[Meerenuch]

Hi everyone,

I'd be interested to know if you think that any of the Buddhist teachings should be interpreted metaphorically, or if you prefer to interpret them all literally.

[ZIDouglas]

Buddha spoke to people with different capabilities so he made allowances.There are both in is teaching but some are facts straight and simple.Jati as a prime example.How could that be confused with thoughts defeats me.

[Mr_White]

I am not sure 'metaphor' is the right approach. Buddha often used simile & metaphor but then usually explained the symbolism of the metaphor, such as:

Sense desires are like bare bones, has the Blessed One said; they are like a lump of flesh, like a torch of straw, like a pit of burning coals, like a dream, like borrowed goods, like a fruit-bearing tree, like a slaughter house, like a stake of swords, like a snake's head, are sense desires, has the Blessed One said. but if we are referring to words such as jati (birth), for example, they are not metaphor. jati refers to the birth (coming in being) of some something, although that something may be mental, physical, etc, such as:

Tamenaṃ jātaṃ samānaṃ sakena lohitena poseti

When the child is born, she feeds it with her own blood

MN 38 rūpaṃ attato samanupassati. Yā kho pana sā, bhikkhave, samanupassanā saṅkhāro so. So pana saṅkhāro kiṃnidāno kiṃsamudayo kiṃjātiko kiṃpabhavo?

He assumes form to be the self. That assumption is a fabrication. Now what is the cause, what is the origination, what is the birth, what is the coming-into-existence of that fabrication?

SN 22.81

[Veveseinlep]

Buddha spoke to people with different capabilities so he made allowances.There are both in is teaching but some are facts straight and simple. Jati as a prime example. How could that be confused with thoughts defeats me.

It is the most basic understanding in Buddhism, even by those Buddhists who are firm believers in literal post-mortem rebirth, that jati has different meanings, which are physical, mental & also social

32. Now, this word birth (játi) has many meanings.

For in the passage “[He recollects … ] one birth (játi), two births” (D I 81) it is becoming.

In the passage, “Visákhá, there is a kind (játi) of ascetics called Nigaóþhas (Jains)” (A I 206) it is a monastic order.

In the passage, “Birth (játi) is included in two aggregates” (Dhátuk 15) it is the characteristic of whatever is formed.

In the passage, “His birth is due to the first consciousness arisen, the first cognition manifested, in the mother’s womb” (Vin I 93) it is rebirth-linking.

In the passage “As soon as he was born (sampatijáta), Ánanda, the Bodhisatta …” (M III 123) it is parturition.

In the passage “One who is not rejected and despised on account of birth” (A III 152) it is clan.

In the passage “Sister, since I was born with the noble birth” (M II 103) it is the Noble One’s virtue.

Visuddhimagga

[PaulCameron]

Buddha spoke to people with different capabilities so he made allowances.There are both in is teaching but some are facts straight and simple.Jati as a prime example.How could that be confused with thoughts defeats me.

Westerners are often defeated by this. It is even reported in the Bible:

Now there was a Pharisee, a man named Nicodemus who was a member of the Jewish ruling council. He came to Jesus at night and said, “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher who has come from God. For no one could perform the signs you are doing if God were not with him.”

Jesus replied, “Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again.”

“How can someone be born when they are old?” Nicodemus asked. “Surely they cannot enter a second time into their mother’s womb to be born!”

Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit. Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. You should not be surprised at my saying, ‘You must be born again.’ The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.”

“How can this be?” Nicodemus asked.

“You are Israel’s teacher,” said Jesus, “and do you not understand these things?

Very truly I tell you, we speak of what we know and we testify to what we have seen, but still you people do not accept our testimony.

Jesus Teaches Nicodemus Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God - children born not of natural descent, nor born of human decision or born of a husband’s will, but born of God.

John 1

[arindiruppyr]

How does this defeat arise? Westerners, particularly Australians, can be very opinionated & stubborn.

for hundreds, thousands of years, jati has had an essential meaning in Indian culture:

Jāti (in Devanagari: जाति Tamil:சாதி) (the word literally means 'thus born') is the term used to denote the thousands of clans, tribes, communities and sub-communities in India. It is a term used across religions. Each jāti typically has an association with a traditional job function or tribe, although religious beliefs (e.g. Sri Vaishnavism or Veera Shaivism) or linguistic groupings may define some jatis. A person's surname typically reflects a community (jati) association: thus Gandhi = perfume seller, Dhobi = washerman, Srivastava = military scribe, etc. In any given location in India 500 or more jatis may co-exist, although the exact composition will differ from district to district

