The universe is without a refuge, without a Supreme God.

[kc2dpt]

Also, I would refer you to Peter's msg concerning this paragraph directly above.

Yes, I read it. It was addressed to Christopher.

I think it was meant to be addressed to you, actually, but who know except Peter.

Yeah, my bad. I got confused. Anyway I just changed it so it is addressed to everyone.

[kc2dpt]

And of course I will ask what sort of textual support you have for that that would suggest that is something going on in the texts?

I have the support of the fine discussion here about the shades of meaning of "abhi-issaro." As you offered earlier:
Issara - lord, ruler, master, chief -- 2. creative deity, Brahmā
isvara [ îs-vará ] a. able to, capable of; m. owner of; ruler, lord, prince, king; man of rank, rich man; husband; supreme god; Brahman; Siva:
When the term "abhi-issaro" was spoken, then at that time why would it not have conveyed all these shades of meaning?

From what I can see, none of those "shades of meaning" refer to the self, but rather always to something external. It seems to me a stretch to think "abhi-issaro" was intented to mean "the self, which we might tend to fortify in our estimation".

Personally, I see nothing wrong with this passage referring solely to an external protector; there are other scriptures in which the Buddha speaks quite plainly against any form of rarefied self. We don't need every sutta to refer to every subject.

[Jechbi]

Personally, I see nothing wrong with this passage referring solely to an external protector; there are other scriptures in which the Buddha speaks quite plainly against any form of rarefied self. We don't need every sutta to refer to every subject.

The problem as I see it is that Tilt's definition pointedly distracts from the way in which this passage fits into the greater context of sutta teachings regarding the self. A person might easily understand oneself to be a lord, ruler, master, chief from which to find refuge. That's an understanding the term "abhi-issaro" could awaken, whereas the term "Supreme God" probably won't. Typically, a person is not going to understand oneself as the Supreme God.

Do you see how this kind of discussion we're engaged in right now might be helpful? And how it does not need to be adversarial?

[Jechbi]

Tilt, my emphasis added:

The "perceived self" is, of course, the basis for a belief in a God/god. God/god is thought to be the ultimate protector of the world and is the ultimate expression of self.

I agree with this, but the idea of Supreme God as the ultimate expression of self is not present in the translation you prefer. In our day and age, most (not all) listeners/readers are likely to understand "Supreme God" as something separate from self. As you highlight next:

As i have said, however one wishes to translate the text, the line in question, I feel it must, based upon the immediate and broader contexts, push towards a God/god notion, which I see as including any sort of thing that might be seen as a bigger than ourselves, out there, a protector of the world in which we would try to find shelter in response to the insecurity of the world in which we find ourselves.

That is the reason your preferred translation is a distraction from the Dhamma message in this passage, in the context of dukkha/cessation of dukkha teachings woven throughout the sutta texts. Your translation very much distracts from important layers of understanding of what "abhi-issaro" could mean.

But reading between the lines, I presume your answer to this question (which you did not answer) ...

Do you see any validity in my assertion that "abhi-issaro" could also be understood as any kind of supreme master, such as a fortified self of some kind?

... would be "yes."

[tiltbillings]

Tilt, my emphasis added:

The "perceived self" is, of course, the basis for a belief in a God/god. God/god is thought to be the ultimate protector of the world and is the ultimate expression of self.

I agree with this, but the idea of Supreme God as the ultimate expression of self is not present in the translation you prefer. In our day and age, most (not all) listeners/readers are likely to understand "Supreme God" as something separate from self.

No doubt god-believing people back then did not associate the existence of an idea of a god as a product of a self concept any more than they do now. The idea of an external protector, of something that can alleviate our pain, to protect us from oppressive change of the world, is clearly evident in Ven Ratthapala’s discussion with the king. And appealing to an issaro - God/god/gods - was very much part of the Brahmanical culture in which the Buddha taught.

As you highlight next:

As i have said, however one wishes to translate the text, the line in question, I feel it must, based upon the immediate and broader contexts, push towards a God/god notion, which I see as including any sort of thing that might be seen as a bigger than ourselves, out there, a protector of the world in which we would try to find shelter in response to the insecurity of the world in which we find ourselves.

That is the reason your preferred translation is a distraction from the Dhamma message in this passage, in the context of dukkha/cessation of dukkha teachings woven throughout the sutta texts.

