Sylvester wrote:
The real issue to be posed to Ven T is why he chooses the singular noun "sensuality" to obscure the very clear Pali and Middle-Indic meaning conveyed by the plural kāmā. A lot of the translations floating out there, whether knowingly or unknowingly, use the Abhidhamma definition of kāmā, including Ven Nanamoli in his original translation of the MN. BB makes a global change of that to "sensual pleasures" in the MLDB, following a stricter philological approach.
At MN 19.26/i 118 (
Dvedhāvitakkasuttaṃ)
both have it as "sensual pleasures" from
kāmānametaṃ.
Again, at MN 22.9/i 133 (
Alagaddūpamasuttaṃ), look at the way they
both translate this passage:
So vata bhikkhave aññatreva kāmehi aññatra kāmasaññāya aññatra kāmavitakkehi kāme paṭisevissatīti netaṃ ṭhānaṃ vijjati.
BB: "Bhikkhus, that one can engage in
sensual pleasures without sensual desires, without perceptions of sensual desires, without thoughts of sensual desire--that is impossible."
TB: "For a person to indulge in
sensual pleasures without sensual passion, without sensual perception, without sensual thinking: That isn't possible."
Looking at: MN 13.7/i 86 & ff. (
Mahādukkhakkhandha suttaṃ); MN 26.31/i 174 & ff. (
Ariyapariyesanasuttaṃ); MN 54.15/i 364 & ff. (
Potaliya suttaṃ); MN 66.16/i 454 & ff. (
Laṭukikopama suttaṃ); MN 75.13 & ff. (
Māgandiya suttaṃ); MN 105.7/ii 254 & ff; (
Sunakkhatta suttaṃ); MN 106.3/ii 261 & ff. (
Āneñjasappāya suttaṃ); and MN 122.14/iii 114 & ff. (
Mahāsuññata suttaṃ)--in the
broader contexts of these passages, TB's uses of the term "sensuality," while syntactically singular in English, are
clearly plural denotations/connotations.
The only
sutta in the MN where I could find TB being ambiguous on this is at MN 45.3/i 305 & ff (
Cūḷadhammasamādāna suttaṃ). But in the context of the above, it is again clear he's not suggesting singularity. Which makes me wonder why BB opted for a global approach? I don't know how many times I've heard him respond to questions with comments like, "We have to interpret this in light of all the
suttas."
OR, as I originally stated, there's not much
practical difference among BB's & TB's variations. Now, I would add, IF THERE IS A PRACTICAL DIFFERENCE IT'S TOO NEGLIGIBLE TO BE RELEVANT IN
ANY PRAGMATIC SENSE.
Also, what exactly do you mean by translations "floating around out there"? Are you alluding to the nature of the differences among translators or to the way they
exchange among each other? The way you put it makes it sound like they're at war.
They're not. In other words, this can't be, as you say, "the real issue to pose to Ven B".