I am worry about your forgotten country. Cambodia also has similar original proverb too. “сЮЗсЮ╢сЮПсЮ╖ сЮЯсЮ╢сЮЯсЮУсЮ╢ сЮЦсЯТсЮЪсЯЗсЮШсЮасЮ╢сЮАсЯТсЮЯсЮПсЯТсЮЪ”
We perform it more internationally than other nation. Please don’t stole our cambodian cultural treasure.
Thanks for your replies, guys.
I wish I could reply to you but chose not to because of my usual trouble with language part.
However, I would be more than happy to discuss about these things in Burmese if you do not mind. For that reason, you are always welcome to my blog for any proposition about Burma, either casually or with supportive facts.
It’s strange to see some of the comments here indulging in the same errors of reasoning and translation that are exposed in the article.
It’s only strange if you believe the author has made his case that such errors exist. I don’t see that the author has exposed anything of significance. I don’t see the dictionary as being “profoundly wrong.” I don’t see how we can conclude the consequences are “far-reaching”, and I don’t see how this “belies a larger problem of self-contradiction in English interpretations.”
Jeffrey Longo, for example, quotes modern English translations (or, approximations) of Buddhist texts to try to refute the author’s thesis.
I did not intend to quote English translations as if they were definitive; I apologize if I left that unclear. However, this is not a forum for Pali specialists, so I am confident the author, if he wishes to engage, will accept the use of translations as a starting point for discussion, and feel free to point out where they err by providing better ones where needed.
The substance of the arguments from my previous post, however, have not been addressed by Madness, nor do they depend on perfect translations or a sophisticated analysis of Pali.
Briefly, I say that the author cannot prove as much as he claims on the basis of the little he has provided, because it would cause massive contradictions with significant portions of the Canon whose translations, in their substance, the author cannot refute or wish away, and whose meanings are much more certain than the single word apana; and because it in unclear what, exactly, the G.W. Brown article and Prof. Vajira├▒─Бс╣Зa footnote prove about the meaning of the different breath words even in Hindu/Yogic thought, much less in the Buddhist system.
G.W. Brown, in the passage before the one the author quotes, writes:
“Turning to the Upanishads, which are the most important writings for our purpose, we take first the late Yoga Upanishads. These recognize from five to fourteen special breaths, to each of which a name is given and a function assigned. In many cases imaginary arterial systems have been devised wherein these airs [circ]ulate. Prdna is always the chief breath, being just what we mean by breath in English.” [Brown p. 108]
And the first sentence of a later passage, which the author does include in his article:
“It would seem that the movements of the abdomen connected with breathing were associated with ap─Бna…” [Brown p. 109]
Since prana is “just what we mean by breath in English”, and apana is associated with “the movements of the abdomen connected with breathing”, I think the author overreaches when he says, in the comments section:
“Derek, old boy, what I’m telling you is that while it is especially striking that “breathing out” does not at all mean “breathing out” in these translations, it is also true that “breathing” in general does not mean “breathing” here”
Brown himself settles on thoracic and abdominal breaths, which does no great harm to most interpretations of a╠Дna╠Дpa╠Дnasati bha╠Дvana╠Д”–but the author assures us “abdominal breath is a euphemism. Exactly which bodily wind apana referred to in the Vedas or Upanishads as part of a system of “special breaths” that the Buddha did not incorporate into his teachings is interesting, but not enough to carry the weight of the author’s thesis. Possibly the editors of the PTS dictionary editors cited the Brown article merely to give some interesting background on the terms, and not out of duplicity.
Yet the author has convincingly demonstrated why you need to study the original Pali in order to understand the problems with the English translations – and how erroneous English translations solipsistically reinforce each other.
I agree wholeheartedly that it is preferable to study the original Pali. Translations are always approximations, as you say, and some of the subtlety and beauty of the original is surely lost. And I agree that English translations, like all translations, are imperfect. But I stop short of believing, nor do I see the author has convincingly demonstrated, that the problems go so deep as to render European translations of Buddhist sacred writings absurd. Surely the author is aware of how central a╠Дna╠Дpa╠Дnasati is to Buddhist mental development?
Here are the first words of chapter 18, on a╠Дna╠Дpa╠Дnasati bha╠Дvana╠Д, in the book by Ven. Vajira├▒─Бс╣Зa. (This is the revised 1987 edition, so I don’t know how close it is to the 1962 edition from which the author quotes a footnote that is not extant in this version):
“The scheme of the meditation known as “a╠Дna╠Дpa╠Дnasati bha╠Дvana╠Д”, “mindfulness of breathing”, which is described in the scriptures and elaborated upon in the Commentaries, is first and foremost in the field of mental training in Buddhism. The Buddha Himself, in recommending it as a complete method for attaining nibba╠Дna, praises it as “the noble abode” (ariyaviha╠Дra), “the divine abode” (brahmaviha╠Дra), and “the Tatha╠Дgata abode” (Tatha╠Дgataviha╠Дra) (Sam╠Зyutta Nika╠Дya V, 326).”
The author claims: “This is what makes an historical example like Vajira├▒─Бс╣Зa so interesting: he knew that he was wrong, and footnoted it, but proceeded to propound the wrong interpretation for many pages anyway.”
If Ven. Vajira├▒─Бс╣Зa wrote this while knowing it was incorrect, under the Vinaya he is lying and intentionally misrepresenting the Dhamma, not offenses to be taken lightly for a monk. The author describes Ven. Vajira├▒─Бс╣Зa as “constrained” from challenging his supervisors at Oxford, who wanted a particular interpretation of Buddhist meditation that he knew “had no basis in the Canon.”
