Page 38 of 40

Re: The Danger of Rebirth

Posted: Wed Feb 17, 2010 9:38 pm
by Virgo
Bhikkhu Pesala wrote:
chownah wrote:the laity of today can mostly read and write and have access to a world of knowledge that even the most highly educated person of the Buddha's time could not even imagine......
Lots more views and opinions to get rid of, hence far fewer people are getting enlightened today than did in the Buddha's time.
Well said Bhante!

I hope you are well.

Kevin

Re: The Danger of Rebirth

Posted: Thu Feb 18, 2010 7:14 am
by Bhikkhu Pesala
Aloka wrote:Regarding the topic title, please someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that the suttas say 'reappearance'' and 'birth' and not re -birth.
The Pali texts use the word "punabhavo" — becoming again, rebecoming, or rebirth. Why quibble over the term "rebirth"?

In the Dhammapada verse it says that on the dawn of his Enlightenment the Buddha decared:
Anekajātisaṃsāraṃ, sandhāvissaṃ anibbisaṃ.
Gahakāraṃ gavesanto, dukkhā jāti punappunaṃ.
Dukkhā jāti punappunaṃ = painful is birth again and again.

No matter which way you twist it, being born again and again means rebirth. If one is reborn in celestial realms, as a hungry ghost, or in hell, there is no birth from a womb. "Reappearance" might be more accurate, as birth in those realms is by way of spontaneous arising (opapātika). Rebirth would be more accurate for repeated birth in the animal or human realms.
Opapātika (p. 168) (adj.) [fr. upapatti; the BSk. form is a curious distortion of the P. form, viz. aupapāduka Av. Ś II.89; Divy 300, 627, 649] arisen or reborn without visible cause (i. e. without parents), spontaneous rebirth (Kvu trsl. 2832), apparitional rebirth

Re: The Danger of Rebirth

Posted: Thu Feb 18, 2010 9:20 am
by Sanghamitta
I have this conviction that there are Buddhist terms that we should not attempt to translate from the Pali because translating them causes more problems than it solves.
Dhamma, Kamma, Buddha ( which we dont usually translate ) Dukkha etc. High on the list would be Punabhavo. So many of the sometimes emotional discussions about "rebirth " which happen on Buddhist websites are actually to do with poor or uninternalised understanding of the concepts around Punabhavo.

Re: The Danger of Rebirth

Posted: Thu Feb 18, 2010 10:48 am
by Paññāsikhara
I think that the problem is not so much a matter to be solved by "don't translate", but by simply having a deeper and correct understanding of these terms. Any fool can start a website, or even write a book. Many people who have no discernment in their choice of study material will be deceived, almost willingly. We should support those with clear understanding, promote their writings and material. In this way, correct understanding will prevail.

Re: The Danger of Rebirth

Posted: Thu Feb 18, 2010 10:59 am
by retrofuturist
Greetings venerable Paññāsikhara,

Do you have any examples in either category (i.e. those to be promoted vs those not) to recommend?

Metta,
Retro. :)

Re: The Danger of Rebirth

Posted: Thu Feb 18, 2010 11:39 am
by Sanghamitta
Paññāsikhara wrote:I think that the problem is not so much a matter to be solved by "don't translate", but by simply having a deeper and correct understanding of these terms. Any fool can start a website, or even write a book. Many people who have no discernment in their choice of study material will be deceived, almost willingly. We should support those with clear understanding, promote their writings and material. In this way, correct understanding will prevail.
Take the example of "Dukkha" there simply is no English equivilant is there ? Far better in my book for us to learn key terms by seeing and using them in context, than drift away from the meaning in a never ending game of Chinese whispers. I am not saying that suttas and commentaries should remain untranslated, but that we should be cautious about being too swift to translate key terms. Some of the unpacking work should be ours, because that is the only way to internalise those concepts.

Re: The Danger of Rebirth

Posted: Thu Feb 18, 2010 12:13 pm
by Bhikkhu Pesala
I think we need to translate every Pali word, but the readers need to be reminded that it is a translation. My policy is to give the Pali term in parentheses the first time it is used, but not thereafter. I sometimes add a glossary or index with Pali terms.

I have spent a great deal of my time editing works that had supposedly been translated from Burmese discourses to English, but which were so full of Pali terms as to be unreadable for anyone who was not already well-versed in Buddhism.

When purchasing antiques or precious gems the onus is on the buyer to ensure that what is on offer is genuine.

