Important! Get the real meaning!

[Ben]

I have not said what are better translations for "contact" and "dependent arising".

Because you don't know.

We'll stick with the current translations then, problem solved.

I agree, totally.

[Shuun]

...

I don't see this explained as such by large, I see it explained in some weird, confused materialistic kind of way, not like "“the genesis of what is caused”, but wrongly like "causes and effects", some sort of determinism, like feeling would directly arise from physical contact kind of sense. So i just taught to put this forward, so people really pay more attention to this, that is why "Important! Get the real meaning!" not "Important! Get the real translation!"

[Goofaholix]

If you understand it, find it unambiguous, why do you need anyone else to back it up for you? What is that for?

The generally accepted understandings of the words phassa are unambiguous.

You need to back up your claims.

They are two different things, please don't play dumb as it adds nothing to the discussion.

[Coëmgenu]

I don't see this explained as such by large, I see it explained in some weird, confused materialistic kind of way, not like "“the genesis of what is caused”, but wrongly like "causes and effects", some sort of determinism, like feeling would directly arise from physical contact kind of sense. So i just taught to put this forward, so people really pay more attention to this, that is why "Important! Get the real meaning!" not "Important! Get the real translation!"

Exactly, the relying solely on the materialistic meanings of the words presented, themselves arising in historically conditioned situations, we don't arrive at a proper transmission of Buddhadharma.

Even the compound -samutpāda, as a word alone, arises out of historically conditioned material(ist) causes: samut shares a historical linguistic ancestor with the English "summit", "summation", and "sum". Padā, pada, shares a historical linguistic ancestor with the Latin pedes that we have inherit in English through verbal compounds such as "podiatrist" (foot-doctor) or "pedestrian".

Focusing on these material definitions, although they are materially true definitions, wont get one to a proper transmission of Buddhadharma though, because the Absolute Truth of the meanings of these words are not limited to (indeed they transcend) the material causes and conditions that lead to their formation in the Sanskrit and Pali languages.

[Shuun]

If you understand it, find it unambiguous, why do you need anyone else to back it up for you? What is that for?

The generally accepted understandings of the words phassa are unambiguous.

You need to back up your claims.

They are two different things, please don't play dumb as it adds nothing to the discussion.

Really? That is not true. Just in this very thread there was at least 2 meanings, just in the wikipedia article linked there are at least 5 meanings, what kind of unambiguous we are talking about? No unambiguous, pretty much everyone confused as the same.

There is 'shortage' or Arhats, there is backing up this claim.

Something that is a word/translation/name can be used in context where it is misleading or leading. If people en mass assume that contact means just kind of physical contact or even just 5 sense contact and similar, it means they are mislead and you can not say that the "unambiguous" choice of word "contact" is "doing it's job" of leading, instead of misleading. If there are heaps of "meditators" who clench their teeth "in meditation", you can not say that they are being lead by choice of translation of "concentration" for "samadhi". It is supposed to be a map, not a puzzle.
And if one says that there is no discernible misleading going on or that there is no shortage or Arhats, that is not factual. [insert stern sutta about negligence here]

[tiltbillings]

. . .

And upon what basis do you claim to know the "real meaning?"

[SamKR]

There is 'shortage' or Arhats, there is backing up this claim.

'Shortage' of Arahants and even Sotapannas (comparing to their numbers during the time of the Buddha) certainly implies that something is not quite right.

"concentration" for "samadhi".

This is one of the worst ones in my list. To me "concentration" sounds quite opposite to what "samadhi" might 'really' mean.

I agree with you, Shuun, regarding the gist of what you are saying.

[chownah]

There is a big difference between getting "the real meaning" of the words and understanding what is said.

The term "the real meaning" implies that there is one real meaning. It is clear to me that there are many meanings which can be made from the suttas and that this is how the teachings were meant to be. The buddha's teachings has many handles on all sides so that people can get a beginners grasp even if approaching from any angle.

Shuun has found a handle....just not a very popular one.
chownah

[davidbrainerd]

There is 'shortage' or Arhats

How does that instantly point to the translations "contact" and "dependent arising" being the culprits? I don't want to derail the discussion into a debate about anatta, but in my estimation if there really is a shortage of arhats it would be more likely due to taking the concept of anatta beyond Buddha's declaration that the 5 aggregates are anatta and expanding it to the idea that there is no self at all, which makes it essentially impossible to believe in reincarnation/rebirth, and makes it to where every time you read in a sutta something like the statements in Dhammapada 157-166 you must reject it, thus constantly lessening your trust in Buddha in order to trust in later commentaries and traditions. I'd say that's a much bigger problem than your issues with the translations of "contact" and "dependent arising." Furthermore, what incentive is there even to practice if you don't exist, or won't continue after death. If what is reborn is not a self but a "stream of consciousness" (not even consciousness but only a "stream" of it, and what is that, vague memories of what you used to be, whereas you already ceased to exist?) then there doesn't seem much point to practice, so who believing this version of Buddhism is actually going to put in the time to become an arhat? And even if they put in the time, being essentially nihilists, can they even achieve arhatship? I'd pinpoint this as the true problem.

