MA 176 translator Charles Patton translates 3rd jhana body like Sujato, "he personally experiences happiness"

Textual analysis and comparative discussion on early Buddhist sects and scriptures.
User avatar
frank k
Posts: 2247
Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2011 4:55 pm
Contact:

Re: MA 176 translator Charles Patton translates 3rd jhana body like Sujato, "he personally experiences happiness"

Post by frank k »

Coëmgenu wrote: Tue Sep 28, 2021 11:43 am
frank k wrote: Tue Sep 28, 2021 11:33 amI thought CPatton was translating based on chinese 身, and not on sanskrit kaya.
I figured he was basing it on Sanskrit, but then I found out that 身 can be a pronoun, which really throws a wrench in it not being able to mean "personally." The Legge translation from Mencius above pretty much confirms the "personally" usage. ...
Ok, I can see your point chinese is abstruse and vague enough, and offers grammatical precedent to justify that translation, "personal",
but given the context of DN 2 and DA 20 in glossing body and mind, shouldn't that swing a chinese translator's indecision to vote in favor of consistently translating it as physical body, which would make that sutta coherent?
www.lucid24.org/sted : ☸Lucid24.org🐘 STED definitions
www.audtip.org/audtip: 🎙️🔊Audio Tales in Pāli: ☸Dharma and Vinaya in many languages
User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 8150
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:55 pm
Location: Whitby, Canada

Re: MA 176 translator Charles Patton translates 3rd jhana body like Sujato, "he personally experiences happiness"

Post by Coëmgenu »

frank k wrote: Tue Sep 28, 2021 11:52 amAbhidharma redefinitions of jhana as mind only
This isn't actually true of "Abhidharma" per se. At Abhidharmakośabhāṣya, vol 4, pages 1229-1231, Venerable Vasubandhu relates that, in the first dhyana, smell and taste are gone and sight, hearing, and tactile sensation are there. In the second dhyana, sight and hearing drop out. In the third dhyana, there is only the neutral feeling of the internal feedback of the tactile sensation of having a body, and this is understood as "experiencing bliss throughout the (physical) body."

The Dharmaskandha, a Sarvāstivāda Abhidharma text of considerable pedigree, also weighs in on this same debate and it is from much earlier than Abhidharmakośa. This is literally the same debate, as shown by the final bolded element.
As a result of detachment from prīti, he abides in equanimous, mindful and well aware. And he experiences that sukha through the body which the āryas declare, ‘equanimous and mindful is one abiding in dhyāna.

“Experiences sukha through the body” ― body here means the mental body (manaskāya), the body is said to experience sukha because, owing to the sukhavedanā in the mental body, there comes to be ease in the body comprising the Great Elements; the sukha here is the physical and mental softness and pliability, but it is sukha as a vedanā, not the sukha as praśrabdhi.
So taking "sukha as praśrabdhi" to mean "via the physical body" is a very old Buddhist reading of the buddhavacana.
frank k wrote: Tue Sep 28, 2021 11:59 amOk, I can see your point chinese is abstruse and vague enough, and offers grammatical precedent to justify that translation, "personal", but given the context of DN 2 and DA 20 in glossing body and mind, shouldn't that swing a chinese translator's indecision to vote in favor of consistently translating it as physical body, which would make that sutta coherent?
Well, unless he believes from his "Buddhist education" that the jhānas are necessarily disembodied. Fact is, it is the quasi-institutional orthodoxy of a very prominent sect, the Theravādins, that the jhānas are all disembodied. That argumentation isn't going to go away overnight, and if it is challenged, those who believe in Theravādin doctrine will defend it. I think Patton translates it how he does due to Theravādin influence through "EBT studies."
What is the Uncreated?
Sublime & free, what is that obscured Eternity?
It is the Undying, the Bright, the Isle.
It is an Ocean, a Secret: Reality.
Both life and oblivion, it is Nirvāṇa.
asahi
Posts: 2732
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2020 4:23 pm

