Correct Translation of the Kāḷakārāma Sutta

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22405
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Correct Translation of the Kāḷakārāma Sutta

Post by Ceisiwr »

Greetings everyone,

What is the best translation of the Kāḷakārāma Sutta in relation to sense perception? For example, here are 3 translation from Ven. Bodhi, Ven. Sujato and Ven. Nanananda:

Ven. Bodhi
“So, having seen what can be seen, the Tathāgata does not misconceive the seen, does not misconceive the unseen, does not misconceive what can be seen, does not misconceive one who sees."


Ven. Sujato
"So a Realized One sees what is to be seen, but does not identify with what is seen, does not identify with what is unseen, does not identify with what is to be seen, and does not identify with a seer."


Ven. Nanananda
Thus, monks, a Tathagata does not conceive of a visible thing as apart from sight; he does not conceive of an unseen; he does not conceive of a 'thing-worth-seeing'; he does not conceive about a seer."


Ven. Bodhi's and Ven. Sujato's translations can be found here: https://suttacentral.net/an4.24/en/sujato
Ven. Nanananda's translation can be found here (page 8 onwards): http://seeingthroughthenet.net/wp-conte ... ev_4.0.pdf

The pali in question is this:
Iti kho, bhikkhave, tathāgato daṭṭhā daṭṭhabbaṃ, diṭṭhaṃ na maññati, adiṭṭhaṃ na maññati, daṭṭhabbaṃ na maññati, daṭṭhāraṃ na maññati;

Obviously, the question revolves around what is mean't by "maññati". Ven. Nanananda states in his notes, in regards to "maññati":
Na maññati: Maññati‘ marks that stage in sense perception when one egotistically imagines or fancies a perceived 'thing' to be out there in its own right. It is a fissure in the perceptual situation which results in a subject—object dichotomy perpetuating the conceit : 'I' and 'mine'
He continues, in relation to his translation of "a visible thing apart from sight":
The Comm. (AA. SHB. 519) takes the words ‘dattha‘ datthabbam’ in the text to mean: ‘having seen, should be known' and explains the following words 'dittham na maññati' as a separate phrase meaning that the Tathagata does not entertain any cravings, conceits or views, thinking: 'I am seeing that which has been seen by the people.‘ It applies the same mode of explanation throughout.

It is perhaps more plausible to explain dattha‘ or dittha‘ (vl. In Burmese MSS; see A. II 25 fn. 3) as an ablative form of the past participle giving the sense : 'as apart from sight'; and datthabbam dittham taken together would mean : 'a visible thing'. So also the other three corresponding terms: suta, muta and vinnata. The Buddha Jayanthi Tipitaka Series (No. 19, Sinhalese script) recognizes this reading but follows the Comm. in rendering them as absolutives. The Chattha Sangiti Pitaka edition (Burmese script) as well as the P.T.S edition, has the absolutive form: sutva‘, mutva‘ and vififia‘tva‘ — which is probably a re-correction following the commentarial explanation.

Thoughts on the best translation?

Metta

:)
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
JohnK
Posts: 1332
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2016 11:06 pm
Location: Tetons, Wyoming, USA

Re: Correct Translation of the Kāḷakārāma Sutta

Post by JohnK »

Just to add a fourth translation,
Ven. Thanissaro:
"Thus, monks, the Tathāgata, when seeing what is to be seen, doesn’t suppose an (object as) seen. He doesn’t suppose an unseen. He doesn’t suppose an (object) to-be-seen. He doesn’t suppose a seer."
https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/AN/AN4_24.html
Those who grasp at perceptions & views wander the internet creating friction. [based on Sn4:9,v.847]
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22405
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: Correct Translation of the Kāḷakārāma Sutta

Post by Ceisiwr »

JohnK wrote: Tue Mar 31, 2020 10:56 pm Just to add a fourth translation,
Ven. Thanissaro:
"Thus, monks, the Tathāgata, when seeing what is to be seen, doesn’t suppose an (object as) seen. He doesn’t suppose an unseen. He doesn’t suppose an (object) to-be-seen. He doesn’t suppose a seer."
https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/AN/AN4_24.html
Ah yes, I forgot that one. Thanks.