If that is the case, why go quite so heavy on the praise for and significance of a╠Дna╠Дpa╠Дnasati? Why not give it just a fair treatment, to avoid upseting his supervisors, then pass on to other subjects where he didn’t have to lie?
The author bases his assessment of Ven. Vajira├▒─Бс╣Зa on one “convoluted footnote.” Possibly the footnote does not prove what the author thinks it does; possibly Ven. Vajira├▒─Бс╣Зa’s conclusion was tentative or mistaken; possibly it really is the “smoking gun” the author believes. In any case, I wish the author would have given us more of the Ven. Vajira├▒─Бс╣Зa’s own words so we could judge for ourselves.
But compare the picture the author has painted of Ven. Vajira├▒─Бс╣Зa at Oxford to the following description [taken from Alec Robertson’s forward to the revised edition of Ven. Vajira├▒─Бс╣Зa’s Buddhist Meditation In Theory and Practice]:
“I had the privilege of being associated with the Venerable Thera for many years. In my search for a satisfactory solution to some of the deeper and profound doctrinal tenets of Therava╠Дdin Buddhism, I verily found him a fountain of knowledge, where I was able to drink deep and satisfy my thirst.” [1987, p. iii]
and
“The learned Thera’s mature scholarship and learning was of immense value even to distinguished scholars such as Dr. Edward J. Thomas, Dr. Mrs. Caroline Rhys Davids, Dr. Walter Y. Evans-Wentz, and others. Dr. Edward J. Thomas had sought his advice in the elucidation of Pa╠Дli terms and words in Buddhist terminology in his book entitled Buddhist Scriptures. The Thera assisted the erudite Pa╠Дli scholar and president of the Pa╠Дli Text Society, Dr. Mrs. Caroline Rhys Davids, in the compilation of the Concordance of the Tripisaka. Miss Grace Constant Lounsbery, B.Sc., president of the “Les Amis du Bouddhisme” Society in Paris, had consulted him in the clarification of the intricate and abstruse Buddhist doctrines relating to Buddhist meditation in writing her book entitled Meditation. ” [1987, p. i]
Yet the author’s take on this is that he is telling them only what they wanted to hear. I wonder if he realizes that, in his sympathy for the imagined troubles of Ven. Vajira├▒─Бс╣Зa (who also studied at Columbia University in NYC), he reduces an esteemed Thera to a dishonest shill?
Is this [that poor translations reinforce each other] really such a difficult point to grasp?
It’s not a point to be grasped so much as a conspiracy-style series of unwarranted speculative leaps. The author assumes that the original translations are poor on the basis of one weak example, then concludes that modern translations are poor because they are based on earlier, unnamed mistakes which have gone uncorrected. Based on that, the author impugns the translators’ competence, motives, and integrity. Then he cites unnamed experts who agree with him but think he should hush up about it. Finally, and most egregiously for a Pali scholar, he fails to put forth a single viable alternative translation of any relevant sutta passages that might support his thesis.
Thus, copies of copies reinforce other copies, and errors multiply like an encoding fault in a bad document. If you don’t believe me, look at the damn book yourself.
I wouldn’t know what errors to look for, other than this business about apana meaning flatulence.
I can’t see how this strategy will prove a success to the insurgents. Targeting Buddhist? But Muslims are victims themselves. Even children are not exempt from their list.
It’s confusing to see their goals now, as it gets more chaotic as the scenario plays out. Will we go the way of the wars in Africa? Killing for the sake of killing?
If there is a mastermind behind all this, then he must be a mad one.
“…Pakatan Rakyat (PR) agreed today that the contentious hudud or Islamic criminal law is not part of its joint policy until all parties agree to it, stepping back from the brink of a major difference that broke an earlier opposition coalition.
Opposition Leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim told a press conference just after midnight that the set of Islamic laws was “certainly now not PR policy and DAP’s objection has to be respected.”
“Yes, very clear, it has to be together,” the PKR de facto leader replied to a question on whether any move to implement hudud would need the unanimous agreement of all three parties in the pact…”
After reviewing the comments of other commentators on this article, but without undertaking my own review of the Pali terms which I am not equipped to do, I must withdraw my earlier assertion that Ajahn Lee’s description of his own practice necessarily supports Mazard’s interpretation of the meaning of the Anapanasati sutra.
I am in no position to comment on possible interpretations of the Buddha’s teachings and regret any harm that I may have created in doing so by misrepresenting and/or sowing doubt and confusion in the minds of others regarding the Buddha’s true teachings.
An article in today’s Guardian claims that 66 % of the present Thai cabinet are millionaires and that Yingluk has assets worth approx $11 million, which is ten times more than those of Abhisit.
It’s strange to see some of the comments here indulging in the same errors of reasoning and translation that are exposed in the article.
Jeffrey Longo, for example, quotes modern English translations (or, approximations) of Buddhist texts to try to refute the author’s thesis. Yet the author has convincingly demonstrated why you need to study the original Pali in order to understand the problems with the English translations — and how erroneous English translations solipsistically reinforce each other.
Is this really such a difficult point to grasp? Anyone who’s looked at Rupert Gethin’s Penguin book of Buddhist texts, and who’s also looked at the PTS editions, should be able to tell immediately that Gethin’s “new” translations are over 90% ripped off from the PTS versions. There’s very little new scholarship in the world of Pali studies — and several modern editions have merely borrowed from older, imperfect translations, smoothing over the infelicities of the original. (And sadly, the infelicities often came from problems of translation — thus, the smoothed-over versions merely hide the problems of the original, poor translation). Thus, copies of copies reinforce other copies, and errors multiply like an encoding fault in a bad document. If you don’t believe me, look at the damn book yourself.
