SN 22.57 Seven Cases

  • This topic has 1 reply, 2 voices, and was last updated 1 year ago by Lal.
Viewing 1 reply thread
  • Author
    • #41919

      Yaṁ rūpaṁ aniccaṁ dukkhaṁ vipariṇāmadhammaṁ – That form is impermanent, suffering, and perishable: this is its drawback.

      Question is, why is vipariṇāmadhammaṁ used in place of anattā here? Is perishable an appropriate translation for vipariṇāmadhammaṁ? What would be the opposite of vipariṇāmadhammaṁ?

    • #41920

      The sutta is “Sattaṭṭhāna Sutta (SN 22.57),” linked to the verse Johnny quoted.

      The verse, “Yaṁ rūpaṁ aniccaṁ dukkhaṁ vipariṇāmadhammaṁ” is MISTRANSLATED as “That form is impermanent, suffering, and perishable” in that translation. That is what Johnny is quoting.

      Anicca is not “impermanence,” and vipariṇāmadhammaṁ does not merely mean “perishable.” Vipariṇāma also includes “unexpected changes before demise.”

      I have discussed those, especially anicca, dukkha, and anatta in many posts: “Anicca, Dukkha, Anatta

      I also discussed that briefly in the latest post, “Dhamma and Dhammā – Different but Related.” See #8 and #9 there.

      • As mentioned in #8, ““Rūpaṁ kho, ānanda, aniccaṁ saṅkhataṁ paṭiccasamuppannaṁ khayadhammaṁ vayadhammaṁ virāgadhammaṁ nirodhadhammaṁ..” That holds for vedanā, saññā, saṅkhārā, and viññāṇa as well (as mentioned there.

      The translations at Sutta Central (as well as in most English translations) can have many problems:

      Word-for-Word Translation of the Tipiṭaka


Viewing 1 reply thread
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.