Basically, Ven Anālayo is suggesting, I think, that 生 in 生法 should be read as 取法, or something like that, because there has been a confusion over utpāda --> upāda in the rendering of the text into Chinese.
I am curious, if you think
What do you think the rest says?
What if the text had:
『阿難！取法計是我，非不取。阿 難！云何於取法計是我，非不取？色取，取是我，非不取。受、想、行、識取，取是我，非不取。
With upāda instead of utpāda?
Notice that you might be suggesting that the original would be
Kiñca uppādāya asmīti hoti, no anuppādāya? Rūpaṃ uppādāya asmīti hoti, no anuppādāya.
I am just assuming Pāli is going to make utpāda → uppāda in this context.
We might need a Pāli expert at this point. Also, until this point, I had not realized this entire conversation had happened before.
I didn’t realize you had a new account/name, hello. 
You have been missing some important suttas about the" NOT YOURS". Viz. the “not ownership” of the khandhas (SN 22.33), and internal ayatanas (SN 35.138)
- the khandhas (leading to dhammas and dhatus) cannot be controled (permanently changed).
- khandhas (leading to dhammas and dhatus), have an inherent changing nature. AND
- khandhas (leading to dhammas and dhatus), and atta’s internal ayatanani ( that actualize sensualy these dhammas and dhatus) are “not yours”.
Therefore the atta (as reflexive pronoun) cannot see himself as the spiritual atta, that is continuous, eternal and blissful. Nor can the atta (as reflexive pronoun), see himself as having anything to do with the khandhas (leading to dhammas and dhatus).
And the well-learned noble disciple regards these khandhas, contemplate and examine them as they are: not self and not belonging to self.
So yes @Mat, impermanence is the cause for non-belonging.
But what does not belong here is the spiritual atta. (see above how Olivelle defines atma/atta). Our atta, as personal pronoun however, is impermanent.
If you don’t get rid of that chavakra and Abidhammic frame of mind, you will always bring confusedness in your reasoning.
What imports, and what is shown in SN 22.89, is that you must treat the effect (“I am this” ), before the cause (“I am”) . See SN 22.47 for that matter - (one should rewind the process).
So @Mat, let’s be clear. I am not excluding one for the other. SN 22.59 mentions “changes” . However, SN 22.122 mentions “aliens”. I am aware of that.
The problem with SN 22.59, is that the “I am THIS” (one’s owness), is not paralled in the Chinese sutras. In the latter, it is about perceiving self in the impermanent dharma. Which has more the flavor of an “I am”, than an “I am THIS”.
By now, everyone must have understood that the point is to show the intricated connection of both meanings of anicca; that is to say the “not-one’s-owness (I am not THIS”), and the" impermanence" (of the “I am”).
Nicca is both the cause (the idea of permanence that leads to the “I am”), and the effect (the idea that this is" my own") - so to speak.
SN 22.89 is very clear about these two. (Important sutta).
Important, because it shows how the riddances have to be processed.
First, get rid of the “I am THIS”.
In anapanasati, the 13th step might not be about impermanence, but about the abscence of desire [vi+rāga] about what is “not ours”.
The dispassion coming from the knowledge of the “I am not THIS”. About the “alien” nature of this dhamma.
Note: I don’t know why Analayo has translated virāga as “fading away”?
I suppose he tried to twist the meaning, to fit the usual construct of arising and fading dhammas (in a moment ?!? - one after the other ?!?).
Then, through the dhammavicaya sambojjhango, and the other factors of enlightenment, one comes to understand the nature of the impermanence of the dhammas as a whole (internal and external - alien and impermanent).
As in SA 103.
O really ? - Which conversation ?
Could you give us a link ?
@anon85245511
(and also @Coemgenu)
Indeed, the Ānanda sutta (SN 22.83), aka the discourse on Puṇṇa SA 261, is just about it:
Appropriated (~clinging ? ) khandhas - viz. the effect.
The effect of the cause, that the Buddha always mentions right after, viz. the impermanence.
Note again that the SA is more accurate than the SN. The latter consider the “I am” case, instead of the “I am this”.
“I am this” is all about appropriating the now internal khandhas.
Upāda:
lit．“taking up”，i．e．subsisting on something else，not original，secondary，derived.
उपादा upādā [upā-ādā [ā-dā]]
- receive , accept , acquire , appropriate to one’s self. MBh
आदा ādā - to give to one’s self " , take , accept, receive from. RV.
- to seize , grasp , take or catch hold of - RV. (later ŚvetU.)
Etc.
::::
Not to be confounded with
धा √ dhā - to take (RV. AV. ŚBr.)
- to seize , take hold of (RV. AV.)
Which has also the following meaning. - to take pleasure or delight in (RV. AV. Br.)
::::
It means appropriating to oneself, not clinging (by taking pleasure in) .
And that agrees with Gene’s
生法計是我
The (causal) dharmah taken as self.
