Pamāda

[rowyourboat]

I have found further understanding of this precept by seeing what the buddha said 'pamada' (perhaps carelessly translated as carelessness, heedlessness) was.

"When a monk dwells without restraint over the faculty of the intellect, the mind is stained with ideas cognizable via the intellect. When the mind is stained, there is no joy. There being no joy, there is no rapture. There being no rapture, there is no serenity. There being no serenity, he dwells in suffering. The mind of one who suffers does not become centered. When the mind is uncentered, phenomena (dhammas) don't become manifest. When phenomena aren't manifest, one is classed simply as one who dwells in heedlessness.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The main effect of alcohol for me is that it dulls my mindfulness and clarity of perception. This immediately (even after one drink) affects my ability to experience phenomena as they really are.

best wishes

RYB

[Kare]

Hi Jechbi,

You are right that thana is an element in patthana. But there is still a difference between thana and patthana. The difference is the prefix pa-. Prefixes usually have some general meaning, but their meaning is often not so clear and simple that we can deduce the meaning of the resulting word when we add a prefix to a root. So trying to translate pa- and -thana separately, and then hoping that these translations will add up to give the meaning of patthana, is a rather unsafe method. Prefixes do not behave like normal words in a compound do.

This is a general rule that goes for many languages. Let's take one English example. The meaning of "hold" is relatively clear and simple. Now, you can add the prefix be- (and maybe a good dictionary or lexicon can give some kind of meaning to it), but once you add be- and -hold, you get "behold", which means something quite different from the normal meanings of "hold".

Therefore trying to deduce the meaning of thana from patthana is not very relevant. It is possible that patthana really should be upatthana, so that the prefix is upa- and not pa-, but that does not make much difference here.

You then asked about my inserting "caused by". In a tappurisa compound there is a case relationship between the separate elements of the compound. Cases describe relationships that in English mostly are expressed through prepositions, so in order to transfer this case relationship when translating, we just have to insert some prepositions. I chose "caused by" in order to make the meaning clear, but I might also just have used a single word, as for instance "by" or maybe "through".

Since cases in inflected languages (like Pali) carry much of the meaning that prepositions carry in analytical languages (like English), we lose important nuances (and may risk turning the meaning of the expression upside down) if we forget to insert necessary words while translating. Of course there are certain problems involved, as well. In resolving this kind of compound words it is often possible to discuss exactly what case relationships are involved, since the elements of a compound are stripped of case endings or inflections - and if you read the Pali commentaries, you will find that this often is done. The commentator list different alternatives and say that if this case is intended, the meaning will be such and such, but if that case is intended, the meaning will be such and such. Often, but not always, the commentator after giving the alternatives, then says which interpretation is to be preferred.

[Jechbi]

Thanks, Kare.

You are right that thana is an element in patthana. But there is still a difference between thana and patthana. The difference is the prefix pa-. Prefixes usually have some general meaning, but their meaning is often not so clear and simple that we can deduce the meaning of the resulting word when we add a prefix to a root. So trying to translate pa- and -thana separately, and then hoping that these translations will add up to give the meaning of patthana, is a rather unsafe method. Prefixes do not behave like normal words in a compound do.

...

Therefore trying to deduce the meaning of thana from patthana is not very relevant. It is possible that patthana really should be upatthana, so that the prefix is upa- and not pa-, but that does not make much difference here.

But this is exactly what scholars do. For example, Ven. Dhammavuddho Thero (will open .pdf document):

When we investigate the suttas we find
that there is a difference between sati and satipatthana. As explained
earlier, sati means recollection. Now patthana possibly comes from
two words, pa and thana. Pa means ‘setting forth’, and also implies
going beyond. Thus it can also mean extreme, intense. Thana means
standing still, and can also mean a state or condition. Thus
satipatthana probably means an intense state of recollection. This
translation of satipatthana seems to agree with the suttas, to which I
shall now refer.

And Ven. Sayadaw U Pandita (also will launch .pdf document):

Extraordinary mindfulness

The particle pa of sati-pa-(t)thana specifies that the mindfulness
should be of an extraordinary or outstanding nature (tisittha);
excessive, intensive and persistent (bhusattha).

All still dealing with "thana," which to me makes it seem relevant to the topic of your translation of another word that deals with "thana."

Moreover, this danger that you identify of translating root words separately, and then hoping that these translations will add up to an accurate meaning, appears to be precisely what you are doing in your translation. My point is that in dividing it up the way you have, and in separating these things out, you may be dilluting the meaning of the word you are trying to translate.

Often, but not always, the commentator after giving the alternatives, then says which interpretation is to be preferred.

Is your translation not also a case of an alternative interpretation?

Metta

[Kare]

Hi again, Jechbi,

Now this is getting interesting.

