Sujato's problematic translation of 'rupa' as 'vision' (rather than 'material form' or just 'form' as other translators do)
Also, it would be good for Sujato to follow his own translation guideline of 'principle of least meaning'.
Obviously, eyes can see 'material form', and would retain the consistency with the passages where 'rupa' is explicitly defined as 'material form made up of 4 elements.'
By translating 'rupa' as 'vision' for the context of eyes seeing objects, Sujato is violating his 'principle of least meaning' and giving an exclusionary context where rupa would NOT include 'material form', only an immaterial 'vision'.
Also, if he is going to violate his own rules, he should justify it with an essay and provide evidence to support it.
If Sujato ever clarifies what he means by that, please share. As far as I can tell, his reason for translating it that way, is the same reason Vism. ambiguates the term Rupa to justify making the 4 jhanas into a formless attainment. But his translation of rupa as 'vision' gets into weirdness, when it's obvious 'rupa' in those contexts are referring to the affliction of having a physical body. For example, see MN 13 where rupa and kaya are both explicitly referring to decaying corpses in kayagata kayaanupassana practice. And Snp 16 (or 17) pingiya sutta, where he's talking about the afflictions of old age breaking down his rupa physical body, sujato translates it there as 'form', rather than 'vision'. In other words, he knows 'vision' wouldn't fit there, so he has to do rupa = 'form'.
In English, if you say 'orange', it can be a visible color, or it can be a physical fruit. But if you say, "I see orange", you wouldn't translate that as "I see visible color in the visual spectrum under 20khz". You would just say "I see orange". Similarly with 'rupa', just becuase you can see 'material form', doesn't mean you should translate it as "vision" when it's paired up with eye and seeing faculty.
ssasny wrote: ↑Fri Feb 18, 2022 6:42 amHi, I think you are asking why Ven. Sujāto has rendered rūpā and rūpasaññā as 'visions' and 'perceptions of visions'?
Instead of the more obvious 'material forms' and 'perceptions of forms'?
Good question!
Have you looked at the commentary? Perhaps he is following a commentarial gloss? Could be worth posting this question directly to him on his forum at suttacentral.
Someone asked: Is porn considered harmful sexual.activity? I don't have a sex life because I don't have a partner and I don't wish to engage in casual sex so I use porn to quench the biological urge to orgasm. I can't see that's it's harmful because nobody is being forced into it. The actors are all paid well and claim to enjoy it etc. The only harm I can see is that it's so accessible these days on smart devices and so children may access it but I believe that this is the parents responsibility to not allow unsupervised use of devices etc. Views? Frankk response: In another thread, you asked about pleasant sensations and jhāna. I'm guessing you're young, so here's some important advice you won't get from suttas if you're serious about jhāna. (since monastics are already celibate by rule) If you want to attain stable and higher jhānas, celibacy and noble silence to the best of your ability are the feedstock and prerequiste to tha
This was Ven. Sunyo's analysis of SN 48.40: https://notesonthedhamma.blogspot.com/2024/05/exciting-news-honest-ebt-scholars-like.html And here is Ven. Thanissaro's response to that analysis: I think there’s a better way to tackle the issue of SN 48:40 than by appealing to the oldest layers of commentarial literature. That way is to point out that SN 48:40, as we have it, doesn’t pass the test in DN 16 for determining what’s genuine Dhamma and what’s not. There the standard is, not the authority of the person who’s claiming to report the Buddha’s teachings, but whether the teachings he’s reporting are actually in accordance with the principles of the Dhamma that you know. So the simple fact that those who have passed the Buddha’s teachings down to us say that a particular passage is what the Buddha actually taught is not sufficient grounds for accepting it. In the case of the jhānas—the point at issue here— we have to take as our guide the standard formula for the jhānas, a
To give more context, this is a public event, * everyone knows cameras are rolling * it's a room full of children * the boy's mom is standing off camera a few feet away watching all of this * the boy initiated contact, he had already had a hug with Dalai Lama earlier and then asked Dalai Lama for another hug which triggered this segment 17 min. video showing what happened before that 1 min. clip and after, with some explanation https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bT0qey5Ts78 16min talk from Ajahn Acalo with his thoughts on Dalai Lama kissing boy, relevance to Bhikkhu monastic code, sexual predators in religion in general, and how celibate monastics deal with sexual energy. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uK2m0TcUib0 The child's comments about the incident in a filmed interview later https://www.marca.com/en/lifestyle/world-news/2023/04/18/643eba5d46163ffc078b457c.html The child: It's a great experience It was amazing to meet His Holiness and I think it's a great ex
STED definitions
Comments
Post a Comment