On not-self, existence, and ontological strategies

[mikenz66]

@CurlyCarl

Its seems rather ironic defending Thanissaro (who translated “sabbato pabhaṁ” as “luminous all around”) with Sujato’s translation of “entirely given up”. You may need to ask Bhante Sujato (with metta) why he translated “sabbato pabhaṁ” as “entirely given up”.

pabhā
feminine
light, radiance, shine

Its seems in MN 49, the Buddha did not “give up” all consciousness because, while the Buddha vanished from the sight of Brahma, the Buddha continued to use psychic powers.

Here’s a place where Bhante @Sujato discusses this point:

@sujato

Awesome essay, venerable, thanks so much. It makes a lot of sense, especially the idea of anidassana being equivalent to arūpa. We’d certainly find, I think, that a closer look at the Upanishads reveals more references to something like the dimension of infinite consciousness.

I also like the idea of swapping the sequence of terms. You are quite right, this is the kind of thing that is done all the time, and clearly ananta should be taken as the primary adjective. Maybe I’ll update my translation.

@sabbamitta

the radiance seems to have disappeared

The term pa[b]haṁ has two readings, from pajahati “giving up” or pabhā “light”. There’s no really strong reason to choose one or the other, so I am open to being persuaded!