You are right that thana is an element in patthana. But there is still a difference between thana and patthana. The difference is the prefix pa-. Prefixes usually have some general meaning, but their meaning is often not so clear and simple that we can deduce the meaning of the resulting word when we add a prefix to a root. So trying to translate pa- and -thana separately, and then hoping that these translations will add up to give the meaning of patthana, is a rather unsafe method. Prefixes do not behave like normal words in a compound do.

...

Therefore trying to deduce the meaning of thana from patthana is not very relevant. It is possible that patthana really should be upatthana, so that the prefix is upa- and not pa-, but that does not make much difference here.

But this is exactly what scholars do. For example, Ven. Dhammavuddho Thero (will open .pdf document):

When we investigate the suttas we find
that there is a difference between sati and satipatthana. As explained
earlier, sati means recollection. Now patthana possibly comes from
two words, pa and thana. Pa means ‘setting forth’, and also implies
going beyond. Thus it can also mean extreme, intense. Thana means
standing still, and can also mean a state or condition. Thus
satipatthana probably means an intense state of recollection. This
translation of satipatthana seems to agree with the suttas, to which I
shall now refer.

And Ven. Sayadaw U Pandita (also will launch .pdf document):

Extraordinary mindfulness

The particle pa of sati-pa-(t)thana specifies that the mindfulness
should be of an extraordinary or outstanding nature (tisittha);
excessive, intensive and persistent (bhusattha).

It might be relevant here to quote Warder (Introduction to Pali, p. 5) here: "The prefixes (upasagga), of which there are about twenty, are regarded as a separate part of speech in Pali (whose characteristic is that it cannot stand alone, but only be prefixed to another word.). The various verbs, consisting of prefix + root, have all to be learned separately as regards meanings. Although the separate prefixes and roots can be assigned meanings - usually rather broad and vague ones - the meaning of a prefix + root cannot usually be accounted for adequately as simply the product of the two separate meanings."

This can further be illustrated by looking at a Sanskrit text that is closely parallell to the Pali texts. In the Arthavinishcayasutra, an early Sanskrit text probably belonging to the Vaibhashika/Sautrantika school, we find the word smrtyupasthana. Here the prefix is not pa-, but upa-. So the Pali satipatthana may just be a sandhi form of sati-upatthana. This goes to show that we should be careful not to put too much weight on the prefix alone, since it may be either pa- or upa-. The prefix modifies the main root, creating a new word with a meaning that may be more or less closely, or more or less loosely, derivable from the constituting elements.

All still dealing with "thana," which to me makes it seem relevant to the topic of your translation of another word that deals with "thana."

Moreover, this danger that you identify of translating root words separately, and then hoping that these translations will add up to an accurate meaning, appears to be precisely what you are doing in your translation. My point is that in dividing it up the way you have, and in separating these things out, you may be dilluting the meaning of the word you are trying to translate.

Often, but not always, the commentator after giving the alternatives, then says which interpretation is to be preferred.

Is your translation not also a case of an alternative interpretation?

Yes, of course. Every translation is an interpretation. Translation is not, and has never been, an exact science. Knowing this, however, it is important to try to base the translation/interpretation as soundly as possibly on an understanding of the language - grammar, syntax etc., and also on an understanding of the subject of the text. So I am not saying that I am always right. It has happened more than once that I have found convincing arguments for modifying my own translations. But the arguments have to be convincing ...

[Jechbi]

Thanks, Kare. This is great.

Do you regard it as an error when Ven. Dhammavuddho Thero and Ven. Sayadaw U Pandita break off the prefix and include the root word "thana" as part of their analyses of the word "satipatthana"?

With regard to the difference between patthana and upatthana, this comment strikes me as potentially relevant to our discussion, from here:

The four frames of reference (satipatthana) are a set of teachings that show where a meditator should focus attention and how. This dual role — the "where" and the "how" — is reflected in the fact that the term satipatthana can be explained etymologically in two ways. On the one hand, it can be regarded as a compound of sati (mindfulness, reference, the ability to keep something in mind) and patthana (foundation, condition, source), thus referring to the object that is kept in mind as a frame of reference for giving context to one's experience. Alternatively, satipatthana can be seen as a compound of sati and upatthana (establishing near, setting near), thus referring to the approach (the how) of keeping something closely in mind, of maintaining a solid frame of reference. Scholars are divided as to which interpretation is right, but for all practical purposes they both are. The Buddha was more a poet than a strict etymologist, and he may have deliberately chosen an ambiguous term that would have fruitful meanings on more than one level. In the practice of the frames of reference, both the proper object and the proper approach are crucial for getting the proper results.

I like that: "The Buddha was more a poet than a strict etymologist, and he may have deliberately chosen an ambiguous term that would have fruitful meanings on more than one level." And it relates to this (highlight added):

Translation is not, and has never been, an exact science. Knowing this, however, it is important to try to base the translation/interpretation as soundly as possibly on an understanding of the language - grammar, syntax etc., and also on an understanding of the subject of the text.

