The moving rod AB will appear longer to an observer at O, than a stationary rod would. But perhaps that is not what you meant at all.
Yesterday S. and I, leaving Vajirarama early in the morning and taking dána at Salgala Arañña, arrived here in the evening.
To get to Salgala you walk two miles through fields fully robed. Arriving there about 9:30 you have no opportunity to get ekamsa[2], but have to take your bowl and join the 'pindapáta' procession. You arrive at the dánasála and sit for about an hour motionless with the sweat pouring down your face. You are given your bowl full to the brim and you have to carry it back up and down a mountainside. When you arrive at the second dánasála in the arañña proper, all the arahats, who have been perfectly behaved so far, suddenly become puthujjanas and start talking and chattering like anyone else. We sat down, but everybody else started putting food into our bowls and into each others. We had all our work cut out to empty the contents of our bowls onto plates. I was hot and tired and thirsty and disgusted with food and exhausted by the farce. From 9 to 12 every day they are occupied with food. A nightmare.
After eating we were shown... the Maháthera's kuti. He has a fine cankamana. He must have spent about an hour preparing the footprints in the sand.
It is a fine jungle, shady, but perhaps rather damp. But it is
a mockery of the monk's life. I saw nothing that did not seem
bogus -- but perhaps they do something profitable when everybody
has gone. I should hate it anyway....
[EL. 2] 14.iv.1954
Out of the surge and thunder of the Singalese New Year comes this letter. Perched as I am on top of a small mountain (according to the one inch map, between 1200 and 1300 feet above sea level), I can hear all the crackers and all the drums for miles around: much more noise in this respect than the Hermitage. But when there are no crakers and no drums this place is very quiet (not like a dense jungle of course), and no music. And apart from people bringing dána, no casual visitors (the climb is formidable, and anyway they are kept off the estate). No casual human visitors that is; I have been visited inside the room by one small snake (under the door -- now blocked), three scorpions (from the roof -- there must be hundreds here, and I shall probably be stung sooner or later), three tarantulas (one the size of your hand) -- a fearsome creature to meet for the first time at night, but quite easily caught. He made a noise like a fuse blowing each time he attacked the broom I offered him. Outside the room I have been visited by two dogs (by day), two buffaloes (by day and by night), numbers of monkeys (by day) and by an unidentified and disconcerting grunt (by night -- do porcupines grunt?). There are many ticks but no leeches.
...New birds, including the green parakeet with a purple head, and a brown eagle. New geckos, including one six inches long, brown and grey velvet with white pimples -- very handsome, lives in the privy pit. One or two new insects.
...One or two faint touches of lunacy, perhaps, have gone to the construction of this place; but the result is not entirely unsatisfactory (there are genuine portholes in the walls of the inner room, and you are always a little surprised you are on a mountain top and not at sea when you look out).
...I have now been up here a little over a fortnight, and
propose to stay (how long I can't say). But a brass pot neglected
for four years takes a lot of polishing, and though I have been
spending all the time I can (other than eating etc.) either
sitting or on the cankamana, there is not much to show for
it. But April is perhaps not the best month in the year....
[EL. 3] 3.v.1954
...The bungalow is on a spur about 200 feet above the bottom of the hill. The vegetation here, apart from coconut, areca, jak, and breadfruit, is quite different from the Hermitage and environs. The trees are quite new to me. Nobody has heard of bomba[1], and there are no mangroves for miles.
Ven. E., talking to S. and myself in the evening, said that murders in Ceylon were mostly committed by non-Buddhists; in Burma, however, Ministers are assassinated: but they are killed by Abhidhamma....
P.S. The mysterious grunt turns out to be (by some strange aural
illusion) a motorcycle being started in the plains, half a mile
away!
