Pali Course Overflow Discussions

Events Pali Course
44

Sorry for jumping in,

I do not know to what extent you already discussed the term anattā in private, but to add some thoughts (having taught Pāli for 8 years), I don’t really agree with Gombrich here. While it does look like anattā grammatically is inflected as a noun and not an adjective, there is no meaningful difference between “is not-the-self” and “is without a self”, pragmatically speaking at the very least. And I even wonder whether linguistically there really even is a difference.

To illustrate, in SN22.85 it is said: Anattaṁ rūpaṁ ‘anattā rūpan’ti yathābhūtaṁ pajānāti. Here anattaṁ rūpaṁ (where anattaṃ is definitely an adjective since it agrees with rupaṃ and later changes to anatte sankhāre) and anattā rupaṃ (where anattā seems to inflect like a noun) are synonymous. (Compare also other phrases in the sutta, such as, sankhataṁ rūpaṁ ‘sankhataṁ rūpan’ti yathābhūtaṁ pajānāti.) So in all other instances of rupaṃ anattā I would say this applies to. Translations like ‘form is not-self’ are not proper English which is why I prefer to just translate it as an adjective: ‘form is without a self’. Nor is ‘form is not-self’ much more literal, because ‘not-self’ is still an adjective, not a noun.

What may be going on here is that anattā is inflected the way it usually is (i.e. seemingly as a noun), because it’s just an inversion of the positive statements, like rupaṃ attā, ‘form is the self’. The Buddha’s reply puts an- in front of attā but “forgets” to inflect the resulting compound as an adjective. I don’t think this has any philosophical ideas behind it; it’s just a linguistic issue. In other words, ‘not the self’ and ‘without a self’ are for all purposes the same thing. If the real reply was meant to just be ‘form is not the self’ (implying something else is the self) I would also expect na rupaṃ attā, not rupaṃ anattā.

It may also be that anattā is an irregular adjective, one that inflects like nouns in -an. I wouldn’t rule that out completely.

To briefly comment on the philosophical side of things, the Buddha didn’t just target Brahmanism with such statements. Annihilationists and various other people also claimed there to be a self, even impermanent selves. The Buddha was opposed to such ideas just as much as he was to Brahmanism. I think Gombrich is a bit overly focused on the Brahmanical side of things, if this is indeed his argument.

Also, as a Pali teacher I would echo earlier statements that you can’t really take translation apart from interpretation.

6 Likes
45

Yes, thanks for the great point.

Where ever one looks, or whatever one thinks, all things are without a self, not the self, a self cannot be found there.

2 Likes
46

You may be right, but I think you may be missing the point.

Uppādāsutta (AN 3.136) is clearly satirical, and is clearly targeting Brahminism. The humour in the sutta is obvious: the Buddha starts by saying effectively whether you realise it or not, the “self standing regular and invariant principles” apply. This is a dig at Vedic notions of dhamma. And the Buddha is trying to parody the pompous style of Vedic literature.

The Buddha then makes a simple statement in each of the paragraphs, describing a Vedic technical terms reframed as a Buddhist statement. Thus in each statement he demolishes traditional Vedic views whilst embracing the Buddhist alternative.

In other words, “volitional thought processes” are impermanent (contrasting with Vedic thinking which postulate an Eternal Self), the results of those processes will be unsatisfactory (again, contrasting with Vedic notion of eternal bliss), and finally the “regular and invariant principles” themselves are faulty and there is in fact no Eternal Self.

[Note that this does not imply there is no self, the ātman/atta is a technical Vedic term, so by saying anatta the Buddha is denying that such a concept exists, not necessarily saying “there is no self” but instead avoiding making a statement about what self is. This is a subtle but important point.]

All stated with dry humour, including saying he will explain everything and it turns out he is just repeating the statement(s). Cue laughter track.

So I agree with Gombrich (or rather, we both concur), the humour and satire alone makes it clear the Buddha was targeting brahminists, but done in a framework that reinforces the core tenets of Buddhist teaching.

