The universe is without a refuge, without a Supreme God.

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism

Re: The universe is without a refuge, without a Supreme God.

Postby Kim OHara » Fri Dec 11, 2009 4:46 am

roni wrote:I came accross this remark "May I draw your attention to the Sudatta sutta (SN 10.8)
in which Buddha teaches the young Anathapindada (or Anathapindika) on creation and creator.
Here he’s more than specific: no Creator, no Creation.
The Sudatta sutta is part of the Small Vehicle Pali, Agama, and Kanjur collections." here http://www.thinkbuddha.org/article/432/ ... od#comment.

The Sutta I found as SN 10.8 (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html) doesn't seem to be about this topic. Could you please help me either with the source of the text (in English or Pali) or secondary literature on thdis sutta?

Thx & metta,

Roni


It's clear that the Sudatta Sutta reference is wrong. I spent a while trying to find the correct reference (just indulging my curiosity) and the nearest I got was the Milinda-Panha - as given at http://www.agniyoga.org/ay_txt/ay_FoB.txt:
The idea of God has its own interpretation for Buddhists, in accordance with the law of Karma and with the understanding of the necessity of personal efforts for oneís own liberation. ìWho is it that shapes our lives? Is it Isvara, a personal creator? If Isvara be the maker, all living things should have silently to submit to their makerís power. They would be like vessels formed by the potterís hand; and if it were so, how would it be possible to practice virtue? If the world had been made by Isvara there should be no such thing as sorrow, or calamity, or sin; for both pure and impure deeds must issue from him. If not, there would be another cause besides him, and he would not be self-existent. Thus, thou seest, the thought of Isvara is overthrown.
Again, it is said that the Absolute has created us. But that which is absolute cannot be a cause. All things around us come from a cause as the plant comes from the seed; but how can the Absolute be the cause of all things alike? If it pervades them, then, certainly, it does not make them.
Again, it is said that Self is the maker. But if Self is the maker, why did he not make things pleasing? The cause of sorrow and joy are real and objective. How can they have been made by Self?
Again, if we adopt the argument that there is no maker, our fate is such as it is, and there is no causation, what use would there be in shaping our lives and adjusting means to an end?
Therefore, we argue that all things that exist are not without cause. However, neither Isvara, nor the Absolute, nor the Self, nor causeless chance, is the maker, but our deeds produce results both good and evil.

You may find a more authoritative version.

Hope this helps,

Kim
User avatar
Kim OHara
 
Posts: 3073
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: The universe is without a refuge, without a Supreme God.

Postby tiltbillings » Fri Dec 11, 2009 5:42 am

Kim O'Hara wrote:You may find a more authoritative version.

In light of Richard Gombrich's WHAT THE BUDDHA THOUGHT, (which I am about 2/3 of the way through) which puts the Buddha's teachings within the context of the Brahmanical background of the Buddha's time, the translation the line from MN 82: Ratthapala Sutta as The universe is without a refuge, without a Supreme God is quite appropriate.

There are a number of other texts from the suttas which I have collected that address the question of a god/God.
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.
SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.
People live in one another’s shelter.

"We eat cold eels and think distant thoughts." -- Jack Johnson
User avatar
tiltbillings
 
Posts: 19562
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Ven. Bodhi's translation

Postby Jechbi » Sun Dec 13, 2009 7:11 am

Ven. Bhikku Bodhi's translation wrote:Great king, there are four summaries of the Dhamma that have been taught by the Blessed One who knows and sees, accomplished and fully enlightened. Knowing and seeing and hearing them, I went forth from the home life into homelessness. What are these four?

[Life in] any world is unstable, it is swept away: this is the first summary of the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One who knows and sees, accomplished and fully enlightened. Knowing and seeing and hearing this, I went forth from the home life into homelessness.

[Life in] any world has no shelter and no protector: this is the second summary of the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One who knows and sees ...

[LIfe in] any world has nothing of its own; one has to leave all and pass on: this is the third summary of the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One who knows and sees ...