[EL. 4] 19.v.1954
...The quantity of lifestock here is sometimes embarrassing. Last night, before retiring to sleep, I went out. As I came back I found a large karawalá climbing the parapet wall. So I went in to get a brighter torch and a broomstick. Coming out of the door I met a centipede rushing in. So I had to remove him first. Then I pushed the snake off the wall (difficult to catch singlehanded; though today I made a stick and noose, and besides, where can I remove him to?), and was about to look over to see where he went to, when another reptilian head appeared over the wall. I cautiously retreated, but found it was only a large gecko. Having moved him out of the way I looked again. There was a rustling in the long grass (which must be full of snakes and things) and I shone my torch there, only to see a polecat (striped, and larger than a mongoose) making its way past. And what a stink, too. Rancid and feline. By this time the snake was lost and (I hope) gone forever. So I retreated exhausted into my room.
There was a small snake overhead in the roof the other night. This is not so good, but I hope to get some netting put up to catch things in case they fall (there is a gap in the ceiling for ventilation). In the meantime I sleep under a mosquito net....
There is a peculiar caterpillar or grub, which builds itself
a flat envelope out of leaves (about 1/2" x 1/4") and lives
inside. Its method of locomotion is as follows. It puts its head
and forelegs out at one end of the envelope, catches hold of
something firm, and then, by a great muscular effort, lifts the
rest of its body and the envelope over its head, thus turning
a kind of somersault. Then it retreats inside the envelope and
(unless it has two heads, or there are really two grubs working
in harmony) turns itself round and puts its head out of the
other end of the envelope and again turns a somersault,
and so on until it arrives wherever it wants to go....
[EL. 5] 1.vii.1954
...It will not surprise you to hear that the article "Nibbána and Anattá" needs revision. Again. I am dissatisfied with the section on dhammá. It says both too much and not enough. It is not exactly wrong, but it is clumsy and slightly misses the point, which I now believe to be this: -- Dhammá, in almost all senses, means 'References' (as opposed to 'Referents' -- see O. & R., The M. of M.[1]). Sometimes it is overt, sometimes a mere undertone, but this sense is still there. It explains a great deal: --
Atthi bh. mano, atthi dhammá, atthi avijjádhátu. Avijjásamphassajena bh. vedayitena phutthassa assutavato puthujjanassa Asmíti pissa hoti, Ayam aham asmíti pissa hoti etc.A puthujjana gets a feeling when he is making incorrect references (nicca or sukha), and there arises in consequence the idea of 'I' (feeling is necessary here; -- see Nidána Suttanta, 'Yattha panávuso sabbaso vedayitam n'atthi api nu kho tattha, "asmíti" siyáti?' 'No h'etam bhante'[9]) in connexion with his references (pañcupádánakkhandhá). This is how the idea of attá arises: it only arises in connexion with references, and is denied by the Buddha when he says 'Sabbe dhammá anattá' -- 'all references are not-self'.There is the mind, there are references, there is the element of ignorance. Touched by a feeling born of ignorance-contact etc.
...There are polongas[10] here, I am told, but I don't think I have seen one. The room is now more or less snake-proof, and I don't go out at night without a lamp and great circumspection.
...This place continues to suit well.... Meditation, though slow, seems to be making a little progress....
P.S. I think that I should have used the words 'true' and 'false'
instead of 'correct' and 'incorrect' references.
[EL. 6] 9.vii.1954
...Further to dhamma = reference, it may be observed that the 'nature' of a thing, the 'law' which it obeys (evamdhammo, nirodhadhammo, dhammatá, etc.) are all abstractions or generalizations from the behaviour of individuals. The referents are only the individuals, and their nature or characteristics are references. If this is allowed as the correct interpretation of dhamma in this sense, then the Ven. Soma Thera's theory ('the nature of all things, the way in which they behave, is anattá') is not at variance with mine (though perhaps he might not agree).
