When in doubt, go back to the beginning and see where the train went off the track.
I went back to read from my Wisdom Publication editions the suttas that Sylvester was using to make his assertions, and guess what I found. He decided to re-translate the very sutta that he was using as "evidence" (SN 12.25) of his assertion. And of course, his re-translation seems to fit with the assertions he has been making. Fancy that! I am speaking of the translation he made found
here in this post of the
Bhumija Sutta about half way down the post.
It seems that Sylvester is fond of changing trusted and credible translator's words (Bhikkhu Bodhi's in this case, whose judgment I have come to accept as being impeccable with regard to the scholarship and nit picking he does in order to render the discourses as accurately as possible according to their intended meaning within his understanding of both the Dhamma and the Pali language) in order to fit his own speculative thought, base on his misreading (and conflation) of the passage in question. He has added in ideas that are not there in the passage as it was originally translated.
He likes to make inferences between ideas that express one thing and conflate them with his own misunderstood impressions. He is not interested to hear about his misunderstandings, nor does he seem to become particularly alarmed that someone has pointed out a misunderstanding to him. The thought that he might be wrong just does not enter his mind. As far as he is concerned, his re-translation (and mistaken conflation of words and ideas) is the only thing that matters to him, and I can certainly see why he might think that way. Unfortunately, that doesn't make his mistaken inferences correct according to the way the discourses actually read when translated by a trusted translator.
If readers of this thread are already confused by the exchanges that have taken place between Sylvester and myself, don't worry about it. It is Sylvester's problem, not yours. If you read and understood the correction
I gave here, then you need not bother your mind with attempting to figure out just where Sylvester's train leapt the tracks and veered off into uncharted territory.
For those who are interested to make a short journey, follow along with me as I present the translation of the
Bhumija Sutta that Bodhi originally published in his translation of the
Samyutta Nikaya. We will examine the words that Sylvester conflated and the reason why this conflation is unwarranted. Don't expect Sylvester to agree with this explanation, because he won't. His view is filtered through an undeliberate volitional formation. In other words, ignorance! (Don't worry, you'll understand later as I explain what went on.) Once he learns the difference between the significance of these words, his view will change accordingly. But don't expect a miracle to happen over night, because it is not going to happen. He will come back with some minor subterfuge that he has concocted in order to justify his misunderstanding once again. Only this time I won't be responding, because anything I might say would just be a rehash of what is being stated here now. And since Sylvester doesn't want to hear it, it would be a waste of my time — which has already been stretched to the limit in this exchange.
Sylvester has already played this game with Nana in another thread, where basically the same thing happened with regard to mistaken inferences on his part. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. It's all part of the practice. We all go through these periods where our misunderstanding is more
real than what is actually there staring us in the face. Besides, it's usually so much more interesting than what's staring us in the face, which is partially why we persist in clinging to it.
Here is the translation according to Bhikkhu Bodhi. Just for fun, before you read on after the end of the quotation, see if you can find the words that have been mistranslated. (Note: the bracketed numbers are footnote references.)
Ananda, when there is the body, because of bodily volition (kayasancetana), pleasure and pain arise internally; when there is speech, because of verbal volition (vacisancetana), pleasure and pain arise internally; when there is the mind, because of mental volition (manosancetana), pleasure and pain arise internally — and with ignorance as condition.
"Either on one's own initiative, Ananda, one generates that bodily volitional formation (sankhara) conditioned by which pleasure and pain arise internally; or prompted by others one generates that bodily volitional formation conditioned by which pleasure and pain arise internally. Either deliberately, Ananda, one generates that bodily volitional formation conditioned by which pleasure and pain arise internally; or undeliberately one generates that bodily volitional formation conditioned by which pleasure and pain arise internally.[78]
"Either on one's own initiative, Ananda, one generates that verbal volitional formation conditioned by which pleasure and pain arise internally; or prompted by others one generates that verbal volitional formation conditioned by which pleasure and pain arise internally. Either deliberately, Ananda, one generates that verbal volitional formation conditioned by which pleasure and pain arise internally; or undeliberately one generates that verbal volitional formation conditioned by which pleasure and pain arise internally.
"Either on one's own initiative, Ananda, one generates that mental volitional formation[79] conditioned by which pleasure and pain arise internally; or prompted by others one generates that mental volitional formation conditioned by which pleasure and pain arise internally. Either deliberately, Ananda, one generates that mental volitional formation conditioned by which pleasure and pain arise internally; or undeliberately one generates that mental volitional formation conditioned by which pleasure and pain arise internally.
"Ignorance is comprised within these states.[80] But with the remainderless fading away and cessation of ignorance that body does not exist conditioned by which pleasure and pain arise internally; that speech does not exist conditioned by which that pleasure and pain arise internally; that mind does not exist conditioned by which that pleasure and pain arise internally.[81] That field does not exist, that site does not exist, that base does not exist, that foundation does not exist conditioned by which that pleasure and pain arise internally."[82]
Did you find the re-translated words? If not, don't worry. We're going to go over them below.
Aside from the change in the general form of the translation, which I don't take to have disturbed any of the essential meaning as compared with Bhikkhu Bodhi's translation, did you have a feeling that the two translations were slightly different. If not, then perhaps you weren't paying close enough attention.