... I keep on wondering why the 5th precept so often is presented as an abstention from intoxicants if the language of the precept in Pali does indeed unmistakably call for an abstention from intoxication instead, as your presentation here would seem to indicate. I raised this question in the other thread, and your suggestion was that I ask those individuals directly why they might teach that the precept calls for abstention from intoxicants rather than from intoxication. Since it's not practical for me to do that in this thread, however, can we consider the possibility that other scholarly translations of "suramerayamajjapadamatthana" yield a different interpretation than your own?

On a slightly different topic related to our discussion, with regard to the meaning of "thana," is it correct in your opinion that there is a sense in which "thana" can be understood as a form of activity rather than merely a condition? Or do you feel that "thana" cannot be understood as any form of activity?

Metta

[Kare]

Thanks, Kare. This is great.

Do you regard it as an error when Ven. Dhammavuddho Thero and Ven. Sayadaw U Pandita break off the prefix and include the root word "thana" as part of their analyses of the word "satipatthana"?

I do not wish to find faults with those venerable masters. But from what I already have said about grammar, and from the quote from Warder, you can surely judge for yourself.

With regard to the difference between patthana and upatthana, this comment strikes me as potentially relevant to our discussion, from here:

The four frames of reference (satipatthana) are a set of teachings that show where a meditator should focus attention and how. This dual role — the "where" and the "how" — is reflected in the fact that the term satipatthana can be explained etymologically in two ways. On the one hand, it can be regarded as a compound of sati (mindfulness, reference, the ability to keep something in mind) and patthana (foundation, condition, source), thus referring to the object that is kept in mind as a frame of reference for giving context to one's experience. Alternatively, satipatthana can be seen as a compound of sati and upatthana (establishing near, setting near), thus referring to the approach (the how) of keeping something closely in mind, of maintaining a solid frame of reference. Scholars are divided as to which interpretation is right, but for all practical purposes they both are. The Buddha was more a poet than a strict etymologist, and he may have deliberately chosen an ambiguous term that would have fruitful meanings on more than one level. In the practice of the frames of reference, both the proper object and the proper approach are crucial for getting the proper results.

I like that: "The Buddha was more a poet than a strict etymologist, and he may have deliberately chosen an ambiguous term that would have fruitful meanings on more than one level." And it relates to this (highlight added):

Translation is not, and has never been, an exact science. Knowing this, however, it is important to try to base the translation/interpretation as soundly as possibly on an understanding of the language - grammar, syntax etc., and also on an understanding of the subject of the text.

I agree. Ven. Thanissaro has formulated this well. We should also be aware that the Buddha sometimes borrowed his terminology from the Brahmins and from the Jains, as Richard Gombrich has pointed out. And in addition to that, every language has its own idiomatic expressions that seem to defy logic, and Pali was no exception to that. And unless we understand the idioms and the references to jainism and brahmanism, we may easily misunderstand some sayings.

... I keep on wondering why the 5th precept so often is presented as an abstention from intoxicants if the language of the precept in Pali does indeed unmistakably call for an abstention from intoxication instead, as your presentation here would seem to indicate. I raised this question in the other thread, and your suggestion was that I ask those individuals directly why they might teach that the precept calls for abstention from intoxicants rather than from intoxication. Since it's not practical for me to do that in this thread, however, can we consider the possibility that other scholarly translations of "suramerayamajjapadamatthana" yield a different interpretation than your own?

This is not only a possibility, it is a fact. There are several scholarly translations of the Buddhist texts. But scholars often disagree (which is a good thing, leading to renewed studies and examinations of the texts). More recent scholars often find errors in the works of earlier scholars. So being scholarly is no guarantee for being right.

On a slightly different topic related to our discussion, with regard to the meaning of "thana," is it correct in your opinion that there is a sense in which "thana" can be understood as a form of activity rather than merely a condition? Or do you feel that "thana" cannot be understood as any form of activity?

Here some etymology can be helpful (although etymology is a dangerous path to walk). Thana in Sanskrit is sthana, being related to English "stand" and Latin "static, station, etc.". A certain static and non-dynamic quality seems to be inherent. So if thana can be understood as a form of activity ... let's say that I have yet to see it. But the collection of Pali texts is immense, so who knows ...?

[Jechbi]

Thank you, Kare. Now that I've stumbled about here clumsily, it appears this thread comes full circle, because I wish to refer us back to this thread, which prompted the present discussion.

I appreciate the valuable opportunity for learning that you have helped to create here. I suspect you will disagree with Ven. Dhammanando's translation, but as you say, these discussions can lead to greater understanding.

Metta

[PeterB]

One would hope so Jechbi.