Also: -- If 'sabbe dhammá aniccá' is said, then (a) it may imply that there are things that are not references that are niccá, i.e. some kind of permanent and unknowable substratum, and (b) it does not explain why they are anicca, i.e. that they are sankhata. To a certain extent, then, sabbe sankhárá aniccá applies to referents. If 'sabbe sankhárá anattá' is said, then it may imply that there is some kind of objective quality of anattatá belonging to all sankháras. Actually, since attá is merely a mental delusion, anattá refers only to correct view, which is essentially subjective -- therefore 'all references (not referents) are anattá'. You can test the permanence of an object to some degree objectively; but you cannot apply any objective test to discover whether a thing is attá or anattá. 'Sabbe sankhárá dukkhá' is a kind of objective-subjective half-way house: sankháras are subjectively dukkhá because objectively aniccá. If this is seen to be true, then the entirely subjective attá cannot arise.
The writer of the article on Miss N. has missed his
opportunities. I think he might have brought in a false pregnancy
or two, and some stigmata; and what about an orgy of flagellation
such as the one described in Flagg's book on Yoga in Bhante's
library? But that such strange deeds of intrigue and darkness go
on in this extraordinarily free and easy-going country, where
nobody seems to care tuppence what anybody else does (although
they talk a lot about it), and where there are no shadows at
noon, makes me feel the ground is opening under my feet....
[EL. 7] 21.vii.1954
Dear Reverend Sir (or should I, in keeping with the principle subject of our correspondence, say 'Dear Referent Sir'? and call you, perhaps, 'Your Reference'?).
Thank you for your long letter. What is the equivalent of 'Referents' if dhammá = References? Let us start at the outside and work inwards. The 'outside world' consists of the first five bahiddháyatanas (forms, sounds...touches). (If someone asks, 'And what are they?', you reply, 'The four mahábhútá', and leave him to puzzle it out for himself.) It is said 'cakkhuñca paticca rúpe ca uppajjati cakkhuviññánam':[1] from which we may say, 'Forms are what, apart from the eye, eye-consciousness is dependent upon'; and similarly for the other four external bases. Thus, when I speak of 'matter', I should be understood as saying, 'that which, apart from the five sense-bases, conditions five-sense-consciousness'. Now, it is said (Mahávedalla Sutta and also a Sutta in the Indriya Samyutta) that the province (gocara/visaya) of the five faculties are manifold, and that the mind has the five faculties as its province.
Referents are what References refer to. But only the mind makes/has References: therefore the objects of the five senses are not Referents at all (directly, that is). The objects of the five senses are forms...touches. Dependent on these, eye-...body-consciousness arises. And it is eye-etc.-consciousness that is the province of the mind. But not present eye-etc.-consciousness. It is immediately or remotely past eye-etc.-consciousness that the mind feeds on. These are our Referents. Since they are past they cannot be References. (We also have to include past mind-consciousness -- a past Reference -- amongst our Referents.) When we think of 'matter', we are making References to past sets of experience or consciousness. If we remember this, then our Referents are: -- Rúpam vedaná saññá sankhárá viññánam (all past). (By 'consciousness', the whole námakáya is naturally intended.)
'Sabbe sankhárá aniccá', when expanded, becomes: -- Sankhárá and anicca stand for References to the same Referents. Upon consideration we see that all our past consciousnesses arose upon conditions, and are therefore sankháras. By Sabbe sankhárá aniccá, they are impermanent. But what is impermanent brings about suffering. Thus sankhárá and dukkha stand for References to the same Referents.
But a Reference, such as anicca, does not refer simply to a single eye-consciousness, for example. It refers to sets of past consciousness. It is a complex affair; and the act of making a Reference is the act of associating sets of past consciousnesses. When these sets are correctly associated (i.e. so that predictions as to future experience are verified -- e.g. 'Fire burns' is a correct association) then we have a 'true' Reference. Incorrectly associated, there is a 'false' Reference. Now, according to the Sutta, 'Ye hi keci...', the idea of attá is a Reference that arises in consequence of a feeling produced by a 'false' Reference (such as 'Ekacce sankhárá niccá'[2]). Thus attá is a Reference to a Reference (i.e. the Referent of attá (or anattá) is a past Reference.) Thus, if there is a 'false' Reference, there is clinging. Therefore, as the Sutta says, attá is associated with upádánakkhandhas. Perhaps we may be allowed to suggest that the pañcupádánakkhandhá are the non-arahat's References to the pañcakkhandhá, which are his Referents. (Does this find confirmation in the Suttas elsewhere? Can we say, in the Cúla Saccaka Sutta, that it is the pañcakkhandhá referred to as sabbe sankhárá aniccá and the pañcupádánakkhandhá referred to as sabbe dhammá anattá?)