Aka, “appropriating the dhammas as self”. Making the dhammas “one’s own” .
It would be nice if both of you were to put an english translation on your Chinese.
Personnaly, when I use Pali or Sanskrit, I take the effort to do that; just because not everyone on this forum is acquainted with these languages.
The conversation has been in a few places though. I mean the conversation about upāda vs utpāda and how these are confused, or not confused, in some Chinese sources.
The problem is that upādāna doesn’t mean clinging (to be emotionally or intellectually attached), nor even grasping, neither in the sense of holding to, or to be desirous of acquiring a dhamma.
It means to appropriate the dhammas as self; as one’s own.
And again, SN 22.83 & SA 261 do not agree on the “I am this”, and the “” I am".
And as I edited in the previous post, I agree with Gene’s
生法計是我
The… dharmah taken as self.
“Khandhas (and their ensuing dhammas & dhatus) are not yours”.
(Neither are the internal ayatanani) .
See above for suttas’ references.
And this “not-one’s-owness” (anicca), is the first thing you should get rid of.
Then, and only then, you should get rid of the idea of permanent khandhas (anicca).
This is why the Buddha always put the question “is form impermanent ?”, etc. in second position.
He usually asks a first question; then proceeds with the “are the khandhas permanent or impermanent ?”.
He starts with the effect, then proceeds with the cause.
This was the purpose of this thread.
There’s nothing wrong with agreeing with this, but it implies that the source text was
So amhe iminā ovādena ovadati: ‘uppādāya, āvuso ānanda, asmīti hoti, no anuppādāya. Kiñca uppādāya asmīti hoti, no anuppādāya? Rūpaṃ uppādāya asmīti hoti, no anuppādāya. Vedanaṃ … saññaṃ … saṅkhāre … viññāṇaṃ uppādāya asmīti hoti, no anuppādāya.
Note the geminated P’s in uppādāya. I don’t think there’s a manuscript like this to help substantiate this theory.
Yeah, maybe - but that is your bloody Chinese confusions; not mine.
Just don’t put clinging when there is none - and that will do.
If you want to believe the theory, the above is what you are subscribing to. I’m just informing you of that. No need to kill the messenger.
And I will likely continue to render the character after Venerable Anālayo.
Don’t let that get you too angry, though, I’m not a translator, so you never have to worry about me publishing Dhamma books with “clinging” in them.
It is your bloody Chinese confusions; not mine.
Upādāna means “appropriating to oneself” -
not clinging.
You know, I miss the days back when I was the only pseudo-intellectual here.
Dhamma means “firmament”, not “law”. Kamma means ritual performance, not any deeds.
There, I can say things to.
1 Like
?!?!? 
A while ago, there was a user here, who would not speak to anyone unless they asked a question about the “five clinging aggregates”. Clinging was always in italics.
He refused to translate “five aggregates” as anything other than “five clinging aggregates”, even when there was no word whatsoever to imply “clinging”.
You are the opposite with upādāna. You are in love with this one particular definition, which is not exhaustive of all of its senses.
1 Like
Then learn how to read devanagari; it might help.
I’m off with you.
To illustrate what I mean, this other user, who would insist on “five clinging aggregates” would also insist that attā does not mean “self”. He would insist that ahaṃ was self, instead, and only ahaṃ.
This focussing on particular definitions that are not exhaustive, that is the parallelism I am pointing out.
It wasn’t super difficult. Its just an alphabet. How would that help, and how is that point relevant to anything discussed thus far?
You say this to people, then end up talking to them again.
You’ve said it to me at least 3 times, in various phrasings.
I look forward to when we next chat.
This topic was automatically opened after 9 hours.
One more thing (at the end of this post) .
So far so good.
I have come up to show that anicca has two meanings, and that they correspond to what is delineated in Sn 22.47.
-
The “I am”, that corresponds to the false idea that the impermanent atta (as the personal pronoun), could have anything to do with the permanent atta (as the spiritual self) - Hence anicca as “impermanent” - as the cause.
-
The “I am this”, that correponds to “appropriating°” the khandhas as oneself, as a result - Hence anicca as “not-one’s-own” - as the effect.
°
Upādā [upā-ādā] comes from ādā (taking up，taking to oneself) - the gerund of ādāti (appropriate，grasp) .
So grasping is to be understood as appropriating; not clinging (by taking pleasure in).Upādā literally means “appropriating altogether”.
It does not take a Phd to see what is more appropriate:
- “I am this” meaning: I am “clinging” to this.
or- “I am this” meaning: I am “appropriating” this.
.
Again, "it’s not yours ! " says the Buddha, talking about the khandhas, and the internal ayatanas.
Then I came up to show two things:
-
That the riddance of the “I am this”, must be the first elimination.
