Dmytro wrote:...
Here we go again! - Gee.
I am glad that you see the lexical correspondance between dharmán (dharma) and dhamma. Although you add that Sanskrit and Pali are quite different languages.
As a French, I would say that I speak and understand well the standardized French language; but that I can also pick up quite well, the Limousin or the Languedocien, if people speak slowly enough.
One thing for sure, however, is that I will understand the gist of an old Languedocian philosopher, translated in modern French. No problemo!
Thomas Oberlies writes:
"Rgvedic
Sanskrit: ..." ?!?!?
Dmytro writes:
"Sanskrit, - a language created centuries after Buddha's lifetime"
!?!?!?!?
You have to get your violins in tune, here.
Sanskrit did not come out of the blue. Neither did Buddhism come out of the blue.
Knowing deeply the Pali does not make either, someone knowledgable in Indian philosophy.
It's like saying that an American philosopher cannot understand Descartes, because he does not know the French grammar. Or that I have to know where the English of Thomas Hobbes comes from, to understand the general meaning of his ideas. That's utterly absurd.
Anyway, there is a too great void (lack of factual proof) in these linguistic speculations, to arrive at a definite conclusion.
Like - and although this is absolutely irrelevant to me - when you say:
"Sanskrit, - a language created centuries after Buddha's lifetime"
Prove it!
You just can't prove that, as much as I can't prove that Pāṇini and its predecessors, started the endeavour of standardizing the Vedic dialects, since the 8th century.
Who knows? - Certainly not you - not me either; or whatever great scholar out there.
However, knowing that fact, you are just beating around the bush to prevent what the "buddhist" Establishment is just dreading about; and what the Universalist crowd dreads also - viz. the refusal by the true Buddhists, to acknowledge the somewhat Advaita universalist philosophy they are pushing, or have pushed Buddhism into; like in the times of old. That is to say, to see Buddhism as a transfiguration of the world of becoming; instead of its nullification.
So I will pass on that great knowledge of yours concerning the Pali, and turn to the translation we have nowadays of the pre-Buddistic Indian texts; which are mostly the Vedas (Saṁhitās, Brāhmaṇas, Sūtras, Āraṇyakas and Upaniṣads) and some other texts as well, like the Dhātupāṭha, etc.
It is in the former, that the Buddha draw His philosophy. And the meaning of the Pali words are just a reflection of that.
Period!
When one wants to understand the primary notion of "Atma", or "Dhamma", for instance, one has to rely on the meaning that is conveyed, since the first religious-"philosophical" book that is the Ṛg Veda and in the following texts as well - whatever language or dialect the first Hymn was passed on to the allowed varnas ("castes").
Atta and Dhamma did not come out of the blue, in Buddha's mind.
That is what you have a hard time to assert, when you ride on your universalist merry-go-round pseudo-"buddhism".
The philosophy of the Upaniṣads, and the philosophy of the Buddha, come directly from the religious and epic hymns of the Saṁhitās, then the liturgical Brāhmaṇas, the aphoristical Sūtras, the ascetic and philosophical Āraṇyakas, and the philosophical Upaniṣads. How these texts were transmitted to the Buddha, or to the Upaniṣadic crowd, is practically of no interest. What counts is how Buddhism did and does relate to them.
As I already said previously, Mr. Pāṇini and his predecessors attempts, at making the different Vedic dialects, that existed since the first Hymn, a standardized language, does not make Sanskrit a new language - and certainly does not temper with the validity of the Vedic concepts (early and late).
However, I insist again that the gist of these religious and philosophical texts has been preserved through the transcription we generally have now in Sanskrit.
There are some people out there, like me, quite fed up with the "buddhist" scholarship, (that is usually not Buddhist,) and which has its own view of what Buddhism should be - shielding themselves behind a pseudo linguistic and grammatical scholarship; that is most of the time quite interpretative, to serve us with their universal philosophy.
Grammaticaly speaking, English translations by people like Bhikkhu Bodhi are quite accurate; if for some often petty particulars - However, the lexical side of it, has always been, and is still quite poor (for a good reason!).
I have given enough examples in the above posts - that you just turn down, with no explanation - to prove that a hark back to the root meaning in these texts, with the help of the lexical root in Sanskrit, gives the true meaning of that word. Just because the original notion is there.
By the way, in the Indian philosophy at large, vedāṅga is considered an ancillary knowledge.
It seems that it has become (for a good reason!,) the "prime meat" for some.
It is about time that the serious people about Buddhism, see the hierarchy in the elements of thoughts.
What imports then, is to rely on the notions in the Vedic texts, that have influenced the Buddha; and not, as we experience it lately - and it's been now for a quite a while, on "THE UPANISHADS" at large and only - (another merry-go-round free ride from the "buddhist" crowd).
That is to say, the relevant excerpts and concepts, within these texts (Upaniṣads included) - and the notions that have their counterpart in the Suttas.
For instance, the concepts of Ajo (RV.) [unborn] and jati (Suttas) [birth] - BOTH from janati (same declination in Sanskrit & Pali - coincidence???) - both coming from the same root √ jan (coincidence???).
http://obo.genaud.net/backmatter/glosso ... oots.htm#J (By the way, see here how many roots do coincide, for languages that are supposed to be apart????)
So when you will understand that the issue is not in the linguistics, nor in the grammar; but first of all, in the philosophical notions conveyed in the Suttas - that come, for the most part, from the Veda - we might advance a bit.
For that, you have to know the philosophy; not the linguistics.
Therefore, I put your ancillary knowledge (aṅga) in the "secondary" category; with no offense whatsoever.
As I have already said before, I sometime use your research, when it pertains to extracts that you reference, in the Suttas only. And I am showing some gratitude for that.
-----
Ajo is the "Unborn", and avijja, the "One".
That's Echt Buddhism.