Lol yes, it will take a bit of trial and error, this kind of change will affect a number of passages. So I’m not sure about that one yet!
We have “persist” and “desist” too, if that’s any help?
Just did a quick look at the usage:
“Survive after death” is more popular than “persist after death”, but not as much as I would have thought.
Checking the usages, it seems that we speak of a “person” or a “soul” that survives after death; but of “consciousness” or “memories” or “the body” that persists after death. Not an absolute distinction by any means, there are plenty of counterexamples. But it seems that “survive” has a more “soulish” feel to it, whereas “persist” is, whether consciously or not, more “sciencey”. Perhaps, then, we should use “survive” in non-Buddhist contexts, and “persist” in Buddhist ones.
Then using survive is a good translation, as it involves soul/self which is not found according to Buddhism. Thus the survive terminology is problematic as it’s based on non-existent concept of soul. That’s why the questions of survival are not declared.
Thanks for the great discussion.
"kiṁ pana, bhante, atthi devā’”ti?
““But sir, do gods survive?””
Could a more idiomatic expression be, “Are the gods eternal”? i.e. continue to exist?
(the king is asking the question from the perspective of one who takes the existence of devas for granted, he’s not asking about if they exist or not.)
1 Like
Hi all, especially Venerable,
Lots of interesting things going on here. Let me see what stands out for me, and I’ll reply as I read. Thinking out loud. Sorry for the chaos! If anything doesn’t seem to refer to anything said before, let me know and I’ll clarify.
I agree on the issue of time. The verb “to be”, being very flexible in all languages, doesn’t mean just the present moment. Fellow monks often say to me “there is no Dhamma talk” and I’ll understand it to mean there won’t be a talk later today, i.e., in the future. I know that because of the context. So, we have to consider (as we are right now doing) the context wherein atthi and hoti are used, especially with doctrinal important passages.
I concur “it doesn’t seem to matter whether the verb is hoti or atthi”. Although the two are generally used in somewhat different ways, they aren’t absolutely different. Also shown by the fact there is no future tense of atthi, and when the future tense is used, it is always of hoti/bhavati.
“Each of the statements either explicitly refer to rebirth or are explained as such”. OK. But you selected those statements on what basis?
“They don’t make great sense if translated in “boring present”.” Usually not, no. And you see the kind of confusion it created in this thread! Though by itself “the Tathagata exists after death” makes sense, of course implied is to continue to exist after death. A Tathagata isn’t gonna pop into existence at death. That’s not the point of the statement. The point is does they still exist?
“They’re not in contexts of ontological metaphysics that would justify “exist absolutely””. I suppose I agree, but I still don’t really get “exist absolutely”, anyway. I feel it is a pleonasm. What would it mean to exist non-absolutely?
“Now, as to translation. As always, it would be nice to be consistent, so long as that does not sacrifice sense.” There is no value per se in being consistent. It may have value for the reader to connect passages. If it’s a word like sankhāra or whatever, as it is a doctrinally central term. But with words like hoti I’d rather be inconsistent, if by being consistent I sacrificed sense even slightly. Since hoti has no central place in the dhamma. And if the sense in this case is translated rightly, then whatever connections the readers need to make, they will anyway.
“Survive” has a natural, spoken feel and avoids the problems with “exist (absolutely)”. But it does sometimes take away from the “emotional” importance of existence. How to put this? “To exist or not to exist” versus “To survive or not to survive.” Do you see what I’m getting at? “A Realized One doesn’t survive after death,” I don’t think gets to the heart of the matter.
Also, in a sense the underlying issue is still the existence of a self in the present (that would then either continue on or get annihilated). “Survive” doesn’t infer that. (I have a hard time wording my thoughts here. Let me know if you’d like clarification.) So I’d still prefer “A Realized One no longer exists after death.” With this translation there’s need to change hoti’s basic meaning. Just changes the meaning of na, as I pointed out above.
In your draft of the Ananda vacchagotta Sutta, though, I think “survive” overall works very well. Especially the statements about annihilism and eternalism just make sense straight away. Quite beautifully, in fact.
But I’m not sure if “survive” (or “keep existing”) is always the meaning of atthi in this sutta. It could be… maybe I need more time with your translation. But I used to think the meaning of atthi kind of shifts back and forth (from future to present) in a way that English will never be able to capture.
Especially troublesome, of course, in your current translation, is the last sentence ‘ahuvā me nūna pubbe attā, so etarahi natthi’”ti. You kinda leave out etarahi, which means now. But it could still technically mean “now (after this statement) won’t survive (in the future)”. Perhaps, though, before we translate, we should ask what the meaning of it is? Is Vacchagotta here assuming that suddenly, in the moment, he has no self?.. Hmm. That’s what I used to think. And at first glance that’s what the Pali seems to say. I don’t know what’s right here. If I get more insights, I’ll let you know. Perhaps I’ll try to translate the sutta myself and see what happens.
On MN90, with the devas, I agree the standard translation “are there devas?” makes no contextual sense. “Do the devas keep existing?” is my initial intuitive feel, with the sense that they keep existing as devas, and not become something else. (Edit: I see @stephen has the same intuition.) “Hoti tathāgato paraṃ maraṇā” at some point I also translated as “the Tathagata keeps existing after death”. “Exist absolutely”, as I said, on it’s own I don’t get the meaning of, but your explanation of it in the other thread makes sense and seems to come down to “keep existing”. I feel “survive” or “go on” here is a bit awkward, but still better than “exist absolutely”. “Persist” here would work, I suppose. “Do devas persist?”
I’m not absolute convinced of this (then again, when am I?), but as it doesn’t touch upon any major doctrinal point, I think it’s a safe guess. I’d prefer it over something awkward that leaves a reader confused about something of very minor importance.
MN2: “The view: ‘My self exists in an absolute sense.’ ‘Atthi me attā’ti; The view: ‘My self does not exist in an absolute sense.’ ‘natthi me attā’ti”
I can’t relate to these translations. Who has such views on an emotional level? I have: “I have a self” and “I don’t have a self”. Although these statements look very similar to the Ananda-vacchagotta sutta, I think the me makes all the difference. I think it’s the term of importance here, which creates the wrong view, not atthi And me is used in the same genitive sense as in SN5.6 which I shared above: Na me, mārisa, sā diṭṭhī “I no longer have that view, dear sir”. As Pali has no verb “to have”, I think atthi takes its place here, together with the genitive.
Last general comment: I get the feeling, Bhante, you try to connect passages together more strongly than is warranted. I’d look at them individually, and not assume too much of a connection.
Time for bed… Don’t be surprised if I take a while to recover from this discussion 
See ya when I see ya. Metta!
1 Like
I think this is a great point.
Maybe (yet another!) way of translating it could be:
-After death the Tathagata continues to exist.
-After death the Tathagata does not continue to exist.
In this way, the hoti is translated the same way in both statements, capturing the ‘no longer’ quality.
2 Likes
Thanks to both of you. I don’t really disagree with any particular point, except for:
To exist in a conditioned way, as a stream of ever-changing phenomena. But look, let’s leave this one behind, shall we?
I don’t agree with this. I think “survive” is a more emotive word than “exist”.
No, I render it as “no longer survives”. You could use “now does not survive”, but it’s less idiomatic.
On this I disagree. The entire Pali tradition clearly places a major premium on consistency of both language and meaning, and the exigencies of translation don’t change that. While obviously context must be the final determinant, this is something I learned when I went from translating a few suttas to translating thousands. Words, phrases, ideas, idioms, keep popping up and permutating all over the place, and the firm hand of consistency is essential to maintaining clarity of meaning.
When you neglect consistency, you think it’s fine. But it’s like leaving roots of weeds all over your garden. They pop up again in unexpected places, and change things in unknown ways.
One advantage of this is that I use the same idiom for bhava in dependent origination; bhava is, of course, simply the noun form of the verb here, hoti.
4 Likes
Hi Venerable, thanks for a brief structured answer to a somewhat chaotic post.
“To exist in a conditioned way, as a stream of ever-changing phenomena. But look, let’s leave this one behind, shall we?”
Yup! More than happy! 
“I don’t agree with this. I think “survive” is a more emotive word than “exist”.”
OK. I think in the back of my head I’m connecting “survival” mostly with the kind you do on a deserted island.
But apart from that, I think to use “exist” in “the Thatagata exists” connects more directly to bhava as
“continued existence” (which I like a lot), “craving for existence”, and suchlike terms, which I think are very powerful. (Bhava also coming from hoti of course.) [I typed this before I read your reply to Stephen.]
“No, I render it as “no longer survives”. You could use “now does not survive”, but it’s less idiomatic.”
I see. I guess I would have expected “now no longer survives”, as I’m now so accustomed to read just the na (here in natthi) as “no longer”. The underlying point, though, is that on the surface the statement looks more like it’s about the present moment, the view “I have no self”.
“Words, phrases, ideas, idioms, keep popping up and permutating all over the place, and the firm hand of consistency is essential to maintaining clarity of meaning. […] When you neglect consistency, you think it’s fine.”
I’m not saying it’s fine to neglect it. I’ve even made a script that automatically replaces phrases and permutations, probably like your Bilara does. In such cases, definitely be consistent. But I’m saying (probably in a clumsy way) is that what we are talking about here are not the same phrases or idioms, and I think also not (all) the same ideas. So therefore here there is imo no need to be consistent and use “survive” everywhere. I think that may be taking consistently too far the other way.
Anyway, I think all our “disagreements” are only on the level of personal choice. I prefer your draft translations for over the old ones, and if you decide to keep them, I’ll rejoice! I guess I’d just do them somewhat differently. But then again, I can do that!
Just the Ananda-Vacchagotta sutta, that’s a hard one, but I’ve said that a few times already. 
It’s not even that I disagree with anything per se. It’s just that I don’t know if I agree! I’ll give it some time.
3 Likes
And, Bhante Sujato,
how about survival and non-survival for the Kaccanagotta sutta? 
“Kaccāna, this world mostly relies on the dual notions of survival and non-survival." (SN12.15)
3 Likes
A very interesting idea Venerable!
But it seems to me that translation choice would require some sort of explanatory note to help it.
i.e. that it’s not about Darwinian natural selection. 
I vote for ‘continuing existence and the ending of existence’
(i.e. even a modern-day atheist-annihilationist likely thinks he currently exists.)
2 Likes
Exactly. That’s why I never was a fan of “non-existence”.
2 Likes
not sure “survives” cuts the mustard for atthi.
‘Suppose you were to ask me whether there is another world. If I believed there was, I would say so.
‘atthi paro loko’ti iti ce maṁ pucchasi, ‘atthi paro loko’ti iti ce me assa, ‘atthi paro loko’ti iti te naṁ byākareyyaṁ,But I don’t say it’s like this. I don’t say it’s like that. I don’t say it’s otherwise. I don’t say it’s not so. And I don’t deny it’s not so.
‘evantipi me no, tathātipi me no, aññathātipi me no, notipi me no, no notipi me no’ti.Suppose you were to ask me whether there is no other world …
‘Natthi paro loko …pe…whether there both is and is not another world …
‘atthi ca natthi ca paro loko …pe…whether there neither is nor is not another world …
‘nevatthi na natthi paro loko …pe…whether there are beings who are reborn spontaneously …
‘atthi sattā opapātikā …pe…whether there are not beings who are reborn spontaneously …
‘natthi sattā opapātikā …pe…whether there both are and are not beings who are reborn spontaneously …
‘atthi ca natthi ca sattā opapātikā …pe…whether there neither are nor are not beings who are reborn spontaneously …
‘nevatthi na natthi sattā opapātikā …pe…
Here we have, in the Chapter One of the first Big Book of Buddhism, DN1, a sequence where the term is used in ways in which “survives” clearly doesn’t work. the question is not whether the “paro loko” survives, it is whether or not there is one.
Similarly it does not seem to be the question whether or not spontaneously reborn beings survive, rather whether or not they exist at all (or both, or neither).
And again, it is not whether he fruit of actions survives it is whether there is fruit of actions at all.
So since these terms are introduced here at DN1, in a major piece of philosophical analysis intended to situate Buddhism in the intellectual context of the time, and clearly and unequivocally deals not with postmortem survival but with the reality or fiction of “another world”, “survives” falls over, just as “exists in an absolute sense” does by the translators own logic:
That there is a feeling in this community that rebirth is given short shrift in the contemporary western Buddhist landscape is probably a fair observation, and that it should be highlighted where it does occur is an important response, however there is a definite tendency in this space to take a strong position in relation to these controversies, one that is not straightforwardly “in the text” but rather actively obscures one side of the controversy in favor of the alternate.
This is palpably the case in many of the discussions of SN44.10 which elect to refrain from even mentioning the obvious connection to the undeclared points for eg at MN72, or the equally important and obvious connection to the philosophical positions outlined and discounted in DN1
“survives” begs the question, implying something existent that either does or does not survive after death, this is not the point of the undeclared points, which critique notions of existence and non-existence, and identity and difference, on a much more fundamental level, something that is abundantly clear when SN44.10 is read in conjunction with the much longer, more detailed, and philosophically helpful suttas DN1 DN2 MN72 etc.
2 Likes
I’m a bit confused by the logic in the beginning of this post. It seems to be: a word, in a language — a complex, polysemous system for communication across all walks of life — is used in one of its senses in the Digha Nikaya. And therefore that must somehow be a significant primary philosophical definition for the usage of a word (which exists outside of these discourses and which they merely record) outside; any other usage of this word would somehow be less authentic to Early Buddhism and the philosophy it presents.
I understand this is not your whole argument, but linguistically this is illogical. Especially with such a common, abstract word like a copula (a ‘to be’ word). This is now how language works.
Nobody has said that atthi must always mean ‘survives.’ The context for this post is ‘in regards to rebirth,’ and as we see in other suttas which are in this same context (e.g. MN 90 in the discussion of the devā/brahmā), ‘will exist’ (future), or ‘survives’ (alternative translation of the same concept) are implied. Not only that but the very conjugation of the verb is ambiguous as to tense, and that is what this ultimately comes down to: do we read a future or a present. There are other questions such as the philosophical nature of ‘existence’ and the ontological views being discussed at the time period, and while they can be relevant for these questions, they need not be invoked for temporal questions surrounding ‘eternalism’ and ‘annihilationism’, rebirth/post-mortem existence, etc.
Some other concerns you raise about contextualizing and situating the sutta I find reasonable and very valid, and you make some interesting observations. But I find this particular style of linguistic argumentation hollow. Especially when we add this all to the fact that you tend to operate under the assumption that you are correct in assuming the DN is somehow superior and more reflective of the earliest Buddhism—an opinion many scholars do not share (and thus one that cannot be used to form the basis for strong assertions, IMO).
Mettā
1 Like
I agree with the rest you say, but atthi is not a copula. You can’t say “A atthi B” like you can say “A is B”. The latter is what the copula does (hoti/bhavati).
2 Likes
Yes, you’re right! I was looking for a word to cover these words related to existence which often relate to the copula in IE languages, but unfortunately in this case it’s not apt.
Mettā
That’s the context.
This is the problem though isn’t it? I am asserting (although I realise now I did not make this sufficiently clear), that the SN44.10 context is the same context as the undeclared points at DN1 and MN72, SN44.10 is an epitome, a shortened, and therefore more cryptic exemplar of the same idea that is discussed at greater length and at more depth at MN72 (and DN1).
To claim that there is a second, different context, and then gloss the word with survives instead of exists is precisely to beg the question that is being asked, if in fact there is just one consistent context, the critique of existence/non-existence and all the suttas are in fact talking about this topic, then there is absolutely no reason to use 2 different terms in the two sets of suttas, it is the “survivalists” who interpret the sutta at SN44.10 (and MN90) as being about a different subject to that discussed at DN1 and MN72, but surly the burden of proof lies with those who seek to justify 2 words rather than those who see no problem with one in all cases.
fine, the point is that I AM saying that it never needs to mean survive, and when it is just left as “exists” it is entirely compatible with ALL of SN44.10 MN72 DN1 MN90 and the many, many more suttas that discuss version s of the undeclared points.
I am not sure that this is relevant in this case tho, it’s just the first time the undeclared points are put forward and so a pretty stright forward place to look.
For the record I do not think DN is “superior”, what I think is more along the lines that the silakandhavagga, and especially the sekkha patipada, represent an early articulattion of the buddhist postion relative to what i take to be a somewhat later and more scholastic presentation exemplified in SN.
I appreciate the argument, and I’ll reconsider the case. I don’t think I’ve heard any entirely satisfactory solution, and the fact remains that words meaning “to be” have a different set of connotations than they do in English.
In this I beg to differ. A translator’s job is to convey the meaning of the text as they understand it. It is not to “teach the controversy”, or to render it in an ambiguous way because different people have read it in different ways. That’s what discussion is for, like we’re doing here. The job of a translator is to write in the target language so that people who are not experts or philosophers and who have never considered all of the arguments can read it and get the point. Sometimes that means sacrificing secondary dimensions of meaning for the sake of clarity.
2 Likes
So you think that in English saying “Do gods exist?” is sufficient for meaning “Do gods continue after death in a state of existence?” ? (MN 90). I’m a native English speaker and I can say that, for me, this meaning is never implied at all in the question with ‘exists.’ You seem to attest this same thing in your other comment with the mention of “Do Unicorns exist?”. Clearly you didn’t think “Do unicorns continue existing” was a valid rendering of this English sentence — but in Pāli it is.
Even if we were to argue that the meaning of atthi in the suttas is the same, we have the tense itself which as I’ve pointed out is primary: atthi can be (and is) used to refer to future events, even outside of cases like these in Pāli. This is not inconsistent, it’s just grammar. What that means is temporality (future existence) is baked into the potential connotations of the word. This is undeniable.
I would also wonder why these attā questions are never put into an ‘undeclared points’ list. You seem to support the primacy of the DN and things for philosophy of EB, and yet you seem to use this one passage in the SN where this view is expressed as an argument for an elaborate deletion of such a fundamental concept from Buddhist doctrine, if I’ve understood your previous comments correctly. I respect your opinion and would like to have a more concrete grasp on your thoughts — but I still disagree with the linguistic argument that you find future tense rendering of atthi unnatural (and secondarily because the ontological discussions of the time period were different from our current ones).
Mettā
1 Like
Principle 1
Principle 2
As a reader of texts in translation, these two principles sum up very much what I am looking for.
Principle 1
I want an English translation that conveys the meaning of the passage clearly. If there is controversy, I love having notes that let me know that controversy exists, but I don’t want an ambiguous translation. Ambiguity makes it read like the text itself doesn’t know what it wants to say. But the text is clearly saying what it wants - it is our struggle to choose between the possible meanings.
And please no made-up hyphenated or portmanteau words - as Bhante says, write in the target. And I like that Bhante @sujato avoids just moving Pali words untranslated into the translation. I think that gives the appearance of being closer to the text, but really just means the reader is making the choice what the Pali word means rather than the more experienced translator making that choice.
Principle 2
Principle 2 is - in my mind - a big part of what allows the reader to move into being a student of the text. If I know the translation reflects the underlying structure of words as much as possible, I can make connections. If I start to learn some Pali, I can start to study the underlying words that create that structure.
To me, trying to be as consistent as possible shows respect to the reader. It gives them the opening to understand the texts at a deeper level while reading in translation.
2 Likes