Everyone seems to be hung up on discussing what “self” may or may not be. The Buddha has already pointed out via the tetralemma such discussions are not productive. That’s why I prefer not to engage in such discussions.

1 Like
47

https://suttacentral.net/an4.34/en/sujato?lang=en&layout=sidebyside&reference=none&notes=asterisk&highlight=false&script=latin

This sutta is a good reference to see a range of uses for the word dhamma, and also how it relates to the conditioned and the unconditioned, sankhata and asankhata.

48

Thank you very much.

I have been trying to search for suttas containing the word asaṅkhata since it occurs relatively rarely in the Pali Tipiṭaka (according to DPD, only 10 times in the VInaya, 15 times in DN, 19 times in MN and 29 times in SN). It’s good to see a sutta where saṅkhata and asaṅkhata are placed side by side, which is rare indeed.

According to Gombrich, the definition of saṅkhata:

… is intimately related to saṃkhārā, … In fact, saṃkhata is the past participle of the verb which gives us the noun saṃkhārā. So when the latter denotes a ‘construction’ or ‘formation’ in the sense of the result of a process of constructing or forming, it is synonymous with calling that thing saṃkhata.

Based on this, and seeing the word used in context, I would not translate saṅkhata and asaṅkhata as “conditioned” and “unconditioned”, respectively.

I have never liked those translations (conditioned and unconditioned). According to the Oxford Dictionary (3rd ed):

conditioned, ppl. a.
[f. CONDITION n. and v.: prob. originally after med.L. conditiōnātus
I. From the n.
1. a. Of persons: Having a (specified) disposition or temperament; -disposed, -tempered, -natured.
b. Having a (specified) social condition;
2. Of things: In a (specified) condition or state; having a certain condition or nature.
3. Placed or set in certain conditions, circumstances, or relations; circumstanced, situated.
II. From the v.
4. Settled on conditions; stipulated, bargained.
5. Dependent upon conditions, conditional. Obs.
6. Subjected to conditions or limitations.
7. a. Dependent upon, or determined by, an antecedent condition.
b. conditioned reflex, a reflex or reflex action which through habit or training has been induced to follow a stimulus not naturally associated with it (cf. UNCONDITIONED ppl. a.). So conditioned inhibition, response, stimulus.
c. Taught or accustomed to accept or adopt cetain habits, attitudes, standards, etc.
8. absol. the conditioned: a. Applied to the consequent in a conditional proposition.
b. Metaph. That which is subject to the conditions of finite existence and cognition; opposed to the unconditioned, absolute, or infinite.
9. Used absol. = Provided, on the condition.
10. Of air: purified and having had its temperature, humidity, etc., adjusted.

Of all these meanings, the one that makes sense from a Buddhist perspective is probably the metaphysical one (8a) although one could also argue from Dependent Origination meanings 7a, 7b and to a lesser extent 7c also apply.

I would need to do more research before I am comfortable with translating saṅkhata and asaṅkhata, but I am going with Gombrich’s explanation for the time being, but also bearing in mind the definition in the CPD:

put together, compound; conditioned, produced by a combination of causes, “created,” brought about as effect of actions in former births

To me, asaṅkhata is not “unconditioned” but the absence of saṅkhata, not necessarily the negation of saṅkhata. This would explain it’s relative rarity in the Tipiṭaka.

As for the various uses of the word dhamma, I think it is important to realise because AN 3.136 is a satirical rebuttal of Vedic beliefs, we can’t use Buddhist definitions of the word but have to rely on the pre-Buddhist use of the word, which is intimately related to brahminism.