It’s also a little sad to see commenters like Thong taking internet anonymity as an excuse to damn the author’s personality. I suppose it’s useless to ask Thong how he/she would feel if an anonymous commenter did the same to him/her, but it’s worth remembering that all of the authors who contribute to New Mandala are unpaid (as far as I know), and while we don’t need to show any undue reverence for their opinions if we disagree with them, it would nevertheless be a sign of good character to treat them with respect for their contributions.
There are several reasons why the author’s thesis about ─Бn─Бp─Бnasati is untenable. Here are three:
1. It does not fit with any of the descriptions the Buddha gives of what mindfulness with breathing is like.
In the Ves─Бl─л Sutta (SN 54.9), the Buddha describes concentration through mindfulness of in-and-out breathing (─Бn─Бp─Бnassatisam─Бdhi) as “peaceful & exquisite, a refreshing & pleasant abiding that immediately disperses & allays any evil, unskillful [mental] qualities that have arisen.” Then he gives a simile: “Just as when, in the last month of the hot season, a great rain-cloud out of season immediately disperses & allays the dust & dirt that have been stirred up, in the same way this concentration through mindfulness of in-&-out breathing when developed & pursued, is both peaceful & exquisite, a refreshing & pleasant abiding that immediately disperses & allays any evil, unskillful [mental] qualities that have arisen.”
This does not seem to have anything to do with flatulence, mindfulness of one’s final breath at death, funeral pyres, embryos, an ancient Indian theory of the body’s winds, the true nature of the self, or the bloated abdomens of corpses. In fact, the Buddha has given this discourse to uplift and refresh the minds of the monks at Ves─Бl─л, who have been focusing on the foulness of the body so diligently that, disgusted with the body, many committed suicide(!).
2. It does not fit with any of the descriptions the Buddha gives of how mindfulness with breathing is to be practiced.
Let’s assume we don’t know the meaning of “assasati passasati” (and related words) used in the meditation instructions found in the ─Аn─Бp─Бnasati Sutta and all over the Canon. We’ll call it X. What do we know about X from the Satipaс╣нс╣нh─Бna, ─Аn─Бp─Бnasati, and K─Бyagat─Бsati Suttas that can help locate the meanings?
-We know that X is a major part of the only practice where the Buddha explicitly gives instructions to sit down with the legs folded crosswise and the body held erect (so one can breathe freely?).
-We know X is some kind of perception, action or process that we are being instructed to attend to with mindfulness; in other words, to keep continuously in mind.
-We know X can be long (d─лgha, as in D─лgha Nikaya, the Long Discourses) or short.
-We know we can train ourselves to be aware of other things–the whole body, calming, rapture, pleasure, various mind-states, inconstancy, etc.–while continuing to be aware of X.
-We know X does not relate directly to contemplation of the foulness of the body’s parts, or the body’s fate after death, or contemplation of death itself because these are given–quite thoroughly–as separate meditation subjects.
If we include Buddhaghosa (leaving aside specific disagreements with the method or exposition, e.g. whole body vs. breath body), we know X is:
-something you can give better attention to in the early stages of the practice if you count it in cycles of ten.
-something that hits the nose or upper lip depending on facial structure.
-something that is like using a saw in that you keep attention fixed on one spot while something passes back and forth touching the spot.
-something that can grow increasingly refined and subtle with practice.
If the author’s thesis is correct, large swaths of the Pali Canon and Commentaries whose translation is uncontested would become nonsense. Isn’t it more likely, as other comments have pointed out, that X means something very close to breathing in and breathing out? After all, the next section in the Satipaс╣нс╣нh─Бna and K─Бyagat─Бsati Suttas, after the first tetrad on breathing, instructs the monk to bring awareness to very ordinary things–walking, standing, bending, stretching, looking ahead, looking to the side, urinating, chewing, swallowing, etc. A philosophical consideration of gas escaping the body at death is out of place here (and redundant because of the charnel ground contemplations that follow later), but an ordinary process like breathing fits nicely.
3. It does not fit with the analysis of materiality (the properties / elements) given in the Pali Canon.
According to the author: “The special association of this (so-called) “abdominal breath” with death has a direct bearing on mindfulness of one’s “final out-breath” (i.e., at death) discussed in Mah─Б-R─Бhulov─Бda suttanta…”
There are three problems with this interpretation.
First, by the time a body is on the pyre, one will–if not an arahant–have already been reborn, as rebirth in the Buddhist understanding takes place immediately following the severing of the link between mental processes and the body at the time of physical death.
Second, the Mah─Б-R─Бhulov─Бda Sutta (MN 62) does not mention one’s “final out- breath.” Rather, it says that, for one who has already developed and pursued the 16 steps of mindfulness with breathing (the same steps as in the ─Аn─Бp─Бnasati Sutta), “even one’s final in-breaths & out-breaths are known as they cease, not unknown.” Note that it is breaths, plural, and not just the final out-breaths but in-breaths as well. Also note that it is something that happens in real time as one dies; it cannot be a contemplation the Buddha is suggesting his son R─Бhula undertake now. It seems to simply mean that one dies fully alert.
