Viable Pāli etymologies

Explore the ancient language of the Tipitaka and Theravāda commentaries

Moderator: Mahavihara moderator

User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 1565
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:55 pm

Viable Pāli etymologies

Post by Coëmgenu » Fri Sep 08, 2017 11:37 pm

ToVincent wrote:Rittaka [ritta+ka]
Ritta [pp.of riñcati]:
- devoid of, empty of.
DEVOID OF KA.
Do you think Abhidhammika means "Abhidhamma of KA"?

Presuming you mean "KA" to be some sort of shorthand for kāya, of course, substantiated here:
ToVincent wrote:Sakkāyadiṭṭhi (S/self-view) [saṃ+Ka+iya - lit. (identifying) "with what belongs to Ka"]; that is to say the identity-view with Atta (Self), as well as the identity-view with one of his attas (selves), is just about believing that one's satta is Ka (Atman>>Brahma>>Prajāpati) - in an extensive, spreading, constant & continual way. To the point that ka (the body*) becomes one and immortal with Brahma or Brahma/Ātman.
As believed in late Vedic times (and particularly in the Upaniṣads, quite contemporary with the Buddha).
*here "body" has a larger range in Indian philosophy, than the meaning we usually attach to it.


It doesn't obviously , this is a rhetorical question asking you to defend your use of ancient vedic etymologies, few of which would have been generally known at the time of the Buddha, to define Pāli words, designed to be "known" at the time of the Buddha (or, at the very least, by the sangha at the time of the standardizing of the Pāli texts). "Ancient (and defunct and largely unknown, by the time of the Buddha,) etymology is not contemporaneous meaning" being the critique at hand.
並畢竟空。並如來藏。並實相。非三 而三三而不三。非合非散而合而散。非非合非非散。不可一異而一異。
All three truths are ultimately empty, all are tathāgata-seed, all are true aspect. Not three, they are three; three, they are not three. Neither combined nor separated, neither uncombined nor unseparated. Neither same nor different, yet in a sense same, and in a sense different.

夫三諦者。 天然之性徳也。 中諦者。 統一切法。 眞諦者。 泯一切法。 俗諦者。 立一切法。
The three truths. Heaven-sent natural characteristics. The middle truth unifies all dharmāḥ. The ultimate truth demolishes all dharmāḥ. The conventional truth establishes all dharmāḥ.

摩訶止観始終心要Móhēzhǐguān, Shǐzhōngxīnyào.

ToVincent
Posts: 401
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: Viable Pāli etymologies

Post by ToVincent » Sat Sep 09, 2017 12:36 am

Coëmgenu wrote:Presuming you mean "KA" to be some sort of shorthand for kāya, of course,
॰ईय -īya forms possessives in Sanskrit.

Also, a knowledge of the meaning of "body" in Vedic philosophy might help.
As I said in my post referenced below (on which you draw the above), it has quite a broader range, than the physical body we usually attribute it.
But for that, you have to admit the influence of Veda on the Kṣatriya Buddha. Something you have quite a hard time, with your friends, to admit.

From:
https://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f ... 20#p436609
In this world with its ..., Māras, ... in this population with its ascetics.... (AN 5.30).
------
We are all possessed - more or less.
------
And what, bhikkhu, is inward rottenness? Here someone is immoral, one of evil character, of impure and suspect behaviour, secretive in his acts, no ascetic though claiming to be one, not a celibate though claiming to be one, inwardly rotten, corrupt, depraved. This is called inward rottenness.”
SN 35.241
------
https://justpaste.it/j5o4

User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 1565
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:55 pm

Re: Viable Pāli etymologies

Post by Coëmgenu » Sat Sep 09, 2017 12:54 am

ToVincent wrote:As I said in my post referenced below (on which you draw the above), it has quite a broader range, than the physical body we usually attribute it.
Much like corpus in Latin, but that does not demonstrate any proof that "KA" is short for kāya, in any scribal shorthand, let alone Pāli manuscripts.
並畢竟空。並如來藏。並實相。非三 而三三而不三。非合非散而合而散。非非合非非散。不可一異而一異。
All three truths are ultimately empty, all are tathāgata-seed, all are true aspect. Not three, they are three; three, they are not three. Neither combined nor separated, neither uncombined nor unseparated. Neither same nor different, yet in a sense same, and in a sense different.

