Dharma Wheel

A Buddhist discussion forum on Mahayana and Vajrayana Buddhism
It is currently Mon Dec 22, 2014 7:33 pm

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Forum rules


Please click here to view the forum rules



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 8 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: sentient beings
PostPosted: Sat Feb 04, 2012 9:25 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Dec 12, 2010 1:02 am
Posts: 683
What is the word for "sentient beings" in Pali & Sanskrit? I am wondering why the English term was chosen - since sentient beings are distinguished from buddhas, yet both share the qualities of sentience. Does the term imply that sentient beings are beings who are dominated by their senses?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: sentient beings
PostPosted: Sat Feb 04, 2012 11:30 am 
Offline
Global Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2010 8:12 pm
Posts: 1061
http://www.rigpawiki.org/index.php?titl ... ent_beings

_________________
Look at the unfathomable spinelessness of man: all the means he's been given to stay alert he uses, in the end, to ornament his sleep. – Rene Daumal


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: sentient beings
PostPosted: Tue Feb 07, 2012 1:59 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Dec 12, 2010 1:02 am
Posts: 683
Thank you!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: sentient beings
PostPosted: Tue Feb 07, 2012 12:43 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 8:36 am
Posts: 53
Sattva is just the abstract suffix -tva attached to the word "sat", a noun/present participle meaning "existing, being". It's used in dozens of different senses, including "consciousness", "mind", but I've never seen a Buddhist nirukti (traditional etymology) where this association is made. On the contrary, there's a passage in the 25,000 PP sutra where Subhuti and Devandra play with its literal meaning "existence, the state of being in existence", and stress that this is a conventional, worldly usage:

devendra āha: nedaṃ bhadanta subhūte dharmādhivacanam āgantukam etan nāmadheyaṃ prakṣiptaṃ, avastukam etan nāmadheyaṃ prakṣiptam, anārambaṇam etan nāmadheyaṃ prakṣiptaṃ yad uta sattvaḥ sattva iti.

Devendra said: "This is not dharma-terminology, Venerable Subhuti; the name 'sattva' for 'sentient being' is given randomly, it is given untruthfully, it is given without basis."

The English translation "sentient being" is influenced by the Tibetan sems can, "having a mind". The Tibetan word sems "mind" is never used for buddhas, so there's no danger of confusion. For buddhas the honorific thugs is used instead, but this can also be used of kings and other respected people without implying they are fully enlightened.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: sentient beings
PostPosted: Thu Feb 09, 2012 10:26 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Dec 12, 2010 1:02 am
Posts: 683
Tantular,

Thank you for that. Could you provide the more correct Sanskrit word used for sentient being?

tantular wrote:
The English translation "sentient being" is influenced by the Tibetan sems can, "having a mind". The Tibetan word sems "mind" is never used for buddhas, so there's no danger of confusion. For buddhas the honorific thugs is used instead, but this can also be used of kings and other respected people without implying they are fully enlightened.


Why in English do we use the word "sentient?" That implies feeling, which is not exactly the same thing as the mind. And even Buddhas have mind-phenomena and feeling-phenomena, but they are not conditioned by them. So I wonder if the Tibetan word sems has a somewhat different meaning than our English use of "mind."


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: sentient beings
PostPosted: Thu Feb 09, 2012 10:30 pm 
Offline
Global Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2010 8:12 pm
Posts: 1061
dakini_boi wrote:
Tantular,

Thank you for that. Could you provide the more correct Sanskrit word used for sentient being?

tantular wrote:
The English translation "sentient being" is influenced by the Tibetan sems can, "having a mind". The Tibetan word sems "mind" is never used for buddhas, so there's no danger of confusion. For buddhas the honorific thugs is used instead, but this can also be used of kings and other respected people without implying they are fully enlightened.


Why in English do we use the word "sentient?" That implies feeling, which is not exactly the same thing as the mind. And even Buddhas have mind-phenomena and feeling-phenomena, but they are not conditioned by them. So I wonder if the Tibetan word sems has a somewhat different meaning than our English use of "mind."


Sem is always refers to the confused, dualistic mind. So it would never be used for the mind of a buddha, for example.

http://rywiki.tsadra.org/index.php/Sem

_________________
Look at the unfathomable spinelessness of man: all the means he's been given to stay alert he uses, in the end, to ornament his sleep. – Rene Daumal


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: sentient beings
PostPosted: Fri Feb 10, 2012 10:02 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 8:36 am
Posts: 53
dakini_boi wrote:

Thank you for that. Could you provide the more correct Sanskrit word used for sentient being?


Sattva is the standard word for "sentient being" in Sanskrit, there is nothing more correct. The point of the quote is that although the word sattva can be analysed in terms of a verbal root and a secondary suffix, the meaning "sentient being" can't be derived directly from the meaning of its grammatical parts; it's a purely linguistic convention.

In technical terms, Devendra is saying that the word sattva for "sentient being" is yaugikarūḍha, not yaugika. This gets into the Sanskrit grammatical theory of word meaning, which would take some time to explain.

Quote:
Why in English do we use the word "sentient?" That implies feeling, which is not exactly the same thing as the mind. And even Buddhas have mind-phenomena and feeling-phenomena, but they are not conditioned by them. So I wonder if the Tibetan word sems has a somewhat different meaning than our English use of "mind."


The Merriam-Webster definition of "sentient" is "responsive to or conscious of sense impressions", which in both the basic 12-fold links & more complex abhidharma analysis is a central feature of what it means to "have a mind". Feeling (vedanā, tshor ba) is always a pleasurable, painful, or neutral response to contact (sparśa, reg pa) with a sense object. In Buddhism mind is nothing other than a stream of self-perpetuating responses to sense impressions.

Whether Buddhas have sense impressions was a controversial issue in some circles in India, but in Tibet the mainstream position is that Buddha activity unfolds effortlessly through the power of past aspirations.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: sentient beings
PostPosted: Fri Feb 10, 2012 5:53 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Dec 12, 2010 1:02 am
Posts: 683
Thank you Paul and Tantular!


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 8 posts ] 

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group