Assaji wrote: ↑
Thu Jul 30, 2020 2:32 pm
Here again that good old superiority complex of the Western world.
The absolute need to pair Western philosophy with the Eastern one - while gently implying that the latter was not soooo radically distinctive, and without equal. And that, maybe...
Under the cover of the "Universalist" deficient necessity, there is always this rejected, yet so present impulse to compare, and maybe.. .
Viññana nidana shows its ways into the modern world also, doesn't it?.
The "theory of chaos" was thought at the same time some years ago, in different places, by different people, who had no relationship at all.
Were the applications the same?
"There is" — as ontological existence.
This is another example of the superiority complex of one language over the other.
And in this case, of a less consumate one, over a more demanding one.
Why not "il y a" ?
There is not the verb "to be" in "il y a" — just the verb "to have" - and sometimes, the underlying meaning of "ago".
There is bread on the table - il y a du pain sur la table ( lit. the table has bread on it).
I met him ten years ago - Je l'ai rencontré il y a dix ans (lit. it has been ten years that I met him).
Why Pali or Sanskrit shouldn't have such nuances.
Maybe, they even have more meanings - which wouldn't surprise me.
Why "it exists"? - Period!
Before a thing comes to be and exists, there is (il y a [ago/gone by]) an unborn.
Why "this unborn exists"? — why "there exists this unborn"? — why "this unborn exists"?
Why "atthi" as " just about existence in the ontological sense"?
Some working for the Mara's world; some for the Brahma's world; some for the Unborn.
Those who desire good are few, and those who desire evil are many.
(And you just can't imagine how much goodness, those who desire evil, are ready to display - ToVincent).