夫三諦者。 天然之性徳也。 中諦者。 統一切法。 眞諦者。 泯一切法。 俗諦者。 立一切法。
The three truths. Heaven-sent natural characteristics. The middle truth unifies all dharmāḥ. The ultimate truth demolishes all dharmāḥ. The conventional truth establishes all dharmāḥ.

摩訶止観始終心要Móhēzhǐguān, Shǐzhōngxīnyào.

ToVincent
Posts: 401
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: Viable Pāli etymologies

Post by ToVincent » Sat Sep 09, 2017 2:27 am

Coëmgenu wrote:that does not demonstrate any proof that "KA" is short for kāya, in any scribal shorthand, let alone Pāli manuscripts.
We are not talking Pali - but Veda ("Vedic/Sanskrit").
Veda - This is what the Buddha draws his philosophy and Dhamma from.
There are no pre-Buddhist philosophical Pali works, for what I know.

Ka means the god Ka (a.k.a. Prajāpati = Self).
Kāya, if refering to Vedism, is Ka+iya = lit. what belongs to Ka.

You never wondered why sakkāyadiṭṭhi is translated as "self-view" - (viz. identifying with Self); and not "body-view"?
Have I told you before that the god Ka is Prājapati? The Self. (see references in the link to the thread above).
More precisely that the god Ka is the Self/self.

To go through the relationship of the god Ka/Prājapati, the word body (kāya - KātyŚr.), and the root √ ci that relates to (building) the sacrificial altar (and thus directly to Ka), is beyond my desire to enter an unending & worthless discussion.
I am too afraid to enter the arena of the great scholarship of the Bronkhorst type, who once wrote, that Buddha was a śramana, and that he never met any Brahmins in his life, because Brahminism had not yet reached Maghada !?!?!
That leaves quite an impact on the not less "schlolared" readers of his - trust me. And for some time.
(Who grants them anyway?)
I am a bit tired to argue with such advanced intelligence.

I admit that saṃ might be replaced by sat. Only if the latter bears the meaning of "enduring, lasting".
But that would not change the underlying construct of a an enduring, lasting (continual) Self/self named Ka, in late Vedic creed, (as seen in the thread linked above).
Ka & Kāya are too intermingled, as far as the meaning of "body" extends, in most of the late Vedic Dharmas.
In this world with its ..., Māras, ... in this population with its ascetics.... (AN 5.30).
------
We are all possessed - more or less.
------
And what, bhikkhu, is inward rottenness? Here someone is immoral, one of evil character, of impure and suspect behaviour, secretive in his acts, no ascetic though claiming to be one, not a celibate though claiming to be one, inwardly rotten, corrupt, depraved. This is called inward rottenness.”
SN 35.241
------
https://justpaste.it/j5o4

User avatar
binocular
Posts: 4390
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:13 pm

Re: Viable Pāli etymologies

Post by binocular » Sat Sep 09, 2017 2:43 pm

You might want to ask some prasangikas for help ...
*facepalm*

User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 1565
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:55 pm

Re: Viable Pāli etymologies

Post by Coëmgenu » Sat Sep 09, 2017 5:30 pm

ToVincent wrote:
Coëmgenu wrote:that does not demonstrate any proof that "KA" is short for kāya, in any scribal shorthand, let alone Pāli manuscripts.
We are not talking Pali - but Veda ("Vedic/Sanskrit").
So do you admit then that etymologies like this:

ToVincent wrote:Ka means the god Ka (a.k.a. Prajāpati = Self).
Kāya, if refering to Vedism, is Ka+iya = lit. what belongs to Ka.

You never wondered why sakkāyadiṭṭhi is translated as "self-view" - (viz. identifying with Self); and not "body-view"?
Have I told you before that the god Ka is Prājapati? The Self. (see references in the link to the thread above).
More precisely that the god Ka is the Self/self.