Re: MA 176 translator Charles Patton translates 3rd jhana body like Sujato, "he personally experiences happiness"

Post by asahi »

:candle:
No bashing No gossiping
waryoffolly
Posts: 346
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 8:30 pm

Re: MA 176 translator Charles Patton translates 3rd jhana body like Sujato, "he personally experiences happiness"

Post by waryoffolly »

frank k wrote: Tue Sep 28, 2021 11:33 am Note to @waryoffolly, even in those agama passages where the jhana similes are not explicitly called jhanas, it's going to have the same jarring inconsistency as DN 2 and DA 20 were "kaya" in 3rd jhana "kaya sukha" suddenly goes from being "personal" to a physical kaya身 in the similes.
My understanding is that Charles believes that the jhana/water similes are definitely meant as embodied experiences-when I pointed out the atthakatha to him he said he wasn’t surprised it described embodied states since the similes are clearly implying physical experience. He just doubts the connection to jhana-ie thinks these were a different type of meditation that potentially crept into the canon as a result of a literalist abhidharma interpretation.

Anyways, it’s weird to me having a convo about someone’s views when they aren’t participating, and I don’t want to potentially misrepresent him publicly so that’s all I have to say for now.
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22391
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: MA 176 translator Charles Patton translates 3rd jhana body like Sujato, "he personally experiences happiness"

Post by Ceisiwr »

T22 is also interesting

1st Jhāna simile

"The first jhana is like a person entering a bathing pool filled with clean and pure water. They cross over the other side, and their mind rejoices.

The monk is likewise. In quiet seclusion, he’s peaceful and happy. He observes everything that arises from the body and sees nothing of the body. Throughout his observation, there’s no (sense faculties?), and the mind’s activity is quieted, making him joyous and comfortable."


2nd Jhāna simile

"The second jhana is like lotus flowers and water lilies that grow in the muck under water. Although they were in the water, the water and dirt doesn’t cling to their stems, leaves, flowers, and fruit.

The monk is likewise. In this body with samadhi, he’s comfortable and rejoices. With this mental attainment, he reaches a steadfast place, it becomes unchangeable, and his mind is purified without the dust of desire."


3rd Jhāna simile

"The third jhana is like a mountain that’s solid without cracks and it’s limitless in size. When an east wind blows on it, it isn’t moved by it. It’s the same with south, west, and north winds. That’s because it’s root is solid and imperturbable. It has a water spring that’s clear and delicious, without any pollutants. It supports the mountain by filling it up and flows all around it. The water purifies it.

The monk is likewise. In this body of contemplation, there’s no delight or comfort to depend on. His (mental) activity is perfected, observing there’s no body, and then his view is universal."


4th Jhāna simile

"The fourth jhana is like a person who puts on new clothes on the seventh or eighth day of the month. Their face is shining, and they observe their non-naked body because they wanted to cover it with a fine garment.

The monk is likewise. His physical actions are pure, and his mind is without defilement. With joy, he’s liberated, without any domain for this (mental) activity. He doesn’t see there’s a body, and everywhere observes no abodes (sense fields?). His mind’s function is purified without any of the many pollutants."
“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
Coëmgenu
Posts: 8150
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:55 pm
Location: Whitby, Canada

Re: MA 176 translator Charles Patton translates 3rd jhana body like Sujato, "he personally experiences happiness"

Post by Coëmgenu »

T22 appears to be a translation of a Theravādin sutta in the Taisho Canon. Its title is listed in Pāli, not Sanskrit, in the database I'm looking at. I need to research further.
What is the Uncreated?
Sublime & free, what is that obscured Eternity?
It is the Undying, the Bright, the Isle.
It is an Ocean, a Secret: Reality.
Both life and oblivion, it is Nirvāṇa.
User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 8150
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:55 pm
Location: Whitby, Canada

Re: MA 176 translator Charles Patton translates 3rd jhana body like Sujato, "he personally experiences happiness"

Post by Coëmgenu »