[Life in] any world is incomplete, insatiate, the slave of of craving: this is the fourth summary of the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One who knows and sees.

(The note with regard to "no shelter" offered at the end of the book: There is no one able to offer it shelter or to console it with a refuge. This statement, of course, does not deny a refuge from the world, which is just what the Dhamma offers.)


If the passage is a "summary of Dhamma" as Ven. Bodhi indicates in his translation, and if one looks at these four summaries of Dhamma together as a group, one must recognize that the point of them, collectively, does not focus on polemical positions regarding theories of theism versus atheism.
Rain soddens what is kept wrapped up,
But never soddens what is open;
Uncover, then, what is concealed,
Lest it be soddened by the rain.
User avatar
Jechbi
 
Posts: 1268
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 3:38 am

Re: The universe is without a refuge, without a Supreme God.

Postby Kim OHara » Sun Dec 13, 2009 8:50 am

I looked at the Ratthapala Sutta too, and came to the same conclusion as Jechbi - it doesn't seem to be the sutta the OP was trying to find. Any other candidates in your collection, tilt?
:smile:

Kim
User avatar
Kim OHara
 
Posts: 3073
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: The universe is without a refuge, without a Supreme God.

Postby tiltbillings » Sun Dec 13, 2009 8:51 am

[[Life in] any world has no shelter and no protector

Except that the Pali for no protector abhi-issaro is far more emphatic than the weakly stated “no protector.” To state that the Buddha would not make a “polemical” statement in a summary of the Dhamma is also not quite true. There is a fair amount of satire and biting humor to be found in the suttas, and it often runs counter to our modern Western sensibilities of how we think the Dhamma should be expressed. The fifth sutta in the Digha, the Kūṭadanta Sutta makes this point. No Brahmin mother is going to name her sweet little baby Kūṭadanta, “Snaggle-tooth.” The Brahmins certainly do get a bit of biting humor directed at them. Another example:

viewtopic.php?f=13&t=737&p=8996#p8996 Dhammanando wrote:Hi Individual,

The only thing that comes to mind is the Soṇa Sutta (AN. iii. 221-2), where the Buddha describes the five ways in which dogs are better than brahmins, owing to the latter's discarding of their ancient customs. It's one of a series of suttas where the Buddha decries how the brahmins of his day had degenerated. To paraphrase:

1. Dogs only have sex with other dogs, whereas brahmins, though formerly having sex only with other brahmins, nowadays will do it with women from any caste.
2. Dogs only have sex when the bitch is in season, whereas brahmins will do it at any time.
3. Dogs don't buy and sell bitches, but rather, will mate according to mutual affection. Brahmins do buy and sell lady brahmins.
4. Dogs don't hoard silver, gold, grain etc., but brahmins do.
5. Dogs go looking for their evening meal in the evening and their morning meal in the morning. Brahmins stuff themselves silly and then keep the leftovers for the next meal.

"Verily, bhikkhus, these are the five ancient brahmin dhammas that are nowadays practised by dogs but not by brahmins."

Best wishes,
Dhammanando Bhikkhu


The examples can be multiplied considerably, and the point is that we should not assume how the Dhamma is going to be expressed is going to conform to modern day sensibilities.

Another example that addresses the concern about expressing “polemics” in the expression of the Dhamma can be seen in the Buddha’s response to a claim made by the Brhadaranyaka Upanishad, a text - the ideas contained within were - obviously familiar to the Buddha as they were to much of his audience.

Klaus Klostermaier's A SURVEY OF HINDUISM, pgs: 137-8, 149-50 wrote: "In the Brhadaranyaka Upanisad we read a dialogue in which Yajnavalkya is asked the crucial question: Kati devah, how many are the devas [gods]? His first answer is a quotation from a Vedic text:

'Three hundred and three and three thousand and three." Pressed
on, he reduces the number first to thirty-three, then to six, then to
three, to two, to one-and-a-half and finally to One.

