Re: iminā asmi

Actually the native speaker might have to say:

idamasmīti sati, ittham karotīti hoti.

This is what they might have to say if they intended to mean what you said in your alternative translation.

But I don’t think this would be accurate.

The basic flaw is that this alternative translation assumes that we just exist, (asmīti sati) but that external stimuli act upon us and we are merely passive observers of the external phenomena (ittam karoti)

But this is precisely the notion that the Buddha undercuts. If you notice in the paticcasamuppāda, the first six factors are in the mind, and they all occur before even contact at the senses occurs. In other words, the Buddha is pointing out the active role we play in even experiencing external stimuli. We don’t merely sit there receiving stimuli, we go looking for trouble. What we see is dependent on how our consciousness inclines.

So the Buddha cannot imply that. By using the instrumental case in imināsmi, he is pointing out that we actively use external stimuli to shape the notion of who or what we are. We don’t merely sit there being what we are. Our notion of what we are is derived on the basis of phenomena within us and phenomena outside us.

Thanks,

Balaji

On Sun, Mar 18, 2018 at 2:07 AM Balaji <balaji.ramasubramanian@...> wrote:

Hi Dhivan,

“when there is [the notion], “this is me”, there are the [notions]: “this makes me like this””

If this alternative translation were the original intent, a native Pali speaker might have to say:

idamasmīti sati ittham bhāvayatīti hoti.

I think the translation by Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi is actually useful. It conveys a useful point that basically our perception of what we are doesn’t just stop with our perception of bare existence. We are actually aware that we are sustained by certain things for us to exist. And sometimes these sustaining factors can be outside us. And this is when we have craving for those things. Remember the main principle of the Buddha’s teaching is that all beings need food. So the idea of sustenance (incidentally synonymous with upādāna) is central to the message the Buddha meant to give through the phrase:

imināsmīti sati iminā itth’asmīti hoti

One of the common misunderstandings is that rūpa is only the body - which is perhaps why you think it doesn’t explain how tanhā is dependent on what is external to oneself. More precisely it is form - composed of the four elements. A more specific word for the body would be kāyo.

So if we think of form, we often eat food because it *looks* delicious. It is quite boring to eat food that doesn’t look delicious. When we desire sexual partners we desire the ones we perceive as attractive. We don’t desire the body itself so much - we desire and crave the enticing image we have of that person.

Now the confusing bit for many is how this leads to the perception “I am such due to this”. Well this is at various levels. At he gross level we have the perception that we are strong or weak because of the food we eat. Scientists and doctors would be only too happy to convince of this. We also have a perception of self-esteem and self-worth that depends on what sort of sexual partner we have.

But this craving based on self-perception goes rather deep. Even monks sometimes have a subtle sense of pride around this. “I eat less, so I am a better monk”! This is not only about the food as an external object of craving but one’s image in the world - and thus one’s status - as an external object of craving. The external image can even be in terms of whether they are slim and agile. This is why they are instructed to reflect “I eat not for fun..., only to allay hunger and avoid evil intentions...” So they don’t focus on eating to be super-healthy, slim and attractive, but eat merely to maintain the body and to avoid evil actions.

By the way this monastic daily reflection is still similar to the perception “iminā itth’asmīti hoti”. So even this reflection of the monks has a subtle level of craving. But it is better than the craving we otherwise have. It is the form of skillful desire that leads to nibbāna.

Thanks,

Balaji

On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 12:10 PM Dhivan Jones dhivanjones@... [palistudy] <palistudy@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

 

Dear Pali Friends,

I would like to try out a line of thought on you all, to see if it passes muster. In A 4:199, the Taṇhāsutta, the Buddha teaches 18 ways in which taṇhā wanders about (aṭṭhārasa taṇhāvicaritāni) depending on what is internal (ajjhattikassa upādāya). ‘When there is “I am”, there is “I am like this”’ (asmīti sati itthasmīti hoti) and so on – the Pāli phrases are rather obscure but suggest ways in which one identifies oneself with various ideas as they occur in the course of life imbued with desire. The Buddha then teaches 18 ways in which taṇhā wanders about depending on what is external or outside of oneself (bāhirassa upādāya). Here is the difficult passage that I would like to ask you about. The Pāli runs imināsmīti sati iminā itthasmīti hoti, which Bhikkhu Bodhi (2012, pp.586–7) translates ‘When there is [the notion], “I am because of this”, there are [the notions]: “I am thus because of this”’ and so on.

Other translators translate in similar ways, taking imināsmi to mean ‘I am because of this’ or ‘I am by means of this’. Bhikkhu Bodhi adds a note to his translation (n.935 p.1719), to say: “Mp says that “because of this” (iminā) should be understood to means “because of this form… because of this consciousness…” (iminā rūpena vā… pe… viññāṇena). The passage is opaque as it stands and I am not sure that Mp has caught the original intention.”

I have been pondering this passage in a general attempt to understand the significance of taṇhā in the early Buddhist teachings. It occurs to me that a further problem, besides opacity, is that as it stands it is not very clear in this passage in what way ‘I am because of this’ characterises the wandering about of taṇhā dependent on what is external or outside of oneself. As I pondered this, I wondered further about the significance of the instrumental iminā in the passages quoted. Of course the instrumental case can have a causal sense quite naturally, but I wonder if here we should not take the instrumental case in another way, to denote the subject in an implicitly passive construction. Taking it this way we should render imināsmīti sati iminā itthasmīti hoti as ‘when there is [the notion], “this is me”, there are the [notions]: “this makes me like this”’ and so on. This way of putting it in English makes it clearer in what way taṇhā amounts to identifying with external entities.

Looking at the Pāli phrases in this way, the commentary’s suggestion that imināti iminā rūpena vā ... pe ... viññāṇena vā could be rendered ‘“this” means “physical form”… “consciousness”’, having the implication that we should understand imināsmīti sati iminā itthasmīti hoti as ‘where there is [the notion], “this physical form etc. is me”, there are the notions: “this physical form etc. makes me like this”’ and so on. The commentary can thereby be understood as glossing the opaque Pāli in terms of ways in which one identifies with aspects of experience initially experienced as outside of one’s (supposed) sense of self (physical form, feelings, perceptions, volitional formations and consciousness) by appropriating them.

Re-reading this message I realise just how obscure these old formulations can be, but it’s still good to try to understand them.

Best wishes to all,

Dhivan

--

Balaji

--

Balaji