[Buddha-l] A vocabulary question for Stephen and Lance (oranyoneelse)

[Stephen Hodge]

L.S. Cousins wrote:

> There also (for wise) we have: (arch.) having occult power or knowledge of 
> mysterious things
> This is plainly not archaic, although the editors of the OED may wish it 
> were.
The problem for me with "wisdom" with its various definitions for the texts 
I work with is that it does not seem to cover adequately the term 
"pravicaya" (investigation etc) which is constantly used in the typical 
Sanskrit-based definitions we have had of praj~naa.  It comes across much 
more analytical-investigative tool rather some vague "wisdom".  The worst 
case scenario that one occasionally encounters is where both praj~naa and 
j~naana are translated as "wisdom".

> But this is not true of Suttanta where paññaa has a more general meaning.
That is my impression, but I wonder if even there it is immune to the force 
of the upasarga "pra / pa"

> The definitions people have been citing are effectively from abhidha(r)mma 
> literature.
True, but one might suppose that the compilers of many Mahayana sutras would 
have been influenced by those definitions in their use of the word.

>Yes. You can also use jaanaati about knowing a name or fact. I don't think 
>you would use pajaanaati in that way. It always refers to knowing or 
>understanding something about names, facts, etc.
So there does seem to be some force to the upasarga.  I wonder to what 
extent this carries the implication of direction and incisiveness in Pali.

Best wishes,
Stephen Hodge