Yes, thanks for reminding me.
They’re alternate spellings apparently.
1 Like
Hello,
As long as one doesn’t have right view that is supramundane and undefiled, one’s view is defiled, so I applaud your openness to learn.
In MN 121, the translation of the syllable ceto, from the word cetosamādhiṁ, into ‘heart’, and ‘immersion of the heart’, and the translation of the word cittaṁ into ‘mind’, point towards a different aspect of experience, although in Pali they point to the same.
Although these words are translated as being different aspects, experiencing that they are one and the same is what samādhi is all about; that which searches finds that what is sought.
Thank you for your translation work, and for making the translations available for free on this website, it was very helpful on my path. A great service.
Warm regards,
Peter
AN5.73:1.3: Kittāvatā nu kho, bhante, bhikkhu dhammavihārī hotī”ti?
How is one who lives by the teaching defined?”
Should be: “How is a mendicant who lives by the teaching defined?”
The same in AN 5.74.
1 Like
Or, perhaps, ‘in what way does a mendicant live according to the teaching’. ?
1 Like
4.3.2.2. Mindfulness and Situational Awareness
And how does a mendicant have mindfulness and situational awareness? It’s when a mendicant acts with situational awareness when going out and coming back; when looking ahead and aside; when bending and extending the limbs; when bearing the outer robe, bowl and robes; when eating, drinking, chewing, and tasting; when urinating and defecating; when walking, standing, sitting, sleeping, waking, speaking, and keeping silent. That’s how a mendicant has mindfulness and situational awareness.
“Situational awareness … when sleeping”? This doesn’t make any sense. In my view this whole passage should be rendered with “about” or “regarding”:
4.3.2.2. Mindfulness and Situational Awareness
And how does a mendicant have mindfulness and situational awareness? It’s when a mendicant acts with situational awareness about going out and coming back; about looking ahead and aside; about bending and extending the limbs; about bearing the outer robe, bowl and robes; about eating, drinking, chewing, and tasting; about urinating and defecating; about walking, standing, sitting, sleeping, waking, speaking, and keeping silent. That’s how a mendicant has mindfulness and situational awareness.
This change in translation has some interesting and important practical consequences!
3 Likes
Thanks!
No, this isn’t what kittāvatā means. See recent discussion:
In this case, the question is not: “If one is a mendicant, how does one live according to the teaching?”
Rather, it is, “Of those who are mendicants, how do you define whether a mendicant is living in accord with the teaching?”
Hmm.
Perhaps a related example would be indriyesu guttadvāro hoti, lit. “is door-guarded regarding the senses.”
It does make sense in terms of the expansive understanding of sampajañña in the commentaries, as well as the notion of “situational awareness”.
“Situational awareness” of speaking and keeping silent, for example, doesn’t just mean “you know when you are speaking, you know when you are silent”, it means “you understand the right time to speak and the right time to keep silent.”
This is quite explicit with sampajānamusāvāde pācittiyan (which shares a similar locative construction.) It’s not just when you speak, but before and after as well.
“About” and “regarding” feel a little clunky to me, overdetermined. What about “in”?
It’s when a mendicant acts with situational awareness in going out and coming back; in looking ahead and aside; in bending and extending the limbs; in bearing the outer robe, bowl and robes; in eating, drinking, chewing, and tasting; in urinating and defecating; in walking, standing, sitting, sleeping, waking, speaking, and keeping silent.
3 Likes
Yeah, “in” is much better than “when”.
I suspect a number of contemporary “meditation” practices, such as “mindfulness when eating”, stems from this passage. But while “mindfulness of eating” is not entirely wrong, I believe the emphasis is skewed. The main issue is to be clear about the right time of eating, the quantity of food, the right type of food, etc. In fact, the whole passage takes on an entirely new flavour when we move away from “when”.
My guess is that the “when” translation, which is also used by Bhikkhu Bodhi, is a result of satisampajaññā being part of the Satipaṭṭhāna Suttta. In that context “when” makes good sense. If, however, we recognise that satisampajaññā does not belong to this sutta - thanks in no little measure to History of Mindfulness - then a change in translation is a desideratum, even a requirement.
I don’t know, but I am fascinated by the cascading series of gradual distortions that occurs from seeming innocuous changes to the suttas. Gradually we are losing the word of the Buddha. A bit of wise sleuthing can correct some errors, but at best it will only delay the inevitable.
