Why what do we find here! A teaching opportunity!

I find this re-telling of the Kalamasutta very good.

I see you have a background in writing copy. I also have such a background and I see in your writing an effort to communicate that reflects this background…I especially appreciate that you are skilled in both the comprehension and use of the English language.

I believe ‘re-telling’ is a legitimate form of sutta transmission. The danger, of course is in the fact that we are dealing with a mind here that was completely awakened. (And the fact that if one makes a serious error in translation, it will mislead huge numbers of people over time.)

So there are some problems that come up when re-telling a sutta from translations without reference to the Pali. Repetitions, for example, were deliberate and reflect two needs: the need to remember, and what I believe was a fully worked out vocabulary to start with.

There are many suttas where some advanced disciple of the Buddha answers a question and then the questioner goes to the Buddha for confirmation and gets the same answer in the same syllables as the original. There are some places where this phenomena is actually remarked upon in the suttas as a wonderful synchronicity between minds.

Re-telling using variation is not, just because of that, incorrect. The Pali is the root language Indo-European languages and as a consequence many, if not all, of the words have undergone evolution and bi- and multi-fercation (word?). An example would be the word “pathavi” or: earth, Earth, dirt, hardness, solidity, resistance (the way hardness is experienced), etc. So it would, in fact, be a legitimate ‘true’ translation to say:

In the case of the second case, Beggars,
we have the Beggar who is a seeker,
a little developed in mind,
short of his intended goal,
one who lives preparing to throw off
the yoke the throwing off of which there is nothing better,
he recognizes pathavi as earth.
Recognizing earth as hardness,
he knows about solidity.
Let him think not about pathavi.
Let him think not of earth
in whatever ways he thinks of solidity.
Let him not think in terms of “My” with regard to hardness.
Let him take no delight in pathavi.
–MN 1

What I can tell you as an aid in your re-tellings is that for the most part the translations of Bhk. Bodhi, Walshe, Thanissaro, both Rhys Davids’, Woodward, Hare, and Horner as well as the miscellaneous translations of several Bhikkhus all follow the Pali very closely. So closely that one can determine what is being translated as what by whom. So sticking to what is consistent (meaning the concept being translated, not the words in the translations) in several translations will help control the urge to ‘add in’ which can very easily take one off into problematic territory.

=============================================

You write in your retelling:

“But when you know for yourself, deep down, that certain ways are unwholesome,”

Here the idea “deep down” is not something you will find in the Pali and steps out of range just a tad.

Part of the marvel of the way the Buddha taught in the Pali is that what he says is ‘heard’ as helpful in the beginning, helpful in the middle and helpful at the end.

The same words are heard by each individual relative to his understanding.

An example would be the term ‘Dukkha’ where the best universal translation into English is ‘Pain’…because ‘dukkha’ is internally defined in suttas such as DN 22 as paired with mental pain and is clearly described as physical pain…so it can be used in the same way as we use ‘Pain’ in English with the context indicating whether it is mental or physical. So the beginner may hear ‘Dukkha’ as meaning being unhappy, the practitioner with some experience may hear it as the suffering associated with living, while the advanced practitioner may hear it as rebirth and all that which results from that.

So what this means is not deep down, it’s right in one’s face. It’s just that the eyes in one’s face may not be looking at the facts.

We can see with our own eyes the damage caused by lies, or even more obviously physical harm or theft. This is the beginning. When the person putting this system into practice is able to recognize these things as harmful (not just to the self but in general), the door is open to see that their source is thirst (tanha), or wanting or desire (kamacchanda). Seeing the source this way one is able to generalize out to further ‘bad conditions’ likely to occur as a consequence of wanting.

Examining the Aristocratic Multidimensional High Way (aka The Noble 8-fold Path), one can see that this is, in a very deep way, just a sophisticated development of those three basic ethical positions: Not intentionally saying what is not true, not intentionally taking what is not given, and not intentionally harming living creatures.

============================================

Finally, it is really necessary to point out that up ahead there are some very difficult problems that no intelligent researcher into the Dhamma, seeking his own best interests, would leave to the mind of another translator.

You cite the translations of Bhk. Bodhi and Bhk. Thanissaro. But if you do a thorough examination of their translations you will see that they have actually got radically different ideas as to the meaning of both individual terms and general ideas. These different ideas will lead to different results in practice. The same thing is going on with all the translations. The translator cannot ‘hear’ beyond his own experience and translates in accordance.

The result we can see: We have hundreds of schools out there each claiming to teach the true Buddha’s Dhamma.

Whatever those who would like to see these differences resolved might say to gloss over the differences, the differences are too profound to ignore.

The Mahayanist teach renouncing attainment of the goal short of it’s attainment in order to rescue the rest of humanity. This is incompatible with the idea of attainment of the first level of attainment as described in the suttas: the Streamwinner. The Streamwinner is ‘destined’ to attainment within a limited number of lives. No postponement is possible. Prior to attaining Stream-entry there is no assurance of awakening or even understanding of the system. So the conclusion that must be reached is that anyone teaching such an idea is necessarily ignorant of the system!

The Theravadans (when they rely on commentary and the Abhidhamma as with Bhk. Bodhi) go in the other direction and teach a doctrine almost indistinguishable from the ‘no self’ doctrine of the annihilationists.

Both these problems result from mistranslation of terms. — The idea of anidassana vinnana (invisible consciousness) on the part of the Mahayanists, and the concept of anatta (not-self) on the part of the Theravadans.

The point? At some point, out of respect for one’s destiny, one needs to do at least enough research into the Pali to build for one’s self the basic vocabulary of the system. By doing that one is able to contrast the uses of the various terms in various ways and such comparison will rub off misperceptions eventually. The mind will not forget the differences and like a good web search tool it will continue to roll on gathering information about the subject until enough understanding is got to see for one’s self.

By the way, this is not the monumental job it may look like to begin with. The system is very tight and in fact uses probably no more than 100 words that need to be worked out for a good understanding.