4👑☸HOL 🍂

Handful Of Leaves Principle (HOL 🍂)

The core ideas of Buddhism expressed in sutta passages can be terse, and open to some interpretation.

The HOL principle, is that the Buddha only taught a tiny subset of his vast knowledge, and did not teach the rest because they weren’t essential, or worse, a waste of one’s precious time and energy.

So when interpreting passages that are ambiguous or open to interpretation, the set of possible correct answers needs to satisfy the HOL principle.

SN 56.31 Sīsapā-vana

SN 56.31 Rosewood Forest, handful of leaves is the ☸Dharma


Atha kho bhagavā parittāni sīsapāpaṇṇāni pāṇinā gahetvā bhikkhū āmantesi:	Then the Buddha picked up a few rosewood leaves in his hand and addressed the monks:
“Taṃ kiṃ maññatha, bhikkhave,	“What do you think, monks?
katamaṃ nu kho bahutaraṃ—	Which is more:
yāni vā mayā parittāni sīsapāpaṇṇāni pāṇinā gahitāni yadidaṃ upari sīsapāvane”ti?	the few leaves in my hand, or those in the forest above me?”
“Appamattakāni, bhante, bhagavatā parittāni sīsapāpaṇṇāni pāṇinā gahitāni;	“Sir, the few leaves in your hand are a tiny amount.
atha kho etāneva bahutarāni yadidaṃ upari sīsapāvane”ti.	There are far more leaves in the forest above.”
“Evameva kho, bhikkhave, etadeva bahutaraṃ yaṃ vo mayā abhiññāya anakkhātaṃ.	“In the same way, there is much more that I have directly known but have not explained to you. What I have explained is a tiny amount.
Kasmā cetaṃ, bhikkhave, mayā anakkhātaṃ?	And why haven’t I explained it?

(This is really the ‘☸Dharma’ definition we care about , not ‘dhamma’ qualities or phenomena)


Na hetaṃ, bhikkhave, atthasaṃhitaṃ nādibrahmacariyakaṃ na nibbidāya na virāgāya na nirodhāya na upasamāya na abhiññāya na sambodhāya na nibbānāya saṃvattati;	Because it’s not beneficial or relevant to the fundamentals of the spiritual life. It doesn’t lead to disenchantment, dispassion, cessation, peace, insight, awakening, and nirvana.

SN 56.41 cinta – speculative views about nature of universe that drive one mad

SN 56.41


Tasmātiha, bhikkhave, mā lokacintaṃ cintetha:	So monks, don’t speculate about the world.
‘sassato loko’ti vā ‘asassato loko’ti vā, ‘antavā loko’ti vā ‘anantavā loko’ti vā, ‘taṃ jīvaṃ taṃ sarīran’ti vā ‘aññaṃ jīvaṃ aññaṃ sarīran’ti vā, ‘hoti tathāgato paraṃ maraṇā’ti vā ‘na hoti tathāgato paraṃ maraṇā’ti vā, ‘hoti ca na ca hoti tathāgato paraṃ maraṇā’ti vā, ‘neva hoti na na hoti tathāgato paraṃ maraṇā’ti vā.	For example: the world is eternal, or not eternal, or finite, or infinite; the soul and the body are the same thing, or they are different things; after death, a Realized One exists, or doesn’t exist, or both exists and doesn’t exist, or neither exists nor doesn’t exist.
Taṃ kissa hetu?	Why is that?
Nesā, bhikkhave, cintā atthasaṃhitā nādibrahmacariyakā na nibbidāya na virāgāya na nirodhāya na upasamāya na abhiññāya na sambodhāya na nibbānāya saṃvattati.	Because those ideas aren’t beneficial or relevant to the fundamentals of the spiritual life. They don’t lead to disenchantment, dispassion, cessation, peace, insight, awakening, and nirvana.

(instead one should think about dukkha, nirvana)


Cintentā kho tumhe, bhikkhave, ‘idaṃ dukkhan’ti cinteyyātha … pe … ‘ayaṃ dukkhanirodhagāminī paṭipadā’ti cinteyyātha.	When you think something up, you should think: ‘This is suffering’ … ‘This is the origin of suffering’ … ‘This is the cessation of suffering’ … ‘This is the practice that leads to the cessation of suffering’.
Taṃ kissa hetu?	Why is that?
Esā, bhikkhave, cintā atthasaṃhitā esā ādibrahmacariyakā esā nibbidāya virāgāya nirodhāya upasamāya abhiññāya sambodhāya nibbānāya saṃvattati.	Because those ideas are beneficial and relevant to the fundamentals of the spiritual life. They lead to disenchantment, dispassion, cessation, peace, insight, awakening, and nirvana.

