But what does the modifier ‘snow’ mean in connection to ‘gold’ to an English speaker?
Would it mean ‘gold as pure as untainted snow’?
Or ‘white gold’?
I’m afraid I don’t understand the simile.
(I already struggle with a complexion like a jujube! )
Again, that’s one of the means of poetry. If we wanted all meaning to lie on the surface, everything would be prose and the world would be a duller place.
In this case, they can if they like check the footnote:
Hema (“snow gold”) evokes the golden radiance of a snowy mountain in the dawn light, a blessing of the gods that, it may easily be imagined, leaves its traces in the gold found in abundance in its streams.
3 Likes
Now that’s poetic!
‘
3 Likes
Here’s some Shelley:
Far, far above, piercing the infinite sky,
Mont Blanc appears—still, snowy, and serene;
Its subject mountains their unearthly forms
Pile around it, ice and rock; broad vales between
Of frozen floods, unfathomable deeps,
Blue as the overhanging heaven,
2 Likes
Yeah, I agree.
My dislike of the rendering is the repetition of the clunky, ordinary “gold.” Surely at least one of those could be replaced by a more rarified synonym: gilt? auric?
1 Like
I quite like her work! And also those of early PTS school, with an emphasis on musicality. Not always useful to me when translating - though perhaps, I should remember to look it up for interesting phrasings she has.
I like this a lot!
That’s what I like about translating poetry as well - being able to showcase interesting cultural artifacts to a sort of people / culture that’s unfamiliar with it.
So I’m going to go back to the snow-gold duality:
“Kar-altını gibi pirüpak;
Güneş-altını gibi parlak.”
Clear like snow-gold, bright like sun-gold. In 9 count and rhymes. 
2 Likes
Bhante, another one of your essays come to my aid again (perhaps we should collect all these in a book!):
Seeing how you’ve raised the black flag on this term against all other translators, let’s dive into it. 
Thig 13.5:
Seeing fear in substantial reality,
Sakkāyasmiṁ bhayaṁ disvā,
I longed for renunciation.
nekkhammameva pīhaye.
I remember I used it before in Thig 8.1 & Thig 6.7 as well.
I find the arguments (& conclusion to substance) strong and the research is amazing, but the “Substantial Reality” too wordy and honestly, doesn’t it sound like a fancy way to say saṁsara (which is how the verse here reads to me)?
Like, I feel that refers to reality, for example, apples, chairs, cars, when it’s explicitly upādānakkhandhā in the suttas, composition of sentient beings and the wrong view of clinging to that composition as me? Something like avatar and avatar-view.
For me, there’s two points we need to satisfy:
- Sakkāya is five-clinging aggregates - this is right view.
- Sakkāyaditthi is wrong view born of clinging to aggregates, abhinivissa into aggregates, kind of like the opposite of anatta.
I think Constitution or Composition fit the bill. Former might be confused with law - but I like Composition (or Bünye in Turkish).
Interestingly enough, these are words you’ve never used the word in the suttas, Bhante.
Also, V. Ñānamoli’s “Embodiment” is another interesting translation, IMO (another word you’ve never used!).
I agree with V. Bodhi that it’s darn hard! 
1 Like
All valid possibilities, I think. “Constitution” is particularly intriguing.
2 Likes
Thank you for these interesting ideas.
‘Embodiment’ is interesting, I found it defined as, “ The embodiment of something gives concrete form to an abstract idea. “
It seems similar to ‘reify’- “To regard or treat (an abstraction) as if it had concrete or material existence. “
Surely ‘the body’ is ‘real’, but ownership is mistaken. So it seems that ‘embodiment’ is the mistaken ‘view’ of the ‘body’ due to clinging, or ‘taking up’ as ‘mine’.
I like ‘composition’ as well, as it seems to hint at ‘fabrication’, or sankhara.
The mistaken view takes that which is fabricated due to conditions as atta.
It seems to me that the aggregates themselves are an ‘empirical reality’, what’s not real is the ownership.