To go through the relationship of the god Ka/Prājapati, the word body (kāya - KātyŚr.), and the root √ ci that relates to (building) the sacrificial altar (and thus directly to Ka), is beyond my desire to enter an unending & worthless discussion.
Are of little functional value to those of us specifically interested in Pāli, not an autodidactic reconstruction of the near-Proto-Indo-European roots of Vedic Sanskrit? Pāli being the language that the Buddhavacana is preserved in, not Vedic, "Veda", or Vedic Sanskrit.
並畢竟空。並如來藏。並實相。非三 而三三而不三。非合非散而合而散。非非合非非散。不可一異而一異。
All three truths are ultimately empty, all are tathāgata-seed, all are true aspect. Not three, they are three; three, they are not three. Neither combined nor separated, neither uncombined nor unseparated. Neither same nor different, yet in a sense same, and in a sense different.

夫三諦者。 天然之性徳也。 中諦者。 統一切法。 眞諦者。 泯一切法。 俗諦者。 立一切法。
The three truths. Heaven-sent natural characteristics. The middle truth unifies all dharmāḥ. The ultimate truth demolishes all dharmāḥ. The conventional truth establishes all dharmāḥ.

摩訶止観始終心要Móhēzhǐguān, Shǐzhōngxīnyào.

User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 1565
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:55 pm

Re: Viable Pāli etymologies

Post by Coëmgenu » Sat Sep 09, 2017 5:33 pm

binocular wrote:You might want to ask some prasangikas for help ...
*facepalm*
I think its possible that if I were do bring some for help, I would be told that prāsaṅgika truly means "prāsaṅgi of KA"
並畢竟空。並如來藏。並實相。非三 而三三而不三。非合非散而合而散。非非合非非散。不可一異而一異。
All three truths are ultimately empty, all are tathāgata-seed, all are true aspect. Not three, they are three; three, they are not three. Neither combined nor separated, neither uncombined nor unseparated. Neither same nor different, yet in a sense same, and in a sense different.

夫三諦者。 天然之性徳也。 中諦者。 統一切法。 眞諦者。 泯一切法。 俗諦者。 立一切法。
The three truths. Heaven-sent natural characteristics. The middle truth unifies all dharmāḥ. The ultimate truth demolishes all dharmāḥ. The conventional truth establishes all dharmāḥ.

摩訶止観始終心要Móhēzhǐguān, Shǐzhōngxīnyào.

User avatar
binocular
Posts: 4390
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:13 pm

Re: Viable Pāli etymologies

Post by binocular » Sat Sep 09, 2017 5:44 pm

"When in doubt, always resort to an reductio ad absurdum."

User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 1565
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:55 pm

Re: Viable Pāli etymologies

Post by Coëmgenu » Sat Sep 09, 2017 6:09 pm

binocular wrote:"When in doubt, always resort to an reductio ad absurdum."
No, Binocular. I was being serious.

prāsaṅgika = prā (towards) + saṅga (touching) of Ka.

The prāsaṅgika are those who touch Self (Ka) with their wisdom. I bet you thought they were a subschool of Madhyamaka. Luckily, I know my etymologies, and can correct Buddhists in their wrong views.

Similarly, कायक (kāyaka) is the "kāya (KA + īya) of Ka". Its all rather meta with that compound.
Last edited by Coëmgenu on Sat Sep 09, 2017 7:20 pm, edited 2 times in total.
並畢竟空。並如來藏。並實相。非三 而三三而不三。非合非散而合而散。非非合非非散。不可一異而一異。
All three truths are ultimately empty, all are tathāgata-seed, all are true aspect. Not three, they are three; three, they are not three. Neither combined nor separated, neither uncombined nor unseparated. Neither same nor different, yet in a sense same, and in a sense different.

夫三諦者。 天然之性徳也。 中諦者。 統一切法。 眞諦者。 泯一切法。 俗諦者。 立一切法。
The three truths. Heaven-sent natural characteristics. The middle truth unifies all dharmāḥ. The ultimate truth demolishes all dharmāḥ. The conventional truth establishes all dharmāḥ.

