I never want to be a meditation or Dhamma teacher; it is a huge responsibility.
However, I believe that one day I can be a peer supporter for those who truly need my support.
For the time being, I just want to contribute a little by explaining a few core words the way I understand them, as we have clear translations in our local language.
One is the Three Marks of Existence.
Aniccā is translated as “impermanence,” and it is aligned with my understanding.
Dukkha was previously translated as “suffering,” and now I see it translated as “unsatisfactoriness.” I believe it actually includes both meanings and not just one.
Anattā was previously translated as “nothingness,” and now I see it translated as “non-self,” “not-self,” or similar ideas. That one is bothering me.
According to what I have learned, the meaning is that we do not have control over ourselves or the things we think of as ours, including material possessions, ranks and positions, fame and reputation, and people such as lovers, husbands, sons, daughters, parents, and so on. Therefore, “non-self” does not fully capture its meaning.
Another term that bothers me is the usual translation of one of the fetters that disappears at the stream-enterer stage: sīlabbata-parāmāsa. It is commonly rendered as “attachment to rites and rituals” or “indulgence in ceremonies as ends in themselves.” That translation sounds appealing to me, since I don’t enjoy rituals, but it isn’t completely accurate. The true meaning I understand is “clinging to misguided practices as a path to liberation”—for example, believing that living like a dog or a cow leads to awakening and therefore, practice it by wandering naked, eating like an animal, moving like animals, and imitating animal behaviors. These were examples of wrong practices during the Buddha’s time. Today, I believe that worshipping the Buddha like a deity as a path to liberation, rather than following his teachings, can be considered sīlabbata-parāmāsa. Bead counting, chanting, and practices the Buddha did not teach—when treated as paths to liberation in themselves—can also fall under this.
I have also read that one person broke the compound apart and ended up with misleading meanings. From my understanding, “sīla” here does not refer to the ethical precepts such as the Five Precepts. According to my readings, ethical discipline is one of the Threefold Trainings in the Buddha’s teachings, and keeping the ethical precepts is essential for developing insight. To my knowledge, sīlabbata-parāmāsa has nothing to do with these precepts.
I offer this as a small contribution within my limited knowledge.
© Dr. Tune. All rights reserved.
The Buddha's words are in the public domain; any copyright here applies only to the presentation.
Comments
Post a Comment