The subforum is about Pali and appears not for doctrinal debate, unless the doctrinal debate is directly related to understanding the Pali.
The point I raised is very much a doctrinal issue, related to the understanding of Pali.
- interpretation of 4th satipatthana.
You are incorrectly interpreting it. You wrote
Both Bhikkhu Bodhi & particularly Sujato have said Dhamma here can be or actually is "Dhamma Principles"
Admittedly Sujatho uses the word principles, (what does he mean by principles?)
Bodhi does not use the word principles, he uses phenomena.
Seemingly Sujatho and Bodhi used two different words to translate the same Pali word
Maybe they appear as synonyms, to these experienced translators.
Copying and pasting Bodhi's translation.
“With the origination of attention there is the origination of phenomena. With the cessation of attention there is the passing away of phenomena.”
Does he say principles?
Phenomena is elsewhere translated as mind's objects.
And here is the last laugh....In the Wikipitaka's translation of Samudaya sutta SN 47.42, the 4th satipatthana is translated as
"From the origination of awareness/attention is the origination of (sinful)mental qualities. (2) From the cessation of worldly awareness/attention (using insight meditation) is the subsiding of (sinful)mental qualities."
From sinful mental qualities to your "awakening factors" or Dhamma Principles is quite a stretch. Aint it?https://tipitaka.fandom.com/wiki/SN_47. ... daya_Sutta
What point is there in getting the Pali right, and the doctrine wrong?
When this debate first began (in Retro's thread on Abhidhamma) you wrote regarding the translation of Satipatthana, Thanissaro's translation is wrong and nonsensical.
Is DooDoot the Pali guru surpassing Thanissaro?
- The way you translate the 4th satipatthana of SN 47.42 is wrong and nonsensical.
I have great respect for Thanissaro.
You have conveniently ignored Sam Vera's correction of your nonsensical reading. He wrote
that this teaching is of the origin and the disappearance of the four satipatthānas
In spite of the squabble between you and I, we are making progress.
Let us follow the progress of your understanding.
You wrote on June 13/21 on the original thread, blaming me and Retro.
SN 47.42 is a nonsense sutta. Reviewing it again, it makes no sense at all.
Later you opened a thread on DW regarding SN 47.42 and wrote
Parts 1 to 3 of SN 47.42, appear to conform with the Dhamma, namely, they refer to the arising & ceasing of the unwholesome.
Who is slandering Buddha now?
- Are you implying part 4 of SN 47. 42 Samudaya sutta is Adhamma?
There are plenty of suttas to which Abhidhammikas have given their own spin. "Samudaya" is not one of them.
We made some progress, however now you accept 3/4ths of the Sutta to be true.
Thanks for the fun insults to Pulsar, such as
Only an individual with a lack of discipline & a lack of respect for the rigorous teachings of the Buddha
I enjoy them as much as i enjoyed "Chirping bird"
PS if you think this is not the right place to post this comment, I can move it to Retro's thread where you first called SN 47.42 a nonsensical sutta.