摩訶止観始終心要Móhēzhǐguān, Shǐzhōngxīnyào.

User avatar
Dmytro
Posts: 1479
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 7:24 pm
Location: Kyiv, Ukraine
Contact:

Re: Viable Pāli etymologies

Post by Dmytro » Sat Sep 09, 2017 7:00 pm

Coëmgenu wrote:prāsaṅgika = prā (towards) + saṅga (touching) of KA.
That's how it happens:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ToG3Q9e7zWE

User avatar
Dhammanando
Posts: 3837
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:44 pm
Location: Ban Sri Pradu Cremation Ground, Phrao District, Chiangmai

Re: Viable Pāli etymologies

Post by Dhammanando » Sat Sep 09, 2017 11:02 pm

Coëmgenu wrote:The prāsaṅgika are those who touch Self (Ka) with their wisdom. I bet you thought they were a subschool of Madhyamaka. Luckily, I know my etymologies, and can correct Buddhists in their wrong views.
Sounds plausible, and has solid backing from ancient Egyptian sources to boot.
Ka (vital spark)

The Ka (kꜣ) was the Egyptian concept of vital essence, which distinguishes the difference between a living and a dead person, with death occurring when the ka left the body. The Egyptians believed that Khnum created the bodies of children on a potter's wheel and inserted them into their mothers' bodies. Depending on the region, Egyptians believed that Heqet or Meskhenet was the creator of each person's ka, breathing it into them at the instant of their birth as the part of their soul that made them be alive. This resembles the concept of spirit in other religions.

The Egyptians also believed that the ka was sustained through food and drink. For this reason food and drink offerings were presented to the dead, although it was the kau (kꜣw) within the offerings that was consumed, not the physical aspect. The ka was often represented in Egyptian iconography as a second image of the king, leading earlier works to attempt to translate ka as ‘double’.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_E ... f_the_soul
It be a witchy thing.
Ka.jpg
Ka.jpg (24.42 KiB) Viewed 445 times
.

User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 1565
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:55 pm

Re: Viable Pāli etymologies

Post by Coëmgenu » Sun Sep 10, 2017 12:11 am

Dhammanando wrote:Sounds plausible, and has solid backing from ancient Egyptian sources to boot.
If I may be so bold as to correct you in this regard, bhante, it is not the Egyptian kꜣ, ka, that is being suggested as the "Self/self", but rather, it is being suggested that the "-ka" in rittaka, tucchaka, asāraka, & sakyadiṭṭhi, is none other than a certain "Ka", a Vedic God, also named Prajāpati:

In the twelfth month the horse is locked in an enclosure of aśvattha wood. The vaiśvadeva oblations which are to uplift the sacrifice are consecrated by means of "... to manas, svāhā; (I offer) manas; to Prajāpati svāhā." On several occasions the adhvaryu has to replace the words "together with the gods" by "together with Prajāpati." -tS. 7, 5, 16a and 17a (ṚV. 10, 121, 3 and 2), taken to be addressed to the god Ka, are used during the soma ceremony.
(Jan Gonda,Prajāpati's rise to higher rank, 183)

It is further suggested, I believe, that this association, is vital to understanding those above words with "-ka" in their end.
並畢竟空。並如來藏。並實相。非三 而三三而不三。非合非散而合而散。非非合非非散。不可一異而一異。
All three truths are ultimately empty, all are tathāgata-seed, all are true aspect. Not three, they are three; three, they are not three. Neither combined nor separated, neither uncombined nor unseparated. Neither same nor different, yet in a sense same, and in a sense different.

夫三諦者。 天然之性徳也。 中諦者。 統一切法。 眞諦者。 泯一切法。 俗諦者。 立一切法。
The three truths. Heaven-sent natural characteristics. The middle truth unifies all dharmāḥ. The ultimate truth demolishes all dharmāḥ. The conventional truth establishes all dharmāḥ.

摩訶止観始終心要Móhēzhǐguān, Shǐzhōngxīnyào.

