Translation of SN22.62

Bhante @sujato I feel that SN22.62 is not translated properly.

Please see the discussion in Dhamma Wheel.
Kind regards

1 Like

I am Oyamist on SE. You quoted my lay understanding of Bhante Sujato’s translation.

In what way do you find Bhante’s translation improper?

1 Like

This is more of a discussion of opinions rather than a reporting of errors or typos. As such I am moving it to the Translations thread. Also please note that many do not have accounts on other forums, therefore if you have an argument/point to make, please outline the actual details here, without simply referencing to some other discussion.


So you are the Oyamist gave that great answer!!
Well I understood your answer rather than reading the translation of Bhante Sujato.
Even BB’s translation was clear to me as well.
So basically I post my comment on your anwer as your answer was very mudh clear to me.
Well if you think Bhante Sujato’s translation is clear to you, it is perhaps due to my poor English or now I read the same with a new understading.
Any way at least now I found out who Oyamist is!!
By the way I quoted your answer below for others benefit.

1 Like


Clearly the past, present and future (was, is, will be) are all evident and incontestible (i.e., uncorrupted and without defilements). Therefore, this sutta implies that the corruption and defilements arise taking the past, present and future as other than what they are. Indeed, suffering arises when we take the past as the present (remorse or sadness). Or suffering arises when we take the past as the future (craving or aversion). Or suffering arises when we take the past or future as the present (delusion). Mixing up past, present and future is suffering.

Yet if one directly knows what was, is and will be:

He directly knows water … fire … air … creatures … gods … the Creator … Brahmā … the gods of streaming radiance … the gods replete with glory … the gods of abundant fruit … the Overlord … the dimension of infinite space … the dimension of infinite consciousness … the dimension of nothingness … the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception … the seen … the heard … the thought … the known … oneness … diversity … all … He directly knows extinguishment as extinguishment. But he doesn’t identify with extinguishment, he doesn’t identify regarding extinguishment, he doesn’t identify as extinguishment, he doesn’t identify that ‘extinguishment is mine’, he doesn’t take pleasure in extinguishment. Why is that? Because he has understood that relishing is the root of suffering, and that rebirth comes from continued existence; whoever has come to be gets old and dies. That’s why the Realized One—with the ending, fading away, cessation, giving up, and letting go of all cravings—has awakened to the supreme perfect Awakening, I say –MN1
sutras - SN 22.62: What is meant by "scope of language"? - Buddhism Stack Exchange


By the way, I invite Bhante @Dhammanando or any other person to explain the meaning of this Sutta in his own words. I still feel uncertain about the meaning and intention of this Sutta.

1 Like

Can someone give some examples for niruttipathā adhivacanapathā paññattipathā

What are these three?
“Mendicants, there are these three scopes of language, terminology, and descriptions. They’re uncorrupted, as they have been since the beginning. They’re not being corrupted now, nor will they be. Sensible ascetics and brahmins don’t look down on them.
“Tayome, bhikkhave, niruttipathā adhivacanapathā paññattipathā asaṅkiṇṇā asaṅkiṇṇapubbā, na saṅkīyanti, na saṅkīyissanti, appaṭikuṭṭhā samaṇehi brāhmaṇehi viññūhi.


paññattipathā sounds like the first precept.