Dear Pali friends
The following is an off-list discussion between me and Jou Smith. As
it is to do with Pali, I posted it here as well.
With regards,
Suan
---------------------------
Dear Jou
How are you? Me again. I am well, and thank you.
You asked:
"I'm sorry, who is Dr Des? Is that you, or are you the person who
wrote
the response below?"
Dr Desmond Chiong (MD) is the owner of BuddhistWellnessGroup, a
group comprising Theravada, Mayana and Mayayalike branches.
I am a co-owner who represents Theravada and who wrote the response
as your message came to me for moderation.
My principle in moderating the messages is let them appear on the
list and confront the issues with the sender.
But, I am now busy with other priorities or diversions, so I am not
in the mood for debate.
But, to be fair to you, I sent the outcome of my moderation to you
off-list so that you can rectify any misleading comments I
identified. For example, you could leave out all your comments in
your original message, retaining only your advertisement of your
book, and then send it to me. Then I can forward it to the list. How
does that sound to you?
You questioned my interpretation as follows.
""their" is not in the original Paali, as far as I can see. This
therefore would be an addition via the commentarial interpretation. I
understand that the Buddha warned about adding to or subtracting from
his teaching."
How long have you been studying Pali? Have you read Pali texts
extensively and deeply? Have you read the Suttam passage in Pali? If
so, you would not have protested against commentarial interpretation.
The use of language, be it in the native language or in translation,
is to convey the right meaning in the right context. If a speaker of
a native language or a translator could not convey the right meaning
due to lack of understanding the context of the communication and
the gaps in the original languages, he or she should not have spoken
or translated their intended statement at all in the first place.
The standard Pali commentaries are the preserve of advanced Pali
scholars. Without the ability to consult the Pali commentaries, no
one should claim to be a competent Pali scholar. And, without
competent Pali scholarship, no one should attempt to speculate on
the Buddha's teachings preserved in Pali Tipitaka, let alone accuse
and criticize them, as you seem to have been doing now in your
message and (in your book?).
You also wrote:
"The Paali shows a full stop before "Saavakabhaasitaati" so this
suggestion [expressed as an absolute] would not account for that."
"Baahirakaati saasanato bahibhuutaa. Saavakabhaasitaati tesam
tesam saavakehi bhaasitaa."
The full stop is necessary because the commentary is defining the
Pali terms "Baahirakaa" and "Saavakabhaasitaa" one after another.
The original Suttam Pali does show those two terms side by side
without a full stop.
Baahirakaa can be an adjective or a noun.
Thus, the original Suttam Pali expression "Baahirakaa
saavakabhaasitaa" can mean "what the disciples from the outside of
Buddha Saasanaaa said". Here, Baahirakaa is used as an adjective.
But, we can also use Baahirakaa as a noun, and then it becomes "the
teachers from the outside of Buddha Saasanaa."
Why the teachers, of all the possible nouns? Because of the context
of the Suttam and the following expression "Saavakabhaasitaa".
When we use Baahirakaa as a noun and interpret it as the teachers
from the outside of Buddha Saasana, then we must link it with the
following expression "Saavakabhaasitaa" sensibly and contextually.
In other words, we must supply a meaningful linker to fill a
syntactical gap between Baahirakaa as a noun and Saavakabhaasitaa.
That meaningful linker is none other than the third person plural
pronoun in genitive case, namely, "their".
Even though you cannot see "their" in front of "disciples" in the
original Pali, advanced Pali readers can hear it to fill a
syntactical gap so as to make sense of the Pali passage in question.
You also wrote:
"I understand that the Buddha warned about adding to or subtracting
from his teaching."
If the Buddha warned against adding to, or substracting from,his
teachings, this refers to Dhammaa, the reality principles.
The Buddha taught both Samsaara, the conditioned phenomena, and
Nibbaana, the unconditioned reality.
If a teacher claimed that Samsaara and Nibbaana were the same, he
was equating the conditioned phenomena with the unconditioned
reality. He was guilty of substracting an unconditioned dhamma from
the Buddha's teachings in the sense of keeping the conditioned
phenomena as the only realities.