'Which is the one deva [god]?' And he answers: "The prana (breath, life). The Brahman. He is called tyat(that).' Though the devas still figure in sacrificial practice and religious debate, the question 'Who is God?' is here answered in terms that has remained the Hindu answer ever since.

10. Verily, in the beginning this world was Brahma. It knew only itself
(atmanam): "I am Brahma!" Therefore it became the All. Whoever of the gods became awakened to this, he indeed became it; likewise in the case of seers (rsi), likewise in the case of men. Seeing this, indeed, the seer Vamadeva began:-

I was Manu and the sun (surya)!

This is so now also. Whoever thus knows "I am Brahma!" becomes this All; even the gods have not power to prevent his becoming thus, for he becomes their self (atman).

So whoever worships another divinity [than his Self], thinking "He is
one and I another," he knows not. He is like a sacrificial animal for the gods. Verily, indeed, as many animals would be of service to a man, even so each single person is of service to the gods. If even one animal is taken away, it is not pleasant. What, then, if many? Therefore it is not pleasing to those [gods] that men should know this.

11. Verily, in the beginning this world was Brahma, one only.

The All. The Buddha directly and radically challenges this statement with this fundamental statement of the Dhamma:

"Monks, I will teach you the all. And what is the all? The eye and forms, the ear and sounds the nose and odors, the tongue and tastes, the body and touch, the mind and mental phenomena. This is called the all. If anyone, monks, should speak thus: ' Having rejected this all, I shall make known another all' - that would be a mere empty boast." SN IV 15.

What follows a rather biting caricature of the creation story of the Brhadaranyaka Upanishad that pre-dates the Buddha.

There are, Bhaggava, some ascetics and Brahmins who declare as their doctrine that all things began with the creation by a god [issara, or ishvara, skt], or Brahma. I have gone to them and said: "Reverend sirs, is it true that you declare that all things began with the creation by a god, or Brahma?" "Yes", they replied. Then I asked: "In that case, how do the reverend teachers declare that this came about?" But they could not give an answer, and so they asked me in return. And I replied:

'There comes a time, monks, sooner or later after a long period, when this world contracts. At a time of contraction, beings are mostly reborn in the Abhassara Brahma world. And there they dwell, mind-made,' feeding on delight," self-luminous, moving through the air, glorious - and they stay like that for a very long time.

'But the time comes, sooner or later after a long period, when this world begins to expand. In this expanding world an empty palace of Brahma" appears. And then one being, from exhaustion of his life-span or of merits, falls from the Abhassara world and arises in empty Brahma- palace. And there he dwells, mind-made, feeding on delight, self- luminous, moving through the glorious - and he stays like that for a very long time.

'Then in this being who has been alone for so long there arises unrest, discontent and worry, and he thinks: "Oh, if only some other beings would come here!" And other beings, from exhaustion of their life-span or of their merits, fall from the Abhassara world and arise in the Brahma-palace as companions for this being. And there they dwell, mind-made. ... and they stayed like that for a very long time.

'And then, monks, that being who first arose there thinks: "I am Brahma, the Great God, the Omnipotent, the Omniscient, the Organizer, the Protection, the Creator, the Most Perfect Ruler, the Designer and Orderer, the Father of All That Have Been and Shall Be, He by Whom we were created, He is permanent, Constant, Eternal, Unchanging, and I will remain so for ever and ever."

These beings were created by me. How so? Because I first had this thought: 'Oh, if only some other beings would come here!' That was my wish, and then these beings came into this existence!" But those beings who arose subsequently think: "This, friends, is Brahma, the Great God, the Omnipotent, the Omniscient, the Organizer, the Protection, the Creator, the Most Perfect Ruler, the Designer and Orderer, the Father of All That Have Been and Shall Be, He by Whom we were created, He is permanent, Constant, Eternal, Unchanging, and He will remain so for ever and ever."

How so? We have seen that he was here first, and that we arose after him."