Metta

:)
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
JohnK
Posts: 1332
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2016 11:06 pm
Location: Tetons, Wyoming, USA

Re: Correct Translation of the Kāḷakārāma Sutta

Post by JohnK »

Not knowing Pali, I can only reflect on their benefit to a student/practitioner.
Ven. Boddhi's is VERY general -- there can be many ways to misconstrue.
Ven. Sujato's is a specific type of misconstruing (identification or appropriation) -- I am very conformable with that, but perhaps there are other ways to misconstrue.
The latter two translations seem similar in the "deeper" type of misconstruing -- fabricating an object (more inclusively fabricating than the previous "my" object).
Those who grasp at perceptions & views wander the internet creating friction. [based on Sn4:9,v.847]
User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 12032
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: Correct Translation of the Kāḷakārāma Sutta

Post by DooDoot »

Ven. Nanananda wrote:Thus, monks, a Tathagata does not conceive of a visible thing as apart from sight; he does not conceive of an unseen; he does not conceive of a 'thing-worth-seeing'; he does not conceive about a seer."

Iti kho, bhikkhave, tathāgato daṭṭhā daṭṭhabbaṃ, diṭṭhaṃ na maññati, adiṭṭhaṃ na maññati, daṭṭhabbaṃ na maññati, daṭṭhāraṃ na maññati;
"Daṭṭhā daṭṭhabbaṃ" does not appear to translate as "does not conceive of a visible thing as apart from sight". "Daṭṭhā" appears to translate as "having seen". "Daṭṭhabbaṃ" appears to translate as "what ought to be seen" or "what is to be seen". Thus, tathāgato daṭṭhā daṭṭhabbaṃ appears to mean "the Tathagata having seen what ought to be seen" (such as seeing the food in his alms bowel).
Bhikkhu Bodhi wrote:“So, having seen what can be seen, the Tathāgata does not misconceive the seen, does not misconceive the unseen, does not misconceive what can be seen, does not misconceive one who sees."
Bhikkhu Bodhi's translation of "misconceive" agrees with my translation. :thumbsup: Ven. Sujato's translation is too limited, to me. Ven. Thanissaro's need to insert additional words, similar to Ven. Nanananda, appears to rule out their translation as non-literal. :smile:
There is always an official executioner. If you try to take his place, It is like trying to be a master carpenter and cutting wood. If you try to cut wood like a master carpenter, you will only hurt your hand.

https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/paticcasamuppada
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/anapanasati
ToVincent
Posts: 1839
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 6:02 pm

Re: Correct Translation of the Kāḷakārāma Sutta

Post by ToVincent »

Another translation by Woodward.
Thus, monks, a Tathāgata is a seer of what is to be seen,
but he has no conceit of what is seen:
he has no conceit of what has not been seen,
he has no conceit of what is to be seen,
he has no conceit about the seer.
-------

Diṭṭhaṃ (accusative nt.)
दृष्ट dṛṣṭa [ dṛṣṭá ] is a noun that means:
- (the) seen , looked at , beheld , perceived , noticed Mn. MBh.
- visible , apparent AV. VS.

Maññati (3rd present singular).
√ मन् Man
- to think , believe , imagine , suppose , conjecture (RV.)
- to think of (RV. AV.)
- to reflect upon , consider , examine , investigate - to call in question , doubt (AV. - Br.)
- to perceive , observe , learn , know , understand , comprehend (RV.)
“So, having seen what can be seen, the Tathāgata does not conjecture upon the seen (apparent), does not conjecture upon the unseen, does not conjecture upon what can be seen, does not conjecture about one who sees."
Iti kho, bhikkhave, tathāgato daṭṭhā daṭṭhabbaṃ, diṭṭhaṃ na maññati, adiṭṭhaṃ na maññati, daṭṭhabbaṃ na maññati, daṭṭhāraṃ na Maññati.
" The end of the Sutta becomes clearer.
Amid those who are self-obstructed (sayasaṃvutesu [lit. hindered by their one's "owness"] » saya ± √ वृ vṛ) , the Stable One would not posit as categorically true or false anything seen, heard, or sensed, clung to and considered truth by others.

