Why obsession ?

Explore the ancient language of the Tipitaka and Theravāda commentaries
Post Reply
asahi
Posts: 2732
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2020 4:23 pm

Why obsession ?

Post by asahi »

Hi Pali teachers ,

Pls explain why anusayānaṁ get translated as obsession which means preoccupation ?
Instead of tendency .
Monks, with the abandoning & destruction of the seven obsessions, the holy life is fulfilled. Which seven? The obsession of sensual passion, the obsession of resistance, the obsession of views, the obsession of uncertainty, the obsession of conceit, the obsession of passion for becoming, the obsession of ignorance. With the abandoning & destruction of these seven obsessions, the holy life is fulfilled.
Mendicants, the spiritual life is lived to give up and cut out these seven underlying tendencies.
“Sattannaṁ, bhikkhave, anusayānaṁ pahānāya samucchedāya brahmacariyaṁ vussati.
What seven?
Katamesaṁ sattannaṁ?
The underlying tendencies of sensual desire, repulsion, views, doubt, conceit, desire to be reborn, and ignorance.
Kāmarāgānusayassa pahānāya samucchedāya brahmacariyaṁ vussati, paṭighānusayassa …pe…
diṭṭhānusayassa …
vicikicchānusayassa …
mānānusayassa …
bhavarāgānusayassa …
avijjānusayassa pahānāya samucchedāya brahmacariyaṁ vussati.

:thanks:
No bashing No gossiping
User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 12032
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: Why obsession ?

Post by DooDoot »

Based on MN 64, the translation "obsession" appears inaccurate, which is why even Ven. Thanissaro abandoned his idiosyncratic "obsession" for his translation of MN 64:
Thanissaro wrote:And to whom, Māluṅkyaputta, do you remember my having taught the five lower fetters in that way? Wouldn’t the wanderers of other sects make a rebuttal with the simile of the youngster? For even the thought ‘self-identification’ doesn’t occur to a stupid baby boy lying on its back, so from where would self-identification view arise in it, even though a latent tendency to self-identification view lies latent within it? Even the thought ‘dhammas’ doesn’t occur to a stupid baby boy lying on its back, so from where would uncertainty about dhammas arise in it, even though a latent tendency to uncertainty lies latent within it? Even the thought ‘habits’ doesn’t occur to a stupid baby boy lying on its back, so from where would grasping at habits & practices arise in it, even though a latent tendency to grasping at habits & practices lies latent within it? Even the thought ‘sensuality’ doesn’t occur to a stupid baby boy lying on its back, so from where would sensual desire for sensuality arise in it, even though a latent tendency to sensual passion lies latent within it? Even the thought ‘beings’ doesn’t occur to a stupid baby boy lying on its back, so from where would ill will for beings arise in it, even though a latent tendency to ill will lies latent within it?”

https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/MN/MN64.html
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
Pulsar
Posts: 2641
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2019 6:52 pm

Re: Why obsession ?

Post by Pulsar »

I know it is the Pali forum, so I hope my dearest DD will not try to strangle me for butting in.
I think there is a sort of doctrinal point here, we should not neglect.
In the case of MN 64... Buddha is referring to an infant, who has no "self view" too innocent to have such, yet she has underlying tendencies. They are not expressed until "I" gets activated.

However as one gets older, "I', "me" and "mine" etc. develop over time. At that point, due to the joint effect of Conceit, underlying tendency, and whatever is arising due to DO, these can become obsessions.
So in the end, what Asahi is asking has validity.
In the appropriate context, the underlying tendency pops up as an obsession, not for the infant however, whose tendencies lie dormant.
Hugs to both of you! :candle:
User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 12032
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: Why obsession ?

Post by DooDoot »

Pulsar wrote: Fri Jul 09, 2021 4:48 pm due to the joint effect of Conceit, underlying tendency, and whatever is arising due to DO, these can become obsessions.
Yes, but the underlying tendency is not the obsession. If someone tells me: "you are obsessed with correcting the errors of Pulsar" this observation about me arises from my outwards behaviour and not from an observation of my underlying tendency. :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
Pulsar
Posts: 2641
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2019 6:52 pm

Re: Why obsession ?

Post by Pulsar »

DooDoot wrote
If someone tells me: "you are obsessed with correcting the errors of Pulsar"
well that would be awesome, I would rather my errors be corrected by you, than by C squared.
I made an error here, let me correct that myself, so you don't have to obsess about correcting my error.
I wrote...
due to the joint effect of Conceit, underlying tendency, and whatever is arising due to DO, these can become obsessions.
When corrected it should read whatever is arising due to DO may lead to obsession due to underlying tendency.
As for conceit, underlying tendency is the thing that gives rise to conceit, and obsession.
Without underlying tendency, there is no conceit, neither obsession.
  • Arahants have no underlying tendencies, hence neither conceit nor obsession.
Good night! :candle:
User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 12032
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: Why obsession ?

Post by DooDoot »

Put another way, there can be underlying tendencies that are not obsessions. For example, I may have an underlying tendency to enjoy chocolate or cheese (yum!) however for health reasons I may never or rarely eat cheese. Therefore the underlying tendency is never an obsession. In short, Thanissaro’s translation choice of “obsession” appears terrible.
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
User avatar
Dhammanando
Posts: 6491
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:44 pm
Location: Mae Wang Huai Rin, Li District, Lamphun

Re: Why obsession ?

Post by Dhammanando »

Here's the explanation that Ajahn Thanissaro gave for his translation back in 2001:
This term — anusaya — is usually translated as "underlying tendency" or "latent tendency." These translations are based on the etymology of the term, which literally means, "to lie down with." However, in actual usage, the related verb (anuseti) means to be obsessed with something, for one's thoughts to return and "lie down with it" over and over again.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html
My impression is that he fails to realise that there are actually two Pali verbs with the form anuseti. These are homonymous cognates of two different Sanskrit verbs.

And so we have anuseti #1, corresponding to the Sanskrit anuśeti, and meaning to lie latent, to underlie, to inhere; and anuseti #2, corresponding to the Sanskrit anuseti, and meaning to cling to, to be occupied with, to have an obsession with.

The fact that in Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit the spelling of anusaya (in the context of the seven anusayas) is anuśaya, not anusaya, tells us that anuseti #1 is the relevant verb and so "underlying tendency" (or something to that effect) is the correct translation.
Yena yena hi maññanti,
tato taṃ hoti aññathā.


In whatever way they conceive it,
It turns out otherwise.
(Sn. 588)
User avatar
confusedlayman
Posts: 6231
Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2019 12:16 am
Location: Human Realm (as of now)

Re: Why obsession ?

Post by confusedlayman »

Pulsar wrote: Sat Jul 10, 2021 1:12 am DooDoot wrote
If someone tells me: "you are obsessed with correcting the errors of Pulsar"
well that would be awesome, I would rather my errors be corrected by you, than by C squared.
I made an error here, let me correct that myself, so you don't have to obsess about correcting my error.
I wrote...
due to the joint effect of Conceit, underlying tendency, and whatever is arising due to DO, these can become obsessions.
When corrected it should read whatever is arising due to DO may lead to obsession due to underlying tendency.
As for conceit, underlying tendency is the thing that gives rise to conceit, and obsession.
Without underlying tendency, there is no conceit, neither obsession.
  • Arahants have no underlying tendencies, hence neither conceit nor obsession.
Good night! :candle:
If body and mind not us, why conceit happens? Or we still have grasping to body and mind despite acknowleding intellectually as not me or other reasons?
I may be slow learner but im at least learning...
Post Reply