Dhammapada verse 279

Explore the ancient language of the Tipitaka and Theravāda commentaries

Moderator: Mahavihara moderator

Posts: 52
Joined: Sun Jun 03, 2012 9:08 am
Location: New York State, USA

Re: Dhammapada verse 279

Post by Truth_Seeker1989 » Mon Jun 04, 2012 10:31 pm

Dear Dhammanando,

Is Nibbana/Nirvana non-substantial? I ask because of the below quote.

"His release, being founded on truth, does not fluctuate, for whatever is deceptive is false; Unbinding — the undeceptive — is true. Thus a monk so endowed is endowed with the highest determination for truth, for this — Unbinding, the undeceptive — is the highest noble truth."

MN 140
Everything that makes you, you, is the result of your Environment (Society, Culture, Family, Friends, Etc), Genetics/Biology (Your brain which makes the mind possible, Inborn diseases such as Down Syndrome, or even Psociopathy, etc), Thoughts (Everything you think affects your mind, and the person you are), Speech (Same as thoughts, but words affect your environment as well), Actions (Same as Speech), and the Elements (Earth, Water, Fire, Wind, Space, and Time).

User avatar
Posts: 3774
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:44 pm
Location: Ban Sri Pradu Cremation Ground, Phrao District, Chiangmai

Re: What Dhamma Book are you reading right now?

Post by Dhammanando » Mon Jun 04, 2012 11:27 pm

Dhammanando wrote:
retrofuturist wrote:it's the non-substantial that looks needlessly interpretive to me.
I would say that this part is the translation's only redeeming feature. The rendering 'non-substantial' suggest that Wallis is among those few Pali translators who are alert to the semantic distinction between the adjective 'anatta' (as used here) and agglutinated predicative phrase 'anatta'. Most other translators get the two homonyms muddled and when encountering the adjective will translate it as they would the phrase (i.e., as "is/are not self").
Sorry, what I wrote above was nonsense. I don't know what I was thinking but I got it completely the wrong way round. Dhp. 279 is in fact the phrasal anatta, not the adjectival one. So the Wallis translation doesn't in fact have the redeeming feature I imagined it to.

Fancy making such a mistake on the Buddha's birthday! :embarassed:

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Dmytro and 17 guests