Third, the Buddha gives us a precise and comprehensive analysis of what he means by wind (along with earth, water, fire, and space)–right in this same sutta, in a passage that appears elsewhere in the Canon:
“And what is the wind property? The wind property may be either internal or external. What is the internal wind property? Anything internal, belonging to oneself, that’s wind, windy, & sustained: up-going winds (uddhaс╣Еgam─Б v─Бt─Б), down-going winds (adhogam─Б v─Бt─Б), winds in the stomach (kucchisay─Б v─Бt─Б), winds in the intestines (koс╣нс╣нh─Бsay─Б v─Бt─Б), winds that course through the body (aс╣Еgamaс╣Еg─Бnus─Бrino v─Бt─Б), in-and-out breathing (ass─Бso pass─Бso), or anything else internal, within oneself, that’s wind, windy, & sustained: This is called the internal wind property. Now both the internal wind property & the external wind property are simply wind property. And that should be seen as it actually is present with right discernment: ‘This is not mine, this is not me, this is not my self.’ When one sees it thus as it actually is present with right discernment, one becomes disenchanted with the wind property and makes the wind property fade from the mind.” -MN 62
The stomach and intestinal winds are already accounted for prior to the appearance of the familiar-looking terms ass─Бso pass─Бso. What specific wind is left in the body at this point in the discourse except in-and-out breathing? Also, it is clear that the idea of a wind with special significance at death is contrary to the spirit of the Buddha’s teaching. Even in-breaths and out-breaths ultimately have no special significance. It just happens that they make useful and pleasant objects of meditation. In the end, it’s all just wind.
I am afraid this has been a lot of wind, as well. I sympathize that the author is trying to advance some larger thesis that is apparently very important to him, but he is going to have to find a better argument with which to do so.
[All translations from accesstoinsight.org. Pali from tipitaka.org]
I apologise for being unclear (8). The dinosaurs I referred to were the organisations which gouge people, their libraries, and their taxpayers, for scholarly publications in the era of the Internet.
Also, Thank you, Nganadeeleg (17) for the link, and Federico Ferrara and his institution, for that excellent paper.
Complaint should also be made in the Chiranuch trial regarding changes of trial judge, which should only be allowed for serious reason. In the case of the trial concerning the disappearance of Somchai Neelaipaijit, protest was submitted when it was announced that there would be a change of trial judge. In response, the original judge presided throughout the long trial
“john francis lee”, “R. N. England”, “Sabai Sabai”:
My deepest apologies for not being able to respond to demands for instant and free gratification of your desires.
No matter that i have had barely a week to write my speech as i was a late addition to the conference when Chaturon Chaisaeng cancelled, and that i have no a month to finish my paper, which is not an activist pamphlet, but an analyses of 7000 to 10000 words that has to be sound and has to include end notes and references…
So sorry that i also am in the rare situation to get paid a small amount for my work, for a change, and that the institute that pays me also wants to get some of their investment back in form of a published book that people will have to buy.
I dinosaur will now retreat into my irrelevancy, not to be taken seriously, and continue to mutually stroke my expert while being whipped…
During their pre-New Years visit to the home of Privy Council President Prem Tinsulanonda in 2002, the Defense Minister, chiefs of branches of the military, and the chief of police all received orders to draw up lists of “enemies” in the War on Drugs. This was 3 weeks before Thaksin made his first statement on the War on Drugs.
Source: Bangkok Post, “Identify Drug Foes, Says Prem”, 28 December 2002
People like to criticize Thaksin for the War on Drugs for causing the deaths of people on the bottom of the drug pyramid, without catching the big bosses. Well, ask yourself if Thaksin is also not on the bottom of a pyramid, with other big bosses on top of him!
@ Bright Eyes #21
Thank you for answering a statement that was directed at me by Aim #13. I answered a similar question/statement on the Bangkok Post Forum a month back, which passed the first line of censors and remained in situ for three days before suddenly being removed. Not only was it removed but so were all my previous posts and I could no longer log in. When I checked the email account I use, I was informed I had committed “a fragrant breach of the rules”.
In my opinion I had told the truth based on the facts I had read both in the Bangkok Post and elsewhere.
The fact that someone complained to MICT, the subsequent removal of the post and me being banned by the Bangkok Post is rather indicative of the fear generated by the elite in Thailand.
As I live in Thailand I could now face 15 years.
C’est la vie. It still won’t stop me saying what needs to be said.
(Sorry, an English translation is really hard to do. His speech is so brilliant it just brings tears to my eyes and rocks my mind! Farang language just can’t capture the eloquence and deep true meaning of his shining words.)
The war on drugs started at the very highest levels and was not just Thaksin going it alone. And this, Frustrated Reader, explains why committees and commissions will find no evidence because the evidence implicates everybody not just Thaksin.
War on Drugs 2011/2012 seems to be starting in the same way.
#
“In this day in age, most anywhere in the world the answer to “what do you want, or what is lacking in your life” is merely “more” with no further effort to articulate. Basically, more data would add to a real analysis.”
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
р╕Кр╕▓р╕Хр╕┤ р╕ир╕▓р╕кр╕Щр╕▓ р╕Юр╕гр╕░р╕бр╕лр╕▓р╕Бр╕йр╕▒р╕Хр╕гр╕┤р╕вр╣М: Nation, Religion, King
I am worry about your forgotten country. Cambodia also has similar original proverb too. “сЮЗсЮ╢сЮПсЮ╖ сЮЯсЮ╢сЮЯсЮУсЮ╢ сЮЦсЯТсЮЪсЯЗсЮШсЮасЮ╢сЮАсЯТсЮЯсЮПсЯТсЮЪ”
We perform it more internationally than other nation. Please don’t stole our cambodian cultural treasure.
Sheridan and Selth on Burma today
Thanks for your replies, guys.
I wish I could reply to you but chose not to because of my usual trouble with language part.
However, I would be more than happy to discuss about these things in Burmese if you do not mind. For that reason, you are always welcome to my blog for any proposition about Burma, either casually or with supportive facts.
р╕Кр╕▓р╕Хр╕┤ р╕ир╕▓р╕кр╕Щр╕▓ р╕Юр╕гр╕░р╕бр╕лр╕▓р╕Бр╕йр╕▒р╕Хр╕гр╕┤р╕вр╣М: Nation, Religion, King
Would you consider hosting this on a site other than youtube or on multiple sites?