Re: The Danger of Rebirth

Posted: Thu Feb 18, 2010 3:50 pm
by Sanghamitta
So Bhante how do you generally translate Dukkha ?

Re: The Danger of Rebirth

Posted: Thu Feb 18, 2010 9:44 pm
by Bhikkhu Pesala
The translation “suffering” is a very unsatisfactory translation for the Pali term “dukkha.” Although the term does embrace all kinds of obvious suffering like physical pain, mental sorrow, and grief, it means much more. Even pleasure and joy are dukkha, because they are subject to instability, must be striven for, and are the cause of grief when they change. I trasnslate the term “dukkha” as “unsatisfactoriness” in most places, but as suffering when the context demands it.

Re: The Danger of Rebirth

Posted: Thu Feb 18, 2010 10:10 pm
by meindzai
People don't seem to like Thanissaro Bhikkhu's translation to "stress," but he gives a few reasons why he uses it instead of suffering. First, as Bhikkhu Pesala pointed out, dukkha is too specific. Stress can be in any kind of activity, including the most sublime and blissful states of meditation - something which people would hardly describe as "suffering." The other main reason was that "stress" is harder to romanticize than suffering. People claim to suffer for this or that reason (love, art, whatever), or attribute some sort of nobility to their suffering, but you never hear anybody talk about "my noble stress."

In the "Pali Word a Day" from Buddhanet.net (http://www.buddhanet.net/pdf_file/paliwordday.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;) they break down dukkha as du = difficult / +kha (to endure)

But "du" and "kha" don't seem to translate quite that way when I try it in the online PTS pali dictionary.

Du

Du3 ( -- ˚) (adj. -- suff.) [Sk. druha, druh, see duhana & duhitika] hurting, injuring, acting perfidiously, betraying, only in mitta˚ deceiving one's friends S i.225; Sn 244 expl. as mitta -- dūbhaka SnA 287, v. l. B mittadussaka; cp. mitta -- dubbhika & mitta -- dubbhin.


Kha

Kha syllable & ending, functioning also as root, meaning "void, empty" or as n. meaning "space"; expld. by Bdhgh with ref. to dukkha as "khaŋ saddo pana tucche; tucchaŋ hi ākāsaŋ khan ti vuccati" Vism 494. -- In meaning "space, sky" in cpd. khaga "sky -- goer" (cp. viha -- ga of same meaning), i. e. bird Abhp 624; Bdhd 56

Re: The Danger of Rebirth

Posted: Fri Feb 19, 2010 2:46 am
by Paññāsikhara
Sanghamitta wrote:
Paññāsikhara wrote:I think that the problem is not so much a matter to be solved by "don't translate", but by simply having a deeper and correct understanding of these terms. Any fool can start a website, or even write a book. Many people who have no discernment in their choice of study material will be deceived, almost willingly. We should support those with clear understanding, promote their writings and material. In this way, correct understanding will prevail.
Take the example of "Dukkha" there simply is no English equivilant is there ? Far better in my book for us to learn key terms by seeing and using them in context, than drift away from the meaning in a never ending game of Chinese whispers. I am not saying that suttas and commentaries should remain untranslated, but that we should be cautious about being too swift to translate key terms. Some of the unpacking work should be ours, because that is the only way to internalise those concepts.
If we don't translate, then Buddhism outside of cultures heavily influenced by Indic languages will forever remain incomprehensible, and only open to those with specialized language skills. The Buddha taught to teach in the language of the people in a given location. This is what we should do.

As for "dukkha", as Bhante Pesala has indicated, "unsatisfactoriness" is very close, those personally I use "dissatisfactoriness", both are from the same roots. I prefer "dis-" because in some ways, the prefix "dis-" in English is a bit like a cognate for Indic "dus-" / "duh-", etc. This is broad enough to include the more specific meaning of "painful / suffering" when in terms of vedana, but also the broader sense of "all formations are dissatisfactory".

Re: The Danger of Rebirth

Posted: Fri Feb 19, 2010 3:00 am
by Paññāsikhara
meindzai wrote:
In the "Pali Word a Day" from Buddhanet.net (http://www.buddhanet.net/pdf_file/paliwordday.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;) they break down dukkha as du = difficult / +kha (to endure)

But "du" and "kha" don't seem to translate quite that way when I try it in the online PTS pali dictionary.

