Reading for the day was MN79 cūlasakuludāyī sutta. The Buddha says to Udāyī ‘When this exists, this comes to be; due to the arising of this, this arises. When this doesn’t exist, that is not; due to the cessation of this, that ceases.’”
When Udāyī repeats it he says “When this exists, this comes to be; due to the arising of this, this arises. When this doesn’t exist, this doesn’t come to be; due to the cessation of this, this ceases.”
So Udāyī doesn’t repeat the “that” I am no scholar of Pali is this intentional?
It does make a difference as this and that are not one and the same and is often used in other sutta’ to indicate that one thing leads to another such as Greed leads to covetousness etc.
1 Like
It looks like the Pali only has idaṃ, not sure why there is a “that” in the translation.
Dhammaṁ te desessāmi
imasmiṁ sati idaṁ hoti, imassuppādā idaṁ uppajjati;
imasmiṁ asati idaṁ na hoti, imassa nirodhā idaṁ nirujjhatī"ti.
3 Likes
I’m sure there has been a discussion about exactly this issue here but I can’t find it. I seem to remember that @REddison had something insightful to say, although perhaps I’m misremembering one of the many other insightful things he has said.
4 Likes
“I’m sure there has been a discussion about exactly this issue here”
I checked before posting but nothing came up.
2 Likes
Yes, I couldn’t either. Maybe I’m thinking of a discussion on a different forum.
2 Likes
The one ‘that’ appears to be a typo.
Have you checked other translations?
I believe it’s not intentional.
Bhante Sujato has a note at his translation of SN 12.37:2.3:
In translation, it is conventional to differentiate the pronouns for comprehensibility. However, while Pali can readily distinguish “this” from “that”, here we have different forms of the same pronoun idaṁ, chosen to indicate something present. In Upaniṣadic language, the use of repeated demonstrative pronouns asserts absolute identity, which the Buddha subverts (see notes at SN 12.17:5.1, MN 22:15.10, MN 38:2.2, DN 6:15.5). “This”, it turns out, is a constant state of coming into being and disappearing, “arising as one thing and ceasing as another” (aññadeva uppajjati aññaṁ nirujjhati, SN 12.61:4.1).
So I take it it’s an oversight when he was editing his translation. Perhaps you post it in the “mistakes and typos” thread.
3 Likes
I find dependent origination confusing as this and that are central to it. Language is not really up to the job of explaining spiritual or esoteric concepts. I thought about mistakes thread but honestly wasn’t sure it was a mistake.
2 Likes
For Bhante, it seems to be a mistake. He has edited the “that” to “this” everywhere, except for here.
3 Likes