- This topic has 6 replies, 4 voices, and was last updated 6 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
-
From this website we already have a few meanings of anicca: Inability to maintain what we like, incessant distress/ vexation, not to our liking. Sometimes I find it difficult to link the meanings as one word. Eg not being able to mantain this flower to my liking is not very close to “i am in constant distress to want to see this flower”. and then “this flower is not to my liking because it prolongs my journey in sansara”. Thus i have to contemplate each one separately.
Same goes for anatta. “Of no benefit” and “No full control” “Cannot be taken to be our essence” needs several points of contemplation. I need to think “this flower has no ultimate benefit to me”, “I cannot fully control this flower”, “I cannot take the vinnana of this sight of the flower to be my essence”, as distinct thoughts, it is sometimes difficult to link them together.
I find it easier for dukkha, because i can split to 3 distinct different types, eg sankhara dukkha, viparinama dukkha, dukkha dukkha. I can see clearly how each one arises. However for the other 2 find it less intuitive to contemplate all the meanings.
Do you all try to contemplate all the meanings or just stick to one that makes sense for you? Or do y’all try to combine all these meanings together into one word?
-
-
Many Pali words can have somewhat different (but related) meanings. That is why it is foolish to do “word-by-word” translations.
- As one’s understanding increases, one can see the applications of such different meanings in different contexts. A specific meaning could express the meaning better in a particular situation.
1 user thanked author for this post.
-
Taryal: It is worth learning Pali if one is serious about practicing Dhamma!
It’s not about learning Pali, but rather which meaning to use for that word. As mentioned each of them can have quite different (but related) meanings!
Lal: As one’s understanding increases, one can see the applications of such different meanings in different contexts.
Yes, but I was afraid that the “three characteristics” would suddenly become “many characteristics.” Hence I had the interpretation that there should be a meaning that stands out more than the others, the meaning that should be contemplated more often.
Eg if we take anicca to be “Cannot be kept to liking” as one meaning and “vexatious and causing pilana” as another, then it becomes 4 characteristics of nature! Or anatta as “Of no benefit” or “Cannot be fully controlled” then that becomes 5 characteristics. I have listed more above, the meanings are quite distinct.
I also found it unlikely that the meanings are stacked on top of each other. Copied from my other post:
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.
Or should we not worry too much about sticking to 3, as long as however we contemplate leads to reduction of tanha then it’s alright?
1 user thanked author for this post.
-
It’s not about learning Pali, but rather which meaning to use for that word. As mentioned each of them can have quite different (but related) meanings!
Yes, when you are familiar with the language, you can effortlessly use and understand the different meanings of words in different contexts. For example, the word “right” in English can have multiple meanings:
“on your right“
“you are right“
“human right“
“right party”
Someone who is well versed in English language doesn’t need to worry about this word having multiple meanings. Their mind will automatically grasp the right meaning according to the specific context. But someone new to this can have issues. This is why I emphasized the value of learning the language! Of course it will take time to get to a decent level, till then we have to rely on mindfully using the right meanings provided to us from a source like this website, for example.
1 user thanked author for this post.
-
Thank you taryal. In that case i’m quite comfortable with switching around meanings, but i’m starting to doubt if it is the right approach. As mentioned then it would become “many characteristics of nature” instead of just 3.
To make the point clearer, if we give a name to each of the different meanings of anicca, then there will be more than 3 words to describe nature! Not sure if that’s what they intended for when they try to name it “tilakkhana”, I would interpret that they did intend for 3 characteristics.
An interesting point to note is that in Anicca, Dukkha, Anatta – Distortion Timeline
Post:
- The TipiṭakaCommentary Paṭisambhidāmaggapoints out (in the “Vipassanākathā” section) that the following words can be used to represent “anicca” nature: Palokatoti (subject to destruction), Calatoti(unsteady/shaky), Pabhaṅgutoti(breakable), Vipariṇāmadhammatoti(subject to unexpected change), Vibhavatoti (tendency to wear out), Saṅkhatatoti (prepared – by the mind), Maraṇadhammatoti (subject to inevitable death), Addhuvatoti(not permanent).
These words all point towards the meaning of “deterioration”, not so much on “vexation” or “leading to more suffering in the future”. Although these other meanings can be derived. Here I would then infer that the above synonyms should be taken as the root meaning of anicca.
However anatta here has 2 rather distinct meanings:
post:
Paratoti (not belonging to oneself), Rittatoti (devoid of value/meaningless), Tucchatoti (to be looked down upon), Suññatoti(devoid of anything meaningful), Asārakatoti (devoid of anything useful.) The translation of “anatta” as “no-self” is also only close to Paratoti (not belonging to oneself) in the above list.
Here I would be wrong in saying that there is a root meaning as there are 2 rather distinct ones, on ownership and on value. Or it is also possible that the word anatta itself is supposed to capture both, instead of “either or”. I am uncertain about that too as mentioned with my chinese example, but I cannot rule out that possibility still.
-
As for the ownership and the value, I think it shows different approaches to the same subject, respectively. The anatta can be likened to a drug addict failing to produce any results. The drug addict ended up failing to do anything worthwhile (value), and he had nothing left (ownership). The “Sabbē dhammā anattā” conveys the fact that all the joy-seeking efforts within samsara are no different than drug addiction after all.
2 users thanked author for this post.
-
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.