Page 13 of 29

Re: "The Deathless" (amata)

Posted: Fri Mar 30, 2012 7:20 am
by nowheat
tiltbillings wrote:Where I would differ from what you said is this: Rather than saying "Nibanna is not subject to coming or going," I would say: "Not subject to coming and going is nibbana."
Nice phrasing.

:namaste:

Re: "The Deathless" (amata)

Posted: Fri Mar 30, 2012 9:56 am
by tiltbillings
nowheat wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:Where I would differ from what you said is this: Rather than saying "Nibanna is not subject to coming or going," I would say: "Not subject to coming and going is nibbana."
Nice phrasing.
I have my moments as few and far between as they may be. So, thanks.

Re: "The Deathless" (amata)

Posted: Sun Apr 01, 2012 6:27 am
by Ben
Courtesy of Dhammatube on FB
562165_3162180207822_1064845334_2993433_1693295044_n.jpg
562165_3162180207822_1064845334_2993433_1693295044_n.jpg (17.85 KiB) Viewed 5901 times
[The ordinary person] "He perceives Nibbana as Nibbana. Having perceived Nibbana as Nibbana, he conceives [himself as] Nibbana, he conceives [himself] in Nibbana, he conceives [himself apart] from Nibbana, he conceives Nibbana to be 'mine', he delights in Nibbana. Why is that? Because he has not fully understood it..."

[The Sekha disciple in higher training] "Having directly known Nibbana as Nibbana, he should not conceive [himself as] Nibbana, he should not conceive [himself] in Nibbana, he should not conceive [himself apart] from Nibbana, he should not conceive Nibbana to be 'mine', he should not delight in Nibbana. Why is that? So that he may fully understand it..."

[The Arahant] "Having directly known Nibbana as Nibbana, he does not conceive [himself as] Nibbana, he does not conceive [himself] in Nibbana, he does not conceive [himself apart] from Nibbana, he does not conceive Nibbana to be 'mine', he does not delight in Nibbana. Why is that? Because he is free from delusion through the destruction of delusion..."

[The Tathagata] "Having directly known Nibbana as Nibbana, he does not conceive [himself as] Nibbana, he does not conceive [himself] in Nibbana, he does not conceive [himself apart] from Nibbana, he does not conceive Nibbana to be 'mine', he does not delight in Nibbana. Why is that? Because he has understood that delight is the root of suffering, and that with being [as condition] there is birth, and that for whatever has come to be there is ageing and death...through the complete destruction, fading away, cessation, giving up, and relinquishing of cravings, the Tathagata has awakened to supreme full enlightenment."

Mulapariyaya Sutta (Majjhima Nikaya 1)

Re: "The Deathless" (amata)

Posted: Mon May 21, 2012 9:34 pm
by nowheat
I promised, a few months back, to post a note when the paper I've been making reference to in this thread comes out. Here is the note. The paper is available (at a cost, unfortunately) here:

http://www.ocbs.org/journal

and abstracts for the issue can be found here:

http://www.ocbs.org/journal/list-of-abs ... ent-volume

Metta

Re: "The Deathless" (amata)

Posted: Mon May 21, 2012 11:39 pm
by tiltbillings
nowheat wrote:I promised, a few months back, to post a note when the paper I've been making reference to in this thread comes out. Here is the note. The paper is available (at a cost, unfortunately) here:

http://www.ocbs.org/journal

and abstracts for the issue can be found here:

http://www.ocbs.org/journal/list-of-abs ... ent-volume

Metta
Actually, why not quote (fair use a bit of the article that relates to this thread, please. I'd love to see what is said.

Re: "The Deathless" (amata)

Posted: Tue May 22, 2012 4:22 pm
by nowheat
tiltbillings wrote:]Actually, why not quote (fair use a bit of the article that relates to this thread, please. I'd love to see what is said.
Mostly because I don't think any quotation is going to give the thesis a chance to be understood. 20K words is me at my most succinct on this subject. I've been thinking about this for more than a year and I haven't found the right part of the beast to grasp to get the point across in a paragraph or two. I will keep thinking about it though.

