Re: MA 101 and MA 102, the agama parallels for MN 19 and MN 20 are prime examples of B. Analayo's fraudulent translation
dharmacorps wrote: ↑Thu Sep 10, 2020 2:46 pmfrank k wrote: ↑Thu Sep 10, 2020 11:27 amThat I can see, nobody is attacking you for criticizing Analayo. They are criticizing you, and your style of speech.
What I am saying, is that before people jump to conclusions and start attacking me for criticizing B. Analayo, you really should actually review the evidence and think and decide for yourself if the evidence has merit. If you find a flaw in the reasoning, point it out.
What I am trying to point out is that the manner you present these topics is so bombastic (calling others fraudulent, etc) that it doesn't invite much serious discussion (which from what you say, is your goal). Whoever the current object of disdain is doesn't really matter (Analayo or other monks, academics, whoever).
In other words, if you kept the ad-hominem attacks to yourself, people may take you more seriously and therefore you may be more likely to get the involvement in the academic/intellectual analysis you say you desire. Otherwise people will probably just tune it out at a minimum or scoff at the thread titles and move on at most.
Frank's response:
You make good points, and I agree that people get turned off by strong critical language, and have a tendency to dismiss the writer as "bombastic and using simply using adhominem."But here's the problem.
When you're dealing with subtle errors, or gross errors that are commonly accepted as true and difficult to correct, polite criticism tends to be ignored because of people's cognitive biases filter out new evidence that counters a very strongly ingrained commonly accepted truth.
There are others who point out the same errors in B. Analayo and B. Sujato's errors in mild, understated language, and I have used much milder language in the beginning, and the result is people just ignore or don't even read it. This doesn't invalidate your point, which I agree with in general, but there comes a point where I decided I need to use language commensurate with the offense just so it draws attention.
Check the meaning for "bombastic" and "ad hominem." My posts may appear to have that flavor, but they are not.
It's only ad hominem if I'm attacking their character without substantiating the allegations with reasons and evidence.
I've provided the most detailed audits on vitakka and vicara ever published, incontrovertible evidence, english lined up side by side with the source language, usually with high lighted portions containing the error, so it literally takes just a few seconds to review the article to check whether the allegations even SEEM to have merit.
All of my accusations are carefully researched, over 10 years, and I've ran them by experts in the field.
Why do you think B. Analayo and B. Sujato have not responded to my accusations (as well as all of those from others who used mild language)? Because they have no evidence to to back it up, so they just rely on their good reputations and hope their devoted followers accept their word over the accusers who makes claims that are contrary to popular (but wrong) ideas about jhana.
If I call Bill Cosby a criminal rapist monster (he's a beloved actor who has also done many charitable and laudable deeds for his community, and who by all objective measures has many outstanding aspects in character), it appears to be "bombastic and ad hominem."
It's not ad hominem. Evidence from scores of women who claimed he drugged and date raped them over decades, and a conviction by the justice system prove it is not.
And calling him "criminal rapist monster" may APPEAR to be 'bombastic', but it's not.
Bombastic = high-sounding but with little meaning; inflated. example: "bombastic rhetoric".
So what happened with the first wave of individuals who publicly accused Bill Cosby?
They were dismissed as bombastic ad hominem lobbing fame seeking blackmailers looking for a pay day suing the Saintly Bill Cosby.
Are you guys familiar with Enron, Bernie Madoff, Wirecard?
All had seemingly unassailable credibility and reputation, so because of that credibility, people for a long time ignored the auditors who exposed the crimes who'd been laying out the evidence and pointing out all the very suspicious red flags that were actually very obvious, blatant, and clear as clear can be for anyone with eyes and would just look at the evidence and review it.
If you remember Bill Cosby at the height of his popularity, and the words "criminal rapist monster", that SEEMS to be bombastic and ad hominem, but the evidence has shown it is not.
Re: MA 101 and MA 102, the agama parallels for MN 19 and MN 20 are prime examples of B. Analayo's fraudulent translation
simsapa wrote: ↑Fri Sep 11, 2020 8:40 amFrom the introduction to Volume II:And as I detail in the collection of articles here,... “[directed] awareness and [sustained] contemplation.” We believe this phrase succeeds in capturing the meanings of the two terms as they are used elsewhere in the Chinese Madhyama-āgama. This change was made with full recognition that there is sometimes a tension between the twin aims of producing a faithful rendering of the Chinese text and taking due account of the underlying Indic text.
http://notesonthedhamma.blogspot.com/20 ... -and.html
His translation is not faithful to either aim.
It's not faithful to the Chinese text,
and it's not faithful to the underlying indic source.
(it is faithful to late Abhidhamma Orthodox wrong interpretation of indic source, but B. Analayo claims to interpret with EBT having primacy over later texts)
Basically, B. Analayo as editor in chief, like Donald Trump and Harvey Weinstein, abuse their power and over rule the evidence and rational objections from their subordinates and colleagues.
No comments:
Post a Comment