[Buddha-l] Re: there he goes again (sam harris)

[Joy Vriens]

>As was pointed out by Edward Conze and others long ago, this is not a  
>reasonable translation of the Pali. Had the Buddha in the  
>Satipa.t.thaanasutta said 'ekamaggo' we could translate as 'one way'  
>or 'only way', although even that would be debatable. But he didn't.  
>He said: 'ekaayano aya.m . . . maggo'. This is literally 'this path  
>goes to a single '. `(Often explained as a path without  
>any forks.) 

Thank you. That does make a difference. Without any forks evokes the idea of a path, which is direct and on which one can't go astray. The eightfold parth on the other hand ;-)

I have recently read two newish approaches of translations and interpretations, one of Chuang-Tzu (Jean-François Billeter) and one of Confucius (Jean Levi), which I both found very interesting and  refreshing. They made Chuang-Tzu less wild and unpredictable and Confucius less insipid in my eyes. Jean Levi put the words of Confucius back in their historic context and that seems to make all the difference. Their ad hoc words and actions make a lot more sense. Too often with great teachers, their words are presented as universal and eternal, valid for any situation and any time or are expected to have that sort of quality. Replaced back in the context, the words become less important and it is the way they act and behave and deal with a situation that give the nuances. The approach we have towards the written word is still very much one the religions of the book I guess.     
 
>Nor does tradition so interpret it. The Mahaaniddesa says that  
>ekaayano maggo is a name for: the four establishings of mindfulness,  
>the four right efforts, the four bases of iddhi, the five faculties,  
>the five powers, sevenfold awakening and the eightfold path. 
> 
>Later commentaries by Buddhaghosa and others add various other  
>interpretations such as the path which one treads alone or the path  
>taught by the Buddha alone. Rather conspicuous is the absence of any  
>idea that this is the only way. 

Yes. But a notion of exclusivity is still present. One could offer the hyptohesis that the Buddha was preoccupied with proving that his was the only way, whereas at Buddhaghosa's time, when the Buddha's authority was well established, it was generally assumed among those reading Buddhaghosa that the Buddha's was indeed the only way, and that the more important question was what exactly was the Buddha's way.