A purely Theravada Sutta, with no parallel.

-----

Sujato's maññati as "identify" !?!?!

-----

Nanananda is very very very "Advaita Vedānta" (Puruṣavāda) ("Upanishadic") ("Universalist") - like many many many people on this forum.
Buddhism is not about making one out of two - but about taking one out of two.

http://advaita-forum.org/smb/index.php?board=36.0
You shouldn't feel like hangdogs, though.
.
.
In this world, there are many people acting and yearning for the Mara's world; some for the Brahma's world; and very few for the Unborn.
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22405
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: Correct Translation of the Kāḷakārāma Sutta

Post by Ceisiwr »

ToVincent wrote: Wed Apr 01, 2020 8:55 am Another translation by Woodward.
Thus, monks, a Tathāgata is a seer of what is to be seen,
but he has no conceit of what is seen:
he has no conceit of what has not been seen,
he has no conceit of what is to be seen,
he has no conceit about the seer.
-------

Diṭṭhaṃ (accusative nt.)
दृष्ट dṛṣṭa [ dṛṣṭá ] is a noun that means:
- (the) seen , looked at , beheld , perceived , noticed Mn. MBh.
- visible , apparent AV. VS.

Maññati (3rd present singular).
√ मन् Man
- to think , believe , imagine , suppose , conjecture (RV.)
- to think of (RV. AV.)
- to reflect upon , consider , examine , investigate - to call in question , doubt (AV. - Br.)
- to perceive , observe , learn , know , understand , comprehend (RV.)
“So, having seen what can be seen, the Tathāgata does not conjecture upon the seen (apparent), does not conjecture upon the unseen, does not conjecture upon what can be seen, does not conjecture about one who sees."
Iti kho, bhikkhave, tathāgato daṭṭhā daṭṭhabbaṃ, diṭṭhaṃ na maññati, adiṭṭhaṃ na maññati, daṭṭhabbaṃ na maññati, daṭṭhāraṃ na Maññati.
" The end of the Sutta becomes clearer.
Amid those who are self-obstructed (sayasaṃvutesu [lit. hindered by their one's "owness"] » saya ± √ वृ vṛ) , the Stable One would not posit as categorically true or false anything seen, heard, or sensed, clung to and considered truth by others.

A purely Theravada Sutta, with no parallel.

-----

Sujato's maññati as "identify" !?!?!

-----

Nanananda is very very very "Advaita Vedānta" (Puruṣavāda) ("Upanishadic") ("Universalist") - like many many many people on this forum.
Buddhism is not about making one out of two - but about taking one out of two.

http://advaita-forum.org/smb/index.php?board=36.0
You shouldn't feel like hangdogs, though.
.
.
Greetings Vincent,

Thanks for the detailed reply (as ever) :smile:. That certainly helps. On a side note, I wouldn’t say that Ven. Nanananda is “very very very Advaita Vedanta”, but that’s a different topic and not all that relevant here.

Metta

:)
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
ToVincent
Posts: 1839
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 6:02 pm

Re: Correct Translation of the Kāḷakārāma Sutta

Post by ToVincent »

Ceisiwr wrote: Wed Apr 01, 2020 12:33 pm On a side note, I wouldn’t say that Ven. Nanananda is “very very very Advaita Vedanta”, but that’s a different topic and not all that relevant here.
On the contrary, I think it is really relevant.
Sorry about that.

I suppose an Advaita Vedānta does not conceive of a visible thing as apart from sight.
But a Tathagata does conceive of a visible thing as apart from sight.

It is the "one's owness" that have people believe that, what they see, is their "one's owness" - namely their "mine" ; then their "I".
This is "not yours", says Buddha.