Wikipedia

[secondmortgagek]

Hi Aloka,

Aloka wrote: I'd be interested to know if you think that any of the Buddhist teachings should be interpreted metaphorically, or if you prefer to interpret them all literally. I think the Buddhist teachings help us to understand the difference between Sammati-sacca (conventional truth) and Paramattha-succa (absolute truth.) Though Sammati-sacca is the (conventional) truth accepted by everyone (that this is a man, an animal, a table, a book etc.) it’s still just a make-believing truth, not absolute truth. Paramattha-succa is the truth beyond Sammati-sacca. This is not really a man, an animal, a table, a book etc. in the absolute truth.

Sammati-sacca itself is only a metaphor (This is “I” “my” etc.) Paramattha-succa itself is literal truth. (This is “form”, “feeling” “mental factors” etc.) I don’t think we should interpreted Paramattha-succa in the Buddhist teachings metaphorically.

But again, before and after Buddha died the misinterpretation already had begun (Hence Hinayana versus Mahayana.) So not to mention after 2,555 years past. Besides I believe it’s evitable that the Buddhist teachings have been inaccurate after they were translated from original Pali (or even Sanskrit) to another language (Tibetan, English, Thai etc.)

Back to your question, yes, I think because of that natural inaccurateness we cannot help but have to approach the Buddhist teachings either metaphorically or literally. We have a lot of work to do more than people of the Buddha’s era. :-)

[Beragagnu]

But again, before and after Buddha died the misinterpretation already had begun (Hence Hinayana versus Mahayana.) So not to mention after 2,555 years past. Besides I believe it’s evitable that the Buddhist teachings have been inaccurate after they were translated from original Pali (or even Sanskrit) to another language (Tibetan, English, Thai etc.)

I do not believe that the appearance of Hinayana and Mahayana indicates any misinterpretation of the Buddha's words as you say, it simply shows that different styles of teaching and practice arose. I'm sure that somewhere along the line there have been many misinterpretations and mistranslations by different people, but the arising of these two schools is not a definite indication of this happening. I also don't think that it is actaully as you describe it "Hinayana VERSUS Mahayana." Certainly practitioners of each each style have different ambitions, but it is not true that the two traditions must oppose eachother.

I'm sure there have been and still are differences of opinion among people of each school with regard to the teachings, but there are many similarities as well. Perhaps I am reading into your "versus" comment too much, it just came across as soudning a bit conflicting when this isn't necessarily the case. The short 'Mahayana, Hinayana, and Theravada Compared' section in the following link helped me get a bit of a feel for the differences in the traditions and how they came to be separate schools. If you know of any other sources on this topic please feel free to share them.

http://online.sfsu.edu/~rone/Buddhis...20Buddhism.htm

I'm also not quite sure what you mean when you say, "I believe it's evitable that the Buddhist teachings have been inaccurate" after being translated. Did you mean to say "inevitable" or "probable"? To say that it is "evitable" that they have been inaccurate seems to contradict your previous statement. Thanks for the clarification.

As to the question about interpretation by Aloka-D, I believe this depends a lot on the practicioner. At some points in one's practice there may be no other way to interpret certain teachings except metaphorically. Then later, after some insight has been gained the literal meaning may naturally become clear.

Here is an example: Somebody wishes to convey to me what a pear tastes like but I have never eaten one. They tell me, "Oh it's like this, and like this, and a little bit like this." After a lot of explaining and telling me about what a pear is like I have some general idea about how a pear tastes, but it is just an idea. Then one day I find a real pear and take a bite, "Ahhhh, thats what a pear tastes like." Then I literally have the true experience of how a pear tastes, but until then I only had ideas and notions. Hope that makes sense.

[Sawyer]

I think a lot of it is meant to be taken literally. But, at the same time, when I hear about Devas and other realms, or how The Buddha's body was emanating light on Vulture Peak...that almost has to be a metaphor. Because Buddhism places such an emphasis on thinking for one's self and logic, but none of those things can be definitively proven.

Good topic!

[VemyhemiHef]

Whether or not they are metaphors, there are certain teachings that seem to be catered to different audiences. For example, for some time I was perplexed by the Buddha's statement to Ven. Anuruddha in the Nalakapana Sutta, which seems to suggest a useful metaphorical aspect to rebirth teachings.