ToVincent
Posts: 401
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: Viable Pāli etymologies

Post by ToVincent » Sun Sep 10, 2017 12:37 am

Coëmgenu wrote:
Sujato wrote: The actual referent is the central subject of all true myth: the god who is dead and gone. The connection with the form kāya is a religio-linguistic invention of the grammarians, referenced only in later literature.
Really?!?

Śatapatha-Brāhmaṇa (~700 BCE), as "late" Vedic texts.. That's a new one.
'Hail to Ka ! Hail to the Who! Hail to the Whoever!'
kāya svāhā kasmai svāhā katamasmai svāheti
ŚBr. 13.1.8.3
"Late" knowledge I would say.

-----
"Winning ugly" was something people were supposed to do in the 80's. Wasn't it?
In this world with its ..., Māras, ... in this population with its ascetics.... (AN 5.30).
------
We are all possessed - more or less.
------
And what, bhikkhu, is inward rottenness? Here someone is immoral, one of evil character, of impure and suspect behaviour, secretive in his acts, no ascetic though claiming to be one, not a celibate though claiming to be one, inwardly rotten, corrupt, depraved. This is called inward rottenness.”
SN 35.241
------
https://justpaste.it/j5o4

User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 1565
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:55 pm

Re: Viable Pāli etymologies

Post by Coëmgenu » Sun Sep 10, 2017 12:59 am

The authors of the Brāhmaṇas had so completely broken with the past, that, forgetful of the poetical character of the hymns (of the Veda) and yearning of the poets after the unknown god, they exalted the interrogative pronoun itself into a deity, and acknowledged a god Ka or Who? In the Taittirīya and in the Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa, wherever interrogative verses occur, the author states that Ka is Prajāpati, or the lord of creatures. Nor did they stop here.

Some of the hymns in which the interrogative pronoun occured were called Kadvat, i.e. having kad or quid. But soon a new adjective was formed and not only the hymns but the sacrifices also offered to the god were called Kāya or Who-ish.

At the time of Pāṇini, this word had acquired such legitimacy as to call for a separate rule explaining its formation. The commentator here explains Ka by Brahman. After this we can hardly wonder that in the later Sanskrit literature of the Purāṇas Ka appears as a recognized god, as a supreme god, with a genealogy of his own[...]
(the relevant quotation of Max Müller)
並畢竟空。並如來藏。並實相。非三 而三三而不三。非合非散而合而散。非非合非非散。不可一異而一異。
All three truths are ultimately empty, all are tathāgata-seed, all are true aspect. Not three, they are three; three, they are not three. Neither combined nor separated, neither uncombined nor unseparated. Neither same nor different, yet in a sense same, and in a sense different.

夫三諦者。 天然之性徳也。 中諦者。 統一切法。 眞諦者。 泯一切法。 俗諦者。 立一切法。
The three truths. Heaven-sent natural characteristics. The middle truth unifies all dharmāḥ. The ultimate truth demolishes all dharmāḥ. The conventional truth establishes all dharmāḥ.

摩訶止観始終心要Móhēzhǐguān, Shǐzhōngxīnyào.

User avatar
binocular
Posts: 4390
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:13 pm

Re: Viable Pāli etymologies

Post by binocular » Sun Sep 10, 2017 10:48 am

Uh. I knew I've heard the word somewhere!
The Mystic Warlords of Ka'a
Image

ToVincent
Posts: 401
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: Viable Pāli etymologies

Post by ToVincent » Sun Sep 10, 2017 4:45 pm

Coëmgenu wrote:
The authors of the Brāhmaṇas had so completely broken with the past, that, forgetful of the poetical character of the hymns (of the Veda) and yearning of the poets after the unknown god, they exalted the interrogative pronoun itself into a deity, and acknowledged a god Ka or Who? In the Taittirīya and in the Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa, wherever interrogative verses occur, the author states that Ka is Prajāpati, or the lord of creatures. Nor did they stop here.

Some of the hymns in which the interrogative pronoun occured were called Kadvat, i.e. having kad or quid. But soon a new adjective was formed and not only the hymns but the sacrifices also offered to the god were called Kāya or Who-ish.