It's not Theravādin. Apparently it has more in-common with the Saṁghabhedavastu from the Mūlasarvāstivādavinaya. Kin Tung Yit's doctoral thesis A Study of a Standard Path-Structure in Early Buddhist Literature: A Comparative Study of the Pāli, Chinese and Sanskrit Sources addresses T 22.
What is the Uncreated?
Sublime & free, what is that obscured Eternity?
It is the Undying, the Bright, the Isle.
It is an Ocean, a Secret: Reality.
Both life and oblivion, it is Nirvāṇa.
User avatar
frank k
Posts: 2247
Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2011 4:55 pm
Contact:

Re: MA 176 translator Charles Patton translates 3rd jhana body like Sujato, "he personally experiences happiness"

Post by frank k »

Coëmgenu wrote: Wed Sep 29, 2021 12:26 am It's not Theravādin. Apparently it has more in-common with the Saṁghabhedavastu from the Mūlasarvāstivādavinaya. Kin Tung Yit's doctoral thesis A Study of a Standard Path-Structure in Early Buddhist Literature: A Comparative Study of the Pāli, Chinese and Sanskrit Sources addresses T 22.
I've saved a copy of Charles's translation of T22 here, with his comments on how he interprets it.
https://notesonthedhamma.blogspot.com/2 ... ual-4.html

Why is T22 being brought up, presumably as evidence that the 4 unusual (doesn't match DN 2) jhana similes show the body being a "collection of mental factors"?
From what I can make out with his rough translation, it still looks like it's talking about observing a physical body for both the monk part and simile part.
At the end of his post, he mentions an EA sutra (A different school than T22 presumably) having jhana similes with 4 explicit mental pools. That would be the interesting sutra to see.
www.lucid24.org/sted : ☸Lucid24.org🐘 STED definitions
www.audtip.org/audtip: 🎙️🔊Audio Tales in Pāli: ☸Dharma and Vinaya in many languages
User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 8150
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:55 pm
Location: Whitby, Canada

Re: MA 176 translator Charles Patton translates 3rd jhana body like Sujato, "he personally experiences happiness"

Post by Coëmgenu »

IMO, EĀ is the least likely āgama to have Theravādin-style dhyānas in it, but I don't know which āgamasūtra C. Patton has in mind. It can't be EĀ 17.1, if I'm remembering the numbering of the EĀ Ānāpānasmṛtisūtra correctly. That one specifies a bunch of things done from "within the samādhi" that are AFAIK utterly impossible via the Theravādin understanding.
What is the Uncreated?
Sublime & free, what is that obscured Eternity?
It is the Undying, the Bright, the Isle.
It is an Ocean, a Secret: Reality.
Both life and oblivion, it is Nirvāṇa.
Pulsar
Posts: 2641
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2019 6:52 pm

Re: MA 176 translator Charles Patton translates 3rd jhana body like Sujato, "he personally experiences happiness"

Post by Pulsar »

Coemgenu wrote
EĀ is the least likely āgama to have Theravādin-style dhyānas in it, but I don't know which āgamasūtra C. Patton has in mind. It can't be EĀ 17.1, if I'm remembering the numbering of the EĀ Ānāpānasmṛtisūtra correctly. That one specifies a bunch of things done from "within the samādhi" that are AFAIK utterly impossible via the Theravādin understanding.
Theravadin style jhana? I was under the impression that all sects had a similar jhana style (I am referring to the four Buddhist jhanas).
The clearest example to me is found in Sandha sutta. Sutta on the Reservoir helps, and Sn 4.11 are very helpful.

Can you post a link to the EA 17.1?, I could not find it on Sutta central. I am curious about the
"bunch of things done from "within the samādhi" that are AFAIK utterly impossible via the Theravādin understanding."
If not the entire sutta, can you at least post this bunch of things that are utterly impossible for us?
With love :candle:
User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 8150
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:55 pm
Location: Whitby, Canada

Re: MA 176 translator Charles Patton translates 3rd jhana body like Sujato, "he personally experiences happiness"

Post by Coëmgenu »

If you type this, "suttacentral.net/ea17.1," into your URL bar, you should see a translation by J. Pierquet hosted. He translates 覺知身樂 as "he experienced the physical pleasure [etc...]." The interesting thing to note is what is specified immediately following: 彼以此三昧, or "from this samādhi."