Nalakapana Sutta (MN 68)

"So, Anuruddha, it is not for the purpose of scheming to deceive people or for the purpose of flattering people or for the purpose of gain, honour, and renown, or with the thought "let people know me to be thus", that when a disciple has died, the Tathagata declares his reappearance thus "so-and-so has reappeared in such-and-such a place". Rather, it is because there are faithful clansmen inspired and gladdened by what is lofty, who when they hear that, direct their minds to such a state, and that leads to their welfare and happiness for a long time"

The Middle Length Discourses of the Buddha, trans. Bhikkhu Bodhi, page 571 Regardless of whether rebirth is literal (post-mortem) or metaphorical (moment-to-moment), it is helpful for some to believe in it.

[Liaptoono]

The experience -still short- with Gotama's teachings is that there are some that are literal instructions to be followed like the Anapanasati instructions, the Khandha doctrine, the teachings about objects of consiousness and the six sense bases, etc; while others are metaphorical so to illustrate in a more tangible way things that are not so easy to grasp properly like the teaching of the "two darts" or "arrows", the foam metaphor for emptiness or the Fire Sermon.

Also metaphorical teachings are to sensibilize the mind and the heart of Gotama's disciples so to be prepared to undertake the literal ones.

If we have not realize, for example, truly the event of being hurt by a second dart we will never understand how mental suffering really happens and be eager to cease it.

[JesexhiSeeces]

IT is not only helpful i feel it is part of the system to drive one forward ok its nice to be a nice humanist but at the end of the day the light gets turned off .It doesnt have the same ring to it.

Whether or not they are metaphors, there are certain teachings that seem to be catered to different audiences. For example, for some time I was perplexed by the Buddha's statement to Ven. Anuruddha in the Nalakapana Sutta, which seems to suggest a useful metaphorical aspect to rebirth teachings.



Regardless of whether rebirth is literal (post-mortem) or metaphorical (moment-to-moment), it is helpful for some to believe in it.

[JonnTEN]

Hi Still In Motion

Will it be better if I just say that I’m a native Thai and still not good at English writing?
Anyway, I honestly believe in what I posted and you honestly don’t believe in it. That’s it. Why do we have to look for any reason? Besides, this is a subforum, “Beyond belief” isn’t it?
Maybe you think I believe in Hinayana tradition. No, I’m not even a Buddhist now.
I told our friends here once that my Buddhist knowledge is rusty (I haven’t read any Thai Buddhist books for almost 30 years) so it’s hard for me to share some sources on this topic. I mean I might show you many “Thai” quotes but it’s not useful here, right? Still, I can recall about Theravada (or “Hinayana”) and Acariyavada (or “Mahayana”) Buddhism. I’ve just came across the following link while writing this post and think maybe it’s helpful. (But again, don’t believe me or what it is said in this link because I’m not Buddhist. :-)

http://www.watdallas.org/modules.php...article&sid=18

Still In Motion wrote: I'm also not quite sure what you mean when you say, "I believe it's evitable that the Buddhist teachings have been inaccurate" after being translated. Did you mean to say "inevitable" or "probable"? To say that it is "evitable" that they have been inaccurate seems to contradict your previous statement. Thanks for the clarification. -Hmm…maybe I used the wrong word. However, it suffices to say that (my work has something do to with translation for almost 30 years) it’s “rather” "inevitable." For example I have six versions (English) of Don Quixote and found that there are many differences among them, too much different! If that happens with fictional book, so not to mention about spiritual books that are hard to read (or you can try comparing many versions of the Bible.) :-)
I believe that this post won't do any help for me but I still honestly post it because you asked for some clarification

[Bondjrno]

I think one has to look at each passage and analyse what is the main message, this is something we all learn to do at high school when we have to study works like shakespeare etc. We learn to look at the text objectively, determine what are the main themes, the main message and interpret the detail supporting the main message based on that.

For example if we took the Buddhas teaching as a whole would anyone say it was about proving the existences of devas? No, therefore it doesn't really matter how references to devas are interwoven into the teachings and whether we believe they are real or metaphorical because I think you'll find each mention is just a small part of a teaching about a Dhammic principle.

Through our Judeo Christian background however we think we shouldn't treat religious texts in the same way, we feel we must be very literal and it shows a lack of faith if we don't take things at face value, I don't think this is how we should approach Buddhist scripture.

Another thing that the Buddha was apt to do is take common phrases or words of the day and twist their meaning to teach a principle, so it's often worth investigating what we can of the pre-Buddhist world in which he was teaching to find shades of meaning.

[JAMES PIETERSE]

Hello again Wanderer, thanks for your response.

