[Advaita-l] to have/to be in Sanskrit - Having and being in vEdAnta

Guy Werlings werlings.guy at wanadoo.fr
Sun Mar 18 12:55:51 CDT 2007


I have a question for you, which is not directly related to advaita at least 
at first sight but which in a secondary sense might have a philosophic 

As it deals with Sanskrit grammar, it should not have a place in this list 
but let us see; there are so many proficient members in Sanskrit in this 
list that perhaps someone can help me.

As soon as I came in contact with advaita vEdAnta at the early age of 15 I 
decided to try to learn not Sanskrit as such but at least «some» Sanskrit, 
in order to cover my own needs. Unfortunately I always remained a kind of 
eternal beginner; but even to his date with all the helps available on the 
Internet as Sanskrit courses or introductions or tutorials, I try to improve 
my knowledge of the language. But there are always some basics that remain 
out of my reach.

I have read recently somewhere that if there exists in Sanskrit a verb 
meaning «to
be» (as) and another meaning  «to become» (bhu), there would not be any verb 
meaning «to have».

 I must tell you this seems nearly impossible to me and that in the West, to 
be able to distinguish between to have and to be is considered as a major 
advance in thought.

If what I have just been writing is really true, how is it possible to 
convey into Sanskrit such a basic statement (valid also in vEdAnta I 
suppose) as: «I have a body, but I am not the body?»

Apart from the grammatical question about the verbs «to be/to have» in 
Sanskrit, I am interested to know whether the distinction between being and 
having has been treated in Indian philosophy and especially in vEdAnta.

Another question to any member of the list who apart from vEdAnta would be 
also proficient in Western philosophy and its vocabulary. Do the two 
adjectives «philosophic» and «philosophical» are existing or not at least in 
British English and not in the pidgin US English? If both terms 
«philosophic» and «philosophical» are acknowledged are they considered as 
synonyms or is there a difference even small between them? In French we use 
to say that there are no pure synonyms and we consider that two apparent 
synonyms have always even a slight connotation making them different.



More information about the Advaita-l mailing list