Has anyone read the year-2000 paper by Joanna Jurewicz "Playing With Fire" in the Journal of the PTS? The paper starts from where she left off.

:namaste:

Re: "The Deathless" (amata)

Posted: Sun Jun 10, 2012 12:26 pm
by nowheat
tiltbillings wrote:Actually, why not quote (fair use a bit of the article that relates to this thread, please. I'd love to see what is said.
It's not a quote from the article, but you can find a small bit of summary about the structure in this post:

http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... 37#p192737

:namaste:

Re: "The Deathless" (amata)

Posted: Mon Jul 09, 2012 5:05 am
by khaaan
Tilt, why did you choose to render it as "freedom from death" rather than "the destruction of death" or "the extinction of death"? As you know, those parallel the definition of nibbāna as "the destruction (or extinction) of lust, hate, and delusion", and, like your rendering, they do not reify nibbāna. I expect you considered many alternatives in the process of translation, and I was wondering why you rejected those in particular.

Re: "The Deathless" (amata)

Posted: Mon Jul 09, 2012 5:41 am
by tiltbillings
khaaan wrote:Tilt, why did you choose to render it as "freedom from death" rather than "the destruction of death" or "the extinction of death"? As you know, those parallel the definition of nibbāna as "the destruction (or extinction) of lust, hate, and delusion", and, like your rendering, they do not reify nibbāna. I expect you considered many alternatives in the process of translation, and I was wondering why you rejected those in particular.
I was looking for something fairly neutral and process oriented and that would work with the various words and contexts that refer to the attainment of nibbana:


http://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f= ... th#p166961" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Thanks for asking.

Re: "The Deathless" (amata)

Posted: Mon Jul 09, 2012 6:34 am
by khaaan
"There is [nibbana], free from birth, free from becoming, free from making, free from conditioning."

Translating ajaata.m etc, by "freedom from birth," etc. supplies the implied noun via the privative a as in asankhata.
:goodpost:
The main line of reasoning behind the "freedom from" rendering seems to be that the "a-" prefix here means "without" or "free of"/"free from". Do you see the phrases "nibbāna is without death", "nibbāna is free from death", and "nibbāna is freedom from death" as all being roughly equivalent?

Also, when you say that you were looking for something fairly neutral, do you mean that you see "freedom from" as more neutral than "the destruction of"? I ask because they seem equally non-neutral to me (whereas "free from" and "without" do seem neutral).

Finally, do you have an example passage at hand in which "freedom from death" fits well, but "the destruction of death" does not? It seems to me that although both renderings introduce an additional concept (freedom and destruction/extinction, respectively) that was not explicit in the original, of the two, the latter wording is to be preferred because it at least occurs in the Suttas.

Re: "The Deathless" (amata)

Posted: Mon Jul 09, 2012 6:46 am
by tiltbillings
khaaan wrote:
"There is [nibbana], free from birth, free from becoming, free from making, free from conditioning."

Translating ajaata.m etc, by "freedom from birth," etc. supplies the implied noun via the privative a as in asankhata.
:goodpost:
The main line of reasoning behind the "freedom from" rendering seems to be that the "a-" prefix here means "without" or "free of"/"free from". Do you see the phrases "nibbāna is without death", "nibbāna is free from death", and "nibbāna is freedom from death" as all being roughly equivalent?

Also, when you say that you were looking for something fairly neutral, do you mean that you see "freedom from" as more neutral than "the destruction of"? I ask because they seem equally non-neutral to me (whereas "free from" and "without" do seem neutral).
I think you are correct here. I would have no problem using "free from," except "freedom from birth" or "freedom from death" (see below) works better in the contexts of the texts I have offered.
Finally, do you have an example passage at hand in which "freedom from death" fits well, but "the destruction of death" does not? It seems to me that although both renderings introduce an additional concept (freedom and destruction/extinction, respectively) that was not explicit in the original, of the two, the latter wording is to be preferred because it at least occurs in the Suttas.
  • ”Then the group of five monks, being thus exhorted, thus instructed by me [the Buddha], being liable to death because of self, having known the perils in what is liable to death, seeking freedom from death, the uttermost security from the bonds -- nibbana -- won freedom from death, the uttermost security from the bonds -- nibbana...." -- MN I 173
I don't think one is destroying death; rather, one is destroying that which makes us liable to death, thus we are free from death. Does this make sense? Sometime I get a bit too close to these things, and so it help to have another perspective.