Thanks, R
Flatulence and breathing meditation
Comments by Madness are in bold:
It’s strange to see some of the comments here indulging in the same errors of reasoning and translation that are exposed in the article.
It’s only strange if you believe the author has made his case that such errors exist. I don’t see that the author has exposed anything of significance. I don’t see the dictionary as being “profoundly wrong.” I don’t see how we can conclude the consequences are “far-reaching”, and I don’t see how this “belies a larger problem of self-contradiction in English interpretations.”
Jeffrey Longo, for example, quotes modern English translations (or, approximations) of Buddhist texts to try to refute the author’s thesis.
I did not intend to quote English translations as if they were definitive; I apologize if I left that unclear. However, this is not a forum for Pali specialists, so I am confident the author, if he wishes to engage, will accept the use of translations as a starting point for discussion, and feel free to point out where they err by providing better ones where needed.
The substance of the arguments from my previous post, however, have not been addressed by Madness, nor do they depend on perfect translations or a sophisticated analysis of Pali.
Briefly, I say that the author cannot prove as much as he claims on the basis of the little he has provided, because it would cause massive contradictions with significant portions of the Canon whose translations, in their substance, the author cannot refute or wish away, and whose meanings are much more certain than the single word apana; and because it in unclear what, exactly, the G.W. Brown article and Prof. Vajira├▒─Бс╣Зa footnote prove about the meaning of the different breath words even in Hindu/Yogic thought, much less in the Buddhist system.
G.W. Brown, in the passage before the one the author quotes, writes:
“Turning to the Upanishads, which are the most important writings for our purpose, we take first the late Yoga Upanishads. These recognize from five to fourteen special breaths, to each of which a name is given and a function assigned. In many cases imaginary arterial systems have been devised wherein these airs [circ]ulate. Prdna is always the chief breath, being just what we mean by breath in English.” [Brown p. 108]
And the first sentence of a later passage, which the author does include in his article:
“It would seem that the movements of the abdomen connected with breathing were associated with ap─Бna…” [Brown p. 109]
Since prana is “just what we mean by breath in English”, and apana is associated with “the movements of the abdomen connected with breathing”, I think the author overreaches when he says, in the comments section:
“Derek, old boy, what I’m telling you is that while it is especially striking that “breathing out” does not at all mean “breathing out” in these translations, it is also true that “breathing” in general does not mean “breathing” here”
Brown himself settles on thoracic and abdominal breaths, which does no great harm to most interpretations of a╠Дna╠Дpa╠Дnasati bha╠Дvana╠Д”–but the author assures us “abdominal breath is a euphemism. Exactly which bodily wind apana referred to in the Vedas or Upanishads as part of a system of “special breaths” that the Buddha did not incorporate into his teachings is interesting, but not enough to carry the weight of the author’s thesis. Possibly the editors of the PTS dictionary editors cited the Brown article merely to give some interesting background on the terms, and not out of duplicity.
Yet the author has convincingly demonstrated why you need to study the original Pali in order to understand the problems with the English translations – and how erroneous English translations solipsistically reinforce each other.
I agree wholeheartedly that it is preferable to study the original Pali. Translations are always approximations, as you say, and some of the subtlety and beauty of the original is surely lost. And I agree that English translations, like all translations, are imperfect. But I stop short of believing, nor do I see the author has convincingly demonstrated, that the problems go so deep as to render European translations of Buddhist sacred writings absurd. Surely the author is aware of how central a╠Дna╠Дpa╠Дnasati is to Buddhist mental development?
Here are the first words of chapter 18, on a╠Дna╠Дpa╠Дnasati bha╠Дvana╠Д, in the book by Ven. Vajira├▒─Бс╣Зa. (This is the revised 1987 edition, so I don’t know how close it is to the 1962 edition from which the author quotes a footnote that is not extant in this version):
“The scheme of the meditation known as “a╠Дna╠Дpa╠Дnasati bha╠Дvana╠Д”, “mindfulness of breathing”, which is described in the scriptures and elaborated upon in the Commentaries, is first and foremost in the field of mental training in Buddhism. The Buddha Himself, in recommending it as a complete method for attaining nibba╠Дna, praises it as “the noble abode” (ariyaviha╠Дra), “the divine abode” (brahmaviha╠Дra), and “the Tatha╠Дgata abode” (Tatha╠Дgataviha╠Дra) (Sam╠Зyutta Nika╠Дya V, 326).”
The author claims: “This is what makes an historical example like Vajira├▒─Бс╣Зa so interesting: he knew that he was wrong, and footnoted it, but proceeded to propound the wrong interpretation for many pages anyway.”
If Ven. Vajira├▒─Бс╣Зa wrote this while knowing it was incorrect, under the Vinaya he is lying and intentionally misrepresenting the Dhamma, not offenses to be taken lightly for a monk. The author describes Ven. Vajira├▒─Бс╣Зa as “constrained” from challenging his supervisors at Oxford, who wanted a particular interpretation of Buddhist meditation that he knew “had no basis in the Canon.”
If that is the case, why go quite so heavy on the praise for and significance of a╠Дna╠Дpa╠Дnasati? Why not give it just a fair treatment, to avoid upseting his supervisors, then pass on to other subjects where he didn’t have to lie?
The author bases his assessment of Ven. Vajira├▒─Бс╣Зa on one “convoluted footnote.” Possibly the footnote does not prove what the author thinks it does; possibly Ven. Vajira├▒─Бс╣Зa’s conclusion was tentative or mistaken; possibly it really is the “smoking gun” the author believes. In any case, I wish the author would have given us more of the Ven. Vajira├▒─Бс╣Зa’s own words so we could judge for ourselves.