Will it be better if I just say that I’m a native Thai and still not good at English writing?
Anyway, I honestly believe in what I posted and you honestly don’t believe in it. That’s it. Why do we have to look for any reason? Besides, this is a subforum, “Beyond belief” isn’t it?

Your english sounds pretty good to me except for just a few minor things. It's not that I dont believe what you posted, I just dont believe that the appearance of Hinayana and Mahayana is a definitive indication of mistranslations or misinterpretations. I'm sure there have been mistranslations and misinterpretations along the way, even in the Buddhas lifetime, as you said. "Why do we have to look for any reason?" because this is an earnest discussion and I believe it is important to make things as clear, concise, and accurate as possible. Sorry if I posted something I was not supposed to because we are in the "subforum Beyond Belief," I am new to this forum. Are people not supposed to question eachother's stances in this section? I was under the impression that this forum was for direct conversations and spirited debate.

Thanks for the link you posted. It was very informative and I learned a few new things.

I have six versions (English) of Don Quixote and found that there are many differences among them, too much different! If that happens with fictional book, so not to mention about spiritual books that are hard to read (or you can try comparing many versions of the Bible.) :-)

Very interesting point here. I am curious to know, are the differences in your copies of Don Quixote major or minor? What I mean is, when you read each one, do you end up arriving at the end with the same basic understanding of the author's intentions of what he wanted to convey? Or do you end up at an entirely different destination with regard to the message altogether? Thanks!

[ChebuRAtoR]

Besides, this is a subforum, “Beyond belief” isn’t it?

Sorry if I posted something I was not supposed to because we are in the "subforum Beyond Belief," I am new to this forum. Are people not supposed to question eachother's stances in this section? I was under the impression that this forum was for direct conversations and spirited debate

Hi W63 and S I M,

'Beyond Belief' is one of the main forums on the website and the description for it is ......

"A forum for open minded, free enquiry and critical exploration of Buddhism in the modern world"


Kind regards,

Aloka

[Fellionas]

Aloka D wrote: Hi W63 and S I M,

'Beyond Belief' is one of the main forums on the website and the description for it is ......

"A forum for open minded, free enquiry and critical exploration of Buddhism in the modern world" Thanks Aloka.


Hello Still In Motion,

Still In Motion wrote: “It's not that I dont believe what you posted, I just dont believe that the appearance of Hinayana and Mahayana is a definitive indication of mistranslations or misinterpretations.” -No, you got me wrong. I didn’t want you to believe what I posted. What I meant is, I didn’t like to debate. I knew you literally pull my leg because you wanted to debate. But I thought it would bring us to nowhere. After every debate, we still believe in what we believe or even more (I’ve seen that a lot.) We may pretend that we agree with each other just to look cool and feel good to ourselves. I don’t like to pretend.

I'm sure there have been mistranslations and misinterpretations along the way, even in the Buddhas lifetime, as you said. "Why do we have to look for any reason?" because this is an earnest discussion and I believe it is important to make things as clear, concise, and accurate as possible. Sorry if I posted something I was not supposed to because we are in the "subforum Beyond Belief," I am new to this forum. Are people not supposed to question eachother's stances in this section? I was under the impression that this forum was for direct conversations and spirited debate. -You got me wrong again. What I meant by "subforum Beyond Belief” is about “no school of thought.” Somehow I knew that you believe in Mahayana school and have your soft spot about this. I don’t dare to post something like that on Mahayana subforum. I know that it’s a sensitive issue.
My soft-spot is I don’t like to debate. Too old and tired. Let’s know each other for a while and I might debate with you, S I M. :-)

[largonioulurI]

This passage is taken from Ven. S Dhammika's book "Good Questions, Good Answers"

Imagine an Englishman, a Frenchman, a Chinese and an Indonesian all looking at a cup.
The Englishman says, "That is a cup." The Frenchman answers, "No it's not. It's a tasse."
The Chinese comments, "You are both wrong. It's a pei."
And the Indonesian laughs at the others and says "What a fool you are. It's a cawan."

The Englishman get a dictionary and shows it to the others saying, "I can prove that it is a cup.
My dictionary says so." "Then your dictionary is wrong," says the Frenchman "because my dictionary clearly says it is a tasse."
The Chinese scoffs at them. "My dictionary is thousands of years older than yours, so my dictionary must be right.
And besides, more people speak Chinese than any other language, so it must be pei."

While they are squabbling and arguing with each other, a Buddhist comes up and drinks from the cup.
After he has drunk, he says to the others, "Whether you call it a cup, a tasse, a pei or a cawan, the purpose of the cup is to be used.
Stop arguing and drink, stop squabbling and refresh your thirst".

