- This topic has 4 replies, 2 voices, and was last updated 5 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
-
In “Attā” as “Self” – Wrong Translation in Many Suttās
You translated the Natumhāka Sutta (SN 22.33) as “Suppose a person comes to this temple (jetavane) and carries off the grass, sticks, branches, and leaves on the temple grounds, burns them or does whatever they want with those grass, sticks, branches, and leaves.
I understand this.
You then translated “amhe jano harati vā ḍahati vā yathāpaccayaṁ vākarotī’”ti?” as
Would you think: This person is carrying off something of value to us, burning something of value to us (amhe)’?”
May I know how we can derive the interpretation of “of value to us” from this line? Because this is then used to explain attā, your latter interpretation is that because the leafs and branches are of no value therefore we should not care about them and it is not attā.
However how can we be sure that it means “of value?” Can it also mean “‘This person is carrying us off, burning us, or doing what they want with us’? as what sutta central translated?
Or since the earlier part of the sutta is about discarding what’s not ours, could it also mean “This person is carrying what’s ours, burning what’s ours, or doing what they want with what’s ours?”
Because the earlier part of the sutta did not talk about “benefit” and more about “possession”, im not sure if the latter part of the sutta talks about benefit as well.
-
First, when you provide a link, please select the target “new window” (in the link panel) so the reader can see both your comment and the link. You did that correctly for the sutta link but did not for the post link (which I just fixed.)
You asked: “May I know how we can derive the interpretation of “of value to us” from this line?”
- “Amhe” means “belonging to us/ of value to us/ ours” and NOT “us.”
But you should be able to see how silly that translation is when you read the verses in context (“Natumhāka Sutta (SN 22.33)“):
“Suppose a person was to carry off the grass, sticks, branches, and leaves in this Jeta’s Grove, or burn them, or do what they want with them.
Would you think:
‘This person is carrying us off, burning us, or doing what they want with us’?”
- People are carrying off grass, sticks, branches, and leaves. How can grass, sticks, branches, and leaves be “us”?
-
Will select the target “new window” next time. Also got your point on why ahme should not be “us”
Lal: “Amhe” means “belonging to us/ of value to us/ ours” and NOT “us.”
“belonging to us” and “of value to us” is quite different in meaning. In this case should ahme be taken as “belonging to us” instead of “of value to us”, since the sutta is about giving up what’s not yours? The sutta did not mention anything about “benefit”. In that case, the subsequent meaning of attā will have to be adjusted as well, to more of ownership rather than benefit.
I understand that attā could mean “of benefit” in other cases, but it does not seem applicable here based on the rest of the sutta.
-
“I understand that attā could mean “of benefit” in other cases, but it does not seem applicable here based on the rest of the sutta.”
- It is up to each person to decide (same for your interpretation of “amhe.”)
- But I would be interested to hear how the rest of the sutta is incompatible (you don’t need to, only if you like to do so).
- The whole point is that pancupadanakkhandha (panca upadanakkhandha or the “craving for the five aggregates”) is useless. That only leads to future suffering, even though it may seem enjoyable at the moment.
- By the way, the name of the sutta is correctly translated as “It’s Not Yours.” None of the five entities arising in mind (rupa, vedana, sanna, sankhara, vinnana) are to be “taken as yours.” Contaminated versions of those entities arise in the mind based on root causes (raga, dosa, moha) and prevailing conditions. When all root causes (raga, dosa, moha) are removed, one (an Arahant) will still see, hear, etc., but only “pure, uncontaminated versions of rupa, vedana, sanna, sankhara, vinnana would arise in mind.”
- This website is all about explaining that future suffering will not end until one understands that “those entities are not to be taken as yours” because they provide no value/benefit but only suffering in the end. The “mind-made versions” of external rupa seem to have beauty, pleasing sound, taste, smell, and touch, but those “sanna” are not real.
-
Perhaps not “incompatible”, but clear fit, since the rest of the sutta does not talk about benefit. On second thoughts, you are right that there’s no harm adding the meaning of “benefit” to it as well.
Similarly to a query on the tilakkhana forum, I find it not intuitive how we can pack so many distinct meanings into one word (attā): those entities are not to be taken as yours (1) because they provide no value/benefit (2). It seems like more of an either/ or thing. But this is only my intuitive sense of languages! I am also well versed in another language (chinese) and I found it hard to find a word that contains 2 distinct meanings together, not either or (eg 1 and 2 instead of 1 or 2). Normally you can translate a word with few characters/ words of another language, but they both usually just carry one meaning. eg for chinese, to say both “not yours” and “not to your benefit” I have to use 2 separate phrases “不属于你 (bù shǔyú nǐ) and 对你没有好处 (duì nǐ méiyǒu hǎochù). Because they are 2 distinct set of meanings! It is possible that one word has 2 meanings and used either/or (like a pun), but rarely are 2 meanings stacked on each other.
Of course Pali could work differently and there could be multiple meanings stacked on top of each other.
-
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.