Credulity

A place to discuss casual topics amongst spiritual friends.
User avatar
Circle5
Posts: 945
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:14 am

Re: Credulity

Post by Circle5 »

SDC wrote: Sun Mar 25, 2018 2:15 pm So if you take a look at the Pali, the terms being translated above in SN 22.94 as "exists" and "not exist" are atthisammataṃ (atthi) and natthisammataṃ respectively - meaning "exist, are to be found and agreed upon" and "are not to be found, agreed upon as not found" respectively. The aspect of being found seems to be the point here.

The existence and non-existence that Ven. Nanavira et al. speak about is in regards to bhava and also to paññāyati (I can't speak for Ven. Nanananda since I do not know his views on this). So you are not talking about the same things, at least not the same things in the same context. Though interestingly enough there is the term atthibhāva that means "the fact of being present" (you could probably even go as far as to say "existence is present"), so your argument isn't totally dead. It may also be useful to keep in mind that bhava is rendered most often as either becoming or being/existence (of a SELF), and there is quite a bit of contention as to what it is actually referring to - atthi on the other hand looks to be more clear cut and implies much less IMO. Nevertheless, considering the starkly different usages and contexts between these different terms, repeatedly quoting one to refute the other is hardly a nail in the coffin against what Nanavira has said.

Just some food for thought, since you and I "friends" right now. ;)
I checked the translation on the link provided by you from suttacentral. It is translated as "to exist".

1) Do you not agree with the "to exist" translation of the term "atthi" ? If not, then what do you believe should be the suitable translation for that. Like, if you were a pali language speaker 2500 years ago, what better term would you use if you meant to say "to exist" instead of "atthi" ? (of course, this is only in case you do not agree with the translation)
2) If you do not agree with "atthi" meaning "to exist", then what other term do you know from pali language that has the meaning "to exist" ?

I am asking because all respectable translators have translated that sutta in the same way.
User avatar
SDC
Posts: 9062
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:08 pm

Re: Credulity

Post by SDC »

Circle5 wrote: Sun Mar 25, 2018 4:17 pm I checked the translation on the link provided by you from suttacentral. It is translated as "to exist".

1) Do you not agree with the "to exist" translation of the term "atthi" ? If not, then what do you believe should be the suitable translation for that.
2) If you do not agree with "atthi" meaning "to exist", then what other term do you know from pali language that has the meaning "to exist" ?
I know atthi means "to exist". I wrote that in my post. I linked it in my post. I am not disagreeing that it is the meaning. Did you read what I wrote about the difference?

Bhava is well known to have been translated as "existence" for many years. There is no reason to argue that. It's in the Pali-English dictionary.
“Life is swept along, short is the life span; no shelters exist for one who has reached old age. Seeing clearly this danger in death, a seeker of peace should drop the world’s bait.” SN 1.3
User avatar
Circle5
Posts: 945
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:14 am

Re: Credulity

Post by Circle5 »

SDC wrote: Sun Mar 25, 2018 4:22 pm
Circle5 wrote: Sun Mar 25, 2018 4:17 pm I checked the translation on the link provided by you from suttacentral. It is translated as "to exist".

1) Do you not agree with the "to exist" translation of the term "atthi" ? If not, then what do you believe should be the suitable translation for that.
2) If you do not agree with "atthi" meaning "to exist", then what other term do you know from pali language that has the meaning "to exist" ?
I know atthi means "to exist". I wrote that in my post. I linked it in my post. I am not disagreeing that it is the meaning. Did you read what I wrote about the difference?

Bhava is well known to have been translated as "existence" for many years. There is no reason to argue that. It's in the Pali-English dictionary.
Oh, now I get it. Yes, bhava has been translated as "existence" sometimes, being meant in the "individual existence" or "life" way. From your link:

bhava
“becoming”, (form of) rebirth, (state of) existence, a “life.” There are 3 states of existence conventionally enumerated as kāma˚ rūpa˚, arūpa˚; or sensual existence, deva-corporeal, formless existence (cp. rūpa)

It's not translated like that by B.Bodhi or B.Sujato because it's not the perfect translation for "bhava" and might be misleading. But my quote had nothing to do with that. That's why I don't understand the "so your argument isn't totally dead" from your post, since I never made such arguments.
User avatar
SDC
Posts: 9062
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:08 pm

Re: Credulity

Post by SDC »

Circle5 wrote: Sun Mar 25, 2018 4:29 pm But my quote had nothing to do with that. That's why I don't understand the "so your argument isn't totally dead" from your post, since I never made such arguments.
I agree they have nothing to do with each other. That is my point. But you said:

"[Buddha] was very clear about that and of course in clear contradiction with Nanananda and other "existentialist buddhist".