But compare the picture the author has painted of Ven. Vajira├▒─Бс╣Зa at Oxford to the following description [taken from Alec Robertson’s forward to the revised edition of Ven. Vajira├▒─Бс╣Зa’s Buddhist Meditation In Theory and Practice]:
“I had the privilege of being associated with the Venerable Thera for many years. In my search for a satisfactory solution to some of the deeper and profound doctrinal tenets of Therava╠Дdin Buddhism, I verily found him a fountain of knowledge, where I was able to drink deep and satisfy my thirst.” [1987, p. iii]
and
“The learned Thera’s mature scholarship and learning was of immense value even to distinguished scholars such as Dr. Edward J. Thomas, Dr. Mrs. Caroline Rhys Davids, Dr. Walter Y. Evans-Wentz, and others. Dr. Edward J. Thomas had sought his advice in the elucidation of Pa╠Дli terms and words in Buddhist terminology in his book entitled Buddhist Scriptures. The Thera assisted the erudite Pa╠Дli scholar and president of the Pa╠Дli Text Society, Dr. Mrs. Caroline Rhys Davids, in the compilation of the Concordance of the Tripisaka. Miss Grace Constant Lounsbery, B.Sc., president of the “Les Amis du Bouddhisme” Society in Paris, had consulted him in the clarification of the intricate and abstruse Buddhist doctrines relating to Buddhist meditation in writing her book entitled Meditation. ” [1987, p. i]
Yet the author’s take on this is that he is telling them only what they wanted to hear. I wonder if he realizes that, in his sympathy for the imagined troubles of Ven. Vajira├▒─Бс╣Зa (who also studied at Columbia University in NYC), he reduces an esteemed Thera to a dishonest shill?
Is this [that poor translations reinforce each other] really such a difficult point to grasp?
It’s not a point to be grasped so much as a conspiracy-style series of unwarranted speculative leaps. The author assumes that the original translations are poor on the basis of one weak example, then concludes that modern translations are poor because they are based on earlier, unnamed mistakes which have gone uncorrected. Based on that, the author impugns the translators’ competence, motives, and integrity. Then he cites unnamed experts who agree with him but think he should hush up about it. Finally, and most egregiously for a Pali scholar, he fails to put forth a single viable alternative translation of any relevant sutta passages that might support his thesis.
Thus, copies of copies reinforce other copies, and errors multiply like an encoding fault in a bad document. If you don’t believe me, look at the damn book yourself.
I wouldn’t know what errors to look for, other than this business about apana meaning flatulence.
The coup: five years on
btw, since when isn’t the choice between democracy and another system an ideological battle?
Andrew, see what you all have created? Happy about that?
Anatomy of southern Thailand’s insurgency: Some preliminary insights
I can’t see how this strategy will prove a success to the insurgents. Targeting Buddhist? But Muslims are victims themselves. Even children are not exempt from their list.
It’s confusing to see their goals now, as it gets more chaotic as the scenario plays out. Will we go the way of the wars in Africa? Killing for the sake of killing?
If there is a mastermind behind all this, then he must be a mad one.
What about Hudud in Malaysia?
“…Pakatan Rakyat (PR) agreed today that the contentious hudud or Islamic criminal law is not part of its joint policy until all parties agree to it, stepping back from the brink of a major difference that broke an earlier opposition coalition.
Opposition Leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim told a press conference just after midnight that the set of Islamic laws was “certainly now not PR policy and DAP’s objection has to be respected.”
“Yes, very clear, it has to be together,” the PKR de facto leader replied to a question on whether any move to implement hudud would need the unanimous agreement of all three parties in the pact…”
Extracted from, “Pakatan: Hudud only if all parties agree“, Shannon Teoh, The Malaysian Insider, 29 September 2011.
Flatulence and breathing meditation
After reviewing the comments of other commentators on this article, but without undertaking my own review of the Pali terms which I am not equipped to do, I must withdraw my earlier assertion that Ajahn Lee’s description of his own practice necessarily supports Mazard’s interpretation of the meaning of the Anapanasati sutra.
I am in no position to comment on possible interpretations of the Buddha’s teachings and regret any harm that I may have created in doing so by misrepresenting and/or sowing doubt and confusion in the minds of others regarding the Buddha’s true teachings.
Southeast Asia’s Facebook revolution
An article in today’s Guardian claims that 66 % of the present Thai cabinet are millionaires and that Yingluk has assets worth approx $11 million, which is ten times more than those of Abhisit.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/sep/28/thailand-cabinet-millionaires
So much for the Red Revolution and getting rid of the elite…….
Anybody have any ideas how Plodprasop Suraswadi made his 963.5 million baht fortune? Presumably not from his former civil servant’s pay package?
Anatomy of southern Thailand’s insurgency: Some preliminary insights
I note today that Amnesty Intenational has a new paper on the south as well.
http://www.amnesty.org.au/images/uploads/news/amnesty-thailand-report-sept11.pdf
Flatulence and breathing meditation
It’s strange to see some of the comments here indulging in the same errors of reasoning and translation that are exposed in the article.
Jeffrey Longo, for example, quotes modern English translations (or, approximations) of Buddhist texts to try to refute the author’s thesis. Yet the author has convincingly demonstrated why you need to study the original Pali in order to understand the problems with the English translations — and how erroneous English translations solipsistically reinforce each other.
Is this really such a difficult point to grasp? Anyone who’s looked at Rupert Gethin’s Penguin book of Buddhist texts, and who’s also looked at the PTS editions, should be able to tell immediately that Gethin’s “new” translations are over 90% ripped off from the PTS versions. There’s very little new scholarship in the world of Pali studies — and several modern editions have merely borrowed from older, imperfect translations, smoothing over the infelicities of the original. (And sadly, the infelicities often came from problems of translation — thus, the smoothed-over versions merely hide the problems of the original, poor translation). Thus, copies of copies reinforce other copies, and errors multiply like an encoding fault in a bad document. If you don’t believe me, look at the damn book yourself.