At the time of Pāṇini, this word had acquired such legitimacy as to call for a separate rule explaining its formation. The commentator here explains Ka by Brahman. After this we can hardly wonder that in the later Sanskrit literature of the Purāṇas Ka appears as a recognized god, as a supreme god, with a genealogy of his own[...]
(the relevant quotation of Max Müller)
What's your point?
Shooting bullets at your foot?

Aren't you just admitting that your sarcasms were just unfounded?

So Ka exists, for what I see.
And it is not the Egyptian Ka; nor the Ka of Dennis Wheatley's black art; nor Mowgly's Ka, nor whoever Ka (above cited). These are just sarcasms, carried out to veil a disturbing fact for some.

So Ka exists - the Vedic Ka.
So why should I disagree with Müller?

What does Müller says?
That in Middle Vedic Texts (Brhāmaṇas), the use of the concept Ka/Prajapati was pretty common. And that it lasted as far as the Puranic litterature - going through the Late Vedic Texts of the Upaniṣads - and obviously across Buddhism as well.

Let me remind you as well, while we are at it, the tight relationship between the Buddhist philosophy and Vedism, in this example among many, many more.
https://archive.org/stream/PrincipalUpa ... 3/mode/2up

The Atma(Atta)>>Brahma>>Prajapati/Ka(atta), is a concept that the Buddha battled against.
A concept that Buddha rejected on the rationale that the khandhas are impermanent, (hence not continual).
In other words, the Buddha said that there is no Atma>>Brahma>>Prajapati/Ka Self/self in the Dhamma, that is paṭiccasamupāda (sabbe dhammā anatta).

Obviously, such a simple and true explanation of "anatta", puts at stake the divagations of many, that have been going on for so long.
A simple truth that is so vexing and worrisome for many; that they equate it to "trolling". Pretty convenient, isn't it?

As I already said in another thread:
https://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f ... aw#p432952
The Buddha did act as a conservative against the view of the Upaniṣadic Brahmins; when He expounded a Dhamma (paṭiccasamupāda) with no Atta/atta. And His Dhamma was quite revolutionary, for that matter.

BUT he did also act as a revolutionary, towards the still orthodox view of the non-Upaniṣadic Brahminhood; of which he was a part, by questioning the nature of the "One" in RV. 1.164.06.
That is to say that Buddha also went against the conservative Brahmins, that were still living in the "poetical character of the hymns (of the Veda), and yearning of the poets (Ṛśi) after the unknown god" (as Müller rightly puts it).

----

Moreover, can we say that there is no relationship between Kāya and Ka, when it is written in the Brāhmaṇa:

'Hail to Ka ! Hail to the Who! Hail to the Whoever!'
kāya svāhā kasmai svāhā katamasmai svāheti
ŚBr. 13.1.8.3

----
Again:
The authors of the Brāhmaṇas had so completely broken with the past, that, forgetful of the poetical character of the hymns (of the Veda) and yearning of the poets after the unknown god, they exalted the interrogative pronoun itself into a deity, and acknowledged a god Ka or Who? In the Taittirīya and in the Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa, wherever interrogative verses occur, the author states that Ka is Prajāpati, or the lord of creatures. Nor did they stop here.

Some of the hymns in which the interrogative pronoun occured were called Kadvat, i.e. having kad or quid. But soon a new adjective was formed and not only the hymns but the sacrifices also offered to the god were called Kāya or Who-ish.

At the time of Pāṇini, this word had acquired such legitimacy as to call for a separate rule explaining its formation. The commentator here explains Ka by Brahman. After this we can hardly wonder that in the later Sanskrit literature of the Purāṇas Ka appears as a recognized god, as a supreme god, with a genealogy of his own[...]
(the relevant quotation of Max Müller)
So what?
What's your point?
In this world with its ..., Māras, ... in this population with its ascetics.... (AN 5.30).
------
We are all possessed - more or less.
------
And what, bhikkhu, is inward rottenness? Here someone is immoral, one of evil character, of impure and suspect behaviour, secretive in his acts, no ascetic though claiming to be one, not a celibate though claiming to be one, inwardly rotten, corrupt, depraved. This is called inward rottenness.”
SN 35.241
------
https://justpaste.it/j5o4

User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 1565
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:55 pm

Re: Viable Pāli etymologies

Post by Coëmgenu » Sun Sep 10, 2017 5:39 pm

ToVincent wrote:
Coëmgenu wrote:
The authors of the Brāhmaṇas had so completely broken with the past, that, forgetful of the poetical character of the hymns (of the Veda) and yearning of the poets after the unknown god, they exalted the interrogative pronoun itself into a deity, and acknowledged a god Ka or Who? In the Taittirīya and in the Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa, wherever interrogative verses occur, the author states that Ka is Prajāpati, or the lord of creatures. Nor did they stop here.