'And this being that arose first is longer-lived, more beautiful and more powerful than they are. And it may happen that some being falls from that realm and arises in this world. Having arisen in this world, he goes forth from the household life into homelessness. Having gone forth, he by means of effort, exertion, application, earnestness and right attention attains to such a degree of mental concentration that he thereby recalls his last existence, but recalls none before that. And he thinks: "That Brahma, ... he made us, and he is permanent, stable, eternal, not subject to change, the same for ever and ever. But we who were created by that Brahma, we are impermanent, unstable, short-lived, fated to fall away, and we have come to this world."

-- Digha Nikaya 24


Anguttara Nikaya 3.61: "Again, monks, I [the Buddha] approached those ascetic and brahmins and said to them: 'Is it true, as they say, that you venerable ones teach and hold the view that whatever a person experiences...all that is caused by God's creation?' When they affirmed it, I said to them: 'If that is so, venerable sirs, then it is due to God's creation that people kill, steal ... [and otherwise act badly]. But those who have recourse to God's creation as the decisive factor, will lack the impulse and the effort doing this or not doing that. Since for them, really and truly, no (motive) obtains that this or that ought to be done or not be done...."'

"If the pleasure and pain that beings feel are caused the creative act of a Supreme God [Issara-nimmana-hetu], then the Niganthas [Jains] surely must have been created by an evil Supreme God." - MN II 222.

The idea of a god, issara, who was characterized so: "That Worshipful Brahma, the Great God, the Omnipotent, the Omniscient, the Organizer, the Protection, the Creator, the Most Perfect Ruler, the Designer and Orderer, the Father of All That Have Been and Shall Be, He by Whom we were created, He is permanent, Constant, Eternal, Unchanging, and He will remain so for ever and ever." (DN 24: iii 28) was obviously part of the very well known and accepted background within which the Buddha taught and to which he responded.

That the Buddha would say The universe is without a refuge, without a Supreme God - abhi-issara - is not at all out of keeping with statements made elsewhere in the suttas (as we see above), nor is it out of keeping with “four summaries of the Dhamma" of the Ratthapala Sutta, and the point of such a statement would not be lost on the audience who would be steeped in such ideas of a singular, unchanging issara to whom we can appeal for protection and of which we imagine we are a part. The point is clearly stated there is no singular, unchanging thing to be found within the universe to which we can cling or hide behind or grasp onto or which we somehow are.
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.
SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.
People live in one another’s shelter.

"We eat cold eels and think distant thoughts." -- Jack Johnson
User avatar
tiltbillings
 
Posts: 19562
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: The universe is without a refuge, without a Supreme God.

Postby tiltbillings » Sun Dec 13, 2009 9:04 am

Kim O'Hara wrote:I looked at the Ratthapala Sutta too, and came to the same conclusion as Jechbi - it doesn't seem to be the sutta the OP was trying to find. Any other candidates in your collection, tilt?

Kim

It is the Ratthapala Sutta the OP, clw_uk, is referring to. If you read on from the opening post you will see that I point out that it is my translation and I give a sutta based rationale for my position for translating it the way I do. Quite frankly, in my opinion, not much seems to be offered as a counter other than "the Buddha would not give a summary like that."

You do not have to agree with me, and obviously Jechbi does not agree with me. What I have offered is a considered and exegetical translation that is not out of keeping with either the immediate or broader textual contexts or the historical context of the Brahmanical background of the Buddha's time. I have no need or interest in forcing the passage out of context.
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.
SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.
People live in one another’s shelter.

"We eat cold eels and think distant thoughts." -- Jack Johnson
User avatar
tiltbillings
 
Posts: 19562
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: The universe is without a refuge, without a Supreme God.

Postby Kim OHara » Sun Dec 13, 2009 12:11 pm

:oops:
I only went to the top of the page, not the top of the thread. Sorry!
As regards the OP, I agree 100%.
The one I was looking at, and trying to find a source for, was the quote Roni brought into play.

:anjali:
Kim
User avatar
Kim OHara
 
Posts: 3073
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: The universe is without a refuge, without a Supreme God.