To quote from Monier-Williams, dharma is (abbreviated - the overall entry is quite long):

  • that which is established or firm, steadfast decree, statute, ordinance, law
  • usage, practice, customary observance or prescribed conduct, duty
  • right, justice (often as a synonym of punishment)
  • virtue, morality, religion, religious merit, good works (dharmeṇa ind. or °māt ind. according to right or rule, rightly, justly, according to the nature of anything; cf. below; °mesthita mfn. holding to the law, doing one’s duty),
  • … (elided for simplicity)

Note that my translation is very much in accordance with the above. In particular, I do not believe dharma should be translated as “things”, that would be a very inaccurate rendition of what the word means.

In the sutta you referenced, I don’t believe the phrase dhammā saṅkhatā vā asaṅkhatā should be translated as “all things whether conditioned or unconditioned”.

Rather, I would rely on the interpretation of dhamma as “nature, character, peculiar condition or essential quality, property, mark, peculiarity”

So my preliminary translation is that this refers to “the nature of results of volitional thought processes, or their absence”. As you can see, this translation fits a lot better within the context of the sutta, which talks about madanimmadano pipāsavinayo ālayasamugghāto vaṭṭupacchedo taṇhākkhayo virāgo nirodho nibbānaṁ which are indeed related to the fading away of results from volitional thought processes.

In particular, sujato’s translation “Fading away is said to be the best of all things whether conditioned or unconditioned” does not make sense, since it would imply we also need to fade away the “unconditioned” which is what we are trying to achieve in the first place.

1 Like
49

The word dhamma comes from the root √dhar , which means to hold or carry. I think that all of the meanings of the word are connected with this notions of holding. When it indicates “things”, or “phenomena”, the word dhamma indicates that which holds characteristics (which is basically anything we can cognize). This meaning is very prominent in the abhidhamma literature, with the definitions of specific and general characteristics of the dhammas. Although it is not EBT, it gives us some indication of the usage of the word dhamma in the Buddhist communities and how the suttas were understood in the first centuries of Buddhist history. I do not think it is a good idea to interpret the meaning of dhamma in all suttas as referring to how the tradition of bhramanism uses the word in the upanishads, etc.
Concerning asankhata, in the suttas it is not described as simply an absence. It is clear from some suttas for example that mahaparinibbana is not simply extinction. Otherwise the Buddha would have said that tathagathas do not exist after death (rather than negating the tetrallemma of their existence, non-existence, both or neither).

50

Then how do you justify this reflection/description on/of not-self which appears several times such as in MN109 or the Anattalakkhaṇasutta:

Part of it extracted: rūpaṁ anattā, vedanā anattā, saññā anattā, saṅkhārā anattā, viññāṇaṁ anattā

It follows the same grammatical format “plural-subject anattā”

This is talking about Brahmanical soul? Or does it sound more like “You are not my self, this forum is not my self”

What do you think, mendicants?
Taṁ kiṁ maññatha, bhikkhave,
Is form permanent or impermanent?”
rūpaṁ niccaṁ vā aniccaṁ vā”ti?

“Impermanent, sir.”
“Aniccaṁ, bhante”.

“But if it’s impermanent, is it suffering or happiness?”
“Yaṁ panāniccaṁ dukkhaṁ vā taṁ sukhaṁ vā”ti?

“Suffering, sir.”
“Dukkhaṁ, bhante”.

“But if it’s impermanent, suffering, and perishable, is it fit to be regarded thus:
“Yaṁ panāniccaṁ dukkhaṁ vipariṇāmadhammaṁ, kallaṁ nu taṁ samanupassituṁ:
‘This is mine, I am this, this is my self’?”
‘etaṁ mama, esohamasmi, eso me attā’”ti?

“No, sir.”
“No hetaṁ, bhante”.

(iterates for the other 4 aggregates)

Even though it has in the same order as “anicca, dukkha, anatta”, let’s suppose the structure in AN 3.136 is still yet unrelated to these other suttas. Then, it wouldn’t change that the suttas claim that those things are not-self in the sense of a general selfish view.

Let’s suppose that these suttas about aggregates being notself are either “post-Buddha” or are also supposed to be about Brahmanical dharma and soul: how could the wisdom leading to enlightenment be specifically about Brahmanical soul when many beings in saṁsara don’t know what that is? The belief in Brahmanical soul causes all war, terror, and fear in the world? Does avijja means something else?