How Nanananda - after translating and interpreting wrongly - can comment lately that: "one fancies a perceived 'thing' to be out there in its own right."
What fancy ?!?!?!?!?!?!?!
If it's "not yours", you have - as a Buddhist - to see that "thing" in it's own right, as alien ( not your "one's own" - the other definition of anicca) - haven't you?.
.
.
In this world, there are many people acting and yearning for the Mara's world; some for the Brahma's world; and very few for the Unborn.
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22405
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: Correct Translation of the Kāḷakārāma Sutta

Post by Ceisiwr »

ToVincent wrote: Wed Apr 01, 2020 1:10 pm
Ceisiwr wrote: Wed Apr 01, 2020 12:33 pm On a side note, I wouldn’t say that Ven. Nanananda is “very very very Advaita Vedanta”, but that’s a different topic and not all that relevant here.
On the contrary, I think it is really relevant.
Sorry about that.

I suppose an Advaita Vedānta does not conceive of a visible thing as apart from sight.
But a Tathagata does conceive of a visible thing as apart from sight.

It is the "one's owness" that have people believe that, what they see, is their "one's owness" - namely their "mine" ; then their "I".
This is "not yours", says Buddha.

How Nanananda - after translating and interpreting wrongly - can comment lately that: "one fancies a perceived 'thing' to be out there in its own right."
What fancy ?!?!?!?!?!?!?!
If it's "not yours", you have - as a Buddhist - to see that "thing" in it's own right, as alien ( not your "one's own" - the other definition of anicca) - haven't you?.
.
.
Hi Vincent,

I would say that’s better placed in the Ven. Nanananda thread. I’m interested in the best translation of the sutta in question here, not the nuances of the teachings by venerables.

Metta

:)
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
ToVincent
Posts: 1839
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 6:02 pm

Re: Correct Translation of the Kāḷakārāma Sutta

Post by ToVincent »

Ceisiwr wrote: Wed Apr 01, 2020 1:14 pmHi Vincent,
I would say that’s better placed in the Ven. Nanananda thread. I’m interested in the best translation of the sutta in question here, not the nuances of the teachings by venerables.
If you're looking for the best translation, you can dismiss Nanananda's one - which is the worst - lexicography wise, and Buddhistically wise also.

If you are looking for a proper lexicography translation, dismiss Bodhi's, Woodward's and Thanissaro's translation.

If you're looking for a translation that is Buddhistically proper - but strictly lexicographically improper - then Sujato's is the closest, as far as the purport is concerned - (that is to say that, at the end of the Sutta, one should not identify with the object (dhamma)).
However, maññati does not mean "identify with".
It is very improper to give a word a different meaning, to fit one's own interpretation, or to fit a purport; even if it is a good one. Because, when it's bad, it is very bad and misleading. And Sujato is very often misleading - and it can become quite messy, or worst, quite biased.

Again, maññati, which comes from the √ मन् Man, means:
- to think , believe , imagine , suppose , conjecture (RV.)
- to think of (RV. AV.)
- to reflect upon , consider , examine , investigate - to call in question , doubt (AV. - Br.)
- to perceive , observe , learn , know , understand , comprehend (RV.)

Pick up your choice and change it in Bodhi's translation. You'll have your "best translation".
.
.
In this world, there are many people acting and yearning for the Mara's world; some for the Brahma's world; and very few for the Unborn.
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22405
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: Correct Translation of the Kāḷakārāma Sutta

Post by Ceisiwr »

ToVincent wrote: Wed Apr 01, 2020 2:27 pm
Ceisiwr wrote: Wed Apr 01, 2020 1:14 pmHi Vincent,
I would say that’s better placed in the Ven. Nanananda thread. I’m interested in the best translation of the sutta in question here, not the nuances of the teachings by venerables.
If you're looking for the best translation, you can dismiss Nanananda's one - which is the worst - lexicography wise, and Buddhistically wise also.

If you are looking for a proper lexicography translation, dismiss Bodhi's, Woodward's and Thanissaro's translation.

If you're looking for a translation that is Buddhistically proper - but strictly lexicographically improper - then Sujato's is the closest, as far as the purport is concerned - (that is to say that, at the end of the Sutta, one should not identify with the object (dhamma)).
However, maññati does not mean "identify with".
It is very improper to give a word a different meaning, to fit one's own interpretation, or to fit a purport; even if it is a good one. Because, when it's bad, it is very bad and misleading. And Sujato is very often misleading - and it can become quite messy, or worst, quite biased.

