa, to the root वा √ vā, to make the noun निर्वाण nirvāṇa, you still have to give the affix a meaning.
In the word nirvāṇa, there is the meaning of the preposition, the root, and the affix. So, strictly speaking, the affix is not a noun, but it has this meaning. Maybe I should have used "knowing" instead of "knowledge", to make it more "agent like".
Not like this. Affix doesn't have a special meaning, different from the root. For example: the word "kindness" has affix "ness", which turns "kind" into an abstract noun. You cannot interpret it as noun "ness" or "nest"
You should ask our mutual friend and associate about how he interprets "dharmāṇa" in like of his above theories, IMO.
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 paññā, prajñā or prāṇa ?

Post by ToVincent »

Coëmgenu wrote: Sat Dec 15, 2018 1:37 am You should ask our mutual friend and associate about how he interprets "dharmāṇa" in like of his above theories, IMO.
You could also read about the use of ṇa in Chandogya Up. 7.13.1

smaro vāvākāśādbhūyastasmādyadyapi bahava āsīranna
smaranto naiva te kaṃcana śṛṇuyurna manvīranna vijānīranyadā
vāva te smareyuratha śṛṇuyuratha manvīrannatha vijānīransmareṇa
vai putrānvijānāti smareṇa paśūnsmaramupāssveti

‘Memory surely is greater than Akasa. Therefore, even if many persons should assemble and if they should have no memory, they surely would not hear any one, they would not think, they would not know (understand). But surely, should they have memory, then they would hear, then they would think, then they would know. Through memory, indeed, one discerns one’s sons, through memory one’s cattle. Worship memory.

Where smare-ṇa means literally: the (optative) "knowledge to remember".
Coëmgenu wrote: Sat Dec 15, 2018 1:37 am You should ask our mutual friend and associate...
Are we of the same kula? :)
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
Volo
Posts: 1065
Joined: Sat Jul 28, 2018 9:32 am

Re: Is paññā, prajñā or prāṇa ?

Post by Volo »

ToVincent wrote: Sat Dec 15, 2018 1:39 pm Where smare-ṇa means literally: the (optative) "knowledge to remember".
Then why don't you just show this word in the dictionary? Don't try to make use of our limited Sanskrit knowledge. Moreover, in the translation you provided, I don't see "knowledge to remember" (this phrase doesn't make sense to me even in English).
Post Reply