On 4/27/05, Ian Johanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I think my original statement was a bit confusing. I meant that the > aggregates ARE anatta, they ARE anicca, and ARE dukkha. "Anatta" means, > "not self". Anicca is "not permanent" And dukkha means "not satisfactory > (or, suffering)"
Exactly. And the Sutra teaches that the aggregates are empty of anatta, empty of anicca, empty of dukkha (not that aggregates are empty of non-dukkha). > Therefore, the aggregates are not self, they are not > permanent, they are not satisfactory. Again, you've replaced dukkha above with "satisfactory". You've translated anatta correctly as "self" (thus rendering aggregates as being characterized by the 'not self'), you've translated anicca correctly as "impermanent" (thus rendering aggregates as being characterized by the 'not permanent'), but you've failed to translate dukkha correctly. The correct translation should be "they are not unsatisfactory" (because dukkha means "unsatisfactory"). > Then to answer the question, what > are the aggregates empty of, is to say, they are empty of self, empty of > permanence, empty of satisfaction. The characteristics of self, permanence > or "ultimate satisfaction," using my term, are not found anywhere in the > aggregates. But the above is incoherent. While it is true that the characteristics of self are not found in the aggergates, and that the characteristic of permanence are not found in the aggregates, it should also be true that the characteristics of dukkha are not found in the aggregates. Yet, you chose to switch lanes midstream and replace dukkha with "ultimate satisfaction", that is, anti-dukkha. So what you're saying is that the characteristics of "ultimate staisfaction" are not found in the aggregates. However, what the Sutra means is that the characteristics of "dissatisfaction" (i.e. dukkha) are not found in the aggregates. I'm just curious as to why would you feel the need to twist the Sutra's meaning? You've been doing fine in your exposition of the Sutra's teaching until that last moment, when you've made the presto-chango, and replaced dukkha with anti-dukkha. That was a nice sleigh of hand, but the meaning got totally lost. > > That > >caught me by surprise, because I've never heard anyone use that > >translation. All the sources I'm aware of insist that dukkha means the > >exact opposite -- ultimate dissatisfaction. > > > >So I was just curious about your line of reasoning. Thanks for > >ellucidating on it. > > You're welcome. Hopefully I stated things more clearly this time. Yes, you certainly have. Thanks for doing that. ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> What would our lives be like without music, dance, and theater? Donate or volunteer in the arts today at Network for Good! http://us.click.yahoo.com/WwRTUD/SOnJAA/i1hLAA/S27xlB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> Current Book Discussion: Appreciate Your Life by Taizan Maezumi Roshi. New or used at: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1570622280/ref=ase_actionheroesc-20/002-4507763-9442460?v=glance&s=books> Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ZenForum/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
