Literal Interpretation or Metaphor ?

[Aloka]

Hi everyone,

I'd be interested to know if you think that any of the Buddhist teachings should be interpreted metaphorically, or if you prefer to interpret them all literally.

[alfred]

Buddha spoke to people with different capabilities so he made allowances.There are both in is teaching but some are facts straight and simple.Jati as a prime example.How could that be confused with thoughts defeats me.

[Element]

I am not sure 'metaphor' is the right approach. Buddha often used simile & metaphor but then usually explained the symbolism of the metaphor, such as:

Sense desires are like bare bones, has the Blessed One said; they are like a lump of flesh, like a torch of straw, like a pit of burning coals, like a dream, like borrowed goods, like a fruit-bearing tree, like a slaughter house, like a stake of swords, like a snake's head, are sense desires, has the Blessed One said.

but if we are referring to words such as jati (birth), for example, they are not metaphor. jati refers to the birth (coming in being) of some something, although that something may be mental, physical, etc, such as:

Tamenaṃ jātaṃ samānaṃ sakena lohitena poseti

When the child is born, she feeds it with her own blood

MN 38

rūpaṃ attato samanupassati. Yā kho pana sā, bhikkhave, samanupassanā saṅkhāro so. So pana saṅkhāro kiṃnidāno kiṃsamudayo kiṃjātiko kiṃpabhavo?

He assumes form to be the self. That assumption is a fabrication. Now what is the cause, what is the origination, what is the birth, what is the coming-into-existence of that fabrication?

SN 22.81

[Element]

Buddha spoke to people with different capabilities so he made allowances.There are both in is teaching but some are facts straight and simple. Jati as a prime example. How could that be confused with thoughts defeats me.

It is the most basic understanding in Buddhism, even by those Buddhists who are firm believers in literal post-mortem rebirth, that jati has different meanings, which are physical, mental & also social

32. Now, this word birth (játi) has many meanings.

For in the passage “[He recollects … ] one birth (játi), two births” (D I 81) it is becoming.

In the passage, “Visákhá, there is a kind (játi) of ascetics called Nigaóţhas (Jains)” (A I 206) it is a monastic order.

In the passage, “Birth (játi) is included in two aggregates” (Dhátuk 15) it is the characteristic of whatever is formed.

In the passage, “His birth is due to the first consciousness arisen, the first cognition manifested, in the mother’s womb” (Vin I 93) it is rebirth-linking.

In the passage “As soon as he was born (sampatijáta), Ánanda, the Bodhisatta …” (M III 123) it is parturition.

In the passage “One who is not rejected and despised on account of birth” (A III 152) it is clan.

In the passage “Sister, since I was born with the noble birth” (M II 103) it is the Noble One’s virtue.

Visuddhimagga

[Element]

Buddha spoke to people with different capabilities so he made allowances.There are both in is teaching but some are facts straight and simple.Jati as a prime example.How could that be confused with thoughts defeats me.

Westerners are often defeated by this. It is even reported in the Bible:

Now there was a Pharisee, a man named Nicodemus who was a member of the Jewish ruling council. He came to Jesus at night and said, “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher who has come from God. For no one could perform the signs you are doing if God were not with him.”

Jesus replied, “Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again.”

“How can someone be born when they are old?” Nicodemus asked. “Surely they cannot enter a second time into their mother’s womb to be born!”

Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit. Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. You should not be surprised at my saying, ‘You must be born again.’ The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.”

“How can this be?” Nicodemus asked.

“You are Israel’s teacher,” said Jesus, “and do you not understand these things?

Very truly I tell you, we speak of what we know and we testify to what we have seen, but still you people do not accept our testimony.

Jesus Teaches Nicodemus

Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God - children born not of natural descent, nor born of human decision or born of a husband’s will, but born of God.

John 1

[Element]

How does this defeat arise? Westerners, particularly Australians, can be very opinionated & stubborn.

for hundreds, thousands of years, jati has had an essential meaning in Indian culture:

Jāti (in Devanagari: जाति Tamil:சாதி) (the word literally means 'thus born') is the term used to denote the thousands of clans, tribes, communities and sub-communities in India. It is a term used across religions. Each jāti typically has an association with a traditional job function or tribe, although religious beliefs (e.g. Sri Vaishnavism or Veera Shaivism) or linguistic groupings may define some jatis. A person's surname typically reflects a community (jati) association: thus Gandhi = perfume seller, Dhobi = washerman, Srivastava = military scribe, etc. In any given location in India 500 or more jatis may co-exist, although the exact composition will differ from district to district

Wikipedia

[wanderer63]

Hi Aloka,

Aloka wrote: I'd be interested to know if you think that any of the Buddhist teachings should be interpreted metaphorically, or if you prefer to interpret them all literally.

I think the Buddhist teachings help us to understand the difference between Sammati-sacca (conventional truth) and Paramattha-succa (absolute truth.) Though Sammati-sacca is the (conventional) truth accepted by everyone (that this is a man, an animal, a table, a book etc.) it’s still just a make-believing truth, not absolute truth. Paramattha-succa is the truth beyond Sammati-sacca. This is not really a man, an animal, a table, a book etc. in the absolute truth.

Sammati-sacca itself is only a metaphor (This is “I” “my” etc.) Paramattha-succa itself is literal truth. (This is “form”, “feeling” “mental factors” etc.) I don’t think we should interpreted Paramattha-succa in the Buddhist teachings metaphorically.

But again, before and after Buddha died the misinterpretation already had begun (Hence Hinayana versus Mahayana.) So not to mention after 2,555 years past. Besides I believe it’s evitable that the Buddhist teachings have been inaccurate after they were translated from original Pali (or even Sanskrit) to another language (Tibetan, English, Thai etc.)

Back to your question, yes, I think because of that natural inaccurateness we cannot help but have to approach the Buddhist teachings either metaphorically or literally. We have a lot of work to do more than people of the Buddha’s era. :-)

[Still In Motion]

But again, before and after Buddha died the misinterpretation already had begun (Hence Hinayana versus Mahayana.) So not to mention after 2,555 years past. Besides I believe it’s evitable that the Buddhist teachings have been inaccurate after they were translated from original Pali (or even Sanskrit) to another language (Tibetan, English, Thai etc.)

I do not believe that the appearance of Hinayana and Mahayana indicates any misinterpretation of the Buddha's words as you say, it simply shows that different styles of teaching and practice arose. I'm sure that somewhere along the line there have been many misinterpretations and mistranslations by different people, but the arising of these two schools is not a definite indication of this happening. I also don't think that it is actaully as you describe it "Hinayana VERSUS Mahayana." Certainly practitioners of each each style have different ambitions, but it is not true that the two traditions must oppose eachother.

I'm sure there have been and still are differences of opinion among people of each school with regard to the teachings, but there are many similarities as well. Perhaps I am reading into your "versus" comment too much, it just came across as soudning a bit conflicting when this isn't necessarily the case. The short 'Mahayana, Hinayana, and Theravada Compared' section in the following link helped me get a bit of a feel for the differences in the traditions and how they came to be separate schools. If you know of any other sources on this topic please feel free to share them.

http://online.sfsu.edu/~rone/Buddhis...20Buddhism.htm

I'm also not quite sure what you mean when you say, "I believe it's evitable that the Buddhist teachings have been inaccurate" after being translated. Did you mean to say "inevitable" or "probable"? To say that it is "evitable" that they have been inaccurate seems to contradict your previous statement. Thanks for the clarification.

As to the question about interpretation by Aloka-D, I believe this depends a lot on the practicioner. At some points in one's practice there may be no other way to interpret certain teachings except metaphorically. Then later, after some insight has been gained the literal meaning may naturally become clear.

Here is an example: Somebody wishes to convey to me what a pear tastes like but I have never eaten one. They tell me, "Oh it's like this, and like this, and a little bit like this." After a lot of explaining and telling me about what a pear is like I have some general idea about how a pear tastes, but it is just an idea. Then one day I find a real pear and take a bite, "Ahhhh, thats what a pear tastes like." Then I literally have the true experience of how a pear tastes, but until then I only had ideas and notions. Hope that makes sense.

[Johnny Panic]

I think a lot of it is meant to be taken literally. But, at the same time, when I hear about Devas and other realms, or how The Buddha's body was emanating light on Vulture Peak...that almost has to be a metaphor. Because Buddhism places such an emphasis on thinking for one's self and logic, but none of those things can be definitively proven.

Good topic!

[Abhaya]

Whether or not they are metaphors, there are certain teachings that seem to be catered to different audiences. For example, for some time I was perplexed by the Buddha's statement to Ven. Anuruddha in the Nalakapana Sutta, which seems to suggest a useful metaphorical aspect to rebirth teachings.

Nalakapana Sutta (MN 68)

"So, Anuruddha, it is not for the purpose of scheming to deceive people or for the purpose of flattering people or for the purpose of gain, honour, and renown, or with the thought "let people know me to be thus", that when a disciple has died, the Tathagata declares his reappearance thus "so-and-so has reappeared in such-and-such a place". Rather, it is because there are faithful clansmen inspired and gladdened by what is lofty, who when they hear that, direct their minds to such a state, and that leads to their welfare and happiness for a long time"

The Middle Length Discourses of the Buddha, trans. Bhikkhu Bodhi, page 571

Regardless of whether rebirth is literal (post-mortem) or metaphorical (moment-to-moment), it is helpful for some to believe in it.