But the monks you are referring to didn't try to connect them either. They agreed they were being used differently, so you are in perfect agreement with them on this point.
“Life is swept along, short is the life span; no shelters exist for one who has reached old age. Seeing clearly this danger in death, a seeker of peace should drop the world’s bait.” SN 1.3
User avatar
Circle5
Posts: 945
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:14 am

Re: Credulity

Post by Circle5 »

SDC wrote: Sun Mar 25, 2018 4:36 pm I agree they have nothing to do with each other. That is my point. But you said:

"[Buddha] was very clear about that and of course in clear contradiction with Nanananda and other "existentialist buddhist".

But the monks you are referring to didn't try to connect them either. They agreed they were being used differently, so you are in perfect agreement with them on this point.
Nanananda philosophy does have a problem with that sutta. But as for Nanavira, you said above he does not agree that "bhava" or "paññāyati" exist. What exactly does he mean by this ? That "things that appear" (I suppose he means perceptions) do not exist ? Do you know any "things that appear" that are not part of the 5 aggregates ?
User avatar
SDC
Posts: 9062
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:08 pm

Re: Credulity

Post by SDC »

Circle5 wrote: Sun Mar 25, 2018 4:39 pm But as for Nanavira, you said above he does not agree that "bhava" or "paññāyati" exist.
That is NOT what I said at all. I said he discusses "existence" and "non-existence" in regards to both bhava and paññāyati.
“Life is swept along, short is the life span; no shelters exist for one who has reached old age. Seeing clearly this danger in death, a seeker of peace should drop the world’s bait.” SN 1.3
User avatar
Circle5
Posts: 945
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:14 am

Re: Credulity

Post by Circle5 »

SDC wrote: Sun Mar 25, 2018 4:45 pm That is NOT what I said at all. I said he discusses "existence" and "non-existence" in regards to both bhava and paññāyati.
When one says "pannaytti", he is basically speaking about one of the 5 aggregates. Again I ask you: Do you know of any "things that appear" that are not part of the 5 aggregates ? I only know of form that appears, perceptions that appear, etc.

Therefore, when one says he is unsure weather "things that appear" exist or not, the he is basically saying he doesn't know weather the 5 aggregates (or a particular one of them) exists or not. Since there are no things that appear that are not part of the 5 aggregates.
Last edited by Circle5 on Sun Mar 25, 2018 4:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
SDC
Posts: 9062
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:08 pm

Re: Credulity

Post by SDC »

Circle5 wrote: Sun Mar 25, 2018 4:49 pm
SDC wrote: Sun Mar 25, 2018 4:45 pm That is NOT what I said at all. I said he discusses "existence" and "non-existence" in regards to both bhava and paññāyati.
When one says "pannaytti", he is basically speaking about one of the 5 aggregates. Again I ask you: Do you know of any "things that appear" that are not part of the 5 aggregates ? I only know of form that appears, perceptions that appear, etc.
Totally agree and so does Ven Nanavira.
“Life is swept along, short is the life span; no shelters exist for one who has reached old age. Seeing clearly this danger in death, a seeker of peace should drop the world’s bait.” SN 1.3
User avatar
Circle5
Posts: 945
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:14 am

Re: Credulity

Post by Circle5 »

SDC wrote: Sun Mar 25, 2018 4:51 pm
Circle5 wrote: Sun Mar 25, 2018 4:49 pm
SDC wrote: Sun Mar 25, 2018 4:45 pm That is NOT what I said at all. I said he discusses "existence" and "non-existence" in regards to both bhava and paññāyati.
When one says "pannaytti", he is basically speaking about one of the 5 aggregates. Again I ask you: Do you know of any "things that appear" that are not part of the 5 aggregates ? I only know of form that appears, perceptions that appear, etc.
Totally agree and so does Ven Nanavira.
This means he doesn't know weather the 5 aggregates (or a particular one of them) exist or not. And he also claims the Buddha had no opinion about weather the 5 aggregates exist or not. The sutta I have quoted proves the opposite.
User avatar
SDC
Posts: 9062
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:08 pm

Re: Credulity

Post by SDC »

Circle5 wrote: Sun Mar 25, 2018 4:53 pm
SDC wrote: Sun Mar 25, 2018 4:51 pm
Circle5 wrote: Sun Mar 25, 2018 4:49 pm
When one says "pannaytti", he is basically speaking about one of the 5 aggregates. Again I ask you:
Totally agree and so does Ven Nanavira.
This means he doesn't know weather the 5 aggregates (or a particular one of them) exist or not. And he also claims the Buddha had no opinion about weather the 5 aggregates exist or not. The sutta I have quoted proves the opposite.
When you said: "Do you know of any "things that appear" that are not part of the 5 aggregates ? I only know of form that appears, perceptions that appear, etc."

I said I agree with you. What are you talking about?
“Life is swept along, short is the life span; no shelters exist for one who has reached old age. Seeing clearly this danger in death, a seeker of peace should drop the world’s bait.” SN 1.3
User avatar
Circle5
Posts: 945
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:14 am

Re: Credulity

Post by Circle5 »

SDC wrote: Sun Mar 25, 2018 4:55 pm When you said: "Do you know of any "things that appear" that are not part of the 5 aggregates ? I only know of form that appears, perceptions that appear, etc."

I said I agree with you. What are you talking about?
But you also said before:

The existence and non-existence that Ven. Nanavira et al. speak about is in regards to bhava and also to paññāyati (I can't speak for Ven. Nanananda since I do not know his views on this).


The ideas Nanavira had about existence and non-existence are in regards to the 5 aggregates. And he also claims the historical Buddha had the same opinions, yet the suttas prove otherwise.
User avatar
SDC
Posts: 9062
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:08 pm

Re: Credulity

Post by SDC »

Circle5 wrote: Sun Mar 25, 2018 4:58 pm The ideas Nanavira had about existence and non-existence are in regards to the 5 aggregates. And he also claims the historical Buddha had the same opinions, yet the suttas prove otherwise.
Yes, but you don't seem to agree with bhava as existence, so when I try to talk about it, you default to atthi instead. The terms have different usages. You seem to agree with this, but still don't approve of it when I write it. Will you approve of it now?
“Life is swept along, short is the life span; no shelters exist for one who has reached old age. Seeing clearly this danger in death, a seeker of peace should drop the world’s bait.” SN 1.3
User avatar
Circle5
Posts: 945
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:14 am

Re: Credulity

Post by Circle5 »

SDC wrote: Sun Mar 25, 2018 5:07 pm
Circle5 wrote: Sun Mar 25, 2018 4:58 pm The ideas Nanavira had about existence and non-existence are in regards to the 5 aggregates. And he also claims the historical Buddha had the same opinions, yet the suttas prove otherwise.
Yes, but you don't seem to agree with bhava as existence, so when I try to talk about it, you default to atthi instead. The terms have different usages. You seem to agree with this, but still don't approve of it when I write it. Will you approve of it now?
I don't understand the question. So Nanavira says about "individual existence" like human-existence, animal-existence, etc. - that he doesn't know weather this exists or not ? Is this the question ? I agree that's not the perfect translation there, that's why neither B.Bodhi or B.Sujato use it. But what exactly is the point you are trying to make ?

And I also had a question of my own: Since he is also claiming that Buddha had no opinion weather the 5 aggregates exist or not, do you agree with me that Nanavira is wrong on this one giving what the suttas have to say about the problem ?
User avatar
SDC
Posts: 9062
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:08 pm

Re: Credulity

Post by SDC »

Circle5 wrote: Sun Mar 25, 2018 5:17 pm And I also had a question of my own: Since he is also claiming that Buddha had no opinion weather the 5 aggregates exist or not, do you agree with me that Nanavira is wrong on this one giving what the suttas have to say about the problem ?
Someone else besides Ven Nanavira said this. If Nanavira had said it, I would say he is wrong.

The entire problem you and I are having is due to a disagreement in what terms mean. That is all. We are using things in different ways. I am trying to point this out. Only when we agree about what these words mean can we have this conversation.
“Life is swept along, short is the life span; no shelters exist for one who has reached old age. Seeing clearly this danger in death, a seeker of peace should drop the world’s bait.” SN 1.3
User avatar
Circle5
Posts: 945
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:14 am

Re: Credulity

Post by Circle5 »

SDC wrote: Sun Mar 25, 2018 5:22 pm The entire problem you and I are having is due to a disagreement in what terms mean. That is all. We are using things in different ways. I am trying to point this out. Only when we agree about what these words mean can we have this conversation.
What disagreement are we having regarding terms meaning ? I agreed with you that "individual existence" is not a perfect translation for bhava and have no problem with all translators chosing a more suitable term in recent decades. You agreed with me that "atthi" means "to exist". So I don't see the slightest disagreement.

What I fail to see is the point you are trying to make in regards to bhava, since you said:

The existence and non-existence that Ven. Nanavira et al. speak about is in regards to bhava and also to paññāyati (I can't speak for Ven. Nanananda since I do not know his views on this).
Someone else besides Ven Nanavira said this. If Nanavira had said it, I would say he is wrong.
But you said :

The existence and non-existence that Ven. Nanavira et al. speak about is in regards to bhava and also to paññāyati (I can't speak for Ven. Nanananda since I do not know his views on this).

And you agreed that only the 5 aggregates can qualify as "pannayti", therefore Nanavira opinions about existence and non-existence are in regards to the 5 aggregates. And he also claimes the historical Buddha had such opinions, but the suttas say something different.
Last edited by Circle5 on Sun Mar 25, 2018 5:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Post Reply