Re: "The Deathless" (amata)

Posted: Mon Jul 09, 2012 7:33 am
by khaaan
tiltbillings wrote:
  • ”Then the group of five monks, being thus exhorted, thus instructed by me [the Buddha], being liable to death because of self, having known the perils in what is liable to death, seeking freedom from death, the uttermost security from the bonds -- nibbana -- won freedom from death, the uttermost security from the bonds -- nibbana...." -- MN I 173
I don't think one is destroying death; rather, one is destroying that which makes us liable to death, thus we are free from death. Does this make sense? Sometime I get a bit too close to these things, and so it help to have another perspective.
Yes, I see what you mean. As you say, it''s not that "one is destroying death", so that rendering is wrong and I understand why you rejected it. It's tricky; maybe there's no way to translate it into English in a way that's both elegant and accurate, but what do you make of this? (a slightly modified version of the translation at http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/bits/bits071.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;)
  • ”Then the group of five monks, being thus exhorted, thus instructed by me [the Buddha], being liable to death because of self, having known the perils in what is liable to death, seeking nibbāna, free from death, the uttermost security from the bonds -- won nibbāna, free from death, the uttermost security from the bonds...." -- MN I 173
I take it you rejected that approach because of it's inelegance, and I can't really argue with you there. It does seem a bit more faithful to the original, though, but I suppose that's rhe curse of the translator: being continually faced with that trade-off.

Re: "The Deathless" (amata)

Posted: Mon Jul 09, 2012 7:43 am
by tiltbillings
khaaan wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:
  • ”Then the group of five monks, being thus exhorted, thus instructed by me [the Buddha], being liable to death because of self, having known the perils in what is liable to death, seeking freedom from death, the uttermost security from the bonds -- nibbana -- won freedom from death, the uttermost security from the bonds -- nibbana...." -- MN I 173
I don't think one is destroying death; rather, one is destroying that which makes us liable to death, thus we are free from death. Does this make sense? Sometime I get a bit too close to these things, and so it help to have another perspective.
Yes, I see what you mean. As you say, it''s not that "one is destroying death", so that rendering is wrong and I understand why you rejected it. It's tricky; maybe there's no way to translate it into English in a way that's both elegant and accurate, but what do you make of this? (a slightly modified version of the translation at http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/bits/bits071.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;)
  • ”Then the group of five monks, being thus exhorted, thus instructed by me [the Buddha], being liable to death because of self, having known the perils in what is liable to death, seeking nibbāna, free from death, the uttermost security from the bonds -- won nibbāna, free from death, the uttermost security from the bonds...." -- MN I 173
I take it you rejected that approach because of it's inelegance, and I can't really argue with you there. It does seem a bit more faithful to the original, though, but I suppose that's rhe curse of the translator: being continually faced with that trade-off.
Wow. It has been a long since I looked at Henry Clarke Warren's Buddhism in Translations. As old as they are, they are still worth reading. I agree with you, that what you are offering works.

Re: "The Deathless" (amata)

Posted: Mon Jul 09, 2012 1:50 pm
by kirk5a
Whatever is supposed of nibbana as far as how to think about it philosophically, here is how knowing it actually happens:
Ajaan Lee Dhammadharo wrote: The path to stream-entry is the act of focusing on physical and mental phenomena, back and forth. When events are traced back and forth — sometimes two times in succession, sometimes three, depending on the power of one's insight — physical and mental phenomena disband and change-of-lineage knowledge arises in the same instant, enabling one to see the quality within one that isn't subject to arising or passing away. This is the opening onto nibbana, appearing sharp and clear through the power of one's own discernment, bringing with it the fruition of stream-entry, the state of being a Noble Disciple in the Buddha's teaching.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/thai/lee/craft.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Re: "The Deathless" (amata)

Posted: Mon Jul 09, 2012 1:58 pm
by daverupa
the quality within one that isn't subject to arising or passing away
Would someone mind unpacking this?