Again, maññati, which comes from the √ मन् Man, means:
- to think , believe , imagine , suppose , conjecture (RV.)
- to think of (RV. AV.)
- to reflect upon , consider , examine , investigate - to call in question , doubt (AV. - Br.)
- to perceive , observe , learn , know , understand , comprehend (RV.)

Pick up your choice and change it in Bodhi's translation. You'll have your "best translation".
.
.

Thank you :)
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
ToVincent
Posts: 1839
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 6:02 pm

Re: Correct Translation of the Kāḷakārāma Sutta

Post by ToVincent »

Ceisiwr wrote: Wed Apr 01, 2020 2:40 pm Thank you :)
Welcome.

Note: I don't like to rely on MBh. as a pro or contemporary literary source, but you could also add for maññati :
- to be of opinion MBh.
- to agree or be of the same opinion with (acc.) MBh.

"There is a great probability that this meaning is post-Buddhist. And also this sutta (with no parallel). :smile:
.
.
In this world, there are many people acting and yearning for the Mara's world; some for the Brahma's world; and very few for the Unborn.
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22405
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: Correct Translation of the Kāḷakārāma Sutta

Post by Ceisiwr »

So, having seen what can be seen, the Tathāgata does not imagine “the seen”, does not imagine “the unseen”, does not imagine “what can be seen”, does not imagine “one who sees.”

So, having seen what can be seen, the Tathāgata does not conjecture “the seen”, does not conjecture “the unseen”, does not conjecture “what can be seen”, does not conjecture “one who sees."

So, having seen what can be seen, the Tathāgata does not postulate “the seen”, does not postulate “the unseen”, does not postulate “what can be seen”, does not postulate “one who sees."

Interesting.
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
User avatar
salayatananirodha
Posts: 1479
Joined: Tue Jun 19, 2018 1:34 am
Contact:

Re: Correct Translation of the Kāḷakārāma Sutta

Post by salayatananirodha »

i think nanananda and thanissaro got this one right
https://seeingthroughthenet.net/wp-cont ... e_mind.pdf
I host a sutta discussion via Zoom Sundays at 11AM Chicago time — message me if you are interested
User avatar
Assaji
Posts: 2106
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 7:24 pm

Re: Correct Translation of the Kāḷakārāma Sutta

Post by Assaji »

Greetings,
Ceisiwr wrote: Tue Mar 31, 2020 9:46 pm What is the best translation of the Kāḷakārāma Sutta in relation to sense perception?
Taking in account the final verses of this sutta:
"Whatever is seen or heard or sensed
and fastened onto as true by others,
One who is Such — among the self-fettered —
wouldn't further claim to be true or even false.

"Having seen well in advance that arrow
where generations are fastened & hung
— 'I know, I see, that's just how it is!' —
there's nothing of the Tathagata fastened."
https://accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an ... .than.html

I would humbly propose:
Iti kho, bhikkhave, tathāgato daṭṭhā daṭṭhabbaṁ, diṭṭhaṁ na maññati, adiṭṭhaṁ na maññati, daṭṭhabbaṁ na maññati, daṭṭhāraṁ na maññati; sutvā sotabbaṁ, sutaṁ na maññati, asutaṁ na maññati, sotabbaṁ na maññati, sotāraṁ na maññati; mutvā motabbaṁ, mutaṁ na maññati, amutaṁ na maññati, motabbaṁ na maññati, motāraṁ na maññati; viññatvā viññātabbaṁ, viññātaṁ na maññati, aviññātaṁ na maññati, viññātabbaṁ na maññati, viññātāraṁ na maññati.

(1) “So, having seen what can be seen, the Tathāgata does not assume the seen, does not assume the unseen, does not assume what can be seen, does not assume one who sees. (2) Having heard what can be heard, he does not assume the heard, does not assume the unheard, does not assume what can be heard, does not assume one who hears. (3) Having sensed what can be sensed, he does not assume the sensed, does not assume the unsensed, does not assume what can be sensed, does not assume one who senses. (4) Having cognized what can be cognized, he does not assume the cognized, does not assume the uncognized, does not assume what can be cognized, does not assume one who cognizes.
Corrections are welcome.

Metta!
Post Reply