Confused about SN29 (Chapter on Dragons)

Discussion
21

I always took that as a humorous self-deprecation, not said literally, like “I can’t even see a frog, let alone a ghost!”.

Udayin says the same thing but about rebirth and devas. Here he is saying he can’t even recall details in his current life, let alone past lives. He can’t even see a frog, let alone a deva. Seems like his humourous implication is that he is weak at the natural let alone the supernatural.

Well sir, I can’t even recall with features and details what I’ve undergone in this incarnation. How should I possibly recollect my many kinds of past lives with features and details, like the Buddha? For I can’t even see a mud-goblin right now. How should I possibly, with clairvoyance that is purified and superhuman, see sentient beings passing away and being reborn, like the Buddha? But then the Buddha told me, ‘Nevertheless, Udāyī, leave aside the past and the future. I shall teach you the Dhamma:"

  • mn 79

I.e. a mud goblin is something mundane and natural

22

What evidence do you have that a pisāca is a frog/toad? Not that it could be, but that the word is specifically used to mean that somewhere?

23

No scholarly archeological evidence just textual clues in the suttas, just sharing personal interpretions and ideas. Technically a pisaca is a flesh eating demon goblin, just like naga is a fire breathing dragon, but it could also turn out that naga could be an exaggerated snake, and pisaca could be an exaggerated frog, things are lost in translation over the centuries and humourous speech, exaggerations and play on words are taken literally by descendants.

24

OK. It’s best to indicate when you are stating something that is purely a personal theory with no evidence. That’s one way that people are misled.

25

Like this?

I’m stating quite clearly that it’s how I took it as, i.e. interpret

26

No, not like that, in that quote you take what Sariputta said as humourous, but then repeat your mistranslation of pisāca as toad without saying that this translation is your own speculative idea.

I am also curious about what exactly the point of these ideas are? Nagas and Garuda and Devas and Goblins and Faeries are all over the suttas, and they talk and do magic and all sorts of things - are you saying that animals used to talk back then?

27

Well yes, because I was trying to show an example of my translation and interpretation being used in context, to show how Udayin is going from natural to supernatural

I wasn’t reaffirming that my translation is the correct translation, only trying to show its usage.

The same point that of your ideas that they could be lizard people when I told you that they’re not merely lizards.

That there’s the official literal fairytale-like interpretation, and also other various possible interpretations, just like your lizard people interpretation.

And no, I’m not saying animals used to talk back then, I’m saying it could be that the term naga was referring to naga the tribal people, and not naga the supernatural (or natural) dragon or snake.

28

My lizard people comment was a joke.
Your efforts to create confusion around the meaning of Pali words do not seem to be a joke.
The Naga peoples of Myanmar and Northeast India where unknown to the EBT’s and where not even called that until quite recently, there is no historical connection between the Nagas of Buddhist mythology and the. Ava people of Nagaland. There is also absolutely no doubt that the EBT’s make consistent reference to “supernatural” beings and the thesis that these are somehow corruptions that where originally common animals is patently ridiculous and makes little sense. I also have to think that such a thesis is motivated by a need to make Buddhism more “compatible” with contemporary views about the supernatural, that’s fine if it is your thing, but you need to make that case and make it explicitly or as @Snowbird says you create the impression that your “translations” are legitimate readings of the terms and not ideologically motivated speculations like they in fact are.

29

Oh I didn’t take your comment as a joke, I thought you were being literal. I guess it’s very easy to take texts literally, as to my point earlier.

[quote=“josephzizys, post:28, topic:26210”]
The Naga peoples of Myanmar and Northeast India where unknown to the EBT’s[/quote]

How do you know this? seems interesting

[quote=“josephzizys, post:28, topic:26210”]
and where not even called that until quite recently[/quote]

Do you have a source for this? According to the Wikipedia it seems only the Burmese casted doubt on the term but the Assamese used the word Noga (which I assume is similar). The Burmese seem to interpret it as hills.

Please share your information as it’s an interesting topic for me.

Well I think I’m quite clear with my choice of words that everything I say is my interpretation and could have different meanings. In fact I would say I take more great effort than average to state that there could be multiple meanings and interpretations.

No need to be dramatic, I literally started my response to you with the official interpretation of naga being a fire breathing dragon, and not merely a lizard (or lizard person), and then I just told you in the previous response just now that I agree that the official interpretation is fairytale like, and I’m not disputing that, only offering new information and ideas, yet you returned to that point again.

I assure you, I have no dubious evil intention and I never said that the official interpretation is a corruption, so please do not assign some hidden agenda. If anything we could all be a little less fanatical and dogmatic and a little more open minded.

But please do share more information if you have it as that would be valuable to the conversation.

1 Like
30

Nāgas (mythical dragons/snakes), supaṇṇas (mythical birds), gandhabbas (fragrant plant devas), and valāhakas (cloud devas) shown in SN 29-32 may be closely relevant to the living environment of Buddhist monks. But the texts, SN 29-32, are also a group of sequential collections (samyuttas) about early Buddhist adaptations of Vedic mythical beliefs.

1 Like
31

I think often we lose sight of larger contexts by specializing too much. And we take these things a little too seriously or literally because they are religious texts. Buddhists were not special in the ancient world by having these types of mythological stories. Why did these stories exist? In the ancient human societies before writing, people engaged in all sorts of storytelling, and their understanding of the world around them was imbued with the mythology that developed. Animals didn’t talk to them literally, but they weren’t merely animals, either. They were also symbols and characters in stories. We still have vestiges of this in modern times, but it was much stronger in ancient times.

I was just reading the introduction to Davies’s translation of the Mabinogion. It was striking to me to read her description of the features of oral tradition stories. Welsh storytellers used mnemonic devices like triple repetitions, standardized formulaic expressions, structured stories with standard intros and outros, etc. Sound familiar? The stories themselves are often farcical or fantastical just like some Buddhist tales. Some are more serious and concerned with history or politics at the time. Some seem to be some overloaded with formulaic expressions that the storyteller forgot to tell an actual story.

3 Likes