4 Likes
I’m not sure I grasp the difference between
“In what way does a mendicant live according to the teaching?”
and
“How do you define whether a mendicant is living in accord with the teaching?”, as you have put it.
Aren’t both trying to compare “dhammavihari” with “bhikkhu” ?
1 Like
Thank you! That was a very helpful clarification.
1 Like
Let me try “in” and see how it goes.
Indeed, the tiniest things can have major consequences, especially in such central passages.
One wants to know how a bhikkhu lives, the other wants to know what a (real) bhikkhu is. One of these questions is about manner, the other about scope.
- How does a thoroughbred horse live?
- What makes a horse a thoroughbred?
MN82:
And what is decay due to sickness? It’s when someone is sick, suffering, gravely ill. They reflect: ‘I’m now sick, suffering, gravely ill. It’s not easy for me to acquire more wealth or to increase the wealth I’ve already acquired. Why don’t I go forth from the lay life to homelessness?’ So because of that decay due to sickness they go forth. This is called decay due to sickness. But Master Raṭṭhapāla is now rarely ill or unwell.
The Pali of the first two instances of the bolded text is bavhābādha, which can also mean “often ill”, which I would suggest fits the context better. See also the contrast to “rarely ill” a few sentences down (also bolded). There are similar cases elsewhere.
Another issue. You render dāsa as “bondservant”, which may well be the best term if you know what it means! It occurs in important contexts like the similes for the five hindrances, where I feel the meaning should be more transparent. I would suggest good old “slave” instead.
Nope, it’s bāḷhagilāno “gravely ill”.
Normally for _ bavhābādha_ I have “sickly”.
A slave is a bonded servant: I think the meaning is pretty obvious.
The relationship between what the ancient Indians called a dāsa and what folks in the west called a slave has been problematic at least since Megasthenes, who as you know said there was no slavery in India. It’s easy to dismiss his account, but he was there, we are not. What we can say is that there was nothing in ancient India recognized as slavery by Megasthenes, a Greek who lived there.
For that reason I have chosen to render the word with a term that does not invoke such immediate and specific connections as does the word “slave”. Better to see the Indic context on its own terms, rather than conditioned through a very specific and strongly colored historical lens.
1 Like
Perhaps I should make a habit of checking the Pali, instead of assuming I know what it is!
It still seems odd to me that one should decide to go forth when “gravely ill”. To me gravely ill essentially means bed-ridden. It seems something get lost in translation here, but I am not sure what it would be.
I think it means that basically you know that your life is short, you can’t do anything with it, so at least if you renounce you make good kamma. It’s like a deathbed redemption or conversion or something. In fact, the very fact that the upasampada questions the candidate’s state of health quite closely suggests that it was something that was done.
SN38.14:1.6: “Atthi panāvuso maggo atthi paṭipadā, etāsaṁ dukkhatānaṁ pariññāyā”ti?
“But, reverend, is there a path and a practice for completely understanding these three forms of suffering?”
There’s no “three” in the Pali.
2 Likes
It may have been inferred via the prior line,
“ tisso dukkhatā”.
Indeed, but it’s not really needed, I’ll take it out.
3 Likes
Hello! Please have a look at SN55.52
“Sir, we hope that you’re healthy and well.”
“kacci, bhante, bhagavā arogo ceva balavā cā”ti?
“I am, good sirs.”
“Arogo cāvuso, bhagavā balavā cā”ti.
Were the Sakyans referring to The Buddha or to that certain mendicant?
1 Like
Oh right, well spotted, I’ll make sure it is properly disambiguated.
“Sir, we hope that the Buddha is healthy and well.”
“He is, good sirs.”
SN41.3:4.8: imā nu kho, bhante, diṭṭhiyo kismiṁ sati honti, kismiṁ asati na hontī’”ti?
When what exists do these views come to be? When what doesn’t exist do these views not come to be?’’
Two successive single quote marks. The second one should be double.
SN41.3:8.7: Atha kho āyasmā isidatto senāsanaṁ saṁsāmetvā pattacīvaramādāya macchikāsaṇḍamhā pakkāmi.
But Isidatta set his lodgings in order and, taking his bowl and robe, left Macchikasaṇḍa,
SN41.3:8.8: Yaṁ macchikāsaṇḍamhā pakkāmi, tathā pakkantova ahosi, na puna paccāgacchīti.
never to return.
Should be “Macchikāsaṇḍa” (long ā).
1 Like