Have you ever wondered, where the Buddha’s “meditation instructions” are? Why doesn’t he talk about them in the Pali Canon? Or does he? Well, he does… In fact, he cannot get any clearer explaining how exactly your practice of Buddhist meditation would look like. Lets take this passage, for example:
“SamÄdhiį¹ bhikkhave bhÄvetha, samÄhito bhikkhave bhikkhu rÅ«paį¹ aniccanti pajÄnÄti, evaį¹
passaį¹ ariyasÄvako parimuccati jÄtiyÄpi
Now, if you read most translations you will probably never come across a translation like this:
“Develop concentration, o monks, a concentrated monk, o monks knows form (thinking): “impermanent”. So seeing, the noble disciple will be freed from birth, etc.
But instead most translators will find this translation too clumsy or too literal. They will translate it for you this way (missing the juicy stuff):
“Develop concentration, o monks, a concentrated monk, o monks knows form as impermanent. So seeing, the noble disciple will be freed from birth, etc.
Some of you might say, that is the same, but the second translation sounds more readable…well, i disagree. Strongly. And here is why: This second translation misses a big point. The first literal translation makes this passage from the Buddha a meditation instruction.
Buddha literally asks the monks to “note”, or “label” any form (saying but more likely thinking) “impermanent”. He even starts the second sentence saying “so seeing”. The second translation makes you immediately wonder: “how do i see it as impermanent”. Whereas, in the first translation, it tells you exactly what to do.
Of course, you need to know how the word “iti” is used in Pali. Whenever in pali someone would talk, say or think
something, the word “iti” or shortened “ti” is used to mark the end of the expression. It works like our modern day ” ” and implies something said or thought. Normally translations would translate this with either direct or indirect speech marking the sentence with an apostrophe. If you happen to have this background knowledge even a still closer literal translation would make sense to you:
“Develop concentration, o monks, a concentrated monk, o monks knows form (thinking): “impermanent”. So seeing, the noble disciple will be freed from birth, etc.
However, in cases where the Buddha is talking about a meditation topic, as far as i know, nobody came of the idea to follow through and translate such a passage in the same way! Probably because of limited exposure to Buddhist meditation and practice methods.
(Remember: Vipassana practice with the usage of “labels” was reintroduced into Theravadan practice just recently in the 50s from Burma. Even for samatha practice the only place translations get this right is in Visuddhimagga’s description of the kasinas where even a modern day translator would know to translate “pathavi, pathavi”, i.e. literally. Besides, monks/scholars who translated the majority of Pali texts usually tended to have a more academic interest in Buddhism).
So most translations from the Pali canon where made before this not unimportant detail of Buddhist practice become known.
Another supporting argument for this “unusual” but more literal translation and similar passages is the fact that in the above cited quotation, if the Buddha would really had meant “knows/regards as form” in Pali he would have said it this way:
..rÅ«paį¹ aniccato pajÄnÄti,..
…which would this time literally translate as “perceives/regards/knows form as impermanent” … but, as we saw, this is not what the Buddha said here.
Now, very often, after the Buddha or another monk gives such a direct instruction they would point out to trees, huts and meditation places. “Go, sit down, and practice!”. It really could not get more practical then that!!!
But we, reading those passages, because of this tiny change in our translation (or omission) are looking for the instruction and did not find one, asking ourselves, so “i am supposed to see form, etc. as impermanent, but practically, how do i do it. What do i need to do in terms of taking an action?” – that is really tragic, because the Pali text DID give the practical instruction:
just, when you perceive it, label it, noting: “impermanent”.
Here is a list of other instructions, randomly taken from the texts…they abound with direct instructions to “note”, “label” or acknowledge knowingly:
yaį¹ pana tattha avasiį¹į¹haį¹ hoti taį¹ āsantamidaį¹ atthÄ«āti pajÄnÄti.
