Bhante @sujato,
How about Translating “dhamma” in AN 10.58 as thought rather than thing?
Considering that the sutta is part of sacitta vagga, and to avoid possibly unintended metaphysical intepretation of things (like “Earth is rooted in desire”, or bhagava = desire).
There is possibility though, that Buddha was teaching the monk to deflect metaphysical questions from outsider by wordplay.
If Im not mistaken with limited knowledge, but the metaphysics comes from Indian Cosmology. The Buddha wasnt a Westerner, so his views on metaphyiscs are quite different than some Western views. U.S. is highly metaphysical these days. Not all Western countries are…but each countries metaphysics are different depending on the culture .
For example, The Buddha taught there were many heaven and hell planes. There are countless devas. Many stages of rebirth. Probably more metaphysical than religions like christianity. But I dont think its taken literally. Highly depends on the person. The Dharma foundation isnt metaphysical.
Hmm, perhaps I am not rigorous in my wording, but i am using “metaphysical question” to refer the kind of question asked in Vacchagotta sutta.
1 Like
Greetings @calvin_sad
I’m just moving this topic to the category of translations, where it is a better fit
1 Like
Well, the question is framed as one that the wanderers might ask, and the use of dhamma for “thought” or “mental phenomena” is, so far as I know, characteristic of Buddhism. I may be wrong there, though.
In any case, the range of topics is very broad, and it encompasses a wider ranger of things than “thought”.
Just to comment on this question. In Buddhist studies, “metaphysical” is often used to describe questions such as those point out by Calvin. In popular usage, it is often used in a way like “supernatural” or “unscientific”. In philosophy, it means the study of fundamental principles, questions such as “what is being”.
How these uses become confused is suggested by the history of the term; from Wikipedia:
So the root of the word suggests something like “supernatural”, but it is not used in philosophy in that sense.
The concept is further muddied because a prominent school of 20th century philosophers (the logical positivists) rejected the notion of metaphysics entirely and argued that philosophy must be based entirely on empirical grounds. The argument is that metaphysical questions are essentially a relic of godspeak and are inherently unanswerable.
This position is very close to that of the Buddha, a point not lost on some of the 20th century’s most sophisticated Buddhist philosophers, especially Jayatilleke and Kalupahana. They argued that the Buddha, while appearing to speak of things that might normally fall within the realm of metaphysics, redefined those topics so that they would be completely empirical. Other topics were simply rejected out of hand. I agree with them, and I believe the Buddha rejected “metaphysics” in this sense.
A similar argument applies to things often considered “supernatural”, such as heavens and hells, psychic powers, and so on. In Buddhism, there is no such thing as the “super”- natural. Everything is a part of nature. All such states or abilities are merely extensions of things we can observe around us. Just as a scientist can look at specks of light in a telescope and can infer the birth and death of galaxies, the Buddha could look at phenomena of the mind and infer things that, to us, seem incredible.
One of the things that distinguishes such claims as empirical is that they can be tested. Scientists say their claims are testable, and they provide a means for doing so. It’s not easy: you have to first get an advanced degree, then set up a research project, and so on. Testable doesn’t mean “trivial”.
The Buddha proceeded in the same way. He made these claims, and unlike metaphysical religions, he didn’t restrict such knowledge to divinity or those divinely inspired. Instead, he set out a path for realizing these things. Again, it’s not easy, but why should it be? We’re talking about the fundamental wisdom of the cosmos, it’s not something you can just realize in a couple of retreats.
9 Likes
Im going to read this again later. Just wanted to say nice. I think this addresses the original question, if Im not mistaken.
1 Like
Thank you!
It does! In fact, it is because considering multiple possible meaning of “dhamma” that it occurs to me that it is possible for the Buddha is using wordplay (don’t ask me why, the range of Buddha’s humor is beyond me).
If this being the case, while it is accurate to render “dhamma” in question asked by outsider as “things”, to do the same to Buddha’s answer would deprive specificity and context of the answer, and IMO make the Buddha seem to advocate some variation of solipsism (or Cittramatrin).