[Goofaholix]

Really? That is not true. Just in this very thread there was at least 2 meanings, just in the wikipedia article linked there are at least 5 meanings, what kind of unambiguous we are talking about? No unambiguous, pretty much everyone confused as the same.

I have searched through this thread I can't find any suggestion of an alternative translation for phassa, everbody seems happy to use the word contact, including yourself.

The words provided in the Wikipedia article are either synonyms or provide extra depth of meaning, this is normal when words don't have a 1:1 translation.

There is 'shortage' or Arhats, there is backing up this claim.

How do you know there is a shortage of arahants? How many is enough?

Please provide evidence for the link between translations and the number of arahants?

Are only English speakers affected?

Are Sinhalese translations correct? Are there enough Sinhalese speaking arahants?
Are Burmese translations correct? Are there enough Burmese speaking arahants?
Are Thai translations correct? Are there enough Thai speaking arahants? ... and so on.

If there are heaps of "meditators" who clench their teeth "in meditation", you can not say that they are being lead by choice of translation of "concentration" for "samadhi".

This is a good example, it is also a well known example. Just because there are half a dozen well known examples of words that have been mistranslated doesn't mean all of the translations are rotten. We also have teachers, I find many are happy to explain and explore the meaning of words in more depth when needed.

Pali scholars and teachers are already well into the process of clarifying and fixing translations of individual words as needed. What you are saying is nothing new, no cause for alarm, not a conspiracy, and no cause to throw out the baby with the bath water.

[The Thinker]

Putting too much emphasis on the final destination is craving, Is it this that makes one practice? everything changes that would include final destination would it not? that may very well include perception, consciousness,so indicating that no one destination would be the same? I simply do not know the destination but the path leading to that destination outlined by the Buddha makes this moment more peaceful,giving me the understanding that our problems will pass and change, this is mental activity is it not?

[davidbrainerd]

Putting too much emphasis on the final destination is craving, Is it this that makes one practice?

I think its a misconception to think craving for the unconditioned is the same as craving for the conditioned. Either you crave the conditioned or the unconditioned, because its not possible to crave nothing. If it was wrong to put emphasis on the final destination then Buddha wouldn't keep bringing up the "deathless supreme security of Nibbana." I mean talk about talking it up, all those adjectives in there.

[The Thinker]

And even if they put in the time, being essentially nihilists,

Nihilistic beliefs are not much different from the not knowing beliefs or faith in a promised change belief (not yet experienced). The Buddha emphasises knowing the thoughts that are the causes of our problems, this is perhaps Nibbana itself in this moment, the knowing, understanding and ability to let go and yes change? Or should I just use a few vague words to describe the unknown? bliss etc.

[davidbrainerd]

The Buddha emphasises knowing the thoughts that are the causes of our problems, this is perhaps Nibbana itself in this moment, the knowing, understanding and ability to let go and yes change?

I don't know if you're saying a little slice of Nibbana can be experienced in the here and now or that Nibbana is only a state of mind in the physical brain that ceases to exist along with the physical self at the point of death.

The latter is highly problematic. Even getting back to the original discussion of "contact" and "dependent arising" this concept of Nibbana as only in the physical world, as actually a part of Samsara, a calm state of mind in a Samsaric mind, will cause confusion. Now all of the sudden Nibbana (the unconditioned) is subject to the law of "dependent/conditioned arising" so that Nibbana can only arise dependent on the (condition of) existence of a physical mind, a brain, in which to exist as a mental state of peace or calm. So then how do you untie the knot of Buddha calling Nibbana "the unconditioned" when you believe it to be conditioned and subject to "conditioned arising"?

[The Thinker]

The Buddha emphasises knowing the thoughts that are the causes of our problems, this is perhaps Nibbana itself in this moment, the knowing, understanding and ability to let go and yes change?

I don't know if you're saying a little slice of Nibbana can be experienced in the here and now or that Nibbana is only a state of mind in the physical brain that ceases to exist along with the physical self at the point of death.

The latter is highly problematic. Even getting back to the original discussion of "contact" and "dependent arising" this concept of Nibbana as only in the physical world, as actually a part of Samsara, a calm state of mind in a Samsaric mind, will cause confusion. Now all of the sudden Nibbana (the unconditioned) is subject to the law of "dependent/conditioned arising" so that Nibbana can only arise dependent on the (condition of) existence of a physical mind, a brain, in which to exist as a mental state of peace or calm. So then how do you untie the knot of Buddha calling Nibbana "the unconditioned" when you believe it to be conditioned and subject to "conditioned arising"?

Nibbana the unconditioned is self-explanatory. (changing all the time, not constant)