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