Counter-question

My question is about the translation of the pali paṭipucchā… being rendered to counter-question in the AN 3.67 Kathāvatthusutta

(It has a parallel in AN 4.42 Pañhabyākaraṇasutta).

To give some context: To assess if your interlocutor is fit to hold a discussion one can look at the ways of answering a question. For instace, there are questions that should be answered categorically. If the interloctor acts accordingly and answers either with a categorial „yes“ or a categorial „no“ then he/she/they is said to be fit to hold a discussion. Similarly, questions that need some anaylzing should be analyzed.

Here’s the third type of questions:

or if it (the question) needs a counter-question and they answer without a counter-question

Now, I think that translating paṭipucchā with counter-question doesn’t quite capture the spirit (neither does the French or German translation) In my understanding and what I read from commentary, it is about checking with your interlocutor if you’re on the same page (“When asking this question are you referring to a or b or maybe even c?”)

A counter-question has negative connotations ranging from evading the initial question to trying to mute the interlocutor by intentionally diverting attention away from the topic. Merriam-Webster states:

A counter question is a question asked in response to another question. It is used to avoid a direct “no” at practically any cost, promise an answer at some later date, change the subject and even occasionally leave the room.

The sutta, though, imo speaks about getting to the point of the question to avoid misunderstandings.

If my understanding is correct, I’d opt for rendering the French contre-question paraphrasing it using demander or demande de précision. In German one could easily replace Gegenfrage with Rückfrage or Nachfrage.
I’m not a native English speaker, but I was thinking something along the lines of“ if it needs further enquiry“ if this is idiomatic.

I think the prefix paṭi allows for reading it as back as in getting back to sth to avoid talking past each other.

1 Like

Ajahn Geoff (Ṭhānissaro Bhikkhu) translates this as “cross-question,” which doesn’t have quite these negative connotations. He makes a very big deal about all of this in his book Skill in Questions.

1 Like

Thank you ! :smiley:

I was puzzled because in the Pali Canon version that I frequently use, the translator rendered it as counter-question in my native language. But then the same translator states in the footnote (that is literally only a few inches below the sutta) how the commentary explains that it means getting back to the interlocutor if there is room for ambiguity.

Cross-question does sound harsh too imo. But if it refers to a discrete teaching method as Ven. Thanissaro explains - that would make sense. :pray:

1 Like

A counter-question (os cross-question) may be considered an evasion of the topic only if the person asking the counter-question fails to use the counter-response to address the original question.

Furthermore, it was necessary to be mindful of certain situations when formulating a response. For example:

  • The interlocutors might lack sufficient knowledge of the vocabulary used by the other parts, highlighting the need to standardize the use of terms and expressions to ensure the accurate transmission of meanings.

  • The interlocutor could ask questions with bad intentions, aiming for answers they could refute to put the Buddha and his disciples in a difficult position.

  • The interlocutor might be capable of discovering the answer to their question on their own, provided they were skillfully guided during the dialogue. This independent discovery would yield more beneficial results than merely receiving a straightforward, categorical answer.

In such situations, the use of counter-questions, similes, and analytical responses would prove more effective than providing direct answers.

1 Like

@brunobr Thanks for the input! :slightly_smiling_face:

Technically yes. That doesn’t make it sound neutral, though. At least to me, it really doesn’t.

But it makes a lot of sense when you said that by posing counter-questions, the Buddha aimed at ensuring accuracy of specific dhamma terms, of putting interlocutors in their place if they acted upon bad faith or fostering his disciples ability to arrive at the correct answer on their own.

Now what to make of it? Re-reading and pondering over this sutta was prompted by another thread on this forum (the one about type theory and logic which can help us understand each other better).
This sutta sprang to mind because imo it can be read as a ‘manual’ for communicating effectively. So this touches upon the question:
Who is the reader/the addressee/the target group? In the sutta it’s obviously his ordained followers (“bikkhave”) but then so is 98% of all suttas. Can we find a translation that captures the spirit of the historical context and be of use to the average reader today (without having it sound like a negative rhetorical strategy)? I guess that’s what I’m trying to do.

I think if you want to prioritize the connotation, then you will have to give up translating it close to the Pali.

I think

or if it needs to be answered by asking a question in return and they answer by asking a question in return;

has a very neutral connotation, but it really messes with the grammar.

Even “answer with a followup question” could work.

FWIW I have never heard of a “cross question” before.

1 Like

Me neither. Looked it up.

I like this one way better than counter-question in terms of connotation. But regarding readability - I don’t know.

I like this one!
Though it kind of goes contrary to the original meaning of paṭi
as you pointed out. Hmm :thinking:

Yeah, it’s a matter of translation philosophy. I’m not a translator, but as time goes on and I see how people interact with the suttas, I tend to lean more towards having a translation that has the meaning easily apparent more than one that matches the Pali more directly. Really, I think it’s about having different translations for different purposes. As long as we have the Pali and we have translations that are very close to it, I think it’s good to also have more readable translations out there.

In this case, though, I have to say that the existing translations don’t really bother me. I guess because I understand what they are talking about so I don’t worry so much about the connotation.

1 Like

I just immediately thought of cross-examination and interpreted it accordingly. Probably watched too many lawyer shows as a kid.

That’s actually the exact definition Websters gives.

Yeah, having questions being fired at you sounds really tough, too. But if that’s how it was then a translation should reflect that (at least an ‘official one’).

Btw, Ven. Thanissaro translated paṭipucchā as counter-question (and not cross question) in the translation of the Kathāvatthusutta here one suttacentral.

“Monks, it’s through his way of participating in a discussion that a person can be known as fit to talk with or unfit to talk with. If a person, when asked a question, wanders from one thing to another, pulls the discussion off the topic, shows anger & aversion and sulks, then—that being the case—he is a person unfit to talk with.

I really like this part.

“Monks, it’s through his way of participating in a discussion that a person can be known as fit to talk with or unfit to talk with. If a person, when asked a question, puts down [the questioner], crushes him, ridicules him, grasps at his little mistakes, then—that being the case—he is a person unfit to talk with.

And this one. It certainly is good advice for lay people. Maybe there are other suttas that speak about checking with your interlocutor if you’re on the same page when discussing something.

The funny thing is, the function these questions usually serve in the suttas isn’t adversarial at all. It was more like what you say here:

like clarifying questions, designed to make sure the teacher understands what the questioner is really asking before they start answering. Kind of the opposite of adversarial.

Then we’re back to where we started from :laughing:
I gave this some more thought. The problem is that in English “to ask back” either means inviting somebody or wanting something back.
So it’s not an option.
I liked

maybe adding a “to ensure understanding” or something. This sounds a bit like a New York Times bestseller “10 ways to effectively communicate with your co-workers” :rofl:
But if it is somewhat idiomatic, I’d settle for this because in return takes up the paṭi -part and therefore stays true to the text more or less.