I do not wish to suggest that 'sankhárá' are absolutely synonymous with 'Referents', since they are arrived at differently ('what is formed': 'what is referred to'): but we may perhaps say '"sankhárá" and "Referents" are symbols that stand for References to the same referent'. But dhammá are always sankhárá: References are not always Referents.
An interesting point: -- In the prevalent interpretation of sabbe sankhárá aniccá, sabbe sankhárá dukkhá, sabbe dhammá anattá, dhammá is a wider term than sankhárá, because it includes nibbána. In the interpretation under discussion, the position is reversed, and a sense-experience (sankhára) is not a dhamma unless it is taken up by the mind. And thus, not only can we not say that nibbána is attá or anattá, but also that a Referent (or sankhára) is attá or anattá (unless the mind reflects upon it so that an 'avijjásamphassajam vedayitam'[3] (or vijjásamphassajam vedayitam[3] as in the case of arahats) arises, and consequently the idea of attá). But nibbána is not even a Referent (in the sense used here); and when we 'think of nibbána' we are actually thinking of cessation of Referents. As to the varied responses, I shall limit myself to observing that the Buddha, at least in the formula sabbe sankhárá aniccá etc., does not say that all things are sankhata. He merely says that what is sankhata is anicca, with which statement everyone from an arahat to the outsidest báhiraka[4] surely agree, since it is almost a tautology. But the Buddha leaves it to your own experience to decide what is sankhata. As more and more idols of the báhirakas' temples are found to have feet of clay, so they (the báhirakas) are gradually driven to change their outlook. As for sabbe dhammá anattá, I am inclined to think that 'References' was the generally accepted meaning (even amongst báhirakas) of dhammá, for 'chandamúlaká ávuso sabbe dhammá'[5] is addressed to báhirakas. (Your Sutta, which I had forgotten, rather tends to confirm 'References' as the meaning of dhammá -- sabbe dhammá in one Sutta, and sankappavitakká[6] in another.)
I don't think that it is necessary to look for an equivalent for 'Symbol' very far. Is it not 'vohára' and similar words? Ogden and Richards actually quote a passage from the Dígha (I have forgotten which Sutta[7]). But although our triangles, Symbol-Reference-Referent and vohára-dhamma-sankhára, are similar, perhaps they are not congruent.
Korzybski: A slightly repellant subject, which I have almost forgotten. Perhaps what is meant is a long object crossing your vision at right angles. When the front (A) is directly before you, it has, as you say, no relative motion (only angular velocity). But the tail (B) of the object is not yet before you, and consequently has some motion relative to you, and a signal from B takes longer to reach you than a signal from A: --
The moving rod AB will appear longer to an observer at O, than a
stationary rod would. But perhaps that is not what you meant at all.
...Meditation progresses. Perhaps I have made up the ground
I lost, but it is hard to tell. Before, I meditated entirely
sitting, in the calm weather of March, with no belly aches, with
L. to worry about domestic arrangements. Here, I mostly walk, the
weather is gusty and not too good, the belly needs attention, and
I have to think about obtaining what I need (water supply, beli
fruit, sandal repairs, etc.). Perhaps it is of sturdier growth
this time, but it is less peaceful....
[EL. 8] 12.viii.1954
...As regards the contradiction and non-sequitur[1] they are, as you guessed, merely verbal inexactitudes. The letter was written at speed and was more in the form of rough notes than anything else. All that I meant to say was that References are memories either of past five-sense-experience or of past memories of five-sense-experiences or of past memories of past memories of...past five-sense-experiences. (Perhaps we should say 'also of future five-sense-experiences', since precognition became fashionable, but I am not much concerned about the time element, particularly since the mind appears to be out of space-time. It was only introduced to make clear that a five-sense-experience is not a referent in itself, but only when the mind is thinking about it. Perhaps the mind is always thinking about it in some degree -- if so, then we can ignore the question of time.) The Past is certainly non-existent, and a memory of the past does not bring it back to life -- it may perhaps imitate it, but that is another matter.
The present problem is this. If dhammá = References, how is it to be translated into English? 'References' would do well, except that no-one who has not read the M. of M. would understand it, and you would always need a triangular footnote. Untranslated dhammá is cowardice, only to be resorted to if there is no other way out. Phenomena is now too vague, I think. If it is translated differently according to context, the significance of the word is lost. Mental objects is faithful but flat, and most unwieldy. My own present inclination would be to do something like this. Use the word Ideas, and have a note explaining that it is in the Bardagan sense, and giving its various shades of meaning, thus: --
Ideas (1) -- Mental objects, what the mind is thinking about, References, etc.;
Ideas (2) -- Correct references to existence, therefore = Teachings;
Ideas (3) -- The set of correct references, i.e. the (Buddha's) Teaching;
Ideas (4) -- Discussion is only about References (as Korzybski pointed out, you can only point at a referent), and this sense of 'Ideas' is therefore 'the subject under discussion', and thence = things.
And so on. This note is given the first time the word occurs, and then translation reads like this: -- 'All ideas (1) are rooted in desire', 'I take the Idea (3) for refuge', '"These six bases of contact" is an idea (2) taught by me', 'Whatever ideas (2) there are, formed or unformed, the highest...', 'Dependent on the mind and upon ideas (1), mind-consciousness arises', 'He dwells contemplating ideas (1,2) in ideas (1,2)', 'There are, friends, these three ideas (4); which three? Lust, hate, delusion', 'For us, Venerable Sir, ideas (2,4) are rooted in the Auspicious One', 'All ideas (1) are not-self', etc. Although this is clumsy in a short translation, in a long series of translations it allows you always to translate dhamma by the same word, and yet to indicate the different, but allied meanings of the word. But it is not ideal. What do you think?
...Korzybski again. It now occurs to me that any moving body with thickness (i.e. not all parts equidistant from the observer) will appear distorted, no matter how it is moving (angular or relative), since light takes longer to come from the more distant parts of the body. To an observer on the sun, the planets represent a flattened appearance in the line of motion. This can be seen from a diagram.
...My last letter somewhat rashly thought that meditation might be as good as it has been. Now it appears about as bad as it has been. But the weather is a bit soupy.
English farmers would be astonished at agriculture here. Ploughing has been going on intermittently since March, and they are sowing in a field adjoining one in which they are on the point of harvesting.
There is a grasshopper here which imitates a leaf -- not
horizontally like most leaf insects, but vertically. It has
a flat green face, and there are sometimes brown patches of dead
leaf to be seen, sometimes not. I even think I saw some imitation
aphides on one of the brown patches. But it gives the whole show
away by its fondness for sitting on a cement wall....
[EL. 9] Tuesday[1]
...Your comments on translation of dhammá are welcome. My only objection to 'states', and my only reason for choosing 'ideas', is that I need a word to convey that the basic meaning of dhammá is 'mental objects' or 'references'. Your objections to 'ideas' are admitted, and the word would need a thorough laundering (in a footnote) before use. But I have no fresh ideas (an example of a desired sense of the word [~= thoughts]) on the subject.
...The eagle (there are actually two of them) is much in evidence these days. A most handsome creature.... Wing span I should think is about 2' 6". It occasionally perches thirty or forty yards away for a short time, and must be about eighteen inches from head to tail. I had the following conversation about it with the Ven. Kassapa (the conversation was remarkable for what was left unsaid): --
|
Myself: Ven. K: Myself: Ven. K: |
-- There is a fine brown eagle that lives in the valley below me. -- I don't think we have any eagles in Ceylon. -- There is the fish eagle. -- Yes, that is true, there is the fish eagle. Silence. Change of subject.... |
...Ven. Narada Thera as might be expected after his return from Europe -- very full of his doings, and telling it all in a hushed religious voice. He has many visitors and is the unwitting source of some merriment amongst his colleagues. (He told me, incidentally, that it is not at all difficult to reach the path -- as Buddhists we now have no sílabbataparámása and no vicikicchá[1], and all we have to do is to get rid of sakkáyaditthi and Bob's your uncle.)
...Your rare public appearances, combined with the news that you
have translated the Visuddhi Magga, are perhaps turning you into
a legendary figure. When your health was asked after
(particularly in high places, as Ven. Narada) the reply that you
were in excellent health and by the way had finished translating
the V.M. had a marked effect. 'The Visuddhi Magga?' they would
say, 'What, all of it?', and when assured that such indeed
was the case, and that furthermore you had typed it out and
almost printed it, they would pause, as if with mental
indigestion, and we could make good our escape unnoticed. (In
self-defence I may say that I think I gave less publicity to your
remarkable exploit than others who returned from the Hermitage.)
You remember that Dante, after the Divine Comedy was
published, was regarded with awe as the man who had been to
Hell and lived to tell the tale? I fear that you, in time to
come, will be regarded with similar awe as the man who read
the Visuddhi Magga and lived to translate it....
Back to Letters to Ven. Ñánamoli Thera - Contents
Back to Ñánavíra Thera Dhamma Page
[1.1] Undated, but probably late March, 1954. [Back to text]
[1.2] With robe over one shoulder only. [Back to text]
[3.1] A tree whose leaves, boiled in water, yield a detergent which does not cause vegetable dyes to fade. [Back to text]
[5.1] Ogden and Richards, The Meaning of Meaning. [Back to text]
[5.2] Yávatá bhikkhave dhammá sankhatá vá asankhatá vá virágo tesam dhammánam aggam akkháyati. 'Monks, as to things determined or undetermined, dispassion is reckoned the foremost of these things.' (A.ii,54 = It. 88) [Back to text]
[5.3] 's. dh.' = 'sabbe dhammá'. All things have their root in desire...all things have their end in extinction. [Back to text]
[5.4] With arising of attention, arising of images (ideas). [Back to text]
[5.5] Or he lives, contemplating the body in the body. [Back to text]
[5.6] This is matter, this the arising of matter, this the setting (perishing) of matter. [Back to text]
[5.7] Dependent on mind and images (ideas), mind-consciousness originates. [Back to text]
[5.8] Whatever recluses or divines who, in various ways, regard 'self'.... [Back to text]
[5.9] 'Where, friends, there is no feeling at all, can "I am" be there?' 'No indeed, lord.' [Back to text]
[5.10] Vipers. [Back to text]
[7.1] Dependent on eye and forms, eye-consciousness arises. [Back to text]
[7.2] Some determinations are permanent. [Back to text]
[7.3] Feeling born of contact with nescience/science. [Back to text]
[7.4] 'Non-Buddhist' (literally, 'outsider'). [Back to text]
[7.5] See EL. 5, §3. [Back to text]
[7.6] Purposeful thinking. [Back to text]
[7.7] It is D. 9 (i,201-2). [Back to text]
[8.1] These, perhaps, refer to 'a past Reference', EL. 7, §3, and 'a Referent is attá or anattá' [? is not], EL. 7, §7. [Back to text]
[9.1] Probably 24 or 31 August, 1954. [Back to text]
[10.1] Attachment to conduct and custom, and Doubt, uncertainty.
[Back to text]