For example here’s the end of that sutta:

“So you should truly see any kind of form at all—past, future, or present; internal or external; coarse or fine; inferior or superior; far or near: all form—with right understanding: ‘This is not mine, I am not this, this is not my self.’

You should truly see any kind of feeling … perception … choices … consciousness at all—past, future, or present; internal or external; coarse or fine; inferior or superior; far or near, all consciousness—with right understanding: ‘This is not mine, I am not this, this is not my self.’

Seeing this, a learned noble disciple grows disillusioned with form, feeling, perception, choices, and consciousness.

Being disillusioned, desire fades away. When desire fades away they’re freed. When they’re freed, they know they’re freed.

They understand: ‘Rebirth is ended, the spiritual journey has been completed, what had to be done has been done, there is no return to any state of existence.’”

And if beings inherently believe in Brahmanical soul, then isn’t that no different from the regular default selfishness which is described here?

And even if it is a parody of Brahmanism, why can’t it have this meaning or even double meaning rather than same exclusive Vedic meaning of each word.

You may be dissatisfied with the “is” in “all things are not-self”, because you can just see that on both sides of the equation that these aren’t the same, but the idea of something being something can include processes in-between. Not only are things not self, they aren’t mine and aren’t owned by me, which is more personally relatable. You can expand this to 36 or 108 views AN 4.199.

Finally, one can also just see whether these things are true or false for themselves in meditation. This matters much more than learning texts. Self view happens everywhere, hiding in plain sight in so many perceptions and reactions. This correlates and leads to desire and clinging and suffering as it says.

The first sutta quote also asks for each aggregate if they are anicca, then dukkha. These suttas include saṅkhārā as one of such aggregates that are anicca and dukkha, which means that volition is just one category of the full “sabbe saṅkhārā anicca” which would therefore have the more general meaning of saṅkhāra, which is how some words work, sometimes words exist on varying levels of vagueness which depends on context (the context here being the other 4 aggregates). Like in English, consciousness can mean a lot of vague things such as soul.

I don’t actually agree with you or John Kelly on why it’s dhammā as I hinted once because why not ask why the other two are saṅkhāra in the first place? I don’t see the third statement as some kind of exception. But I think it’s ultimately about namarupa where the impermanent idea of something becomes a selfish object of attachment, but that could apply any (impermanent name-and-form of) permanent thing like facts, falsities, math, logic, or teachings, and I don’t think nibbāna out of all of those was specifically why it’s ‘dhammā’ (but it’s technically true that nibbāna is not-self).

But I don’t care to avoid hearing other people’s opinions, it’s kind of unavoidable, and I delight in taking them with discernment. I’m around people filled with selfishness daily outside of Buddhist circles anyway, and I wouldn’t place teachers as the role of necessarily knowing everything either. Although it could be uncomfortable if someone presents their view as dogma, it looked like his intention was just to explain a translation.

51

I am sorry, but I think you are over-reaching here. Words derived from the root do not always correspond to the meaning of the root. I gave the definition of dharma from Monier-Williams, the word does not mean “things” or “phenomena”. We can’t just add definitions to a “static” or “fossilised” language like Pali - it does not evolve. Even in Sanskrit, the word has very specific meanings.

I understand that dhamma is sometimes translated as “phenomena” in some English translations and Buddhist literature. I don’t agree with those. I like to understand the Buddha’s teachings in the way he originally intended, not the way someone has translated it.