Some of the hymns in which the interrogative pronoun occured were called Kadvat, i.e. having kad or quid. But soon a new adjective was formed and not only the hymns but the sacrifices also offered to the god were called Kāya or Who-ish.

At the time of Pāṇini, this word had acquired such legitimacy as to call for a separate rule explaining its formation. The commentator here explains Ka by Brahman. After this we can hardly wonder that in the later Sanskrit literature of the Purāṇas Ka appears as a recognized god, as a supreme god, with a genealogy of his own[...]
(the relevant quotation of Max Müller)
What's your point?
Shooting bullets at your foot?

Are you just admitting that your (and other's) sarcasms were just unfounded?

So Ka exists, for what I see.
And it is not the Egyptian Ka; nor the Ka of Dennis Wheatley's black art; nor Mowgly's Ka, nor ... (above cited). Things that are just carried out to veil a disturbing fact for some.
But the Vedic Ka.
Bullets at my foot? You will have to elaborate, because communications have entirely broken down on my end regarding this specific quotation.

You think the Buddha's not-self discourses are actually "the god Ka is a misunderstanding of the personal pronoun and thus does not exist as we think he does" discourses? Or something of the like? Is that what you mean?

If you figure the god Ka is so foundationally important to Buddhism, why does the Buddha not speak of him directly? Rittaka <-- this would not be a "direct" reference to Ka. The Buddha did not teach that this refers to Ka. There is no such discourse in any extant recensions of any Buddhavacana. No such discourse was remembered at any Buddhist council by any past Venerable, AFAIK.

Are you going to now show me a discourse that unambiguously and directly refers to and speaks about "Ka as (or not as) Prajāpati"? Specifically about the misconception regarding Ka as "god vs pronoun" that Müller points out?
並畢竟空。並如來藏。並實相。非三 而三三而不三。非合非散而合而散。非非合非非散。不可一異而一異。
All three truths are ultimately empty, all are tathāgata-seed, all are true aspect. Not three, they are three; three, they are not three. Neither combined nor separated, neither uncombined nor unseparated. Neither same nor different, yet in a sense same, and in a sense different.

夫三諦者。 天然之性徳也。 中諦者。 統一切法。 眞諦者。 泯一切法。 俗諦者。 立一切法。
The three truths. Heaven-sent natural characteristics. The middle truth unifies all dharmāḥ. The ultimate truth demolishes all dharmāḥ. The conventional truth establishes all dharmāḥ.

摩訶止観始終心要Móhēzhǐguān, Shǐzhōngxīnyào.

ToVincent
Posts: 401
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: Viable Pāli etymologies

Post by ToVincent » Sun Sep 10, 2017 6:21 pm

Coëmgenu wrote:...
coëmgenu wrote:Bullets at my foot? You will have to elaborate, because communications have entirely broken down on my end.
Shoot oneself in the foot=
Foolishly harm one's own cause.
http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/sho ... n+the+foot

In other words, you pretend that Ka is just a ridiculous idea; then you come up later with the proof that It does exist!?!?!

coëmgenu wrote:You think the Buddha's not-self discourses are actually "the god Ka is a misunderstanding of the personal pronoun and thus does not exist as we think he does" discourses? Is that what you mean?
No this is not what I meant.

The concept of Ka is not restricted to the "personal pronoun".
"Ka is Prajāpati", says the Brāhmaṇas.

