[Buddha-l] the benefits of Jayarava's discussion

[jkirk]

Aside from Richard's clever renderings here, just want to quibble once again as follows: 
If we say "all conditioned things are impermanent," I prefer (even if one is not supposed to 'prefer' anything) to impermanent the term, "transitory"--because impermanent suggests permanence. 
The dhamma does not teach permanence--so wouldn't _transitory_ (e.g., likely to go away) seem more suitable?
Cheers, Joanna
==============

On Wednesday 20 August 2008 08:03:48 Jayarava wrote:

> The Pāli in this case (from the Buddha's last words in the 
> Mahāparinibbāna Sutta DN 16; PTS Dii 155-6; p.231ff in Walsh's 
> translation) is vayadhammā saṅkhārā - all things (saṅkhārā) have the 
> nature (dhamma) of disappointment (vaya - literally to decay, to die).

A small quibble seems in order here. Saṅkhārā doesn't mean just any old thing, but specifies conditioned things. Most, but not all Buddhists, of course, hold the view that all things are conditioned. (I hold that view, but I do so out of dogmatism and intellectual laziness; I can't prove it.) 

Vaya (Sanskrit vyaya) usually means something like mutable, liable to change, (literally, vi+i likely to go away.) In grammar vyaya refers to the alterations that words undergo through the application of conjugational or declensional endings. Bearing all that in mind, I think a good translated would be "all conditioned things are of the nature that they should be declined." So when someone offers you a conditioned thing, just say no. 
That's the heart of Buddhist practice.

> Of course experiences are
> disappointing _because_ they are impermanent.

That seems a bit categorical to me, and even false. The vast majority of experiences, I would argue, are actually fulfilling precisely because they are impermanent. A toothache, for example, eventually goes away, which is an occasion of considerable satisfaction. The inconsiderate boor behind you in the movie theatre chomping on popcorn eventually discovers that his supply of popcorn is impermanent, which brings you great joy. You get a box a chocolates and discover after eating one that you can't stop; what a tremendous relief you feel when you find you've eaten the last one without exploding. (That explains why your sweetheart is happy when given a pound of chocolates but is irked when given a shipload.)

All things considered, I'd say that impermanence in itself is neither disappointing nor, er, appointing. It's only when viewed with an expectation or hope that things be other than they are that anything becomes disappointing. So I vote against translating or interpreting vaya as disappointing. I trust this does not disappoint anyone. If it does, it's your old damn fault. (I belong to the "tough compassion" school of Buddhism.)

--
Dayamati
Department of Correctional Services
Buddha-hell
http://dayamati.blogspot.com

_______________________________________________
buddha-l mailing list
buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com
http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l