Perhaps this excerpt from Sujato’s “A History of Mindfulness” may illustrate the issue of misunderstanding the Buddha’s teachings based on misconceptions and preconceptions. I have altered the excerpt to make it more relevant - my changes are in (parentheses). Feel free to read the original if you prefer:

An aspiring (student) first learns from the lips of a teacher whose words as they utter them must be the very latest formulation of the topic. Then they might go back to read some of the works of well-known contemporary teachers. Since devotees usually have faith that their teacher (or the teacher’s teacher) was enlightened, they assume, often without reflection, that the teachings must be in accord with the Buddha. Finally, if they are really dedicated, they may go back to read (the actual teachings). Once they come to the text itself, they are already pre-programmed to read the text in a certain way. It takes guts to question one’s teachers; and it takes not just guts, but time and effort to question intelligently.

And therefore:

Our first step must be to forget all we’ve learnt about (the Buddha’s teachings), and to start again from the bottom up.

Now that you know how to read Pali, I strongly encourage you to practice this - read and interpret everything yourself, don’t rely on what a translation or a teacher has told you. You’ll find that often translations are just wrong. Of course, you could be the one that’s wrong, but over time you’ll figure it out.

To me, this is the biggest advantage and motivation for learning Pali - discovering the words of the Buddha ourselves, instead of relying on someone telling us what they mean.

52

You absolutely right, I concur that the Buddha was intending the statements to be read in multiple ways. You are also very insightful that the structure of this sutta closely parallels the Anattalakkhaṇasutta and this is absolutely intentional.

This is why I like this sutta so much. A brahmin will read it as the Buddha refuting Vedic beliefs. A Buddhist will read it as the Buddha confirming or restating the core principles of anicca, dukkha, and anatta as you’ve discerned.

From a Buddhist perspective, saṃkhārā can sometimes be shorthand for the khandhas, for it is volitional thinking acting on craving that drives the “blazing mass of fuel” as Gombrich so eloquently refers to the khandhas. And similar dhamma can sometimes be a shorthand for all the principles and characteristics we associate with a self. So in this way, the statements are also quite meaningful even if you don’t believe or understand Vedic philosophy.

Another way to interpret “Sabbe dhammā anattā” is that all principles and laws are in fact man-made. They arose out of our khandhas, and therefore are a reflection of our perceptions of ourselves. These principles, if they exist, are not part of ourselves and should not be manifestations of ourselves.

However, we are now venturing in the category of interpretation rather than translation of Pali. Which is an area I prefer not to indulge in, as I mentioned. Different people interpret the Buddha’s teachings differently. Each person believes their own interpretation must be correct, and others must have wrong views. So we engage in passionate, and often heated, arguments on this forum and elsewhere.

My perspective is simple. If one is correct, one will be enlightened. And if one is enlightened, one will realise these arguments are not productive, and will not participate. If one is not enlightened, one is best served by keeping one’s wrong views to oneself, and continue trying to understand and practice the Buddha’s teachings until one becomes enlightened.

The Buddha kept silent when Vacchagotta asked him a question about the self. We could all learn from the Buddha.

1 Like
53

this entry gives a vast overview of the sort of meanings dhamma takes in pali texts: as object of manas, as good behavior, as natural principle, etc.

And this is a study by Ruperth Gethin on the meaning of dhamma in the pali nikayas.

read and interpret everything yourself, don’t rely on what a translation or a teacher has told you.

Even though we want to reach a direct understanding of reality, in studying the texts we’ll need to rely on tools such as dictionaries, comparative works such as the ones Bikkhu Analayo produced, etc. Our interpretations do not come from a vacuous space, but reflect the previous experience of past practitioners, past researchers, etc. Personally, I take the perspective of orientalist researcher as less relevant than asian sources due to the effects of the so common imperialistic mindset in approaching buddhist cultures. The idea that we can skip all of tradition and directly access the Buddha is tricky. We will have to rely on “baggage”, such as the studies relating words to their past context, or established traditions that reflect ancient interpretations. And most of all, we’ll have to rely on the baggage of the texts themselves, which are the fruit of past tradition, rather than teachings authored by the Buddha himself.
Probabbly the only way of actually becoming independent is to attain sottapanna and see the dhamma directly for oneself.

1 Like
54

One thing you may want to consider is that dictionaries are not perfect. Especially Pali-English dictionaries, which were initially compiled by reverse-engineering existing translations of that time, which may be faulty. That’s why I quoted from Monier-Williams. Sanskrit is a much more studied language, and therefore the dictionaries are more likely to be reliable.

You now have the ability to understand Pali text. That is indeed a precious attainment that few on this forum have. Use it wisely, and apply your critical thinking processes to discern what is true, and what is not. The Buddha taught in a clear and easy to understand way. I find (most) of the suttas fairly straightforward and easy to understand. Practising what they say is another matter - that’s personal practice which we are not supposed to discuss on this forum.

I don’t mean to dismiss other people’s views, especially those of experienced scholars and practitioners. But one should critically evaluate them too and not just accept them. There has been so much research done that questions the traditional interpretations - we now know the commentaries can be wrong, translations can be wrong, and somethings even the suttas can be “wrong” (or at least inconsistent). Sujato, Bodhi, Gombrich, Polak, Anālayo and many others have shown us examples of things that have been misinterpreted for centuries. We should aim to follow in their footsteps and discover things for ourselves.

56

Nice to hear

I prefer/try to take the suttas, the Buddha’s words, and other teachers’ words as mere suggestions myself. You can probably relate with this. Why: I don’t know if the Buddha said those things for sure and I don’t know if those things are true. Also, if I hold onto a view, even if I’m sure it’s correct, and eventually either learn that’s it’s not correct or doubt it, then I would suffer.

The same principle I just mentioned can be applied to this. I think proper debate is very helpful in questioning the finer parts of your views. They do this in some of Tibetan Buddhism. Other people, as if like teachers, can potentially help me see what a text actually meant or what the truth actually is. I don’t listen to them just wanting to agree, but if they happen to be right, then it’s like a shortcut to truth.

And of course once such a line is crossed, then we would just suffer more, and the Buddha talked about this. But again I really like proper arguments when you and the other person are ready to completely change your mind over anything yet also defend what’s right.

57

I couldn’t agree more with this. When I left working life, I thought I would devote some time to understanding Buddhism and I had a goal to summarise all of Buddha’s teachings as a set of diagrams plus accompanying text. I also wanted to learn Abhidhamma.

I quickly encountered obstacle after obstacle. I realised it’s impossible to truly understand the teachings unless I learnt Pali, and some concepts were very difficult to summarise in a diagram. I also discovered many people (on this forum, mainly, I don’t have many Buddhist friends) seem to have a completely different understanding of the Buddha’s teachings than me, and they were using terminology I was entirely unfamiliar with.

I started by reading the suttas from suttacentral using sujato’s translations, and I was quickly bogged down. Some of them seemed incomprehensible to me. I then started reading a bunch of other books, I also browsed through many journals inclusing PTS and JOCBS amongst others. I started reading Indian literature, starting with the Mahabharata.

A year and a half later, I now have a completely different perspective on Buddhism. In fact, I would say my views in many respects have moved to the complete opposite of what they were a year ago. Was I wrong then? Probably? Am I wrong now? Quite possibly, although I am more confident.

I do find the suttas more comprehensible now that I am reading them in Pali. As you say though, are they really the teachings of the Buddha or corrupted versions altered by monks over centuries? I do find it easier to navigate through what seemed like a maze before and everything seems to integrate together and seems to be relatively straightforward. I am now starting to differentiate what I believe to have been taught by the Buddha himself, and what appeared to have been added later, potentially borrowed from Vedic and Jain beliefs.

I don’t regard my views as representing “mainstream” Buddhism and I am aware many people are extremely uncomfortable with them. If they knew the full extent of my views, I suspect they would be even more uncomfortable. One advantage of these forums is that you find a wide variety of people with quite diverse views, so I challenge myself all the time. Did I interpret this right? What are the consequences if I am wrong? Fortunately, I do have one yardstick: the view that is more likely to lead to right behaviour is probably better than the view that may lead to the wrong behaviour.

Accusing someone of being wrong or deluded is definitely the wrong behaviour. Challenging someone for the sake of challenging does not serve any purpose. For now, if someone disagrees with me, I accept that they have a different opinion. It may or may not cause me to change my opinion. I will admit my opinions have also shifted as a result of some posts I have read - I thank the posters for guiding me to a better set of views.

I wish you the best in your own path. I have always appreciated our interactions, you have consistently displayed humility and a desire to learn that many, including myself, could do well to emulate.

1 Like
58

@moderators, I wonder if it is time to close this thread and maybe even unlist it as well? (I split it off from the regular Pali class thread because it diverged from course content.)

3 Likes
59

On what basis are you suggesting that the thread should be unlisted or closed? I’m interested. I was under the impression translations of EBT texts are a valid discussion topic on this forum. Am I wrong?

1 Like
60

Hi all,
Just a reminder to keep the discussion in this thread friendly and respectful to all members (monastic and others). If the discussion keeps like that, we’ll be happy to leave the thread open.
Regards,
suaimhneas (on behalf of the moderators)

1 Like
61

Dear all,

I’m no longer in @johnk’s class any more as I have made a commitment to attend another class and my aging brain cells can’t deal with too much new info. :smiley:

As a former teacher, I’d compare this to songs. I studied French nearly 50 years ago, but I can still remember the song the teacher taught and also the meaning of each word as well as the grammar in the said song.

Language is a means of communication and thus reflects the culture and etc of the speaker. As a professional translator, I’ve learnt that to give a best translation, one has to understand the unwritten context of the source text.

In this case, one can never truly understand the language of the suttas without understanding what the Buddha taught.

1 Like
62

Thanks for this. It is a perspective I had not considered before, and a very valid one.

I’ve never chanted any suttas, so I did not really relate to it, especially when I did not understand Pali. Now that I know (just a little bit), perhaps it may be more meaningful to me in the future. I still find it difficult to understand Pali when it’s chanted.

But I understand what you mean. I was motivated to learn Italian and German after listening to some operas. And of course some people sing arias without necessarily understanding each word and that’s okay.

Agree. Equally one can also say one can never truly understand what the Buddha taught without understanding the language of the suttas.

My concern was trying to grapple with both at the same time, especially when one is trying to learn the language, and not necessarily familiar with all the Buddha’s teachings. It’s too much for me, especially since I am relative (actually, I would say, absolute) beginner in Buddhism.

It’s hard enough to try and understand what the words mean in a text and trying to translate them. To add in another layer of theological opinions - for example whether nibbāna is anattā or not, just adds another level of complexity that I think is more appropriate discussed separately.

All I was asking for was that we separate discussing how to interpret and translate the actual words separate from discussing concepts not directly mentioned. I was actually glad that @johnk took this request on board and in the most recent lesson he discussed the opening paragraph to Maṅgalasutta and he translated that, and I was very appreciative that he did that.

63

LOL! This is a bad example. Not that you cited a bad example, but this topic has been discussed widely in Thailand and some people even write a book on it. So, it’s a topic we should avoid at the beginning.

May I slightly disagree here?

I believe that a good teacher is not only to ‘teach’ but to ‘inform’ and to ‘educate’.

Even though I disagree with some concepts and some people, I still provide my students with all relevant info that I’m aware of so that they are aware, and with this awareness, in the future, they can explore broadly and inclusively if they so wish.

64

I was aware it is a complex topic. I wouldn’t say it was a bad example, but a deep and complex one. At this stage in my learning, I don’t think I can offer an opinion on it. I know that it is cited by several people, Rahula also mentions it in his book, and Gombrich also says nibbāna is dhamma, but he stops short of saying nibbāna is anatta.

Agree. I do believe @johnk had nothing but the best intentions when he offered that explanation post class. The issue is me, not him. Like I said, this is too much for me handle at once. It is difficult enough for me to grasp the fundamental teachings in Pali, let alone advanced concepts.

1 Like