Postby tiltbillings » Sun Dec 13, 2009 6:54 pm

Kim O'Hara wrote::oops:
I only went to the top of the page, not the top of the thread. Sorry!


I thought that might be the case.
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.
SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.
People live in one another’s shelter.

"We eat cold eels and think distant thoughts." -- Jack Johnson
User avatar
tiltbillings
 
Posts: 19562
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Suffering and the end of suffering

Postby Jechbi » Mon Dec 14, 2009 7:09 am

tiltbillings wrote:The point is clearly stated there is no singular, unchanging thing to be found within the universe to which we can cling or hide behind or grasp onto or which we somehow are.

I agree with this.

The "supreme god" translation is one possible translation. In the broader context of the entire discussion in this thread, I feel that Ven. Bodhi's translation is more useful with regard to summarizing Dhamma as it pertains to understanding suffering and the end of suffering in this present moment.

Atheism is just another "ism," just another point of view, I think. If someone comes in here and tries to explain how Buddhism supports his or her personal viewpoints regarding Christianity, that would be challenged. Likewise with Hinduism, or with any other viewpoint we might encounter. The same ought to apply to atheism. I reject the notion that atheism is a summary of Dhamma.
Rain soddens what is kept wrapped up,
But never soddens what is open;
Uncover, then, what is concealed,
Lest it be soddened by the rain.
User avatar
Jechbi
 
Posts: 1268
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 3:38 am

Re: The universe is without a refuge, without a Supreme God.

Postby tiltbillings » Mon Dec 14, 2009 7:28 am

Jechbi wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:The point is clearly stated there is no singular, unchanging thing to be found within the universe to which we can cling or hide behind or grasp onto or which we somehow are.

I agree with this.

The "supreme god" translation is one possible translation. In the broader context of the entire discussion in this thread, I feel that Ven. Bodhi's translation is more useful with regard to summarizing Dhamma as it pertains to understanding suffering and the end of suffering in this present moment.

Atheism is just another "ism," just another point of view, I think. If someone comes in here and tries to explain how Buddhism supports his or her personal viewpoints regarding Christianity, that would be challenged. Likewise with Hinduism, or with any other viewpoint we might encounter. The same ought to apply to atheism. I reject the notion that atheism is a summary of Dhamma.
It is not a matter of atheism as a summary of the Dhamma. That - completely missing the point - is not what the text is about, nor is it what the translation I offered is about. It is solely a matter of what the Buddha taught and the context within which he taught that is the issue for me. Ven Bodhi's translation misses it.
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.
SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.
People live in one another’s shelter.

"We eat cold eels and think distant thoughts." -- Jack Johnson
User avatar
tiltbillings
 
Posts: 19562
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: The universe is without a refuge, without a Supreme God.

Postby PaulD » Sat Dec 19, 2009 9:12 pm

I'm agnostic but a good argument for theists against Buddhists would be that throughout history the western religions such as Christianity put more emphasis on taking care of the sick and the poor since Jesus said you will be judged on how you treat the least amongst you. On the other hand most Buddhists would think it is because of their karma that the individual is sick or poor so in order to "burn" their bad karma they must suffer otherwise they will have to pay the debt some other time any way.
PaulD
 
Posts: 37
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2009 2:40 am

Re: The universe is without a refuge, without a Supreme God.

Postby Kim OHara » Sun Dec 20, 2009 12:09 am

PaulD wrote:I'm agnostic but a good argument for theists against Buddhists would be that throughout history the western religions such as Christianity put more emphasis on taking care of the sick and the poor since Jesus said you will be judged on how you treat the least amongst you. On the other hand most Buddhists would think it is because of their karma that the individual is sick or poor so in order to "burn" their bad karma they must suffer otherwise they will have to pay the debt some other time any way.

Realistically, that's 'some Christians put more emphasis on taking care of the sick and the poor since Jesus said you will be judged on how you treat the least amongst you' and 'some Buddhists would think it is because of their karma that the individual is sick or poor...'
With equal justification, you could say that Buddhism teaches compassion for all sentient beings while Christianity only extends compassion to humans.
Both are answers to the question, 'Is it better for the world if people believe in God or not?' It's an interesting and potentially useful question but it is a bit off-topic here. The original question was whether the Buddha taught that any creator-god exists.