A process clearly shown in SN 22.89. -
That the Buddha often speaks first, about the effect (viz. khandhas are appropriated as myself [“I am this”] ) - then secondly, about the cause (through the usual question: "are the khandhas permanent or impermanent ?). As in SN 22.150, SN 22.80, SN 22.85, SN 22.59, SN 24.1&18, MN 35, MN 109, SN 12.70, etc.
As if to point out that the riddance process must start by the effect, viz. the elimination of the “I am this”, (viz. the elimination of the appropriation of the Khandhas as myself).
Then, and only then, to proceed with the elimination of the cause, viz. of the “I am”, (viz. The elimination, through the insightful knowledge of the impermanence of the khandhas - that is to say, their formations into dhammas and desired dhatus) .
SN 22.45/46 shows the cause to effect process.
And I would even go as far as saying that getting rid of the “I am this” part, (aka the effect,) is to be liberated by discernment as in SN 12.70.
See SN 24.19 for that matter.
See the “stability” in both suttas.
See what that exactly means.
See what the knowledge of the stability of the dhamma is, in Buddha’s remark:
“First, Susīma, comes knowledge of the stability of the Dhamma, afterwards knowledge of Nibbāna.”
Get it ?
Piya Tan:
ANICCA OR ANICCHĀ
.
To say that ANICCA “actually” means “something not liked” is wrong view and bad grammar. It should make informed Buddhists wonder if the speaker, his teacher and other Sinhala monks with such a view are actually familiar with the basic teachings of early Buddhism, not to say the “core” teachings.
(2) ACADEMIC QUALIFICATION is emphasized by most Sinhala monks for status, employment and wealth, outshadowing even basic sutta understanding and meditation. Question: Do any of such monks actually carefully study the suttas, or are they simply perpetuating received wisdom, the micchā,diṭṭhi of their teachers?
(3) THE “SINHALA PLOSIVE ABERRATION” (SPA) is the habitual confusion and misuse or misreading of -c- and -ch-. I have already responded to this problem with “passati” (to see) and “phassati” (to touch).
(4) Here, the confusion is between ANICCA (a, “not” + nicca [Sanskrit nitya], “permanent”) and ANICCHĀ (a, “not” + icchā, “wish, desire” [from √iṣ]). It needs to be urgently corrected or we will be the laughing stock of informed Buddhists and philologists. There is no way, no sutta support at all, that anicca can ever be translated as “not liked” or “not wished for” (anicchā).
(5) “NOT LIKED” better describes the nature of dukkha. It may also describe anicca, but only partly. For example, when a PLEASANT feeling goes away, we do NOT like it. But when a PAINFUL feeling goes away, we clearly LIKE it. Hence, it is wrong to say that anicca means “not liked.”
See Cūḷa Vedalla Sutta (M 44,24/1:303), SD 40a.9.
.
SOME OBSERVATIONS
The monk speaker seems to know a lot of Buddhist “facts,” even beautifully puts them together to sound like good Dhamma, but an informed Buddhist or scholar can only listen with disbelief. He does not seem to be familiar enough with the suttas. Note the following:
(1) His sequence of the sense-bases (āyatana) could be better. He listed them as “eye, nose, tongue, ear …” when it should be “eye, ear, nose …” This suggests he has not be “reciting” them Dhamma, an important training for a Buddhist monk. It’s like reciting: “A B E C D … “
(2) DHAMMA-S,SAVANA, means “listening to the Dhamma,” NO “discussing Dhamma,” which is Dhamma,sākacchā. A minor point, yes, but it is magnified when the error is made by someone who should know better or should have corrected himself.
If we follow this wrong view, what are we teaching the masses then? A new sequence of āyatana?
(3) To say that ANATTĀ is “meaninglessness” is philosophically interesting, but this is only one aspect of this basic characteristics that underlies all “principles” (sabbe dhammā anattā). Also that there is abiding essence in any existence: it is always dynamic and impermanent.
See the Dhamma Niyāma Sutta (A 3.134), SD 26.8.
.
CHARACTERISTIC & DEFILEMENT
(1) The Uddesa Vibhaṅga Sutta (M 138,20), SD 33.14, says: “Whatever is impermanent must change, become other” (vipariṇāmati aññathā hoti). Based on this teaching, is there any way we can translate ANICCA as “not liked”? It would mean we are rejecting the suttas.
(2) The most serious blunder in stating that ANICCA means “not liking” is to confuse a “CHARACTERISTIC” (lakkhaṇa) with a human reaction on account of “defilement” (kilesa). This should give us some serious thought.
.
STAND UP FOR DHAMMA
I’m seriously thinking more LAY SINHALA should dedicate their lives to studying and teaching the Dhamma in the spirit of Anagarika Dhammapala. Without a proper in-depth mastery of the suttas, we will be held hostage by teachers who place more value on worldliness and worldly views than what the Buddha has taught.
Let us be the TRUE RENUNCIANTS whether monastic or lay. Awakening is not defined by the way we dress or hairstyle.
fb180825 piya
with metta,
1 Like