I created a new topic for this. It is important we discuss this as a separate issue.Do we agree that Visuddhimagga is not a reliable source and should not be quoted?
viewtopic.php?f=13&t=32672
I created a new topic for this. It is important we discuss this as a separate issue.Do we agree that Visuddhimagga is not a reliable source and should not be quoted?
There is no need to have another discussion. This is what you guys have been doing all these years. There are two basic questions to answer as I pointed out above:Do we agree that Visuddhimagga is not a reliable source and should not be quoted?
I created a new topic for this. It is important we discuss this as a separate issue.
viewtopic.php?f=13&t=32672
@LalThere is no need to have another discussion.
I'd rather you answer as to why the Theravāda Pāli masters of the past never reprimand the Sabbatthivāda or Pudgalavāda on the very significant issue of their alleged mistranslation of such a key term that occurs with such frequency?Lal wrote: ↑Thu Aug 30, 2018 12:48 am I know it is what you guys are used to, discussing again and again without getting anywhere. There is no better "focus way" than to focus on the two questions that I raised above. If you come up with answers to those two questions, please let me know.
Then I will respond.
In relation to the topic of the very serious alleged mistranslation of anatta, Venerable Ñāṇananda has this to say only 12 pages beyond where our friend may have stopped reading:Lal wrote: ↑Wed Aug 29, 2018 9:36 pm 2. On pp. 15-16 in his “Nibbana – The Mind Stilled” series, Ven. Nanananda points out that Visuddhimagga and another commentary of Buddhaghosa are inconsistent with the definition of Nibbana: “ragakkhayo Nibbanan, dosakkhayo Nibbanan, mohakkhayo Nibbanan”. How do you respond to that?
(Most Venerable Kaṭukurunde Ñāṇananda Mahāthera, Nibbāna: The Mind Stilled, 28)Some are in the habit of getting down to a discussion on Nibbāna by putting sakhata on one side and asakhata on the other side. They start by saying that sakhata, or the ‘prepared’, is anicca, or impermanent. If sakhata is anicca, they conclude that asakhata must be nicca, that is the unprepared must be permanent. Following the same line of argument they argue that since sakhata is dukkha, asakhata must be sukha. But when they come to the third step, they get into difficulties. If sakhata is anattā, or not-self, then surely asakhata must be attā, or self. At this point they have to admit that their argument is too facile and so they end up by saying that after all Nibbāna is something to be realized.
(Ibid. 40)But on deeper analysis it reveals its not-self nature. What we have here is simply the conflict between the main stream and a runaway current. It is the outcome of the conflict between two forces and not the work of just one force. It is a case of relatedness of thisto-that, idappaccayatā. As one verse in the Bālavagga of the Dhammapada puts it: Attā hi attano natthi, "even oneself is not one’s own." So even a whirlpool is not its own, there is nothing really automatic about it. This then is the dukkha, the suffering, the conflict, the unsatisfactoriness. What the world holds on to as existence is just a process of otherwise-ness, as the Buddha vividly portrays for us in the following verses of the Nandavagga of the Udāna.
Before I explain anything for you, I would like you to account for a large gap, an absence of proof in the historical record. You say that Buddhists began to mistranslate "anatta" as "not-self" and things of the like.
"Anattā" here is in direct opposition to "attā".Anattalakkhaṇasutta or Pañca Sutta (SN 22.59) wrote: Mendicants, form is anattā. For if form were attā, it wouldn’t lead to affliction. And you could compel form: ‘May my form be like this! May it not be like that!’
"Etaṃ mama", "esohamasmi", "eso me attā" are used successively as synonyms or near-synonyms. Same goes for "netaṃ mama", "nesohamasmi", and "na meso attā". Some things in lists are synonyms or near-synonyms, repeating things in a different manner or through a different lens to emphasize the point. I can pull other examples from the suttas with some research if need be.Anattalakkhaṇasutta or Pañca Sutta (SN 22.59) wrote: But if it’s panāniccaṃ, suffering, and perishable, is it fit to be regarded thus: ‘etaṃ mama, esohamasmi, eso me attā’?
[...]
So you should truly see any kind of form at all—past, future, or present; internal or external; coarse or fine; inferior or superior; far or near: all form—with right understanding: ‘netaṃ mama, nesohamasmi, na meso attā.’
Their sect thinks that Venerable Bodhi, Thānissaro, et al, are heretics, so they won't accept those translations.Nicolas wrote: ↑Thu Aug 30, 2018 2:05 pm Lal,
"Anattā" here is in direct opposition to "attā".Anattalakkhaṇasutta or Pañca Sutta (SN 22.59) wrote: Mendicants, form is anattā. For if form were attā, it wouldn’t lead to affliction. And you could compel form: ‘May my form be like this! May it not be like that!’
