Skip to main content

MN 117 Did you know an arahant is not a 'noble disciple'?

 

That's the kind of problem you get when you wrongly translate and interpret

✅'ariya savaka' (disciple of the noble ones) 

as ⛔'noble disciple' (one who is ariya status, stream enterer up to arahant).

without-asinine-inclinations (āsava)  means someone is an arahant.



Here is a Sujato based translation of MN 117  where I haven't made the correction yet:

https://lucid24.org/mn/main/mn117/index.html#117.5


So in the case of  an arahant, who is the noblest of noble disciples,

It's saying that an arahant is not an arahant where I highlighted, because he has asinine-inclinations.

Or, if you want to still insist ariya-savaka means a disciple who is noble,

this sutta would mean ariya-savaka can only be the 3 lower ariya and exclude arahants.


Sammāājīvampahaṃ, bhikkhave, dvāyaṃ vadāmi—
Right livelihood is twofold, I say.
atthi, bhikkhave, sammāājīvo sāsavo puññabhāgiyo upadhivepakko;
There is right livelihood that is accompanied by asinine-inclinations, has the attributes of good deeds, and ripens in attachment.
atthi, bhikkhave, sammāājīvo ariyo anāsavo lokuttaro maggaṅgo.
And there is right livelihood that is noble, without-asinine-inclinations, transcendent, a factor of the path.
Katamo ca, bhikkhave, sammāājīvo sāsavo puññabhāgiyo upadhivepakko?
And what is right livelihood that is accompanied by asinine-inclinations, has the attributes of good deeds, and ripens in attachment?
Idha, bhikkhave, ariyasāvako micchāājīvaṃ pahāya sammāājīvena jīvikaṃ kappeti—
It’s when a noble disciple gives up wrong livelihood and earns a living by right livelihood.
ayaṃ, bhikkhave, sammāājīvo sāsavo puññabhāgiyo upadhivepakko.
This is right livelihood that is accompanied by asinine-inclinations.
Katamo ca, bhikkhave, sammāājīvo ariyo anāsavo lokuttaro maggaṅgo?
And what is right livelihood that is noble, without-asinine-inclinations, transcendent, a factor of the path?
Yā kho, bhikkhave, ariyacittassa anāsavacittassa ariyamaggasamaṅgino ariyamaggaṃ bhāvayato micchāājīvā ārati virati paṭivirati veramaṇī—
It’s the desisting, abstaining, abstinence, and refraining from wrong livelihood in one of noble mind without-asinine-inclinations, who possesses the noble path and develops the noble path.
ayaṃ, bhikkhave, sammāājīvo ariyo anāsavo lokuttaro maggaṅgo.
This is right livelihood that is noble.



Alternatively, if you consider the wrong livelihood that's abandoned,

Kuhanā, lapanā, nemittikatā, nippesikatā, lābhena lābhaṃ nijigīsanatā—
Deception, flattery, hinting, and belittling, and using material possessions to pursue other material possessions.


non-returners have abandoned the āsavas that would lead to those types of wrong livelihood.

Their only remaining āsava has the tiniest trace of self identity and appreciation of efficacy of Dhamma teaching. 


So ariya-savaka would exclude Arahants, and non-returners,

and could only be stream enterers and once returners. 


Other suttas where ariya-savaka = "noble disciple" result in ridiculous situations

https://lucid24.org/tped/a/ariya/index.html#2


Conclusion

✅ariya-savaka = noble one’s disciple (might not be enlightened)
⛔ariya-savaka ≠ noble disciple (enlightenment confirmed).







Forum discussion



https://www.reddit.com/r/EarlyBuddhistTexts/comments/1clf0xt/comment/l2w56qy/?context=3

Grammar experts agree both interpretations [disciple of noble, or noble disciple] are possible, so I felt no need to investigate further.

Besides the Buddha-savaka and other words like that (where it obviously is not a disciple who also happens to be a Buddha), ariya-savaka deviates from that norm without any explanation.

Bodhi and Sujato, the two popular translators who wrongly interpret "noble disciple", have written they believe that sometimes the suttas can not mean "noble disciple", yet AFAIK they still translate it "noble disciple" everywhere, and expect people to figure out for themselves when that is the case.

To me, it's not just that readers sell themselves short, thinking lots of the suttas don't apply to them because the reader is not a stream enterer, but that even for someone striving to be an arahant, it's confusing to read many sutta passages and not know what ariya savaka means there.

An analogy would be, you see a sutta with meditation instructions, it just says requires "samādhi", and you have no idea if it means 4th jhāna is necessary, 1st jhāna is necessary, or something below first jhāna.

Thirdly, it just shows negligence and sloppiness on the translators not admitting their mistake, when Thanissaro noticed and addressed the problem long ago, translating it correctly in his suttas.

If someone caught my mistakes, I would admit right away as soon as I confirmed, and go back and fix the translation.










Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Advice to younger meditators on jhāna, sex, porn, masturbation

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
Post a Comment
Read more

SN 48.40 Ven. Thanissaro comments on Ven. Sunyo's analysis

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
Post a Comment
Read more

1min. video: Dalai Lama kissing boy and asking him to suck his tongue

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
Post a Comment
Read more