It’s also a little sad to see commenters like Thong taking internet anonymity as an excuse to damn the author’s personality. I suppose it’s useless to ask Thong how he/she would feel if an anonymous commenter did the same to him/her, but it’s worth remembering that all of the authors who contribute to New Mandala are unpaid (as far as I know), and while we don’t need to show any undue reverence for their opinions if we disagree with them, it would nevertheless be a sign of good character to treat them with respect for their contributions.
Flatulence and breathing meditation
There are several reasons why the author’s thesis about ─Бn─Бp─Бnasati is untenable. Here are three:
1. It does not fit with any of the descriptions the Buddha gives of what mindfulness with breathing is like.
In the Ves─Бl─л Sutta (SN 54.9), the Buddha describes concentration through mindfulness of in-and-out breathing (─Бn─Бp─Бnassatisam─Бdhi) as “peaceful & exquisite, a refreshing & pleasant abiding that immediately disperses & allays any evil, unskillful [mental] qualities that have arisen.” Then he gives a simile: “Just as when, in the last month of the hot season, a great rain-cloud out of season immediately disperses & allays the dust & dirt that have been stirred up, in the same way this concentration through mindfulness of in-&-out breathing when developed & pursued, is both peaceful & exquisite, a refreshing & pleasant abiding that immediately disperses & allays any evil, unskillful [mental] qualities that have arisen.”
This does not seem to have anything to do with flatulence, mindfulness of one’s final breath at death, funeral pyres, embryos, an ancient Indian theory of the body’s winds, the true nature of the self, or the bloated abdomens of corpses. In fact, the Buddha has given this discourse to uplift and refresh the minds of the monks at Ves─Бl─л, who have been focusing on the foulness of the body so diligently that, disgusted with the body, many committed suicide(!).
2. It does not fit with any of the descriptions the Buddha gives of how mindfulness with breathing is to be practiced.
Let’s assume we don’t know the meaning of “assasati passasati” (and related words) used in the meditation instructions found in the ─Аn─Бp─Бnasati Sutta and all over the Canon. We’ll call it X. What do we know about X from the Satipaс╣нс╣нh─Бna, ─Аn─Бp─Бnasati, and K─Бyagat─Бsati Suttas that can help locate the meanings?
-We know that X is a major part of the only practice where the Buddha explicitly gives instructions to sit down with the legs folded crosswise and the body held erect (so one can breathe freely?).
-We know X is some kind of perception, action or process that we are being instructed to attend to with mindfulness; in other words, to keep continuously in mind.
-We know X can be long (d─лgha, as in D─лgha Nikaya, the Long Discourses) or short.
-We know we can train ourselves to be aware of other things–the whole body, calming, rapture, pleasure, various mind-states, inconstancy, etc.–while continuing to be aware of X.
-We know X does not relate directly to contemplation of the foulness of the body’s parts, or the body’s fate after death, or contemplation of death itself because these are given–quite thoroughly–as separate meditation subjects.
If we include Buddhaghosa (leaving aside specific disagreements with the method or exposition, e.g. whole body vs. breath body), we know X is:
-something you can give better attention to in the early stages of the practice if you count it in cycles of ten.
-something that hits the nose or upper lip depending on facial structure.
-something that is like using a saw in that you keep attention fixed on one spot while something passes back and forth touching the spot.
-something that can grow increasingly refined and subtle with practice.
If the author’s thesis is correct, large swaths of the Pali Canon and Commentaries whose translation is uncontested would become nonsense. Isn’t it more likely, as other comments have pointed out, that X means something very close to breathing in and breathing out? After all, the next section in the Satipaс╣нс╣нh─Бna and K─Бyagat─Бsati Suttas, after the first tetrad on breathing, instructs the monk to bring awareness to very ordinary things–walking, standing, bending, stretching, looking ahead, looking to the side, urinating, chewing, swallowing, etc. A philosophical consideration of gas escaping the body at death is out of place here (and redundant because of the charnel ground contemplations that follow later), but an ordinary process like breathing fits nicely.
3. It does not fit with the analysis of materiality (the properties / elements) given in the Pali Canon.
According to the author: “The special association of this (so-called) “abdominal breath” with death has a direct bearing on mindfulness of one’s “final out-breath” (i.e., at death) discussed in Mah─Б-R─Бhulov─Бda suttanta…”
There are three problems with this interpretation.
First, by the time a body is on the pyre, one will–if not an arahant–have already been reborn, as rebirth in the Buddhist understanding takes place immediately following the severing of the link between mental processes and the body at the time of physical death.
Second, the Mah─Б-R─Бhulov─Бda Sutta (MN 62) does not mention one’s “final out- breath.” Rather, it says that, for one who has already developed and pursued the 16 steps of mindfulness with breathing (the same steps as in the ─Аn─Бp─Бnasati Sutta), “even one’s final in-breaths & out-breaths are known as they cease, not unknown.” Note that it is breaths, plural, and not just the final out-breaths but in-breaths as well. Also note that it is something that happens in real time as one dies; it cannot be a contemplation the Buddha is suggesting his son R─Бhula undertake now. It seems to simply mean that one dies fully alert.