Du

Du3 ( -- ˚) (adj. -- suff.) [Sk. druha, druh, see duhana & duhitika] hurting, injuring, acting perfidiously, betraying, only in mitta˚ deceiving one's friends S i.225; Sn 244 expl. as mitta -- dūbhaka SnA 287, v. l. B mittadussaka; cp. mitta -- dubbhika & mitta -- dubbhin.


Kha

Kha syllable & ending, functioning also as root, meaning "void, empty" or as n. meaning "space"; expld. by Bdhgh with ref. to dukkha as "khaŋ saddo pana tucche; tucchaŋ hi ākāsaŋ khan ti vuccati" Vism 494. -- In meaning "space, sky" in cpd. khaga "sky -- goer" (cp. viha -- ga of same meaning), i. e. bird Abhp 624; Bdhd 56
I’d be more inclined to not just read the Pāli “dukkha”, but have a look at other possible terms which may develop into the Pāli term “dukkha”.

For a start, the Skt is “duḥkha”. For prefix “duś-”, before a “k-” the “-ś” --> “-ḥ”. For the “-kha” there are several possibilities. “kṣā-” meaning “endure” is certainly one of them.

By Pāli and other Prakrit forms, a Skt “duś-kṣā-” would have the “-śkṣ-” probably --> “-kkh-”. That would make “dukkhā”. But in many Prakrit forms, long vowel endings easily get shortened to short vowels, so “dukkha” would not be out of the question.

There do appear to be passages in the canon which support such a definition, too.

As for deriving it from “kha” as “space”, well it seems that only Buddhaghosa does that. However, the Skt is “khan”, and so it would probably form the same terms, either “dukkha” or “duḥkha”. But, does that meaning make sense to define these terms? It does not appear so to me.

Re: The Danger of Rebirth

Posted: Fri Feb 19, 2010 3:07 am
by Paññāsikhara
retrofuturist wrote:Greetings venerable Paññāsikhara,

Do you have any examples in either category (i.e. those to be promoted vs those not) to recommend?

Metta,
Retro. :)
People who have no proper training in studying the scriptures, those without study and knowledge of the languages involved, those whose ethical conduct does not even meet the bare minimums of Buddhist practice,* those who have never engaged in any form of Buddhist practice on even the most basic levels.*
Avoid the "teachings" of such people. Even those who have such training, be aware of how much training they have and of what kind. Even 20 yrs of part time hobby practice may not count for much in the end, if one is considering requirements to "teach" others.

Even so, some will be left with strange ideas, but at least they will have something to back them up. One will usually see that those left, who have proper training, etc. are largely in agreement on a wide range of issues.

* These points may be controversial for some, particularly in an environment that says "we must separate personal ethics from knowledge". However, in Buddhist terms, these two are intrinsically intertwined. Those with dubious ethics will have their "understanding" perverted by ego, craving, anger, and so forth.

Re: The Danger of Rebirth

Posted: Fri Feb 19, 2010 9:07 am
by Sanghamitta
Going back to the meaning of Dukkha for a minute, you see all of the above discussion suggests to me that it is more expeditious to ask interested people to internalise the term, rather than rely only on a translation. We see discussion after discussion concerning whether life really is suffering, clearly this is an extended strawman because that is such an incomplete rendition of The First Noble Truth. Personally I dont see that "there is dissatisfactoriness or unsatisfactoriness " or "there is stress" solves anything. In fact they each throw up new problems.
No culture has sprung into existance already influenced by Indic language and thought, not even Indian culture . We are seeing the influence of Indic culture on the English speaking world even as we write, its ongoing now. "Karma"as a concept has already passed into mainstream western thought, even if not always in ways consistant with Buddhadhamma. I see no reason to suppose that dukkha wouldnt do the same if we didnt insistant on chaperoning it.

Re: The Danger of Rebirth

Posted: Fri Feb 19, 2010 1:58 pm
by chownah
meindzai wrote:
chownah wrote:
Annapurna wrote: 3. If you claim that :quote: laity is too silly to grasp the Dhamma, then you would also be too :quote: silly, since you're laity, or not?
I think that many members of the laity today are much more sophisticated in regards to world view than were the run of the mill laity in the Buddha's time.....the laity of today can mostly read and write and have access to a world of knowledge that even the most highly educated person of the Buddha's time could not even imagine......
chownah
Knowledge which has only hindered us when it comes to awakening.

-M
I think it is best if one speaks for ones self only when making determinations like this.....I don't see how you can reasonably make a statement like this about others.
chownah