How about leaving “dhamma” untranslated?
How about translating “dhamma” according to the context? Although determining which “dhamma” is meaned by the Buddha in his answer is not an easy thing.
Possible translating “dhamma” according to context in Buddha’s answer
Reverends, all thought are rooted in desire. Attention produces them. Contact is their origin. Feeling is their meeting place. Immersion is their chief. Mindfulness is their ruler. Wisdom is their overseer.
Freedom is all teaching core. They culminate in the deathless.
And extinguishment is their (? possibly both “thought” and “teaching”) final end.
Considering AN 9.14 which seems to be parallel to AN 10.58, in which the subject is “saṅkappavitakkā” rather than “dhamma”, but follow similar sequence.
This would not be right,
while rendering “dhamma” as “thought/mental phenomena” would gain a bit of support.
@sujato
Ven Sir just want to point out that dn11 you also pin gadhati as footing and the context is actually the same, not different, because it is about phenomena gaining a footing, in particular a rather a special case of not gaining a footing. This is the passage;
“Where do water and earth,
fire and air find no footing;
tejo vāyo na gādhati;
From this passage it should be reasonably inferred that phenomena are typically presumed to be gaining a footing. Which begets the question raised in an10.58; ‘where do phenomena gain a footing?’. The answer to that is also in the an10.58 .
With this your theory is pretty much falsified beyond reasonable doubt as i see it. Not that it needed to be falsified imho because as i see it you and Ven. Bodhi deviated from the litteral translation thus making an extraordinary assumption and taking on the burden of proof which was never met.
If you really look to see how far this rabbit hole goes, you soon come to the realization that ‘dhamma’ is best left untranslated. You’ll find all over the suttas, hundreds if not thousands of references to ‘dhamma’ where it straddles multiple meanings. Which means almost always whenever the word ‘dhamma’ is translated into another language, the translator is making a sophie’s choice, where they choose one meaning and kill the other possible meanings that the Buddha had intended. And often, it’s very likely several multiple meanings were intended, not just one.
So the only sensible thing, when you really ponder the depth and scope of this problem, is to do what the Chinese did with the Agamas, and leave it untranslated AFAIK. They use ‘fa’, (“law”) as the translation for ‘dhamma’ everywhere. And just like in the Buddha’s time, they trust that the listener can disambiguate it on their own.
2 Likes
Just for the record, i want to say that after giving it a lot of thought i think that the exact meaning there is not easily inferred because it’s not clear what is meant by “dhamma” and there are several ways it can be interpreted. “Culmination” makes sense in some instances, if we use the meaning from Sanditthika Sutta: Visible Here-&-Now
It is agreeable to me.
If we go by SuttaCentral
It is agreeable to me.
If we go by the commentary to AN 8.83 which covers 8/10 points listed in 10.58;
- (sabbe dhamma) here means the five aggregates. These are rooted in desire, it says, because the desire to act (and thus create kamma) is what underlies their existence.
Then culmination is less agreeable even tho one can make that work as well with some mental gymnastics. “gaining a footing” works better but that too requires some semantic gymnastics and it isn’t easy to explain.
I still prefer “gaining a footing” because it works either way and is the literal translation.
As for me i can see the appeal of the commentary position and it is quite intetesting because from this the famous expression of “the ground of all” can be derived but it’s meaning can vary and it’s quite unusual. I am personally not convinced that the commentary got it right because the other explaination seems to be the simple one which is formulated analogically to Eastern Gatehouse discourse;
- “I have known, seen, penetrated, realized, & attained it by means of discernment. I have no doubt or uncertainty that the faculty of conviction… persistence… mindfulness… concentration… discernment, when developed & pursued, gains a footing in the Deathless, has the Deathless as its goal & consummation.”
There is some nuance but the commentary position seems overly complicated even tho one can make it work.
Either way i think the word should be “footing” in the an10.58 and meaning is probably close to “culmination” designating the result of development and the commentators might have been overthinking it.