āāSo sukhaƱce vedanaį¹ vedeti, āsÄ aniccÄāti pajÄnÄti, āanajjhositÄāti pajÄnÄti, āanabhinanditÄāti pajÄnÄti. DukkhaƱce vedanaį¹ vedeti, āsÄ aniccÄāti pajÄnÄti, āanajjhositÄāti pajÄnÄti, āanabhinanditÄāti pajÄnÄti. AdukkhamasukhaƱce vedanaį¹ vedeti, āsÄ aniccÄāti pajÄnÄti, āanajjhositÄāti pajÄnÄti, āanabhinanditÄāti pajÄnÄti.
DÄ«ghaį¹ vÄ assasanto ādÄ«ghaį¹ assasÄmÄ«āti pajÄnÄti.
So upekkhakova samÄno āupekkhakosmÄ«āti pajÄnÄti.
So āidaį¹ dukkhaānti yathÄbhÅ«taį¹ abbhaƱƱÄsiį¹, āayaį¹ dukkhasamudayoāti yathÄbhÅ«taį¹ abbhaƱƱÄsiį¹, āayaį¹ dukkhanirodhoāti yathÄbhÅ«taį¹ abbhaƱƱÄsiį¹,
RÅ«paį¹ vedayitaį¹ saĆ±Ć±Ä – viƱƱÄį¹aį¹ yÄ ceva vetanÄ
“Neso’hamasmi na me so – attÄ” iti diį¹į¹ho virajjati. –
etc…
The suttas are full with this kind of meditation instruction. If you like to look this up for yourself just search for “*ti jÄnÄti” (or similar) with a program like the CST4 in the pali canon. It will return hundreds of results with instructions for samatha as well as vipassana type meditations.
Finally the Buddha often would end his sermon saying:
Yaį¹, bhikkhave, satthÄrÄ karaį¹Ä«yaį¹ sÄvakÄnaį¹ hitesinÄ anukampakena anukampaį¹ upÄdÄya, kataį¹ vo taį¹ mayÄ. EtÄni, bhikkhave, rukkhamÅ«lÄni, etÄni suƱƱÄgÄrÄni; jhÄyatha, bhikkhave, mÄ pamÄdattha; mÄ pacchÄ vippaį¹isÄrino ahuvattha. Ayaį¹ vo amhÄkaį¹ anusÄsanÄ«āāti.
Whatever a teacher should do ā seeking the welfare of his disciples, out of sympathy for them ā that have I done for you. Over there are the roots of trees; over there, empty dwellings. Practice jhana, Ananda. Don’t be heedless. Don’t later fall into regret. This is our message to you all.” {MN 106}
Did we really expect him to “hide” his instructions? Not emphasize them clearly and make them obvious to anyone willing to hear? It seems then, that the “ordinary” listener at Buddhas time could indeed – while listening or after hearing a sermon – apply the teachings and put them into practice right away, without the need to seek guidance from a series of seminars which would iniate him. For, at the time of the Buddha, the meaning of “iti” was clear.
We, on the other hand, had to wait for a Ledi or Mahasi Sayadaw to make use of the commentarial “sallekkhati”-verb (to mark, lable) or alÄpeti (to ‘count’) Ā to explain something hidden in plain sight.
===Update===
Thanks to the input of Dmytro and others one crucial thing to understand here is that even though “iti” may imply a form of noting it does NOT imply thinking (in that case we would find a word like ‘cinteti’ or ‘vitakketi’ etc.) If you ever participated in a Mahasi/Goenka/Nyanarama style vipassana retreat you would know what is meant by that. “Thinking” would imply random, discursive elaboration…it would imply a continuous identification with “Dhamma thoughts”… no, this is definitely not meant here (and hopefully not misunderstood).
The correct way of using a label/noting would rather resemble a quick, swift and decisive “tagging” of the object which drew our attention in and starts to unfold into a proliferating world. The usage of such a short label like “this is impermanent” or simply “impermanent” is only a means in facilitating our vision. If not stopped by this label (especially on weak concentration grounds) the mind will simply continue to pull you in. So with the help of such a label the mind is stopped in its tracks, can quickly return to its anchor point (like breath) and within this “differential” is able to see what just happens/ed.
An article by the most Venerable Katukurunde Nyanananda goes into detail and explains how the labeling could be refined to support the progressing concentration and awareness of the insight meditator:
http://nibbanam.com/nibbana_guide_en.htm
Finally a remark on the usage of “iti”…this is from the PED – in bold my highlighting
Iti (ti) (indecl.) [Vedic iti, of pron. base *i, cp. Sk. itthaÅ thus, itthÄ here, there; Av. ipa so; Lat. ita & item thus. Cp. also P. ettha; lit. “here, there (now), then”] emphatic<->deictic particle “thus“. Occurs in both forms iti & ti, the former in higher style (poetry), the latter more familiar in conversational prose. — I. AsĀ deictic adv.Ā “thus, in this way” (Vism 423 iti = evaÅ) pointing to something either just mentioned or about to be mentioned: (a) referring to what precedes Sn 253 (n’eso maman ti iti naÅ vijaƱƱÄ), 805; It 123 (ito devÄ. . . taÅ namassanti); Dh 74 (iti bÄlassa sankappo thus think the — foolish), 286 (iti bÄlo vicinteti); Vv 7910Ā (= evaÅ VvA 307); VvA 5. — (b) referring to what follows DĀ i.63 (iti paį¹isaƱcikkhati); AĀ i.205 (id.) — II. AsĀ emphatic part.Ā pointing out or marking off a statement either as not one’s own (reported) or as the definite contents of (one’s own or other’s) thoughts [sic!]. On the whole untranslatable (unless written as quotation marks) […that’s why its missing in many translations…the dictionary makes a case for omitting it…], often only setting off a statement as emphatic, where we would either underline the word or phrase in question, or print it in italics, or put it in quot. marks (e. g. bÄlo ti vuccati Dh 63 = bÄlo vuccati). — 1. in direct speech (as given by writer or narrator), e. g. sÄdhu bhante Kassapa lÄbhataÅ esÄ janatÄ dassanÄyÄ ti. Tena hi SÄ«ha tvaÅ yeva Bhagavato ÄrocehÄ« ti. EvaÅ bhante ti kho SÄ«ho . . . . DĀ i.151. — 2. in indirect speech: (a) as statement of a fact “so it is that” (cp. E. “viz.”, Ger. “und zwar”), mostly untranslated KhĀ iv.Ā (arahÄ ti pavuccati); JĀ i.253 (tasmÄ pesanaka — corÄ t’ eva vuccanti);Ā iii.51 (tayo sahÄyÄ ahesuÅ makkato sigÄlo uddo ti); PvA 112 (ankuro paƱca — sakaį¹asatehi . . . aƱƱataro pi brÄhmaį¹o paƱca — sakaį¹asatehÄ« ti dve janÄ sakata — sahassehi . . . patipannÄ). — (b) as statement of a thought “like this”, “I think”, so, thus Sn 61 (“sango eso” iti ƱatvÄ knowing “this is defilement”), 253 (“neso maman” ti iti naÅ vijaƱƱÄ), 783 (“iti’ han” ti), 1094 (etaÅ dÄ«paÅ anÄparaÅNibbÄnaÅĀ iti naÅ brÅ«mi I call thisĀ N.), 1130 (aparÄ pÄraÅ gaccheyya tasmÄ “ParÄyanaÅ” iti).
This goes to show that the proposed literal usage of “iti” in the context of a meditation instruction is not that far fetched. In fact, it seems as literal as it can get. Granted, it makes more sense if you try it in your meditation. And though in theory it looks strange because of all the books on Buddhism which taught us that the canon has to be “interpreted” before we can use it for meditation – from a pragmatic standpoint it immediately would justify most modern vipassana techniques. In fact they now would look like heirs to the original pali texts…even though these techniques were probably “re-invented” in Burma through following the commentarial overlay…
For other posts on this blog on this topic:
Read Full Post »
You must be logged in to post a comment.