Does rūpa ever mean only 'visible sight' and not 'material [aggregate of] form'?
MN 13 is maha-dukkha-khandha sutta.
The title kind of gives you a big hint when the Buddha talks about rupa and vedana in this sutta, he's probably going to be referring to the 'rupa' of 5 khandhas.
Here, B. Sujato does something really strange in his Eng. translation. He translates 'rupa' has 'sights' (seeming to shift focus to visible sights and away from the physical rupa form).
https://suttacentral.net/mn13/en/sujato
B. Bodhi translates rupa in MN 13 as 'material form'.
B. Thanissaro translates as 'form'.
I'm pretty sure I know why B. Sujato translates (interprets) 'rupa' as 'sights'. But I just want to check with the experts first, are there suttas where this translation of rupa as only 'visible sights' (excluding other properties of material form aggregate of rupa) is justified?
The title kind of gives you a big hint when the Buddha talks about rupa and vedana in this sutta, he's probably going to be referring to the 'rupa' of 5 khandhas.
Here, B. Sujato does something really strange in his Eng. translation. He translates 'rupa' has 'sights' (seeming to shift focus to visible sights and away from the physical rupa form).
https://suttacentral.net/mn13/en/sujato
B. Bodhi translates rupa in MN 13 as 'material form'.
B. Thanissaro translates as 'form'.
I'm pretty sure I know why B. Sujato translates (interprets) 'rupa' as 'sights'. But I just want to check with the experts first, are there suttas where this translation of rupa as only 'visible sights' (excluding other properties of material form aggregate of rupa) is justified?
Re: Does rūpa ever mean only 'visible sight' and not 'material [aggregate of] form'?
Confirmed. The way this conversation quoted below was heading, is exactly the problem with translating 'rupa' as 'sight'.
B. Sujato may have had honorable intentions in translating it as 'sight' in the context of 'cakkhuna rupam disva, sotena saddam sutva...' (eyes see sights, ear hears sounds), to make the English translation easier for a beginner to digest than 'eye sees material form'.
But Rupa, in the context of this sutta, under the section of the OP, is a much larger category, using the 12ps (dependent co origination) and 5uk (aggregates) meaning of "material form consisting of or derived from 4 elements".
MN 13 and MN 14 are really important and interesting suttas, and I'm going to write up a research article later.
What looks like is happening here in MN 13, regarding the OP, is that B. Sujato is trying to blur the distinction between rupa of of the physical body that the meditator senses in the 4 jhanas, and trying to make it into a visual kasina. (the section in MN 13 right after rupa is on the 4 jhanas as gratification of vedana).
Just as in DN 9, where he translates 'rupa' as 'luminous form', to imply it's a visual nimitta or kasina that one transcends beyond the 4th jhana to enter into base of infinite space.
And of course the (translation of kaya) genocide he commits on all the 3rd jhana formulas, which occur over 100 times in the suttas.
In MN 13, I wasn't completely sure it was deliberate and premeditated intent to obfuscate rupa and 4 jhanas as he does in DN 9. But it's highly probable.
B. Sujato may have had honorable intentions in translating it as 'sight' in the context of 'cakkhuna rupam disva, sotena saddam sutva...' (eyes see sights, ear hears sounds), to make the English translation easier for a beginner to digest than 'eye sees material form'.
But Rupa, in the context of this sutta, under the section of the OP, is a much larger category, using the 12ps (dependent co origination) and 5uk (aggregates) meaning of "material form consisting of or derived from 4 elements".
MN 13 and MN 14 are really important and interesting suttas, and I'm going to write up a research article later.
What looks like is happening here in MN 13, regarding the OP, is that B. Sujato is trying to blur the distinction between rupa of of the physical body that the meditator senses in the 4 jhanas, and trying to make it into a visual kasina. (the section in MN 13 right after rupa is on the 4 jhanas as gratification of vedana).
Just as in DN 9, where he translates 'rupa' as 'luminous form', to imply it's a visual nimitta or kasina that one transcends beyond the 4th jhana to enter into base of infinite space.
And of course the (translation of kaya) genocide he commits on all the 3rd jhana formulas, which occur over 100 times in the suttas.
In MN 13, I wasn't completely sure it was deliberate and premeditated intent to obfuscate rupa and 4 jhanas as he does in DN 9. But it's highly probable.
Dinsdale wrote: ↑Sun Feb 23, 2020 12:28 amsentinel wrote: ↑I don't think that was Frank's objection. It was about the exclusion here of the other properties of rupa, the exclusion of the other four type of sense objects derived from form.Sat Feb 22, 2020 11:40 pmDinsdale wrote: ↑Hi din , my takes would be appearances instead of sights . Sights is equivalent to eyes consciousness . Forms or appearances are the external bases .Sat Feb 22, 2020 2:43 pmOh, I see. What's your thought on Frank's question in the OP? And what did you think of my suggested explanation?
Maybe Frank could confirm?
No comments:
Post a Comment