Reply To: Wrong English translations of Aniccha, Anatta, Sakkaya ditthi… etc

#13754
Lal
Keymaster

The verse from the “Culavedalla Sutta (MN 44)“:
“Kathaṃ panāyye, sakkāyadiṭṭhi na hotī”ti?
“Idhāvuso visākha, sutavā ariyasāvako, ariyānaṃ dassāvī ariyadhammassa kovido ariyadhamme suvinīto, sappurisānaṃ dassāvī sap¬purisa¬dhammassa kovido sap¬purisa¬dhamme suvinīto, na rūpaṃ attato samanupassati, na rūpavantaṃ vā attānaṃ, na attani vā rūpaṃ, na rūpasmiṃ vā attānaṃ. Na vedanaṃ … pe … na saññaṃ … na saṅkhāre … pe … na viññāṇaṃ attato samanupassati, na viññāṇavantaṃ vā attānaṃ, na attani vā viññāṇaṃ, na viññāṇasmiṃ vā attānaṃ. Evaṃ kho, āvuso visākha, sakkāyadiṭṭhi na hotī”ti.

Bhikkhu Bodhi translation (per Siebe): “Lady, how does personality view come to be?”
“Here, friend Visakha, an untaught ordinary person, who has no regard for noble ones and is unskilled and undisciplined in their Dhamma, who has no regard for true men and is unskilled and undisciplined in their Dhamma, regards material form as
self, or self as possessed of material form, or material form as in
self, or self as in material form. He regards feeling as self, or self
as possessed of feeling, or feeling as in self, or self as in feeling.
He regards perception as self, or self as possessed of perception,
or perception as in self, or self as in perception. He regards formations
as self, or self as possessed of formations, or formations
as in self, or self as in formations. He regards consciousness as
self, or self as possessed of consciousness, or consciousness as in self or self as in consciousness”.

Sutta Central translation: “But what, Noble Lady, is embodiment view?”
“Here, friend Visākha, an unlearned worldling, one who doesn’t meet the Noble Ones, who is unskilled in the Noble Dhamma, untrained in the Noble Dhamma, one who doesn’t meet Good People, who is unskilled in the Good People’s Dhamma, untrained in the Good People’s Dhamma, views bodily form as self, or self as endowed with bodily form, or bodily form as in self, or self as in bodily form.”

My translation: “Lady, how is Sakkaya ditthi NOT established?”
Here, friend Visaka, a knowledgeable disciple (sutava ariyasavako), who has “seen” Ariya Dhamma and is well-informed in Dhamma and is with good conduct ( ariyānaṃ dassāvī ariyadhammassa kovido ariyadhamme suvinīto), same for moral qualities (sappurisānaṃ dassāvī sap¬purisa¬dhammassa kovido sap¬purisa¬dhamme suvinīto), WILL NOT SEE rupa as mine (na rūpaṃ attato samanupassati), etc

I am not sure how both those translations missed the “na” or NOT. The other key word is samanupassati (sees according to), related to passati (sees).

Even more perplexing, how did they translate “sutava ariyasavako” as “unlearned worldling”?? No drastic harm was done since “na” was missed in all the places.

But the point of importance to the current discussion is the difference between “seeing” and “verifying and experiencing”. As I have discussed at length, “seeing” and “verifying it be true by experience” are two different things. Please re-read my post on January 18, 2018 at 7:48 am above: “But “seeing” and actually experiencing that to be true are two different things (which may not be apparent to most people, but it is a critical point in Buddha Dhamma)..”

That is the difference between the Sotapanna stage and the Arahant stage; that is a HUGE difference!

In response to my post on January 18, 2018 at 7:48 am above, you said you agreed. And then you just go back to bringing the same issue again in a different way (by saying anicca is impermanence?)!

I don’t think there is anything else I can do, unless you can point out a specific contradiction in my explanation.