There are basically two important words here that Sylvester has changed according to his desire to read the sutta in his own way. The fact that he didn't seem to think it important enough
not to change the words only means that he missed the significance of the words in the first place. This happens to all of us. We see two statements and say to ourself, "Well, doesn't that statement mean the same as this statement?" And on the surface, and according to the way we are looking at it, it certainly seems that both statements are saying the same thing. And so we make an inference and conflate the two statements, and from that point on, in our mind, they both mean the same
exact thing.
What Bodhi's translation (above)
tells me is that the explanation I gave in the link above to correct Sylvester's misunderstanding is exactly what the Buddha said in Bodhi's translation. But, if you read Sylvester's re-translated version, you see how the meaning has changed according to the way he has translated two key words.
Okay, if you haven't figured out which words/phrases I'm talking about, I won't keep you in suspense any longer. In the second, third, and fourth paragraphs, one passage is repeated and changed according to the different factors being presented, those factors being "bodily volitional formation," "verbal volitional formation," and "mental volitional formation." These aren't the words or phrases being re-translated. Lets look at one of these passages to see which words and ideas have been changed:
Either deliberately, Ananda, one generates that bodily volitional formation conditioned by which pleasure and pain arise internally; or undeliberately one generates that bodily volitional formation conditioned by which pleasure and pain arise internally.
Now here is Sylvester's re-translation:
Ananda, either fully aware one generates that bodily formation, conditioned by which pleasure and pain arise internally; or, not fully aware one generates that bodily formation, conditioned by which pleasure and pain arise internally.
Does anyone else here see a significant change in the tenor and meaning of what is being stated? If Bodhi had wanted to use the phrases "fully aware" an "not fully aware" in order to maintain the continuity of the Dhamma and the integrity of his translation with his understanding of how the Pali passages read, don't you think he would have made this leap and used these two phrases instead of using the words "deliberately" and "undeliberately"? Of course he would. But he didn't. Why did he not use those phrases? Because they were not consistent with the idea that the Buddha was endeavoring to convey as he meant to differentiate between
deliberate and
undeliberate volitional formations (be they bodily, vebal or mental), not "aware" and "unaware" volitional formations. And the point he was endeavoring to make was that these deliberate and undeliberate volitional formations were the result of Ignorance. Which he states directly: "Ignorance is comprised within these states." Meaning that he was referencing these deliberate and undeliberate volitional formations.
What he was, in the end, endeavoring to point out was an explanation for the lack of kamma created by the arahant. This idea transcends any speculative idea that Sylvester can bring to the table as it explains why arahants do not create kamma, volitionally charged actions that then boomarang back upon the arahant as either good, bad, or neutral. In other words, the arahant is not touched by any volitional formation, whether deliberate or undeliberate. Another way of stating the same thing would be to use the words "intentional" and "unintentional" in place of deliberate or undeliberate. But certainly not the words "aware" and "unaware". These latter don't convey the correct idea.
Notice that Sylvester neglects to include the concluding paragraph within his re-translated presentation of Bodhi's translation. Yet, this last paragraph
is crucial to a correct understanding of the whole sutta. It is this paragraph that tells us what message the Buddha thinks is so important to get across, and which Bodhi bases his interpretation of the words "deliberate" and "undeliberate" on. One of the main points the Buddha is stating here is a lesson on equanimity, among other things. When he states: "But with the remainderless fading away and cessation of ignorance that body/speech/mind does not exist conditioned by which pleasure and pain arise internally...That field does not exist, that site does not exist, that base does not exist, that foundation does not exist conditioned by which that pleasure and pain arise internally.[82]"
And Bodhi's footnote #82 underscores this point: "Spk: There is no field (
khetta) in the sense of a place of growth; no site (
vatthu) in the sense of a support; no base (
ayatana) in the sense of a condition; no foundation (
adhikarana) in the sense of a cause."
In the previous footnote, Bodhi points out: "Spk: That body does not exist which, if it existed, would enable pleasure and pain to arise conditioned by bodily volition; the same method of explanation applies to speech and mind. (Query:) But an arahant acts, speaks, and thinks, so how is it that his body, etc., do not exist? (Reply:) In the sense that they do not generate kammic results. For the deeds done by an arahant are neither wholesome nor unwholesome kamma, but merely functional (
kiriyamatta); thus for him it is said, "that body, etc., do not exist."
He is talking about
deliberate and
undeliberate volitional formations here not creating
kamma. Not awareness or unawareness of the volitional formations not creating
kamma. In other words, being aware or unaware of the arising of volitional formations is not as important as being cognizant that they arise because of ignorance (the lack of right view) of what actually is. When an unwholesome volitional formation arises one may be aware that it is arising; but if one is not cognizant
that it is unwholesome (because of ignorance) then whether one's actions are deliberate or undeliberate the boomerang effect of the
kamma will have been triggered. Whereas in the arahant, on account of the cessation of ignorance (the adherence to right view), no
kamma will be triggered. By now it should be quite apparent how Sylvester's reading falls apart and disintegrates (whether or not it was his translation or someones else's translation that he was going by).