Whats Anicca？

[Dhammanando]

I think the most straightforward English translation of "anicca" is "temporary". Not many translators translate it this way, though. Anyone know why?

I suspect because of its linguistic register. It's a term that is most often used in everyday human affairs (e.g., temporary secretary, temporary arrangement, temporary accommodation, etc.) rather than in philosophical discussion about existents.

[khaaan]

I suspect [that "anicca' isn't translated as "temporary"] because of its linguistic register. It's a term that is most often used in everyday human affairs (e.g., temporary secretary, temporary arrangement, temporary accommodation, etc.) rather than in philosophical discussion about existents.

Why wouldn't that be a point in favor of translating "anicca" as "temporary"? I thought the Buddha tried to get his ideas across using ordinary, everyday language whenever possible.

[Dhammanando]

Why wouldn't that be a point in favor of translating "anicca" as "temporary"? I thought the Buddha tried to get his ideas across using ordinary, everyday language whenever possible.

I wouldn't regard it as a point in its favour, but rather as skating close to an "overriding of agreed usage" — something the Buddha advised against in the Araṇavibhaṅga Sutta.

[khaaan]

In what way would translating anicca as "temporary" constitute "overriding an agreed usage"? If I understand correctly, your examples ("temporary secretary", etc.) are consistent with it fitting neatly within the agreed usage.

Sujato's translation of the Araṇavibhaṅga sutta says:

And how do you not insist on local terminology and not override normal usage? It’s when in different localities the same thing is known as a ‘plate’, a ‘bowl’, a ‘cup’, a ‘dish’, a ‘basin’, a ‘tureen’, or a ‘porringer’. And however it is known in those various localities, you speak accordingly, thinking: ‘It seems that the venerables are referring to this.’ That’s how you don’t insist on local terminology and don’t override normal usage. ‘Don’t insist on local terminology and don’t override normal usage.’ That’s what I said, and this is why I said it.

[Dhammanando]

In what way would translating anicca as "temporary" constitute "overriding an agreed usage"? If I understand correctly, your examples ("temporary secretary", etc.) are consistent with it fitting neatly within the agreed usage.

I said "skating close to it", by which I didn't mean that "temporary" would be in any way misleading, but merely that it would sound gauche and that (I suspect) is why translators don't use it (which was what your original query was about). What would make it gauche is simply that it's not an adjective that philosophers normally have recourse to when discussing change and ephemerality.

Note that one element of agreed usage is conformity to the appropriate register.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Register_ ... nguistics)

[khaaan]

["temporary" is] not an adjective that philosophers normally have recourse to when discussing change and ephemerality.

Sure, but I guess I don't see the relevance of that. Tell me if I'm wrong here, but as far as I know, the Buddha didn't try to express his ideas in fancy language that appealed mainly to philosophers.

[Dhammanando]

Tell me if I'm wrong here, but as far as I know, the Buddha didn't try to express his ideas in fancy language that appealed mainly to philosophers.

In his higher (and distinctive) teachings — those concerned with the development of paññā and attainment of liberation — the Buddha seems to have used the terms that were employed by the various samaṇa communities of his day, sometimes in the same sense that the other samaṇas used them and sometimes in a new sense of his own devising. Some of these also happened to be everyday terms; others were not.

[khaaan]

Tell me if I'm wrong here, but as far as I know, the Buddha didn't try to express his ideas in fancy language that appealed mainly to philosophers.

In his higher (and distinctive) teachings — those concerned with the development of paññā and attainment of liberation — the Buddha seems to have used the terms that were employed by the various samaṇa communities of his day, sometimes in the same sense that the other samaṇas used them and sometimes in a new sense of his own devising. Some of these also happened to be everyday terms; others were not.

Ok, I'm prepared to stipulate that the abhidhamma uses fancy philosophical language on purpose, but does what you are saying apply to the suttas as well?

[Dhammanando]

Ok, I'm prepared to stipulate that the abhidhamma uses fancy philosophical language on purpose,

When I wrote "higher (and distinctive) teachings" it wasn't specifically the Abhidhamma that I had in mind, but rather the buddhānaṃ sāmukkaṃsikā dhamma, “teaching special to Buddhas”, no matter whether it be found in the Suttas or the Abhidhamma.

but does what you are saying apply to the suttas as well?

Most certainly. Or do you suppose that words like, say, anattā, indriya, asaṅkhata, rūpakkhandha, paṭiccasamuppāda, ubhatobhāgavimutta ... etc., etc., would have been part of the everyday diction of water-bearers at the parish pump, merchants in a Magadhan marketplace and Licchavī women having a chinwag while baking their chappatis?

[khaaan]

Thanks for your answers.