Or he was guilty of adding unconditioned dhammaa to the Buddha's
teachings in the sense of keeping the unconditioned things as the
only realities.
But, the Buddha may not have warned against any grammatical fillers
or omissions due to linguistic peculiarities of different languages.
For example, the Pali verb expression "vadaami" should be translated
as (I say) by adding "I" in the translation in English even though
we do not see "aham" in the original Pali where the suffix "mi"
implies "I".
By adding the first person pronoun "I" in translating "vadaami", we
did not add anything to the Buddha's teachings.
Similarly, by adding "tesam, their" in
explaining "Saavakabhaasitaa", the standard Pali commentaries did
not add anything (except clarification) to the Buddha's teachings.
With regards,
Suan
----------------------------------
(Jou wrote:
Hi Suan
I hope you are well and happy.
> How are you?
No too bad thanks.
> The following is the result of your message to BWG.
ok
> If you would like to discuss the issues further with me, you are
> welcome to do so off-list.
I'm sorry, who is Dr Des? Is that you, or are you the person who
wrote
the response below?
Anyway I have made a reply below.
<snip>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Wishing peace and good health to you and those close to you from
Norman
Joseph (Jou) Smith
--- In Pali@yahoogroups.com, "abhidhammika" <suanluzaw@...> wrote:
Dear Jou Smith
How are you?
The following is the result of your message to BuddhistWellnessGroup.
If you would like to discuss the issues further with me, you are
welcome to do so off-list.
With regards,
Suan Lu Zaw
www.bodhiology.org
-------------------------------------------------------
Dear Dr Des
How are you?
I saw Jou Smith's message for moderation.
His message is misleading, and not a product of well-researched
effort.
Although I could point out his mistakes, I have been having many
diversions for some time, so I am not in the mood for academic
debate.
As an example of his mistake, here is what he wrote:
" - not listening to words of disciples, as this is a cause for loss
of"
the teaching [S 20.7 : S ii 266-7 -
I have checked the original Pali text, its commentary, and its
subcommentary.
It turned out that words of disciples did not refer to those of the
Buddha's disciples. The term "disciples" refers to disciples of the
the teachers outside the Buddha's Saasanaa.
Here is the commentary Pali.
"Baahirakaati saasanato bahibhuutaa. Saavakabhaasitaati tesam
tesam saavakehi bhaasitaa."
The translation he quoted was as follows.
"the work of outsiders, words of disciples -- are recited."
The correct translation would be "the work of outsider-teachers, the
words of their disciples".
That is to say, the Pali terms "Baahirakaa" and "Saavakabhaasitaa"
go together.
So the translation he used is misleading.
So you could either reject the whole message or edit out his
comments that are misleading.
With regards,
Suan
PS...
By the way, Dr Des is the owner of BuddhistWellnessGroup.
--- In Pali@yahoogroups.com, "Norman Joseph [Jou] Smith"
<josmith.1@...> wrote:
> Dear Sir or Madam
>
In the book I try to show how popular ideas of Gotama Buddha's
teaching would be misconceptions by referencing mainly the Paali
[Indian] texts.
> Some of these ideas are:
>
> The Buddha taught:
> - there was no God
> - the is no self
> - there is no soul
> - the First Noble Truth is "Life is suffering" or "There is
suffering"
> - the Second Noble Truth is "Desire is the cause of suffering".
> - the Fourth Noble Truth is the Noble Eightfold Path starting with
Right
> View.
>
> For the first three of these ideas, I don't simply argue the
opposite,
> that there is a God, a self, or a soul, as I see both sides as
dogma.
> The Buddha supposedly said he didn't teach dogma. [S 12.15 : S ii
17-8]
>
> There seems to be advice the Buddha gave for studying his teaching
that
> I don't hear people talk of, much less follow. I have tried to
follow
> this advice with amazing results:
>
> - making a thorough investigation
> [M 56 : M i 379]
>
- not listening to words of disciples, as this is a cause for loss of
the teaching [S 20.7 : S ii 266-7 -
http://accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/samyutta/sn20-007.html%5d