Sakkāyasmiṁ bhayaṁ disvā
Having seen the danger in embodiment…
Hmm….
1 Like
Thanks for the kind words - it’s so encouraging to know that my inquiries are interesting to other people as well.
I thought of that as well and wasn’t sure if it was a good thing or a bad thing! But perhaps it could be an alternative translation for saṅkhāra/saṅkhata on its own.
One thing to consider is what view for translation. V. Ñānamoli has “Embodiment View”, for Constitution, it’d be “Constitutionalist View” (Or “Compositionalist View”). All are fine specimens of Buddhist English Hybrid abominations (though I think “Constitutionalist View” might work). 
1 Like
“Constitutionalist view” sounds like something the American Supreme Court might argue about!
I would definitely avoid that.
It seems that any translation needs to be glossed, and probably the Pali does as well!
“Substantial Reality” is something I might read in a philosophy paper with a lot of footnotes. I don’t think it has a stand alone meaning.
(I note that Norman has, “seeing fear in individuality”)
I’m wondering what the phrase “bhayam disva” actually means. How do you ‘see fear’ in something? Is that “being scared”? or “see the danger of”?
It reminded me of something Ven Nanavira wrote about the term:
“ To have ditthi about sakkāya is not an optional matter (as if one could regard sakkāya from the outside and form ditthi about it or not, as one pleased): sakkāya contains sakkāyaditthi (in a latent form at least) as a necessary part of its structure.[d] If there is sakkāya there is sakkāyaditthi , and with the giving up of sakkāyaditthi there comes to be cessation of sakkāya . To give up sakkāyaditthi , sakkāya must be seen (i.e. as pañc’upādānakkhandhā ), and this means that the puthujjana does not see pañc’upādānakkhandhā as such”
“ An arahat (while alive—that is, if we can speak of a 'living arahat ') continues to be individual in the sense that ‘he’ is a sequence of states (Theragāthā v. 716)[13] distinguishable from other arahanto (and a fortiori from individuals other than arahanto ). Every set of pañcakkhandhā [a]—not pañc’upādānakkhandhā in the arahat 's case—is unique, and individuality in this sense ceases only with the final cessation of the pañcakkhandhā at the breaking up of the arahat 's body. But a living arahat is no longer somebody or a person , since the notion or conceit ‘(I) am’ has already ceased. Individuality must therefore be carefully distinguished from personality ,[b] which is: being a person, being somebody, being a subject (to whom objects are present), selfhood, the mirage ‘I am’, and so on”
2 Likes
But yeah, I think all translation attempts need a glossary it seems. Can’t really get around that.
While I understand the sentiment behind self-view, identity, individuality etc. I’m now beginning to see why people always say “Self is just khandas” even though khandas are explicitly not self. When sakkāya is translated as self-like items repeatedly, we get this weird territory.
Actually, V. Sujato has translated bhayaṁ disva differently in other places (which I think makes more sense):
Seeing the danger in continued existence—
‘Bhavevāhaṁ bhayaṁ disvā MN49
Seeing this peril in death,
Etaṁ bhayaṁ maraṇe pekkhamāno AN3.51
Seeing the peril in the hells,
Nirayesu bhayaṁ disvā AN5.179
For reference, here’s the -a/-ana affix in Māgadhabhāsa:
Ṭhānuttamo Bhikkhu
-a/-ṇa: (a) This affix forms an extremely large number of derivatives, some of which undergo increase (vuddhi) 188 and some of which do not. (b) With a near-by object, it may form nouns carrying a future sense (e.g. nagara + √kara + ṇa + si [o] → nagarakāro – “the [would-be] city planner”; Kacc 654). (c) It forms nouns (substantive nouns and adjectives), indicating or standing for:
– Personal names (e.g. ari + √damu + a + si [o] → arindamo – “the one who subdues the enemy”; Kacc 525 – no increase).
– Action (e.g. √paca + a + si [o] → pāko – “the act of cooking”;
– Kacc 525 – no increase, 529 – increase).
– Doer or agent (e.g. √cara + a + si [o] → cāro and caro – “a spy”; Kacc 524 – increase).
– Abstract nouns of action (e.g. √kara + a + si [o] → karo – “action,” “making”).
– It forms adjectives (e.g. √kara + a → kāra – “doing,” “making”; also kara – “causing,” “making”).
-a: forms substantive nouns and adjectives, conveying the following:
– Possessiveness (e.g. paññā + a + si [o] → pañño –
“one having wisdom”; Kacc 370).
– Belonging to (Kacc 352).
– Collection of (Kacc 352).
– Study, knowledge of, knowing (Kacc 352).
– Periods of time (Kacc 352).
– Action.
– Doer or agent.
– Patronymics (Kacc 344).
– Abstract nouns of action (cf. Kacc 361).
– That which is dyed with (Kacc 352).
– The flesh of.
– The locality in which something or someone is or exists (Kacc 352).
– Domain (Kacc 352).
– Devotion (Kacc 352).
My emphasis in bold, interesting. Embodiment would fit this perspective, I think.
1 Like
Yes, good points.
Bhayam certainly can mean ‘fear’, (Dhammapada 215, n’atthi soko kuto bhayam’ comes to mind. )
But in this and the other contexts you cited, danger/peril is better. (The cause of fear).
I see Cone has, in addition to fear and danger, ‘dangerous, risky’ with Dhammapada 123 cited.
(Just like a merchant …avoids a dangerous / risky path…)
1 Like
Going through Thig 13.5.
Giving up my family circle,
Hitvānahaṁ ñātigaṇaṁ,
bonded servants and workers,
dāsakammakarāni ca;
and my flourishing villages and lands,
Gāmakhettāni phītāni,
so delightful and pleasant,
ramaṇīye pamodite.
Norman, Vs. Sujato, Thanissaro all read this as “Villages & Fields”, V. Mahinda has “Village, fields” and Ayya Soma has “Village fields”.
Commentary says it can mean both “Villages & Fields” or “Village Fields”. I can understand a rich girl abandoning “village & fields” or “(village) country fields” but I find the reading of “villages” in plural curious.
I think I agree with Ayya Soma that it makes more sense to read “Village fields”?
Money or gold
Rajataṁ jātarūpaṁ vā,
doesn’t lead to peace and awakening.
na bodhāya na santiyā;
It doesn’t befit an ascetic,
Netaṁ samaṇasāruppaṁ,
it’s not the wealth of the noble ones;
na etaṁ ariyaddhanaṁ.it’s just greed and vanity,
Lobhanaṁ madanañcetaṁ,
confusion and growing decadence,
mohanaṁ rajavaḍḍhanaṁ;
A bit pedantic difference, but these terms mean gold causes “greed, madness, confusion and decadence”?
Of course with poetic license it makes sense but I’m also trying to break down the grammar and learn along.
I also find it intriguing that √mad is essentially the same mad in English. madanaṃ sounds exactly the same as “maddening”!
dubious, troublesome—
Sāsaṅkaṁ bahuāyāsaṁ,
there is nothing lasting there.
natthi cettha dhuvaṁ ṭhiti.
Vs. Thanissaro & Mahinda opt for “Stability” in this for dhuvaṁ and I like that nuance. It still has the temporal connonation but also the “unreliable”.
1 Like
I agree, yes.
Contextually, but the grammar does not make it explicit. In these verses, the etaṁ points to the same referent as the etaṁ in the previous verse, namely money, suggesting they should be read as a double verse. But the grammar does not indicate that money is the cause; the causal sense is only indicated by the dative forms previously (na bodhāya na santiyā). So you could read that into it, but since the poet left it to inference, I did too.
Can, but as so often there’s also a question of disambiguation. I typically use “stability” (etc.) for ṭhiti and variants. But I also use it for dhuva, so 
.
2 Likes
You’re a treasure, Bhante. Thanks a lot again!
2 Likes
Bhante @sujato Edit: This research has changed a bit.
Again in Thig 13.5:
May I not encounter sensual pleasures,
Māhaṁ kāmehi saṅgacchiṁ,
for no shelter is found in them.
yesu tāṇaṁ na vijjati;
Sensual pleasures are enemies and murderers,
Amittā vadhakā kāmā,
as painful as a mass of fire.
aggikkhandhūpamā dukhā.Greed is an obstacle, a threat,
Paripantho esa bhayo,
full of anguish and thorns;
savighāto sakaṇṭako;
it is out of balance,
Gedho suvisamo ceso,
a great gateway to confusion.
mahanto mohanāmukho.Hazardous and terrifying,
Upasaggo bhīmarūpo,
sensual pleasures are like a snake’s head,
kāmā sappasirūpamā;
where fools delight,
Ye bālā abhinandanti,
the blind ordinary folk.
andhabhūtā puthujjanā.
I think the middle section expands the dangers of kāma instead of gedho. The middle section I’m inclined to read as:
[Sensual Desires] An obstacle, this threat
Full of anguish and thorns
Greedy, out-of-balance [ALTERNATIVE: Thick, uneven]
And so a great gateway to confusion.
In Pāli commentary, this section is explained differently than PTS edition:
paripantho esa bhayo yadidaṃ kāmā nāma aviditavipulānatthāvahattā. [cont: savighāto cittavighātakarattā. sakaṇṭako vinivijjhanattā. gedho suvisamo ceso ti giddhihetutāya gedho. suṭṭhu visamo mahāpalibodho so. duratikkamanaṭṭhena mahanto. mohanāmukho mucchāpattihetuto.]
Sadly I can’t find why DPD refers gedho as thicket. Sanskrit gāḍha means simply dense, thick.
But reading gedho as “thick” as per sanskrit, suvisama as uneven, is congruent with the imagery of a dangerous, thorny path. Perhaps it’s a homonym pun too, after all.
1 Like
Another thing of note, again Thig 13.5:
Sensual pleasures are infinitely dangerous,
Anantādīnavā kāmā,
they’re full of suffering, a terrible poison;
bahudukkhā mahāvisā;
offering little gratification, they’re makers of strife,
Appassādā raṇakarā,
withering bright qualities away.
sukkapakkhavisosanā.Since I’ve created so much ruination
Sāhaṁ etādisaṁ katvā,
because of sensual pleasures,
byasanaṁ kāmahetukaṁ;
I will not relapse to them again,
Na taṁ paccāgamissāmi,
but will always delight in extinguishment.
nibbānābhiratā sadā.Fighting against sensual pleasures,
Raṇaṁ karitvā kāmānaṁ,
longing for that cool state,
sītibhāvābhikaṅkhinī;
I shall meditate diligently
Appamattā vihassāmi,
for the ending of all fetters.
sabbasaṁyojanakkhaye.
I find it curious that in the first quartet above, we have kāma in the context of raṇakarā.
Second quartet is Subhā lamenting over the misfortune she’s caused over sensual desires.
Yet, in the third quartet, suddenly we’re supposed to read this same Raṇaṁ karitvā kāmānaṁ as Fighting against sensual pleasures?
Perhaps this is again another pun - am I wrong to think that this could be read as “Having made strife due to sensual desires” as well?
Either way, doesn’t karitvā imply a verb done in the past - not an on-going action - so Norman’s “Having been in conflict with sensual desires”, while very wordy and dry, I think satisfies both conflict against and due to sensual desires.
1 Like
A more straightforward point:
I shall meditate diligently
Appamattā vihassāmi,
for the ending of all fetters.
sabbasaṁyojanakkhaye.
Meditation connonation I assume comes from vihara?
I like Ayya Soma’s wording here:
now I dwell heedful
in the destruction of all fetters.
2 Likes
Yes, better for viharati, (but should be in future tense ‘going forward…’ ) dwell/ abide/ live’; although the literal locative rendering sounds awkward in English.
‘For the destruction’ lit. ‘In regard to the destruction…’
Also, the correct part of speech is the adverb ‘heedfully’.
I will dwell heedfully
for the destruction of all the fetters.
1 Like