Contradiction 1- Viññāṇa Means Consciousness?

[User13866]

Unfortunately for your claims to special expertise, not only do I know better than you with regards to this, but also the overwhelming consensus of the majority of experts in the field also know better than you with regards to this and disagree with your contention.

Now we come to another matter.

At 7:19 AM, you edited one of your posts and added the material that I've put in red.

Why are you talking to me? Rhetorical question. Thought we agreed not to talk to eachother but you seem to think you can unilaterally decide to start engaging me...
You are spreading lies about me making up vinaya rules and doctrines so why on earth do you think id want to talk to you?
Either way do not engage me. I've no interest in talking to you.
https://dsal.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/app/s ... type=exact

I said this to you. You did not say this to me. Your post should have appeared as such:

Why are you talking to me? Rhetorical question. Thought we agreed not to talk to eachother but you seem to think you can unilaterally decide to start engaging me...

You are spreading lies about me making up vinaya rules and doctrines so why on earth do you think id want to talk to you?

Either way do not engage me. I've no interest in talking to you.
https://dsal.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/app/s ... type=exact

Are you actually claiming to know better than me as to what i meant?

No....

You are spreading lies about me making up vinaya rules and doctrines so why on earth do you think id want to talk to you?

It is something i said to you lol... It's not something you said.

I think you have lost your mind

[Coëmgenu]

Yes, you're right about the attribution. I had actually misread what you had written. You said that about what I had said about you.

I edited my post, but not quick enough.

[User13866]

Yes, you're right about the attribution. I had actually misread what you had written. You said that about what I had said about you.

I edited my post, but not quick enough.

Okay, i was legit concerned you had gone insane.

Anyway i was just careless not to make it 100% clear that i was discussing translations and etymology. I think i made it clear enough in the first post

Vinnana is generally taught as literally close to 'divided knowing'.

In russian language there is word 'сознание' in latin alphbet it's 'soznanie' where 'znanie' means knowledge and the prefix 'so' is from the root in 'sovmestnostj' which means literally togetherness derived from 'together with in a place' denoting a plurality.

Therefore if vinnana is a 'divided knowing' the 'soznanie' has the same semantics and analogical etymology.

Similarly latin has 'conscientia' which is 'con+scientia' meaning "privity of knowledge" or "with-knowledge".

This isn't surprising because protoslavic, latin and indoaryan languages have the same indoeuropean root.

Consciousness is derived from the Latin and is therefore an excellent translation because the word has retained much of it's indoeuropean semantic structure which is the same structure used by the indoaryans.

I guess it wasn't clear enough and for this i apologize...

To claim that i am lying is just silly to me... it doesn't even make any sense that i would lie about it.

You would have to assert that i thought vinnana ought be explained to mean and be defined as to it's etymology rather than what the Buddha taught and that i just happened to learn the sutta definitions to squabble out of being proven wrong... it's beyond stupid. I think you are just desperately trying to have me be wrong about something.

It's kind of funny how much of a hater you are... you can hate, i don't mind... at least you are the most reasonable and intellectually honest of the haters, foremost among the haters

[Coëmgenu]

[...] i was discussing translations and etymology.

But why on earth would you mix these two things up if you didn't think that the etymology was a definition?

[User13866]

[...] i was discussing translations and etymology.

But why on earth would you mix these two things up if you didn't think that the etymology was a definition?

I just thought OP wants to insist on a new translation.

I was essentially just substantiating the existent translations.

I didn't think anybody would assert that id be defining [as in explaining what vinnana actually is] the word by it's etymology.

My point was that the etymology of vinnana is such & such and in that analogical to other languages into which it translates like the latin, english and russian.

I also pointed out that these translations fit very well semantically meaning that the various translations generally have the same meaning which is a rather redundant point to make as translations generally do.

[User13866]

Also i do not expect the OP to actually be able to grasp the meaning and properly conceive what is consciousness as it was intended by the Buddha.

Therefore i wouldn't even think of trying to argue definitions as i do not as a rule assert that people are capable of apprehending it's meaning and proper conception.

[Coëmgenu]

I just thought OP wants to insist on a new translation.

I suspect that you are unfamiliar with the doctrines of the Waharaka cult of Sri Lanka. This is understandable, because the Waharaka cult is not as well-known in the West as the Dhammakāya cult of Thailand is. There is a website called "PureDhamma" that teaches the Dhamma as it is taught by the Waharakists. Several users quoted Venerables Dhammanando and Pesala weighing in upon the shortcomings and errors of the Waharakist understandings.

As I've said many times before, instead of "PureDhamma," the website should be called "PureDamna." The OP started this thread in the interest of propagating the Waharakist understanding and evangelizing for the sake of Waharakism as the "True Dhamma."

[User13866]

If one can properly comprehend what is vinnana then one is ariya by the virtue of that alone. One will clearly see the dependent origination, properly conceive the meaning of Nibbana and the sutta will essentially make perfect sense.

I would never try to explain this merely to defend the translation of a term.

