Dhammapada verse 279

Explore the ancient language of the Tipitaka and Theravāda commentaries
User avatar
bodom
Posts: 7216
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2009 6:18 pm
Location: San Antonio, Texas

Re: What Dhamma Book are you reading right now?

Post by bodom »

mikenz66 wrote:Dhamma also in the Narada version:
http://www.metta.lk/english/Narada/20-Magga%20Vagga.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

:anjali:
Mike
Also in John Ross Carters translation as well.

:anjali:
Liberation is the inevitable fruit of the path and is bound to blossom forth when there is steady and persistent practice. The only requirements for reaching the final goal are two: to start and to continue. If these requirements are met there is no doubt the goal will be attained. This is the Dhamma, the undeviating law.

- BB
User avatar
Dhammanando
Posts: 6492
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:44 pm
Location: Mae Wang Huai Rin, Li District, Lamphun

Re: What Dhamma Book are you reading right now?

Post by Dhammanando »

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").
Yena yena hi maññanti,
tato taṃ hoti aññathā.


In whatever way they conceive it,
It turns out otherwise.
(Sn. 588)
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19943
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: Dhammapada verse 279

Post by mikenz66 »

Thanks for that Bhante. Are you saying that in the Anatta-lakkhana Sutta
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .nymo.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; we are dealing with the
agglutinated predicative phrase 'anatta'
and so the translation
"Bhikkhus, form is not-self.. (Rūpaṃ bhikkhave, anattā).
is OK, whereas in Dhp 279
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
'All phenomena are not-self': (Sabbe dhammā anattā'ti)
is dodgy, and you prefer the "insubstantial" translation?

:anjali:
Mike
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Dhammapada verse 279

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings,

Thank you bhante, and thank you Mike for the good follow up question...

:popcorn:

Metta,
Retro. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: What Dhamma Book are you reading right now?

Post by tiltbillings »

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").
Always enjoy your Pali lessons.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
Truth_Seeker1989
Posts: 52
Joined: Sun Jun 03, 2012 9:08 am
Location: New York State, USA

Re: Dhammapada verse 279

Post by Truth_Seeker1989 »

Dear Dhammanando,

Is Nibbana/Nirvana non-substantial? I ask because of the below quote.

"His release, being founded on truth, does not fluctuate, for whatever is deceptive is false; Unbinding — the undeceptive — is true. Thus a monk so endowed is endowed with the highest determination for truth, for this — Unbinding, the undeceptive — is the highest noble truth."

MN 140
Everything that makes you, you, is the result of your Environment (Society, Culture, Family, Friends, Etc), Genetics/Biology (Your brain which makes the mind possible, Inborn diseases such as Down Syndrome, or even Psociopathy, etc), Thoughts (Everything you think affects your mind, and the person you are), Speech (Same as thoughts, but words affect your environment as well), Actions (Same as Speech), and the Elements (Earth, Water, Fire, Wind, Space, and Time).
User avatar
Dhammanando
Posts: 6492
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:44 pm
Location: Mae Wang Huai Rin, Li District, Lamphun

Re: What Dhamma Book are you reading right now?

Post by Dhammanando »

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").
Sorry, what I wrote above was nonsense. I don't know what I was thinking but I got it completely the wrong way round. Dhp. 279 is in fact the phrasal anatta, not the adjectival one. So the Wallis translation doesn't in fact have the redeeming feature I imagined it to.

Fancy making such a mistake on the Buddha's birthday! :embarassed:
Yena yena hi maññanti,
tato taṃ hoti aññathā.


In whatever way they conceive it,
It turns out otherwise.
(Sn. 588)
Post Reply