sujato
April 22, 2017, 11:28am
26
It’s basically the same thing from the Indic perspective, but yes, it certainly doesn’t mean simple non-existence. I will revisit my translation of this passage after my more recent reflections, as in the following posts.
It is generally understood that in the Indic idiom, words meaning “to be” can slide into a more pregnant philosophical sense, especially with the implication of “eternal, changeless existence”. If something really is, or so it’s felt, it exists in a timeless, essential sense. This is perhaps akin to Plato’s forms. Obviously the Buddha’s philosophy opposed this tendency. Such notions are usually made explicit in the EBTs, so it is not easy to find clear examples of cases where the mere use of the…
As others have noted, the distinction between “not-self” and “no-self” is not found in Pali. It’s a straw man argument, as no knowledgeable translators actually translate anattā as “no self”. It is always used in the sense of “something is not self” and “no self” wouldn’t work.
Having said which, Thanissaro’s writings on this subject are unreliable. When he says:
he is simply wrong. This has been pointed out many times, for example by Ven Bodhi in his footnote for this sutta, SN 44.10:
Prob…
2 Likes