If proper understanding of vinnana is needed to translate it properly then it's a no-starter because then only ariya can translate but you have no ariya because nobody can translate.

[User13866]

I just thought OP wants to insist on a new translation.

I suspect that you are unfamiliar with the doctrines of the Waharaka cult of Sri Lanka. This is understandable, because the Waharaka cult is not as well-known in the West as the Dhammakāya cult of Thailand is. There is a website called "PureDhamma" that teaches the Dhamma as it is taught by the Waharakists. Several users quoted Venerables Dhammanando and Pesala weighing in upon the shortcomings and errors of the Waharakist understandings.

As I've said many times before, instead of "PureDhamma," the website should be called "PureDamna." The OP started this thread in the interest of propagating the Waharakist understanding and evangelizing for the sake of Waharakism as the "True Dhamma."

Quite the opposite i am somewhat familiar knowing that they love to revise etymology & translations and therefore i assumed that OP wants to insist on a new translation.

[Jack19990101]

yeah... vinnana should be contextual.

dk Pali text - I assume Buddha uses same word in both dependent origination, AND
luminous consciousness, which never lands.

In dependent origination, 'cessation of consciousness' with context, it is
cessation of consciousness in regard to khandas.

Not sure this is responsibility of translators, or it should be teachers'. But I do feel a foot note would be nice - which Ven Geoff did, to my recall.

[Jack19990101]

Not sure if it gonna derail intention of OP which is obviously a theme of translation,
but a point to the Dhamma itself.

IMO -
cessation of consciousness only occur in regarding to khandas.
there is no other 'cessation of consciousness'.

From this point of view, "cessation of consciousness" is less critically contextual in Dhamma itself, but academically, more.

[Jack19990101]

It means
by practice, there is no risk to accidently cause cessation other than in context of khandas.

[User13866]

If anyone is allowed to translate based solely on their deep understanding then it can not be argued against.

A person unsubstantiatedly claims 'i understand the dhamma due to exclusive knowledge that i somehow obtained'.

Maybe devas supposedly taught him, or maybe it was passed on to him through exclusive lineage of transmission, either way it is then asserted that nobody can challenge him because nobody else has this knowledge.

It is a fallacious appeal to authority and it overrides the norms of translation based on this unverifiable appeal to authority.

It's a slick trick and it can't be allowed because it allows a person to argue appealing to his own asserted authority which nobody is allowed to challenge.

We can't play this game because it's rigged by the person claiming that he is to dictate the rules and being the master of the meaning of words.

[Joe.c]

If anyone is allowed to translate based solely on their deep understanding then it can not be argued against.
...

Well this above statement is not how Buddha taught.

If someone say something different, then one needs to check and verify with Sutta or N8FP. And look at how one explained the experience + the path that reach there as well.

If one can find the explanation in Sutta & able to verify it NOW, then surely it is taught by Buddha.

But neither one can find it Sutta nor one can verify with own experience through N8FP, then it is a FRAUD/FAKE. Possibly Papanca.

[User13866]

If anyone is allowed to translate based solely on their deep understanding then it can not be argued against.
...

Well this above statement is not how Buddha taught.

If someone say something different, then one needs to check and verify with Sutta or N8FP. And look at how one explained the experience + the path that reach there as well.

If one can find the explanation in Sutta & able to verify it NOW, then surely it is taught by Buddha.

But neither one can find it Sutta nor one can verify with own experience through N8FP, then it is a FRAUD/FAKE. Possibly Papanca.

I don't think you understand what i meant.

I am talking about translation of pali into modern languages.

If you have the ability to look things up in the sutta then you already have translations.

My point was about how we are to make the translations to begin with.

How do we go from not having translations to having translations.

We can go about it as we usually do and simply translate based on the collective knowledge of linguistics.

Alternatively we can allow for deviation from the norm because someone supposedly has special knowledge that they somehow obtained.

I say that nobody should be allowed to deviate from the norm based on unverifiable information asserted to be true.

In other words when we are translating the Sutta we should translate it in the same way as we would translate any other text in that language. In general, it shouldn't matter whether we are translating religious doctrine, a folk-tale or a legal document, unless there is a good reason to deviate. We should simply translate it first and then figure it out.

We can not assert that translator should deviate from the norm by making extraordinary & strange translations because he has some special knowledge.

If you allow this then he can translate as he wants and you will have translations of what he thinks the texts mean rather than what the texts actually say.

For example

I say - Joe C took an apple from the basket

1000 years later someone translates it
- Joe C took an apple from the basket

Whereas another person says, I know what [name redacted by admin] meant there because of special knowledge passed on to me somehow. The real translation is
- Joe C stole an apple from the basket.

To him people say 'this isn't what the texts say'

To which he replies 'took means stole there' i know because i understand what [name redacted by admin] was thinking when he said it and you can't argue with me because only i understand how to translate what [name redacted by admin] meant and you don't.

Alternatively he can claim some special-exclusive insight into [name redacted by admin]'s language which allows him to translate it like this.