The EBTs are all earlier materials, but their present-day redactions betray the influence of the sects that preserved them. The same that is true of the āgamasūtras is true of the Pāli suttas.
What is the Uncreated?
Sublime & free, what is that obscured Eternity?
It is the Undying, the Bright, the Isle.
It is an Ocean, a Secret: Reality.
Both life and oblivion, it is Nirvāṇa.
User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 8150
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:55 pm
Location: Whitby, Canada

Re: MA 176 translator Charles Patton translates 3rd jhana body like Sujato, "he personally experiences happiness"

Post by Coëmgenu »

I missed the request for a list. A few things that come to mind about the Mahāsāṃghika Ānāpānasmṛtisūtra:

1) Discursive thought (seemingly using vitarkavicāra) in the fourth dhyāna: "From this samādhi, his mind was completely pure, without the dust of defilements, and his physical body was supple and soft. [...] He recalled previous lives over incalculable eons. [...] He recalled the passing of eons as well as the destruction of eons [...] He recalled his previous births, that he had various names, was born into certain families, ate such and such food, experienced such and such suffering and happiness. [...]"

2) Ven Rāhula seems able to psychically "see" some sort of visual forms from within a deep dhyāna: "[...] by means of the complete purity and clarity of the Divine Eye, he saw the birth and death of sentient beings, their good forms and evil forms, good destinies and evil destinies [...]"

To be fair, this could refer to a psychic vision, a "noetic breakthrough" of sorts, illuminating via wisdom, not via literal vision, why X beings have Y forms, etc., and doesn't need to literally involve "seeing" them, whether "in the mind's eye" or more literally. There are many ways to "see."

3) Practicing smṛti from directly within a deep dhyāna: "[...] he practiced the contemplation of suffering, and was aware of both the ending of suffering and the origin of suffering, truly aware of them as such."

4) Depending how you read it, his arahattaphala, if I'm using the correct Pāli term, is from within the dhyānas. Not possible AFAIK in Theravāda, and the same for the anomalies above.

In the Theravādin exegesis, all these things must be done after the dhyāna itself.

All of the above points can be found in the other parallels depending on how we interpret them. You can find material like this from the Pāli Canon easily, but it becomes a matter of whose interpretation is correct. In the case of the EĀ Ānāpānasmṛtisūtra, it seems translated in such a way to specify a certain interpretation of the events on this particular night of Ven Rāhula's that is divergent from the Mahāvihāravāsin meditative orthodoxy, which states that you must exit the dhyāna before you can engage in smṛti, among other things.
What is the Uncreated?
Sublime & free, what is that obscured Eternity?
It is the Undying, the Bright, the Isle.
It is an Ocean, a Secret: Reality.
Both life and oblivion, it is Nirvāṇa.
Pulsar
Posts: 2641
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2019 6:52 pm

Re: MA 176 translator Charles Patton translates 3rd jhana body like Sujato, "he personally experiences happiness"

Post by Pulsar »

Thanks Coemgenu for the detailed answers, I appreciate it. It requires a chunk of time to engage with you intelligently.
But first regarding
"suttacentral.net/ea17.1,"
I noticed I had studied it before. I think it was when DD was tossing around suttas, he did toss this one out, in another context, recently.
To make long story short, I had noted that it was a clever (but transparent) cut and paste job, (EA 17.1) by the Dharmaguptakas, not that all their suttas are like this.
It is a hybrid of MN 62 "The Greater Discourse of Advice to Rahula" and a fragment of an Awakening sutta of Buddha, (the meditations you mention). I can point it out later, too many issues.
  • Patton's translations have much merit
again I will refer to that later.
But you have an ability to dig into things like a scholar at times, just as much as DooDoot brought us
fragments of Buddha's teachings like a scholar.
  • You often imply Mahayanists are capable of things that Theravadins are incapable of, based on the suttas or whatever.
How do you define Theravada?. I consider myself Theravada even though I don't subscribe to commentaries and Abhidhamma notions and suttas manufactured around the 3rd council and later. Even MN 43 and MN 44 that many here quote, I reject, cause they are very late fabrications like DN 22.
I rely on Pali suttas instead of Prajnaparamita suttas, so I call myself Theravada.
Every category has flaws, but which one has less?
I vote for the Pali.
My simple question to you is when do you think Theravada came to be called Theravada? I've been researching this.
  • The word did not appear in the literature until 1800's. Before that it was called Hinayana.
But this opens up another can of worms. Hinayana is a reference to "Hearers" or "Sarvastivadins".
But Sarvastivadins had 18 sects. Do you know from which sect of the above, the Sri Lankan theravadins came from? Even Sri Lanka was not called so, before 1975. It was Ceylon.
Are the Sri Lankan Theravadins the Vibajjavadins, who broke off from original Sarvastivada "Hearers"
If so to begin with, it had major flaws.
Since the truth is, when you say "Theravadins do not understand a certain meditation" does it make sense?
  • Who are the Mahayanists who understand?
Mahayana around the beginning, meaning Nagarjuna's time was a different story.
  • Then it became a hybrid of Madhyamika and Yogacara.
Do you understand my problem? And the sutta you present to prove your point EA 17.1 is a pure cut and paste job.
If anyone here can help solve my dilemma, it is only you, since you have faith in Mahayana. It is nice to have you around. You are the only one capable of breaking my faith.
With love :candle:
User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 8150
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:55 pm
Location: Whitby, Canada

Re: MA 176 translator Charles Patton translates 3rd jhana body like Sujato, "he personally experiences happiness"

Post by Coëmgenu »

Pulsar wrote: Wed Oct 06, 2021 10:45 amTo make long story short, I had noted that it was a clever (but transparent) cut and paste job, (EA 17.1) by the Dharmaguptakas, not that all their suttas are like this. It is a hybrid of MN 62 "The Greater Discourse of Advice to Rahula" and a fragment of an Awakening sutta, (the meditations you mention). I can point it out later, too many issues.
It is compiled differently from the Pāli versions, for sure. Because I do not consider the Pāli suttas to be "the original versions," I don't agree necessarily that this is a cut-and-paste hybrid of two Pāli suttas, even if the material present in two different Pāli suttas is present in this one āgamasūtra.
Pulsar wrote: Wed Oct 06, 2021 10:45 am
  • Patton's translations have have much merit
again I will refer to that later.
Where did I say this? Perhaps I'm having a bad memory in the morning, but I don't think that was typed in this thread. I do think that his translations have much merit, but I don't think that I said as much.
Pulsar wrote: Wed Oct 06, 2021 10:45 amBut you have an ability to dig into things like a scholar at times, just as much as DooDoot brought us fragments of Buddha's teachings like a scholar.
I personally disagree that that user would present fragments "like a scholar." I don't think it was scholarly at all. My analyses are also unscholarly, and they wouldn't be published in a journal of repute.
Pulsar wrote: Wed Oct 06, 2021 10:45 am
  • You often imply Mahayanists are capable of things that Theravadins are incapable of, based on the suttas or whatever.
As a general rule, my opinions on the Dharma are off-topic for this forum and are unshared. A handful of times, generally in "Connections" but sometimes not, I have shared my own personal take on the Dharma, but I make an effort to stick to talking points easily traceable to particular texts for the sake of this forum. That being said, I think that you have seriously misunderstood what I meant when I said "Not possible AFAIK in Theravāda." The Theravādin stance is not that these feats are impossible for them but possible for the Mahāyānika. Their stance is that such things are impossible full-stop and that, if the Mahāyānikas (or anyone else) claim to be doing them, they are either self-deceiving or lying or wrong in some other way I haven't listed.
Pulsar wrote: Wed Oct 06, 2021 10:45 amHow do you define Theravada?
The sect of Buddhism normative in Thailand, Laos, Cambodia, Myanmar, and Sri Lanka (as well as whichever other countries I may have forgotten) that is also practiced by a handful of Westerners (that is, "a handful" compared to the "entire population," more or less, of former Siam, for instance). It has three baskets, suttas, vinaya texts, and Abhidhamma texts, and a particular orthodoxy in how they interpret these three baskets. Some of the particular features of the school include a lack of belief in the antarābhava, that bodily sensation is absent in the first dhyāna, and that smṛti is impossible from within a dhyānic state, amongst other beliefs, such as that Yāmarāj is a kind of ghost and not a kind of deity and that there is only one Supreme Buddha active at a given time. There are all Theravāda beliefs that separate it from Mahāyāna, but Theravāda does not deserve to be exclusively compared to wider Mahāyāna trends. It is a particular school that ought to be particularly treated, IMO.
Pulsar wrote: Wed Oct 06, 2021 10:45 amI consider myself Theravada even though I don't subscribe to commentaries and Abhidhamma notions and suttas manufactured around the 3rd council and later. Even MN 43 and MN 44 that many here quote, I reject, cause they are very late fabrications like DN 22.
You are free to call yourself whatever you feel that you are. I disagree with your textual hermeneutics. I think that DN actually has some of the oldest Buddhist material in it, such as the Aggaññasutta, etc., which I view as a pre-Buddhist story adapted by the Buddha. But I have no proof of such. Earlier, I explained that I don't share my personal opinions concerning the Dharma on this forum because they are off-topic. I do however share speculations about Buddhist history, which is what you are also doing when you say with confidence something that is not known with confidence, i.e. that those three suttas are definitely "manufactured around the 3rd council." Just like there is no proof that the Aggaññasutta is very ancient material adapted fresh by the Buddha, there is no proof that those three scriptures are definitely fabrications and weren't always redacted like that (i.e. "remembered like that") by the forerunners of the Theravāda sect. If their memorizers didn't preserve the Dharma well enough or not, thus resulting in misremembered sermons identified as manufactured anomalies, that is another issue entirely.
Pulsar wrote: Wed Oct 06, 2021 10:45 amMy simple question to you is when do you think Theravada came to be called Theravada? I've been researching this.
  • The word did not appear in the literature until 1800's. Before that it was called Hinayana.
But this opens up another can of worms. Hinayana is a reference to "Hearers" or "Sarvastivadins".
Are you quite sure that the Theravādins used to identify themselves as Hīnayāna? I don't think they ever have. I think they've used names like "Mahāvihāravāsin," in reference to the monastery from which contemporary Theravāda pseudo-orthodoxy springs forth. They currently (and in the past) have called themselves the Pāli version of "Sthaviravāda" (i.e. "Theravāda"), the sect they trace themselves to from the fabled "first schism," but they haven't always done so, as you point out. They've also called themselves Vibhajyavādins, after their parent sect. I think they've also been called "Tamraparṇiyas," after the island of Sri Lanka, Tamraparṇi. It's also been called Śrāvakayāna, but only by Mahāyānikas. I don't think anyone knows exactly when it became popular to render "Sthaviravāda" into Pāli as a school name. Likely they'd been doing it for quite a while and at some point "Theravāda" comes to replace the other names.

Why would they call themselves "the smaller and/or inferior vehicle?" That is what the "hīna-" in that word means. It doesn't just mean "smaller," though it also can have that neutral sense. Typically, it is used by Mahāyānikas looking down at Śrāvakas.
Pulsar wrote: Wed Oct 06, 2021 10:45 amBut Sarvastivadins had 18 sects. Do you know from which sect of the above, the Sri Lankan theravadins came from? Even Sri Lanka was not called so, before 1975. It was Ceylon.
Are you sure that the Sarvāstivādin sect alone had 18 sects, or did Buddhism at one point have loosely 18 sects? I don't think the Theravādins came from the Sarvāstivādins at all. They have an ancient schism. Sarvāstivādins don't even consider themselves Vibhajyavādins AFAIK, meaning that that schism is very old.
Pulsar wrote: Wed Oct 06, 2021 10:45 amAre the Sri Lankan Theravadins the Vibajjavadins, who broke off from original Sarvastivada "Hearers"
Are you confusing "Sarvāstivāda" and "Śrāvakayāna" because they both begin with an "S?"
Pulsar wrote: Wed Oct 06, 2021 10:45 amSince the truth is, when you say "Theravadins do not understand a certain meditation" does it make sense?
I've never actually said this. I'm rather careful to try to avoid criticizing Theravāda unfairly on this forum and to phrase my disagreements with it as reasonably as possible.
Pulsar wrote: Wed Oct 06, 2021 10:45 amDo you understand my problem? And the sutta you present to prove your point EA 17.1 is a pure cut and paste job.
I'm not proving "my point." I'm showing that EĀ and in particular its Ānāpānasmṛtisūtra is redacted very differently from any Pāli equivalent. This would make sense, since the Mahāsāṃghikas and Sthaviravādins constitute an even older schism than that between the Sarvāstivādins and Vibhajyavādins. It would make sense that their scriptures would be strikingly differently compiled, because they are strikingly different.
Pulsar wrote: Wed Oct 06, 2021 10:45 amIf anyone here can help solve my dilemma, it is only you, since you have faith in Mahayana. It is nice to have you around. You are the only one capable of breaking my faith.
With love :candle:
I don't know what you mean by "breaking my faith" and why you would want it broken.

With love.
What is the Uncreated?
Sublime & free, what is that obscured Eternity?
It is the Undying, the Bright, the Isle.
It is an Ocean, a Secret: Reality.
Both life and oblivion, it is Nirvāṇa.
Pulsar
Posts: 2641
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2019 6:52 pm

Re: MA 176 translator Charles Patton translates 3rd jhana body like Sujato, "he personally experiences happiness"

Post by Pulsar »

Coemgenu wrote
I don't know what you mean by "breaking my faith" and why you would want it broken.
Not that I want anything broken, this is friendly debate. I thought perhaps it would be challenging to listen to your seeming take that Mahayana suttas on their own merit give us an advantage over Pali suttas.
Again maybe I misread you, and perhaps you think Pali suttas on the whole are better in communicating the message of Buddha. It is hard to carry on a conversation without some understanding of where the other person comes from.

Your other points are too involved for me to engage right now. I did not say all DN suttas are late fabrications. As for your saying
why would Theravada call themselves Hinayana?
There was no sect called Theravada to begin with. That was my point. The word "Theravada" appeared in the literature in the 1800's.
The Reason "Hinayana" was done away by the scholars was just that, it implied inferiority. Hinayana in modern literature is replaced by Sarvastivada.
  • But in this shuffle where did Theravada stand? this is my puzzle?
What we call Theravada originated from Sravakayana, from which Mahayana too originated from. Was Sravakayana also called Sarvastivada? Lables are confounding at times,
Mahayanists took the best of Sarvastivadins added some of their thoughts and it came to be labelled Mahayana, but this is a complex story.
Yes the 18 sects belonged to whatever Buddhism was then.
after the Parinirvans of the Buddha, From those sects, Mahayana and Hinayana evolved, there was no sect called Theravada,
at that point.
This is one reason why Nagarjuna was debating the Sarvastivadins over stuff like "inherent nature" i.e. "svabahava"of dhammas, 3 periods of existence, and fine points of DO etc.
Why did he not debate Theravadins? Simply because there was no sect called Theravadins at that point in time.
This is purely my observation. Scholars like Alexander Wynne writes "No one knows the origin of Theravada"
This too is another reason why abhidhamma is so messy, when you try to pin down what was original abhidahmma? but that is a different topic.
You did not say that translations of Charles Patton were of no merit. it just came out, since the main topic of the thread was that. I apologise.
I meant to address it in another comment to the OP, but later.
With love :candle:
Post Reply