Not in the least. My translation points to the fact that even the greatest (imagined) thing offers us no protection against the oppressive, painful inevitabilities of life, which is totally consistent with what Ven Ratthapala is saying. Essentially, the Buddha through Ven Ratthapala is saying there is no thing, no power, out there that can protect us against the change of the world.

I [the Buddha] am an all-transcender, an All-knower, unsullied in all ideas, renouncing all, by craving ceasing freed, and this I owe to my own insight. To whom should I point? Dhp 353.

That there is no one, no thing, outside our selves to whom we can point, that will protect us from the oppressive change is part and parcel of the Buddha’s Dhamma.

Your translation very much distracts from important layers of understanding of what "abhi-issaro" could mean.

Not that you have shown.

But reading between the lines, I presume your answer to this question (which you did not answer) ...

Do you see any validity in my assertion that "abhi-issaro" could also be understood as any kind of supreme master, such as a fortified self of some kind?

... would be "yes."

Nothing has been presented, yet, that would change my opinion.

[Jechbi]

No doubt god-believing people back then did not associate the existence of an idea of a god as a product of a self concept any more than they do now.

But some would have then, just as some would now. The translation "Supreme God" tends to shut down that likelihood, however. That's why "Supreme God" is a distracting translation alternative.

That there is no one, no thing, outside our selves to whom we can point, that will protect us from the oppressive change is part and parcel of the Buddha’s Dhamma.

Perhaps you hold the view that there is some such thing within oneself? Your translation tends to support that viewpoint, whereas the more common translations do a better job of inviting a broader undersanding of what an abhi-issaro might be.

Nothing has been presented, yet, that would change my opinion.

I would never under any cirucmstances expect to see you change your opinion on any matter, and certainly not on this matter. I am trying to abandon the other expectations I brought to this discussion.

[Jechbi]

- bump -

From Wings to Awakening..Thanissaro Bhikkhu

"In his effort to master kamma in such a way as to bring kamma to an end, the Buddha discovered that he had to abandon the contexts of personal narrative and cosmology in which the issue of kamma first presented itself. Both these forms of understanding deal in categories of being and non-being, self and others, but the Buddha found that it was impossible to bring kamma to an end if one thought in such terms. For example, narrative and cosmological modes of thinking would lead one to ask whether the agent who performed an act of kamma was the same as the person experiencing the result, someone else, both, or neither.In the Buddha's case, he focused simply on the process of kammic cause and result as it played itself out in the immediate present, in the process of developing the skillfulness of the mind, without reference to who or what lay behind those processes".

[kc2dpt]

Personally, I see nothing wrong with this passage referring solely to an external protector; there are other scriptures in which the Buddha speaks quite plainly against any form of rarefied self. We don't need every sutta to refer to every subject.

The problem as I see it is that Tilt's definition pointedly distracts from the way in which this passage fits into the greater context of sutta teachings regarding the self.

As I said, I do not see why this particular passage must "fit into the greater context of sutta teachings regarding the self." I understand you are trying to make it fit, but to me it seems forced... and unnecessary.

A person might easily understand oneself to be a lord, ruler, master, chief from which to find refuge.

There are plenty of other suttas which address this point very directly. Is there really a reason to twist this one to do so as well? Really, Jechbi, you seem hung up on this idea that a person is going to read just this one sutta and have no other exposure to any of the Buddha's other teachings.

Do you see how this kind of discussion we're engaged in right now might be helpful?

Not really, no. Sorry.

[tiltbillings]

No doubt god-believing people back then did not associate the existence of an idea of a god as a product of a self concept any more than they do now.

But some would have then, just as some would now. The translation "Supreme God" tends to shut down that likelihood, however. That's why "Supreme God" is a distracting translation alternative.

You seem overly stuck on “Supreme God.” I think it works, but, as I have indicated repeatedly, I am open to something else, if it would make the point of the text; however, if “Supreme God” is bad, then “supreme master” is really bad in connotation. I certainly could go with “supreme protector,” or “supreme guardian,” which nicely gives us balance in the translation of the line and balances nicely with Ven Ratthapala’s discussion of the line in question with the king. And, importantly, pushes towards the god notion inherent in abhi-issaro.