"Etaṃ mama", "esohamasmi", "eso me attā" are used successively as synonyms or near-synonyms. Same goes for "netaṃ mama", "nesohamasmi", and "na meso attā". Some things in lists are synonyms or near-synonyms, repeating things in a different manner or through a different lens to emphasize the point. I can pull other examples from the suttas with some research if need be.Anattalakkhaṇasutta or Pañca Sutta (SN 22.59) wrote: But if it’s panāniccaṃ, suffering, and perishable, is it fit to be regarded thus: ‘etaṃ mama, esohamasmi, eso me attā’?
[...]
So you should truly see any kind of form at all—past, future, or present; internal or external; coarse or fine; inferior or superior; far or near: all form—with right understanding: ‘netaṃ mama, nesohamasmi, na meso attā.’
"Etaṃ mama" & "netaṃ mama" are translated as: "this is mine" & "this is not mine" (Sujato, Bodhi, Ṭhānissaro)
"Esohamasmi" & "nesohamasmi" are translated as: "I am this" & "I am not this" (Sujato), "this I am" & "this I am not" (Bodhi), "this is what I am" & "this is not what I am" (Ṭhānissaro)
(I would imagine you have no issue with the above translations.)
"This is mine", "I am this", and "eso me attā" ("this is my attā") are thus all near-synonymous.
"This is not mine", "I am not this", and "na meso attā" ("this is not my attā") are also near-synonymous.
"Attā" thus means "self" (or another synonymous word).
This is in line with the modern translations of "eso me attā" & "na meso attā": "this is my self" & "this is not my self" (Sujato, Bodhi & Ṭhānissaro).
... and since "anattā" is in direct opposition to "attā", it means "no self" or "not-self" (or equivalent synonym).
I was hoping that Lal would accept their translations of "etaṃ mama", "netaṃ mama", "esohamasmi" & "nesohamasmi" as non-controversial. I don't use their translations of "attā" and "anattā" as basis for my argument, but only deduce the meaning of those words from the non-controversial translations I mentioned along with the hypothesis that the list of successive items indicates all the items in the list are close in meaning.
The sentence "attā hi attano natthi" popped up and they didn't even notice. Because that sentence is particularly problematic for their innovative reading.Nicolas wrote: ↑Thu Aug 30, 2018 2:28 pmI was hoping that Lal would accept their translations of "etaṃ mama", "netaṃ mama", "esohamasmi" & "nesohamasmi" as non-controversial. I don't use their translations of "attā" and "anattā" as basis for my argument, but only deduce the meaning of those words from the non-controversial translations I mentioned along with the hypothesis that the list of successive items indicates all the items in the list are close in meaning.
But you have not read the rest of the sutta (https://legacy.suttacentral.net/pi/sn22.59):Anattalakkhaṇasutta or Pañca Sutta (SN 22.59) wrote:
Mendicants, form is anattā. For if form were attā, it wouldn’t lead to affliction. And you could compel form: ‘May my form be like this! May it not be like that!’
"Anattā" here is in direct opposition to "attā".
No, you have not answered a simple question.Lal wrote: ↑Thu Aug 30, 2018 4:01 pm Nicolas said:But you have not read the rest of the sutta (https://legacy.suttacentral.net/pi/sn22.59):Anattalakkhaṇasutta or Pañca Sutta (SN 22.59) wrote:
Mendicants, form is anattā. For if form were attā, it wouldn’t lead to affliction. And you could compel form: ‘May my form be like this! May it not be like that!’
"Anattā" here is in direct opposition to "attā".
Vedanā anattā...
Saññā anattā ..
Viññāṇaṃ anattā.
Where is a "self" in feelings, perceptions, and defiled consciousness?
Also, none of you have answered my simple question: What do you think is meant by “sabbe dhammā anattā?”.
There is no self to be found in form, feelings, perceptions, saṅkhāras, or consciousness, they are without self, empty of self. None of them are myself, nor is my self in them, etc.
Same goes with the other aggregates.Nakulapitu Sutta (SN 22.1) wrote: And how is a person ailing in body and ailing in mind? It’s when an uneducated ordinary person has not seen the noble ones, and is neither skilled nor trained in their teaching. They’ve not seen good persons, and are neither skilled nor trained in their teaching. They regard form as self, self as having form, form in self, or self in form. (rūpaṃ attato samanupassati, rūpavantaṃ vā attānaṃ; attani vā rūpaṃ, rūpasmiṃ vā attānaṃ.) They’re obsessed with the thought: ‘I am form, form is mine!’ (‘Ahaṃ rūpaṃ, mama rūpan’ti pariyuṭṭhaṭṭhāyī hoti.) But that form of theirs decays and perishes, which gives rise to sorrow, lamentation, pain, sadness, and distress.
No dhammas are you, no dhammas belong to you, you are not in any dhamma, etc.