[allemnendup]

Hello Still In Motion,
-No, you got me wrong. I didn’t want you to believe what I posted. What I meant is, I didn’t like to debate. I knew you literally pull my leg because you wanted to debate. But I thought it would bring us to nowhere. After every debate, we still believe in what we believe or even more (I’ve seen that a lot.) We may pretend that we agree with each other just to look cool and feel good to ourselves. I don’t like to pretend.

-You got me wrong again. What I meant by "subforum Beyond Belief” is about “no school of thought.” Somehow I knew that you believe in Mahayana school and have your soft spot about this.

Hello again Wanderer,

I don't like to pretend either, and I will never act like I agree with someone, "just to look cool or feel good about myself." I do agree with you that mistranslations and misinterpretations of the Buddha's teachings have occured from the very beginning. What I do not agree with is your assertion that the arising of "Hinayana vs Mahayana" is an indication of this happening. To me it simply shows that different ambitions and styles of practicing arose.

I am sad to see that you do not like to debate, I do like to, because I believe it is a positive way to discuss and compare ideas and beliefs if everything is kept civil. Many of the opinions that I once held very tightly have since changed, partly thanks to in depth discussions and debates with intelligent and thoughtful individuals. Debating helps people see the flaws in other peoples positions as well as in their own, which can lead them to a new and perhaps more broad way of looking at things.

What a dull place the world would be if we never questioned each others and our own assumptions. You are correct that I am a practicioner of Mahayana, or more specifically Zen, but this does not mean that I am unwilling look at things from the perspective of another school of Buddhism or another religion or even athiests. In my experience, talking with people of other beliefs and religions almost always leads to a more empathetic and open minded view of things, even If I do not end up changing my outlook to be in line with the other person's way of thinking. I would suggest that if you are not ready to engage in debates then you should refrain from making statements that might be perceived as controversial or critical of somebodies beliefs.

As a side note, the phrase you used, "pull my leg" means "to trick, to fool, or to pull a prank" on somebody. It does not mean "to antagonize" somebody, which seems to be the way you intended to use it. I can see how the expression could be misleading to a person whose first language is not english. And just so you know, my intention was not to antagonize you. I honestly did not believe that what you said was entirely true, and that was the only reason for my response.

This passage is taken from Ven. S Dhammika's book "Good Questions, Good Answers"

Imagine an Englishman, a Frenchman, a Chinese and an Indonesian all looking at a cup.
The Englishman says, "That is a cup." The Frenchman answers, "No it's not. It's a tasse."
The Chinese comments, "You are both wrong. It's a pei."
And the Indonesian laughs at the others and says "What a fool you are. It's a cawan."

The Englishman get a dictionary and shows it to the others saying, "I can prove that it is a cup.
My dictionary says so." "Then your dictionary is wrong," says the Frenchman "because my dictionary clearly says it is a tasse."
The Chinese scoffs at them. "My dictionary is thousands of years older than yours, so my dictionary must be right.
And besides, more people speak Chinese than any other language, so it must be pei."

While they are squabbling and arguing with each other, a Buddhist comes up and drinks from the cup.
After he has drunk, he says to the others, "Whether you call it a cup, a tasse, a pei or a cawan, the purpose of the cup is to be used.
Stop arguing and drink, stop squabbling and refresh your thirst".

Muji, thank you for the story, I have heard that several times before in one form or another and I like it very much, although I don't think it really fits this situation. It is a good example of how people argue over senseless things that are obviously pointless to bicker about, but right now we are discussing very deeply held belief systems and spiritual practices, not just the name of an everyday object.

We are also not just disputing the name, we are talking about a situation where somebody appears to be discrediting the actual legitimacy and ability of "the cup" to function properly. If the situation in the story were to happen in the real world, the people involved would almost certainly realize what was going on, and end up learning the name of the cup in several different languages instead of arguing about who was correct.

Sadly, when it comes to religions and spiritual paths this is often not the case. Many human beings spend a great deal of time trying to tear down and minimize the beliefs of others because those beliefs are not in accordance with their own. This is truly a shame, but if people can be tolerant and understanding of others then reconciliation can occur, even if in the end they agree to disagree.

My apologies to Aloka-D for getting off topic.

[dremucha]

Hi S I M,

Thanks for the explanation. I support 'constructive' debate too.

Unfortunately, I cannot 'spar' with you right now, but I do hope somewhere down the road, we can debate on some topics other than this.

See you around