That there is no one, no thing, outside our selves to whom we can point, that will protect us from the oppressive change is part and parcel of the Buddha’s Dhamma.

Perhaps you hold the view that there is some such thing within oneself? Your translation tends to support that viewpoint, whereas the more common translations do a better job of inviting a broader undersanding of what an abhi-issaro might be.

You make statements like this, but offer no discussion of what you say to show that it is even possibly so (until really pushed to do so).

Nothing has been presented, yet, that would change my opinion.

I would never under any cirucmstances expect to see you change your opinion on any matter, and certainly not on this matter. I am trying to abandon the other expectations I brought to this discussion.

I welcome a chance to be challenged enough that I change my opinion about something, but it has not happened here, yet.

[Jechbi]

Thanks both for your comments.

There are plenty of other suttas which address this point very directly. Is there really a reason to twist this one to do so as well?

Certainly not, Peter. There is never a reason to twist the suttas.

My attention on this one stems from my understanding that it is one of four "summaries of the Dhamma that have been taught by the Blessed One," as noted in the translation I initially referenced. Since this passage is a summary of the Dhamma, I believe we need to be very careful and thoughtful about how we present it. It appears to me that this beautiful summary of Dhamma has been taken out of context and used as a bludgeon to rebut those who wish to discuss their understandings of the God concept here. In that respect, it appears to me that this entire thread twists this beautiful sutta passage. In the context of this present discussion here in this thread, the translation being offered does not appear to reflect a "summary of the Dhamma that has been taught by the Blessed One." Instead, it appears to be flavored (or twisted, if you prefer) with an undercurrent of debate about the viewpoints of theism versus atheism. That, in my personal opinion, is a misuse of this beautiful Dhamma passage.

Undoubtedly, each of us has our own imagined abhi-issaro, whether we acknowledge it or not. May we all come to a greater understanding that there is no abhi-issaro.

[kc2dpt]

Jechbi,

Do you or do you not think Buddhist teachings preclude the idea of a supreme god who is a refuge for the universe?

[Jechbi]

Jechbi,

Do you or do you not think Buddhist teachings preclude the idea of a supreme god who is a refuge for the universe?

Peter, I will be happy to discuss that with you by PM if you wish. In the context of this thread, and in the context of this Dhamma Wheel board and the diversity of members here, I believe I lack the skill to provide you with an answer here that would not be distracting from the core teachings of dukkha and the cessation of dukkha.

[tiltbillings]

Thanks both for your comments.

There are plenty of other suttas which address this point very directly. Is there really a reason to twist this one to do so as well?

Certainly not, Peter. There is never a reason to twist the suttas.

You have expressed your opinion that "Supreme God" is a twist of the suttas, but you have not really addressed as to why that is with textual examples, though you say that you have. Again, you seem overly stuck on the expression of "Supreme God." This is not a life or death choice for me, though the context of the passage, of the sutta, - and of the suttas - certainly supports the idea that any sort of external protector, a supreme god, would be very much included. You argue that the idea of god does not include the notion of a refuge from the insecurity of the world; however, that is exactly a main function of a god, particulrly one that is seen as a creator of everything, as Brahma is portrayed in the suttas. And is very the function of the idea of God, Ishvara, in the Bhagavad Gita, which is very much a respomse to the early Buddhist teachings.

[tiltbillings]

Thanks both for your comments.

There are plenty of other suttas which address this point very directly. Is there really a reason to twist this one to do so as well?

Certainly not, Peter. There is never a reason to twist the suttas.

Are you really suggesting that I have twisted the Dhamnma by twisting the suttas for some agenda?

It appears to me that this beautiful summary of Dhamma has been taken out of context and used as a bludgeon to rebut those who wish to discuss their understandings of the God concept here. In that respect, it appears to me that this entire thread twists this beautiful sutta passage. In the context of this present discussion here in this thread, the translation being offered does not appear to reflect a "summary of the Dhamma that has been taught by the Blessed One." Instead, it appears to be flavored (or twisted, if you prefer) with an undercurrent of debate about the viewpoints of theism versus atheism. That, in my personal opinion, is a misuse of this beautiful Dhamma passage.

Looks to be an ad hominem. Is this what you meant?

[Jechbi]

Again, you seem overly stuck ...

Tilt, this thread is not about me.

As to your other questions, I believe my posts have been clear.