What I meant, is what I said simply and very straightforwardly before.
Viz. no Atma>>Brahma>>Prajapati/Ka pervasive and continuous Self/self in the Dhamma (paṭiccasamuppāda), says Buddha. Nothing like this; like the middle and late Vedic texts pretend.


coëmgenu wrote: ... about the misconception regarding Ka that Müller points out?
!?!?!?!?
What "misconception"?
Müller never said that!
It was just the Brahmanic philosophy of the time. The middle and late Vedic philosophy. Compared to early Vedic philosophy.
Veda was "written" by many Ṛśi. With somewhat different dharmas.

coëmgenu wrote: If you figure the god Ka is so foundationally important to Buddhism, why does the Buddha not speak of him directly?
Buddha never talks about Mitra, although the god Mitra is just about the underlying notion behind Metta (see notes https://justpaste.it/1a3ol).

What is "foundationally important to Buddhism" is that there is no continuous and pervasive god, like in mid & late Vedic creed. And Sakkāyadiṭṭhi (Self-view) is just about that. (SN 22.47). Viz. this Atma>>Brahma>>Prajapati/Ka belief of the mid & l&te Vedic (unorthodox) Brahmins.
Last edited by ToVincent on Sun Sep 10, 2017 6:27 pm, edited 3 times in total.
In this world with its ..., Māras, ... in this population with its ascetics.... (AN 5.30).
------
We are all possessed - more or less.
------
And what, bhikkhu, is inward rottenness? Here someone is immoral, one of evil character, of impure and suspect behaviour, secretive in his acts, no ascetic though claiming to be one, not a celibate though claiming to be one, inwardly rotten, corrupt, depraved. This is called inward rottenness.”
SN 35.241
------
https://justpaste.it/j5o4

User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 1565
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:55 pm

Re: Viable Pāli etymologies

Post by Coëmgenu » Sun Sep 10, 2017 6:25 pm

ToVincent wrote:
Coëmgenu wrote:...
coëmgenu wrote:Bullets at my foot? You will have to elaborate, because communications have entirely broken down on my end.
Shoot oneself in the foot=
Foolishly harm one's own cause.
http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/sho ... n+the+foot

In other words, you pretend that Ka is just a ridiculous idea; then you come up later with the proof that It does exist!?!?!
Ka existing and "rittaka = ritta of ka" being ridiculous are not mutually exclusive.
ToVincent wrote:The concept of Ka is not restricted to the "personal pronoun".
"Ka is Prajāpati", says the Brāhmaṇas.
And this here is the misconception Müller talks about. The misconception made by the authors of the Brāhmaṇas.
Last edited by Coëmgenu on Sun Sep 10, 2017 6:30 pm, edited 2 times in total.
並畢竟空。並如來藏。並實相。非三 而三三而不三。非合非散而合而散。非非合非非散。不可一異而一異。
All three truths are ultimately empty, all are tathāgata-seed, all are true aspect. Not three, they are three; three, they are not three. Neither combined nor separated, neither uncombined nor unseparated. Neither same nor different, yet in a sense same, and in a sense different.

夫三諦者。 天然之性徳也。 中諦者。 統一切法。 眞諦者。 泯一切法。 俗諦者。 立一切法。
The three truths. Heaven-sent natural characteristics. The middle truth unifies all dharmāḥ. The ultimate truth demolishes all dharmāḥ. The conventional truth establishes all dharmāḥ.

摩訶止観始終心要Móhēzhǐguān, Shǐzhōngxīnyào.

ToVincent
Posts: 401
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: Viable Pāli etymologies

Post by ToVincent » Sun Sep 10, 2017 6:29 pm

Coëmgenu wrote:Ka existing and "rittaka = ritta of ka" being ridiculous are not mutually exclusive.
Can you develop?
In this world with its ..., Māras, ... in this population with its ascetics.... (AN 5.30).
------
We are all possessed - more or less.
------
And what, bhikkhu, is inward rottenness? Here someone is immoral, one of evil character, of impure and suspect behaviour, secretive in his acts, no ascetic though claiming to be one, not a celibate though claiming to be one, inwardly rotten, corrupt, depraved. This is called inward rottenness.”
SN 35.241
------
https://justpaste.it/j5o4

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests