Moderator: Mahavihara moderator
Dhammanando wrote:retrofuturist wrote:it's the non-substantial that looks needlessly interpretive to me.
I would say that this part is the translation's only redeeming feature. The rendering 'non-substantial' suggest that Wallis is among those few Pali translators who are alert to the semantic distinction between the adjective 'anatta' (as used here) and agglutinated predicative phrase 'anatta'. Most other translators get the two homonyms muddled and when encountering the adjective will translate it as they would the phrase (i.e., as "is/are not self").
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], Sylvester and 4 guests