I Teach Only Suffering and the End of Suffering

“Nope, I didn’t (quite) say that” —The Buddha

By Ven. Bhikkhu BodhiWinter 2013

https://tricycle.org/magazine/i-teach-only-suffering-and-end-suffering/

One statement popularly ascribed to the Buddha is quoted so often that it has become virtually an axiom of modern Buddhism. The statement appears in several formulations, the broadest of which runs: “I teach only suffering and the cessation of suffering.” A variant reads: “I teach only two things: suffering and the end of suffering.” And another variant makes the point even more sharply: “I teach one thing and one thing only: suffering and the end of suffering.”

Surprise, surprise! Nowhere in the Pali canon does the Buddha himself actually say this. The statement ascribed to him is not altogether without a basis in the canon, but the way the original is commonly expressed represents a translation error rooted in a grammatical misunderstanding. The sentence we do find reads in Pali: pubbe c’aham bhikkhave etarahi ca dukkhan c’eva pannapemi, dukkhassa ca nirodham. Before I get to the grammatical error, I should point out that, contrary to what we might expect, the sentence in no way serves as a hallmark of the Buddha’s teaching in its entirety. An online search through the thousands of pages of Buddhist scriptures turns up the sentence only twice. And the two places in which it occurs make it plain that the Buddha did not mean to say he teaches only suffering and its cessation and nothing else. Rather, he was saying something quite different, which on each occasion is determined by the context.

To see how the error arose requires a short excursion into the field of Pali syntax. To construct a conjunction in Pali, the word ca, meaning “and,” normally follows each noun or phrase that it links. This, of course, is different from English, where “and” occurs between the terms being joined. Thus while in English we would say “The cat and the dog are playing on the mat,” in Pali one would say, “The cat and the dog and on the mat are playing.”

Often, though not always, the first ca in a conjunction is followed by the emphatic particle eva. By the Pali rules of liaison (sandhi), whereby sounds in close proximity affect each other, ca eva turns into c’eva. In some contexts, eva has an exclusionary sense, meaning “only, solely.” Taking eva in this sense seems to explain how the famous dictum of the Buddha came to be interpreted to mean that he teaches only suffering and its cessation. In conjunctions, however, eva does not have this exclusionary sense. It simply adds a slight emphasis to the initial ca of the conjunction. Thus, going back to our English example, the construction in Pali syntax would be as follows: “The cat and indeed the dog and on the mat are playing.”

With a proper understanding of the c’eva . . . ca construction, the sentence about the Buddha’s teaching is more correctly translated: “In the past, monks, and also now, I teach suffering and the cessation of suffering.” There is no “only” in the sentence, and thus the purport of the words is not categorically exclusive. In each of the passages in which the statement is made, it occurs in a specific context that brings out the intended meaning. In Majjhima Nikaya 22 it is a rejoinder to the charge, raised by hostile ascetics and brahmins, that the Buddha teaches the annihilation of a truly existent being. In Samyutta Nikaya 22.86 it explains the Buddha’s refusal to take a stand in the debates concerning the fate of an enlightened person after death. In both instances, the sentence shifts attention away from speculative hypotheses toward a practical project, but in neither case does it tie the teaching down to an exclusive area of concern.

In thousands of suttas the Buddha teaches other things besides “suffering and its cessation.” For instance, in a series of dialogues in the Samyutta Nikaya monks ask him how one can be reborn as a naga, a garuda, or a gan-dhabba—that is, as a celestial dragon, a celestial eagle, or a fragrance deity—and the Buddha doesn’t wave the questions aside because they aren’t concerned with suffering and its cessation; rather, he gives straightforward answers based on the law of karma. The Anguttara Nikaya is particularly rich in suttas touching on a wide range of practical topics, from types of marriages to planning the household budget. When the Buddha speaks, it is said, he always intends his words to lead to the welfare and happiness of the hearers. But his words are not always tied to the theme of “suffering and its cessation.” To insist on confining them to this topic is to drastically narrow the range of the dharma.

I have to confess that I am one of the perpetrators of this literary faux pas, for in several of my own past writings I authoritatively cited the wrongly rendered version of the statement as proof that the Buddha’s entire teaching was only about suffering and the end of suffering. But I’ve since learned otherwise. This experience has enabled me to see how linguistic misreadings of Buddhist texts can give rise to wrong doctrinal interpretations and even promulgate modern myths about the meaning of Buddhism. Our contemporary environment of thought, which relishes reducing complex systems of ideas to simple catchphrases and slogans, has also contributed to the distortion.

I can’t help wondering how many other myths there are about Buddhism that owe their origins to flawed translations and selective quotations. No doubt quite a few favorites would turn up on the casualty list. It’s become a current fashion for people to ascribe any adage they like to the Buddha without entertaining second thoughts about sources. I’ve already met my share of such sayings on blogs and bumper stickers, and as time goes by I expect I’ll meet many more. But if the dharma is to be presented accurately, the example discussed above shows that we should be careful when quoting the Buddha’s words. To ensure that the dharma is understood and transmitted correctly, we cannot escape the need for serious study of the texts, with an understanding of the classical languages in which they have been preserved.

MN 22 and SN 22.86

MN 22



‘The ascetic Gotama is an exterminator. He advocates the annihilation, eradication, and obliteration of an existing being.’	‘venayiko samaṇo gotamo, sato sattassa ucchedaṃ vināsaṃ vibhavaṃ paññāpetī’ti.
I have been falsely misrepresented as being what I am not, and saying what I do not say.	Yathā cāhaṃ na, bhikkhave, yathā cāhaṃ na vadāmi, tathā maṃ te bhonto samaṇabrāhmaṇā asatā tucchā musā abhūtena abbhācikkhanti:
	‘venayiko samaṇo gotamo, sato sattassa ucchedaṃ vināsaṃ vibhavaṃ paññāpetī’ti.
In the past, as today, what I describe is suffering and the cessation of suffering.	Pubbe cāhaṃ, bhikkhave, etarahi ca dukkhañceva paññāpemi, dukkhassa ca nirodhaṃ.
This being so, if others abuse, attack, harass, and trouble the Realized One, he doesn’t get resentful, bitter, and emotionally exasperated.	Tatra ce, bhikkhave, pare tathāgataṃ akkosanti paribhāsanti rosenti vihesenti, tatra, bhikkhave, tathāgatassa na hoti āghāto na appaccayo na cetaso anabhiraddhi.

Or if others honor, respect, revere, or venerate him, he doesn’t get thrilled, elated, and emotionally excited.	Tatra ce, bhikkhave, pare tathāgataṃ sakkaronti garuṃ karonti mānenti pūjenti, tatra, bhikkhave, tathāgatassa na hoti ānando na somanassaṃ na cetaso uppilāvitattaṃ.
He just thinks:	Tatra ce, bhikkhave, pare vā tathāgataṃ sakkaronti garuṃ karonti mānenti pūjenti, tatra, bhikkhave, tathāgatassa evaṃ hoti:
‘They do such things for what has already been completely understood.’	‘yaṃ kho idaṃ pubbe pariññātaṃ tattha me evarūpā kārā karīyantī’ti.

SN 22.86


After death, a Realized One exists, or doesn’t exist, or both exists and doesn’t exist, or neither exists nor doesn’t exist’?”	hoti tathāgato paraṃ maraṇāti vā … na hoti … hoti ca na ca hoti … neva hoti na na hoti tathāgato paraṃ maraṇāti vā’”ti?
“No, sir.”	“No hetaṃ, bhante”.
“Good, good, Anurādha!	“Sādhu sādhu, anurādha.
In the past, as today, I describe suffering and the cessation of suffering.”	Pubbe cāhaṃ, anurādha, etarahi ca dukkhañceva paññapemi, dukkhassa ca nirodhan”ti.

Theravada commentaries disagree

B. Dhammanando responded, May '18

>> Ps. Ven. Bodhi admitted his mistranslation leading to misinterpretation of Buddhism:

Interestingly in their revised Tipiṭaka translation the Thai monks at Mahachulalongkorn University chose to make a revision precisely the opposite of Bhikkhu Bodhi’s in the new renderings of the Alagaddūpama and two Anurādha Suttas, by inserting the word ‘only’ (เท่านั้น) which was missing in the earlier versions.

ดีละ ดีละ อนุราธะ ทั้งในกาลก่อนและในบัดนี้ เราย่อมบัญญัติทุกข์และความดับทุกข์เท่านั้น ฯ

Good, good, Anurādha. Both in the past and now I set forth only dukkha and the cessation of dukkha.

Their revision does seem to be in line with the commentarial glosses:

Majjhima Atthakathā to the Alagaddūpamasutta:

Pubbe cā ti pubbe mahābodhimaṇḍamhiyeva ca. Etarahi cā ti etarahi dhammadesanāyañca. Dukkhañceva paññapemi, dukkhassa ca nirodhan ti dhammacakkaṃ appavattetvā bodhimaṇḍe viharantopi dhammacakkappavattanato paṭṭhāya dhammaṃ desentopi catusaccameva paññapemīti attho.

“Both in the past…” means “Both in the past at the great throne of Enlightenment. “And now…” means “and now during this teaching of Dhamma.”

“I set forth only dukkha and the cessation of dukkha” – the meaning is: “Not having set in motion the Wheel of Dhamma while dwelling at the place of Enlightenment, from the time that I did set it in motion, when teaching the Dhamma I set forth only the four truths.”

Saṃyutta Atthakathā to the Anurādhasutta:

“Dukkhañceva paññapemi, dukkhassa ca nirodhan” ti vaṭṭadukkhañceva vaṭṭadukkhassa ca nirodhaṃ nibbānaṃ paññapemi. ‘Dukkhan’ ti vā vacanena dukkhasaccaṃ gahitaṃ. Tasmiṃ gahite samudayasaccaṃ gahitameva hoti, tassa mūlattā. ‘Nirodhan’ ti vacanena nirodhasaccaṃ gahitaṃ. Tasmiṃ gahite maggasaccaṃ gahitameva hoti tassa upāyattā. Iti pubbe cāhaṃ, anurādha, etarahi ca catusaccameva paññapemīti dasseti. Evaṃ imasmiṃ sutte vaṭṭavivaṭṭameva kathitaṃ.

“I set forth only dukkha and the cessation of dukkha” means: “I set forth only the dukkha of the cycle [of saṃsāra] and the cessation of the dukkha of the cycle: nibbāna.”

Alternatively: by the term ‘dukkha’ is meant the truth of dukkha. When taken in that sense, the truth of arising is included too, on account of its being the root cause [of dukkha]. By the term ‘cessation’ is meant the truth of cessation. When taken in that sense, the truth of the path is included too, on account of its being the means [for realising cessation]. So the sense: “Both in the past and now, Anurādha, I set forth only the four truths” is shown. Thus in this sutta just the cycle and ending of the cycle is spoken of.

Two of the above three glosses (i.e, that to the Alagaddūpamasutta and the second to the Anurādhasutta unambiguously support Bhikkhu Bodhi’s earlier rendering. The other (the first gloss to the Anurādhasutta) is neutral on the question; that is, it could be translated without the word ‘only’.

agama parallels don't have that statement

seniya

May '18

From Bhante Analayo’s comparative study of MN and his translation of SA, it turns out that the Chinese Agama parallel in MA 200 and SA 106 doesn’t contain the statement. So, we can only rely on linguistic construction…


Seyyathāpi, bhikkhave, mahāsamuddo ekaraso loṇaraso;	The ocean has just one taste, the taste of salt.
evamevaṁ kho, bhikkhave, ayaṁ dhammavinayo ekaraso vimuttiraso.	In the same way, this Dharma and training has one taste, the taste of freedom.


Seyyathāpi, mālukyaputta, puriso sallena viddho assa savisena gāḷhapalepanena.	Suppose a man was struck by an arrow thickly smeared with poison.
Tassa mittāmaccā ñātisālohitā bhisakkaṃ sallakattaṃ upaṭṭhapeyyuṃ.	His friends and colleagues, relatives and kin would get a field surgeon to treat him.
So evaṃ vadeyya:	But the man would say:
‘na tāvāhaṃ imaṃ sallaṃ āharissāmi yāva na taṃ purisaṃ jānāmi yenamhi viddho, khattiyo vā brāhmaṇo vā vesso vā suddo vā’ti;	‘I won’t pull out this arrow as long as I don’t know whether the man who wounded me was an aristocrat, a brahmin, a merchant, or a worker.’
..	…
Evameva kho, mālukyaputta, yo evaṃ vadeyya:	In the same way, suppose someone was to say:
‘na tāvāhaṃ bhagavati brahmacariyaṃ carissāmi yāva me bhagavā na byākarissati:	‘I will not live the spiritual life under the Buddha until the Buddha declares to me
“sassato loko”ti vā “asassato loko”ti vā … pe …	that the world is eternal, or that the world is not eternal …
“neva hoti na na hoti tathāgato paraṃ maraṇā”ti vā’ti—	or that after death a Realized One neither exists nor doesn’t exist.’
abyākatameva taṃ, mālukyaputta, tathāgatena assa, atha so puggalo kālaṃ kareyya.	That would still remain undeclared by the Realized One, and meanwhile that person would die.

4👑☸ Cattāri Ariya-saccaṃ 四聖諦

HOL 🍂: Handful Of Leaves Principle

only 💩&🚫: "I Teach Only Suffering and the End of Suffering"

HOL 🍂