:namaste:
Kim
User avatar
Kim OHara
 
Posts: 3073
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: The universe is without a refuge, without a Supreme God.

Postby mikenz66 » Sun Dec 20, 2009 2:23 am

Hi Paul,
PaulD wrote:I'm agnostic but a good argument for theists against Buddhists would be that throughout history the western religions such as Christianity put more emphasis on taking care of the sick and the poor since Jesus said you will be judged on how you treat the least amongst you.

The Buddha said similar things: viewtopic.php?f=13&t=110&p=43594#p43594
As I am, so are others...
As others are, so am I...
Having thus identified self with others,
Never Harm anyone, nor make any hurt.
Sutta-Nipata 705

PaulD wrote:On the other hand most Buddhists would think it is because of their karma that the individual is sick or poor so in order to "burn" their bad karma they must suffer otherwise they will have to pay the debt some other time any way.

This idea of "burning" kamma contradicts the Pali Canon. Those Buddhists that you mention are confused about what the Buddha taught (as are, of course, many Buddhists, Christians, etc...)
MN 101 Devadaha Sutta: At Devadaha
The Buddha refutes a Jain theory of kamma, which claims that one's present experience is determined solely by one's actions in past lives, and that the only way to undo the effects of past unskillful actions is to "burn them away" through severe practices of austerity. The Buddha here outlines one of his most important teachings on kamma: that it is both the results of past deeds and present actions that shape one's experience of the present. It is precisely this interaction of present and past that opens up the very possibility of Awakening.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html


Metta
Mike
User avatar
mikenz66
 
Posts: 10388
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: The universe is without a refuge, without a Supreme God.

Postby uptuyou » Sun Dec 20, 2009 3:34 am

Ultimately we can discuss these things until we are blue in the face. However, we will only know the truth of the questions at hand through silence. It is only through asking the question, "What am I?" That one begins to understand ones true nature and relationship with God, Atman, Allah or what-have-you.

gus
Profundity lies in the silence between the words.
User avatar
uptuyou
 
Posts: 6
Joined: Fri Dec 18, 2009 2:14 am
Location: South Dakota

Re: The universe is without a refuge, without a Supreme God.

Postby tiltbillings » Sun Dec 20, 2009 3:53 am

uptuyou wrote:Ultimately we can discuss these things until we are blue in the face. However, we will only know the truth of the questions at hand through silence. It is only through asking the question, "What am I?" That one begins to understand ones true nature and relationship with God, Atman, Allah or what-have-you.

gus
What am I? That is not the question to ask. There is, in fact, no question to ask. Asking questions only colors one's experience, leaving us with add-on conceptual structures as a "relationship with God, Atman, Allah or what-have-you" that we imagine are more than they are. What one does is pay attention to what we are, finding in that no refuge, no add-on conceptual structures of "God, Atman, Allah or what-have-you" - no thing within or without - layered upon our experience. Our experience, seen fully and completely as it is is what free us from a need to color, to shade, to add onto the conditioned and conditioning rise and fall of simply six things - what we hear, what we see, what we taste, what we touch, what we cognize, what we smell.
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.
SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.
People live in one another’s shelter.

"We eat cold eels and think distant thoughts." -- Jack Johnson
User avatar
tiltbillings
 
Posts: 19562
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: The universe is without a refuge, without a Supreme God.

Postby Kim OHara » Sun Dec 20, 2009 4:22 am

:goodpost:
Well said, tilt!

- Kim
User avatar
Kim OHara
 
Posts: 3073
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: The universe is without a refuge, without a Supreme God.

Postby Dhammanando » Sun Dec 20, 2009 4:25 am

The "without a refuge/protector" translation supposes anabhissaro to be an adjective formed from "na abhissarati", the passive form of the verb abhisarati, from the root *sar (the same root as sarana, refuge).

The "without a Supreme God" translation, since it posits a connection between anabhissaro and issaro (God) would need to be formed from an entirely different root: *is or *iis. But since there is no such verb as abhissati or abhiissati, one would first need to form the noun issaro, then prefix it with abhi-, then add the negative an-.

Both ways are possible, but the second is extremely improbable, for had the word been formed in this way we should expect to meet with instances of the unnegated form 'abhissaro' in the sense of "Supreme God". But there is no such instantiation even in the commentaries, let alone the Suttas.

Best wishes,
Dhammanando
    ...and this thought arose in the mind of the Blessed One:
    “Who lives without reverence lives miserably.”
    Uruvela Sutta, A.ii.20

    It were endless to dispute upon everything that is disputable.
    — William Penn Some Fruits of Solitude,
User avatar
Dhammanando
 
Posts: 1266
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:44 pm
Location: Wat Pa Mieng Khun Pang, Chiang Mai

Re: The universe is without a refuge, without a Supreme God.

Postby uptuyou » Sun Dec 20, 2009 4:40 am

I know longer feel the need to ask the question"What am I". However, it can be quite revealing. It may not be for everyone.
I agree there is no question to ask; but not everyone is there yet. I hope I didn't offend anyone.
gus
Profundity lies in the silence between the words.
User avatar
uptuyou
 
Posts: 6
Joined: Fri Dec 18, 2009 2:14 am
Location: South Dakota

Re: The universe is without a refuge, without a Supreme God.

Postby Paññāsikhara » Sun Dec 20, 2009 4:45 am

Dhammanando wrote:The "without a refuge/protector" translation supposes anabhissaro to be an adjective formed from "na abhissarati", the passive form of the verb abhisarati, from the root *sar (the same root as sarana, refuge).

The "without a Supreme God" translation, since it posits a connection between anabhissaro and issaro (God) would need to be formed from an entirely different root: *is or *iis. But since there is no such verb as abhissati or abhiissati, one would first need to form the noun issaro, then prefix it with abhi-, then add the negative an-.

Both ways are possible, but the second is extremely improbable, for had the word been formed in this way we should expect to meet with instances of the unnegated form 'abhissaro' in the sense of "Supreme God". But there is no such instantiation even in the commentaries, let alone the Suttas.

Best wishes,
Dhammanando


Thanks, Bhante, nothing like some good clear analysis of the basic words - complemented by context and broader perspective, too.

Just to do my usual part, if anyone is wondering that perhaps the Pali (as one of a number of various Prakrits around India at the time) is in error (change a little vowel here, shift a little bit here), it is seen that in the North Western Sthavira traditions, the term is also "without a refuge", and not "without a supreme god". This is evidenced in a number of texts, not just one.
My recently moved Blog, containing some of my writings on the Buddha Dhamma, as well as a number of translations from classical Buddhist texts and modern authors, liturgy, etc.: Huifeng's Prajnacara Blog.
Paññāsikhara
 
Posts: 980
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 5:27 am

Re: The universe is without a refuge, without a Supreme God.

Postby Paññāsikhara » Sun Dec 20, 2009 4:47 am

uptuyou wrote:Ultimately we can discuss these things until we are blue in the face. However, we will only know the truth of the questions at hand through silence. It is only through asking the question, "What am I?" That one begins to understand ones true nature and relationship with God, Atman, Allah or what-have-you.

gus


From a Buddhist perspective, you are right - there is a very clear relationship between a self and a supreme God.

How so?

Both are figments of conceptual proliferation, ultimately unable to found in any sense at all.
(For which many will further provide more conceptually proliferated explanations, but that happens ...)
My recently moved Blog, containing some of my writings on the Buddha Dhamma, as well as a number of translations from classical Buddhist texts and modern authors, liturgy, etc.: Huifeng's Prajnacara Blog.
Paññāsikhara
 
Posts: 980
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 5:27 am

PreviousNext

Return to General Theravāda discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests