why isn't Sammā-sam-buddha-sāvako "a disciple who also happens to be a Buddha"?

Explore the ancient language of the Tipitaka and Theravāda commentaries
Post Reply
User avatar
frank k
Posts: 2247
Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2011 4:55 pm
Contact:

why isn't Sammā-sam-buddha-sāvako "a disciple who also happens to be a Buddha"?

Post by frank k »

why isn't Sammā-sam-buddha-sāvako "a disciple who also happens to be a Buddha"?
http://notesonthedhamma.blogspot.com/20 ... avako.html


Iti 82 shows a newly ordained monk would already be a stream enterer 'ariya savaka', which is clearly wrong
http://notesonthedhamma.blogspot.com/20 ... -gods.html


So why do B. Bodhi and Sujato translate and interpret ariya-savako as (stream enterer at least) "noble disciple" everywhere in all the suttas as far as I can tell, instead of "disciple of the noble ones", which works in every single instance of the suttas, since an enlighted disciple of the ariya is also a disciple, but a disciple is not necessarily a stream enterer.
www.lucid24.org/sted : ☸Lucid24.org🐘 STED definitions
www.audtip.org/audtip: 🎙️🔊Audio Tales in Pāli: ☸Dharma and Vinaya in many languages
santa100
Posts: 6811
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 10:55 pm

Re: why isn't Sammā-sam-buddha-sāvako "a disciple who also happens to be a Buddha"?

Post by santa100 »

frank k wrote:So why do B. Bodhi and Sujato translate and interpret ariya-savako as (stream enterer at least) "noble disciple" everywhere in all the suttas as far as I can tell, instead of "disciple of the noble ones", which works in every single instance of the suttas, since an enlighted disciple of the ariya is also a disciple, but a disciple is not necessarily a stream enterer.
It might carry more of a metaphorical instead of a technical meaning, as Ven. Bodhi's note from "Numerical Discourses":
The Nikayas often set up a contrast between the "uninstructed worldling" (assutava puthujjana), the common person of the world who lacks training in the Buddha's teaching, and the instructed noble disciple (sutava ariya savaka), who has learned the teaching and undertaken the training. More broadly, a puthujjana is anyone who has not yet reached the path of stream-entry (sotapatti). An ariyasavaka is not necessarily a "noble one" in the technical sense, but any disciple, monastic or layperson, who has learned the teaching and earnestly takes up the practice.
User avatar
Mumfie
Posts: 268
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2022 4:43 pm

Re: why isn't Sammā-sam-buddha-sāvako "a disciple who also happens to be a Buddha"?

Post by Mumfie »

frank k wrote: Sat Dec 03, 2022 6:44 pm So why do B. Bodhi and Sujato translate and interpret ariya-savako as (stream enterer at least) "noble disciple" everywhere in all the suttas as far as I can tell, instead of "disciple of the noble ones",
They don't interpret the word as referring exclusively to sekha and asekha disciples. In fact they interpret it the same way as you.

As to why they translate it in a way that might suggest that it does refer exclusively to sekha and asekha disciples, in Sujāto's case this question was posed and answered five years ago. By strange coincidence, the poser of the question was also called "frank k".

https://discourse.suttacentral.net/t/ho ... ll/6695/15
“Hobgoblin, nor foul fiend,
Shall daunt his spirit;”
John Bunyan, Pilgrim’s Progress II)
User avatar
frank k
Posts: 2247
Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2011 4:55 pm
Contact:

Re: why isn't Sammā-sam-buddha-sāvako "a disciple who also happens to be a Buddha"?

Post by frank k »

Excellent find! Thanks.
I reproduce the answer from Sujato here:
sujato
Bhante
Oct '17
The ambiguity arises because the term usually appears as a compound, and the relation between the elements is not specified. Compare, for example, ariyo aṭṭhaṅgiko maggo which must be an adjective, “noble eightfold path”, as opposed to ariyassa vinaye “the training of the noble one”.

So far as I know, we don’t have any resolved forms of ariyasāvaka in the EBTs that would determine the issue on purely grammatical grounds. It seems that the more common usage of ariya is as an adjective, which would support “noble disciple”. In addition, the general sense of it through the texts seems to support this reading.

On the other hand, the commentaries seem to prefer “disciple of the noble (Buddha)” (ariyassa Buddhassa sāvako). This would seem to be supported by DN 8, which has gotamasāvakasaṅgho and gaṇācariyasāvakasaṅghā, which must be, “the community of disciples of Gotama” and “the community of disciples of the teachers of groups” (i.e. non-Buddhist communities).

The difference in meaning is probably not as great as it might appear. In this kind of context, a “disciple of the noble one” would mean “a true disciple of the noble one”, not just someone who called themselves a follower. Usually in the texts, of course, an ariyasāvaka is one of the four pairs of awakened beings. However it does seem to be used more loosely on occasion, so needs to be read carefully in context. @Brahmali, I wonder if you have any thoughts on this?

Brahmali
Ajahn

sujato
Oct '17
I tend to agree with what you have said here. It seems that in a number of instances the expression ariyasāvaka is used to designate the ideal conduct of a disciple, and thus primarily refers to stream-enterers. Here are a few examples:

MN2: “Bhikkhus, a well-taught noble disciple [ariyasāvaka], who has regard for noble ones and is skilled and disciplined in their Dhamma, who has regard for true men and is skilled and disciplined in their Dhamma, understands what things are fit for attention and what things are unfit for attention. Since that is so, he does not attend to those things unfit for attention and he attends to those things fit for attention.”

MN14: “Even though a noble disciple has seen clearly as it actually is with proper wisdom that sensual pleasures provide little gratification, much suffering and despair, and that the danger in them is still more, as long as he still does not attain to the rapture and pleasure that are apart from sensual pleasures, apart from unwholesome states, or to something more peaceful than that, he may still be attracted to sensual pleasures.”

MN22: ““Bhikkhus, a well-taught noble disciple who has regard for noble ones and is skilled and disciplined in their Dhamma, who has regard for true men and is skilled and disciplined in their Dhamma, regards material form thus: ‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.’ He regards feeling thus: ‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.’ He regards perception thus: ‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.’ He regards formations thus: ‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.’ He regards what is seen, heard, sensed, cognized, encountered, sought, mentally pondered thus: ‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.’ And this standpoint for views, namely, ‘That which is the self is the world; after death I shall be permanent, everlasting, eternal, not subject to change; I shall endure as long as eternity’—this too he regards thus: ‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.’”

I believe most occurrences of ariyasāvaka in the suttas are found in contexts similar to the ones above. In these contexts the obvious translation is “noble disciple”, that is, someone who has understood the teachings through insight. I do recall, however, that there are some exceptions to this. In these other cases the term seems to be used more loosely and does not necessarily imply an ariya. Still, since the preponderance of usage refers to ariyas, I think “noble disciple” is the better translation. One just needs to keep in mind that the term is not used with absolute consistency. This is in fact true for a large number of terms. In other words, we always need to be sensitive to context.

5


sujato
Bhante

frankk
Oct '17
That’s right, in fact normally samaṇabrāhmaṇa means “professional spiritual practitioners”. It is used in contexts where Buddhists may or may not be included.



Mumfie wrote: Sun Dec 04, 2022 1:56 am
frank k wrote: Sat Dec 03, 2022 6:44 pm So why do B. Bodhi and Sujato translate and interpret ariya-savako as (stream enterer at least) "noble disciple" everywhere in all the suttas as far as I can tell, instead of "disciple of the noble ones",
They don't interpret the word as referring exclusively to sekha and asekha disciples. In fact they interpret it the same way as you.

As to why they translate it in a way that might suggest that it does refer exclusively to sekha and asekha disciples, in Sujāto's case this question was posed and answered five years ago. By strange coincidence, the poser of the question was also called "frank k".

https://discourse.suttacentral.net/t/ho ... ll/6695/15
www.lucid24.org/sted : ☸Lucid24.org🐘 STED definitions
www.audtip.org/audtip: 🎙️🔊Audio Tales in Pāli: ☸Dharma and Vinaya in many languages
User avatar
frank k
Posts: 2247
Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2011 4:55 pm
Contact:

Re: why isn't Sammā-sam-buddha-sāvako "a disciple who also happens to be a Buddha"?

Post by frank k »

Can someone confirm if the commentaries consistently interpret ariya-savako as "a disciple of an ariya (specifically the ariya Buddha), but the disciple is not necessarily noble himself" everywhere,

or is it a case by case basis and sometimes commentary says ariya-savaka is "an enlightened/ariya disciple"?


Sujato wrote:
On the other hand, the commentaries seem to prefer “disciple of the noble (Buddha)” (ariyassa Buddhassa sāvako). This would seem to be supported by DN 8, which has gotamasāvakasaṅgho and gaṇācariyasāvakasaṅghā, which must be, “the community of disciples of Gotama” and “the community of disciples of the teachers of groups” (i.e. non-Buddhist communities).
www.lucid24.org/sted : ☸Lucid24.org🐘 STED definitions
www.audtip.org/audtip: 🎙️🔊Audio Tales in Pāli: ☸Dharma and Vinaya in many languages
User avatar
frank k
Posts: 2247
Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2011 4:55 pm
Contact:

Re: why isn't Sammā-sam-buddha-sāvako "a disciple who also happens to be a Buddha"?

Post by frank k »

But this begs the question.
If one can be thrown off so badly by Bodhi and Sujato's translation into thinking they also interpret it as an "enlightened noble disciple ariya savaka",
is this really a suitable way to translate it?

The suttas sometimes refer to the 'ariya', and that has a precise meaning, it's not "most of the time they are noble."
The suttas often use code phrases to defintely say someone is an arahant, not "most of the time, this is probably an arahant."
Sekha and asekha have a definite meaning of being in the range of ariya or arahant, not unenlightened.

I really don't understand Sujato and Brahmali's reasoning for justifying that translation.
In the context of the other similar terms having definite specific meaning you don't think it's going to cause major confusion when you suddenly play fast and loose with 'noble disciple'?

Here's an example.
Most of the internet forum and social media content often seems to be negative.
Would it be proper to translate the term "internet user" as "negative troll", just because the vast majority of internet communication is negative?

I can't believe we even have to have a conversation about this.

What serious sutta reader sees the English translation 'noble disciple' and thinks it may or may not be someone who is enlightened?

If I had to guess, I think Bodhi and Sujato chose that translation "noble disciple" because it's more concise than the bulky "disciple of the noble ones", or "noble one's disciple".




Mumfie wrote: Sun Dec 04, 2022 1:56 am
frank k wrote: Sat Dec 03, 2022 6:44 pm So why do B. Bodhi and Sujato translate and interpret ariya-savako as (stream enterer at least) "noble disciple" everywhere in all the suttas as far as I can tell, instead of "disciple of the noble ones",
They don't interpret the word as referring exclusively to sekha and asekha disciples. In fact they interpret it the same way as you.

As to why they translate it in a way that might suggest that it does refer exclusively to sekha and asekha disciples, in Sujāto's case this question was posed and answered five years ago. By strange coincidence, the poser of the question was also called "frank k".

https://discourse.suttacentral.net/t/ho ... ll/6695/15
www.lucid24.org/sted : ☸Lucid24.org🐘 STED definitions
www.audtip.org/audtip: 🎙️🔊Audio Tales in Pāli: ☸Dharma and Vinaya in many languages
User avatar
frank k
Posts: 2247
Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2011 4:55 pm
Contact:

Re: why isn't Sammā-sam-buddha-sāvako "a disciple who also happens to be a Buddha"?

Post by frank k »

As far as Brahmali's reasoning that most of the time ariya-savaka is referring to someone who is enlightened, that's what you would expect in an sutta collection containing teachings that lead to enlightenment. The characters involved where enlightenment happens, you would expect many or most of them to also be enlightened or close to it, otherwise the Buddha wouldn't be teaching them the higher Dhamma in that sutta.

samana and Brahmna sometimes refer to enlightened disciples of the Buddha, rather than ascetics of other religions.
should we start translating those two terms as 'noble disciple' as well (in those suttas with that context)?

Sometimes I think I'm living in a completely mad world.
www.lucid24.org/sted : ☸Lucid24.org🐘 STED definitions
www.audtip.org/audtip: 🎙️🔊Audio Tales in Pāli: ☸Dharma and Vinaya in many languages
User avatar
frank k
Posts: 2247
Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2011 4:55 pm
Contact:

Re: why isn't Sammā-sam-buddha-sāvako "a disciple who also happens to be a Buddha"?

Post by frank k »

santa100 wrote: Sat Dec 03, 2022 7:17 pm
frank k wrote:So why do B. Bodhi and Sujato translate and interpret ariya-savako as (stream enterer at least) "noble disciple" everywhere in all the suttas as far as I can tell, instead of "disciple of the noble ones", which works in every single instance of the suttas, since an enlighted disciple of the ariya is also a disciple, but a disciple is not necessarily a stream enterer.
It might carry more of a metaphorical instead of a technical meaning, as Ven. Bodhi's note from "Numerical Discourses":
The Nikayas often set up a contrast between the "uninstructed worldling" (assutava puthujjana), the common person of the world who lacks training in the Buddha's teaching, and the instructed noble disciple (sutava ariya savaka), who has learned the teaching and undertaken the training. More broadly, a puthujjana is anyone who has not yet reached the path of stream-entry (sotapatti). An ariyasavaka is not necessarily a "noble one" in the technical sense, but any disciple, monastic or layperson, who has learned the teaching and earnestly takes up the practice.

Thanks for finding that.
My objection to his translation remains, same as the ones I outlined for Sujato.
If comparable terms like ariya, sekha, have technical meanings, it's wholly unsuitable to expect people to think 'noble disciple' does not also have precise technical meaning and we should suddenly interpret it metaphorically.

This goes to show the power single individuals can exert. Since B. Bodhi is highly respected and makes a poor choice in translating 'ariya-savaka' that way, it gives other translators a bad precedent to follow and justify.

I would encourage people to contact Bodhi and Sujato and let them know how you feel about their translation of ariya-savako.
www.lucid24.org/sted : ☸Lucid24.org🐘 STED definitions
www.audtip.org/audtip: 🎙️🔊Audio Tales in Pāli: ☸Dharma and Vinaya in many languages
User avatar
Mumfie
Posts: 268
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2022 4:43 pm

Re: why isn't Sammā-sam-buddha-sāvako "a disciple who also happens to be a Buddha"?

Post by Mumfie »

frank k wrote: Sun Dec 04, 2022 3:35 pm Can someone confirm if the commentaries consistently interpret ariya-savako as "a disciple of an ariya (specifically the ariya Buddha), but the disciple is not necessarily noble himself" everywhere,

or is it a case by case basis and sometimes commentary says ariya-savaka is "an enlightened/ariya disciple"?
Case by case. They give glosses like "one attained to view" or "stream-entrant" to refer exclusively to ariyans, "one aiming at the status of a disciple" to refer exclusively to converted puthujjanas, and "disciple of the Ariyan, the Buddha" when it might be either.

I don't think the commentators could really do otherwise, for in some suttas it's very clear that the person described is a puthujjana (e.g., in AN3.94 we find a person being denoted ariyasāvaka even before the dhammacakkhu has arisen in him), in others it's equally clear that the person must be an ariyan, and in yet others it's quite unclear.
“Hobgoblin, nor foul fiend,
Shall daunt his spirit;”
John Bunyan, Pilgrim’s Progress II)
User avatar
robertk
Posts: 5613
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 2:08 am

Re: why isn't Sammā-sam-buddha-sāvako "a disciple who also happens to be a Buddha"?

Post by robertk »

Mumfie wrote: Sun Dec 04, 2022 11:16 pm
frank k wrote: Sun Dec 04, 2022 3:35 pm Can someone confirm if the commentaries consistently interpret ariya-savako as "a disciple of an ariya (specifically the ariya Buddha), but the disciple is not necessarily noble himself" everywhere,

or is it a case by case basis and sometimes commentary says ariya-savaka is "an enlightened/ariya disciple"?
Case by case. They give glosses like "one attained to view" or "stream-entrant" to refer exclusively to ariyans, "one aiming at the status of a disciple" to refer exclusively to converted puthujjanas, and "disciple of the Ariyan, the Buddha" when it might be either.

I don't think the commentators could really do otherwise, for in some suttas it's very clear that the person described is a puthujjana (e.g., in AN3.94 we find a person being denoted ariyasāvaka even before the dhammacakkhu has arisen in him), in others it's equally clear that the person must be an ariyan, and in yet others it's quite unclear.
You mean this sutta?
https://suttacentral.net/an3.94/en/suja ... ript=latin
Where does it indicate that the dhamma vision hasn't arisen- I read it as happening contemporaneously?
User avatar
Mumfie
Posts: 268
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2022 4:43 pm

Re: why isn't Sammā-sam-buddha-sāvako "a disciple who also happens to be a Buddha"?

Post by Mumfie »

robertk wrote: Mon Dec 05, 2022 3:32 am You mean this sutta?
https://suttacentral.net/an3.94/en/sujato
Where does it indicate that the dhamma vision hasn't arisen- I read it as happening contemporaneously?
Yes, that's the one.
"Bhikkhus, just as, in the autumn, when the sky is clear and cloudless, the sun, ascending in the sky, dispels all darkness from space as it shines and beams and radiates, so too, when the dust-free, stainless Dhamma-eye arises in the disciple of the noble ones, then, together with the arising of vision, the disciple of the noble ones abandons three fetters: personality view, doubt, and misapprehension of customary and vowed observances."
I agree that the abandoning of the fetters occurs simultaneously with the arising of the Dhamma-eye. My reading of the sutta is that the term "disciple of the noble ones" applies to this person even before the arising of the Dhamma-eye when he was still a kalyāna-puthujjana.

If the intended sense was, "in the same moment that the Dhamma-eye arises and the fetters are abandoned he becomes a disciple of the nobles," then I would expect a completely different phrasing than that given.
“Hobgoblin, nor foul fiend,
Shall daunt his spirit;”
John Bunyan, Pilgrim’s Progress II)
User avatar
frank k
Posts: 2247
Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2011 4:55 pm
Contact:

Re: why isn't Sammā-sam-buddha-sāvako "a disciple who also happens to be a Buddha"?

Post by frank k »

So the commentaries glossing ariya-savaka give 3 (only 3? or just that you know about?) possible answers case by case:
1. "one attained to view" or "stream-entrant" to refer exclusively to ariyans,
2. "one aiming at the status of a disciple" to refer exclusively to converted puthujjanas (worldlings),
3. and "disciple of the Ariyan, the Buddha" when it might be either.

What's the source of that summary? Is it a B. Bodhi comment from one of his books?

Does anyone know if B. Bodhi translates ariya-savaka "noble disciple" everywhere?

Sujato seems to, and here's a case where I found where it's clearly wrong.
Iti 82 shows a newly ordained monk is a "noble disciple" he would already be a stream enterer 'ariya savaka', which is clearly wrong.
(my translation of iti 82)
http://notesonthedhamma.blogspot.com/20 ... -gods.html


On the cases where the ariya-savaka must be an ariyan, that doesn't mean ariya-savaka should be translated as 'noble disciple'.
Queen Elizabeth is 'English', but we wouldn't translate "English woman" as "Queen".
Sometimes 'arahant' is defintely referring to 'the Buddha', so should we translate 'arahant' as 'the Buddha' with the understanding that sometimes it's not 'the Buddha', but one of his fully enlightened disciples?

This is very straightforward and obvious. Does everyone agree this is a translation error and should be corrected?
Thanissaro Bhikkhu seems to be the only one doing it right. (ariya savaka = disciple of the noble ones)



Mumfie wrote: Sun Dec 04, 2022 11:16 pm
frank k wrote: Sun Dec 04, 2022 3:35 pm Can someone confirm if the commentaries consistently interpret ariya-savako as "a disciple of an ariya (specifically the ariya Buddha), but the disciple is not necessarily noble himself" everywhere,

or is it a case by case basis and sometimes commentary says ariya-savaka is "an enlightened/ariya disciple"?
Case by case. They give glosses like "one attained to view" or "stream-entrant" to refer exclusively to ariyans, "one aiming at the status of a disciple" to refer exclusively to converted puthujjanas, and "disciple of the Ariyan, the Buddha" when it might be either.

I don't think the commentators could really do otherwise, for in some suttas it's very clear that the person described is a puthujjana (e.g., in AN3.94 we find a person being denoted ariyasāvaka even before the dhammacakkhu has arisen in him), in others it's equally clear that the person must be an ariyan, and in yet others it's quite unclear.
www.lucid24.org/sted : ☸Lucid24.org🐘 STED definitions
www.audtip.org/audtip: 🎙️🔊Audio Tales in Pāli: ☸Dharma and Vinaya in many languages
Post Reply