Third, the Buddha gives us a precise and comprehensive analysis of what he means by wind (along with earth, water, fire, and space)–right in this same sutta, in a passage that appears elsewhere in the Canon:
“And what is the wind property? The wind property may be either internal or external. What is the internal wind property? Anything internal, belonging to oneself, that’s wind, windy, & sustained: up-going winds (uddhaс╣Еgam─Б v─Бt─Б), down-going winds (adhogam─Б v─Бt─Б), winds in the stomach (kucchisay─Б v─Бt─Б), winds in the intestines (koс╣нс╣нh─Бsay─Б v─Бt─Б), winds that course through the body (aс╣Еgamaс╣Еg─Бnus─Бrino v─Бt─Б), in-and-out breathing (ass─Бso pass─Бso), or anything else internal, within oneself, that’s wind, windy, & sustained: This is called the internal wind property. Now both the internal wind property & the external wind property are simply wind property. And that should be seen as it actually is present with right discernment: ‘This is not mine, this is not me, this is not my self.’ When one sees it thus as it actually is present with right discernment, one becomes disenchanted with the wind property and makes the wind property fade from the mind.” -MN 62
The stomach and intestinal winds are already accounted for prior to the appearance of the familiar-looking terms ass─Бso pass─Бso. What specific wind is left in the body at this point in the discourse except in-and-out breathing? Also, it is clear that the idea of a wind with special significance at death is contrary to the spirit of the Buddha’s teaching. Even in-breaths and out-breaths ultimately have no special significance. It just happens that they make useful and pleasant objects of meditation. In the end, it’s all just wind.
I am afraid this has been a lot of wind, as well. I sympathize that the author is trying to advance some larger thesis that is apparently very important to him, but he is going to have to find a better argument with which to do so.
[All translations from accesstoinsight.org. Pali from tipitaka.org]
Pavin Chachavalpongpun at the ANU
I apologise for being unclear (8). The dinosaurs I referred to were the organisations which gouge people, their libraries, and their taxpayers, for scholarly publications in the era of the Internet.
Also, Thank you, Nganadeeleg (17) for the link, and Federico Ferrara and his institution, for that excellent paper.
Prachatai’s defence
Complaint should also be made in the Chiranuch trial regarding changes of trial judge, which should only be allowed for serious reason. In the case of the trial concerning the disappearance of Somchai Neelaipaijit, protest was submitted when it was announced that there would be a change of trial judge. In response, the original judge presided throughout the long trial
Pavin Chachavalpongpun at the ANU
“john francis lee”, “R. N. England”, “Sabai Sabai”:
My deepest apologies for not being able to respond to demands for instant and free gratification of your desires.
No matter that i have had barely a week to write my speech as i was a late addition to the conference when Chaturon Chaisaeng cancelled, and that i have no a month to finish my paper, which is not an activist pamphlet, but an analyses of 7000 to 10000 words that has to be sound and has to include end notes and references…
So sorry that i also am in the rare situation to get paid a small amount for my work, for a change, and that the institute that pays me also wants to get some of their investment back in form of a published book that people will have to buy.
I dinosaur will now retreat into my irrelevancy, not to be taken seriously, and continue to mutually stroke my expert while being whipped…
😉
War on drugs: Yingluck’s turn
And let’s not forget the blacklists!
During their pre-New Years visit to the home of Privy Council President Prem Tinsulanonda in 2002, the Defense Minister, chiefs of branches of the military, and the chief of police all received orders to draw up lists of “enemies” in the War on Drugs. This was 3 weeks before Thaksin made his first statement on the War on Drugs.
Source: Bangkok Post, “Identify Drug Foes, Says Prem”, 28 December 2002
People like to criticize Thaksin for the War on Drugs for causing the deaths of people on the bottom of the drug pyramid, without catching the big bosses. Well, ask yourself if Thaksin is also not on the bottom of a pyramid, with other big bosses on top of him!
War on drugs: Yingluck’s turn
@ Bright Eyes #21
Thank you for answering a statement that was directed at me by Aim #13. I answered a similar question/statement on the Bangkok Post Forum a month back, which passed the first line of censors and remained in situ for three days before suddenly being removed. Not only was it removed but so were all my previous posts and I could no longer log in. When I checked the email account I use, I was informed I had committed “a fragrant breach of the rules”.
In my opinion I had told the truth based on the facts I had read both in the Bangkok Post and elsewhere.
The fact that someone complained to MICT, the subsequent removal of the post and me being banned by the Bangkok Post is rather indicative of the fear generated by the elite in Thailand.
As I live in Thailand I could now face 15 years.
C’est la vie. It still won’t stop me saying what needs to be said.
War on drugs: Yingluck’s turn
“р╣Др╕нр╣Йр╕Бр╕▓р╕гр╕Кр╕▒р╕вр╕Кр╕Щр╕░р╕Вр╕нр╕Зр╕Бр╕▓р╕гр╕Ыр╕гр╕▓р╕Ър╣Др╕нр╣Йр╕вр╕▓тАЛр╣Ар╕кр╕Юр╕Хр╕┤р╕Фр╕Щр╕╡р╣ИтАЛ тАЛр╕Фр╕╡р╕Чр╕╡р╣Ир╕Ыр╕гр╕▓р╕ЪтАЛ тАЛр╣Бр╕ер╣Йр╕зтАЛр╕Бр╣Зр╕Чр╕╡р╣ИтАЛр╣Ар╕Вр╕▓тАЛр╕Хр╕│тАЛр╕лр╕Щр╕┤р╕Ър╕нр╕Бр╕зр╣Ир╕▓тАЛ тАЛр╣Ар╕нр╣Йр╕втАЛ тАЛр╕Др╕Щр╕Хр╕▓р╕втАЛ тАЛр╕Хр╕▒р╣Йр╕ЗтАЛ р╣Т,р╣Хр╣Рр╣Р тАЛр╕Др╕ЩтАЛ тАЛр╕нр╕░тАЛр╣Др╕гр╕Щр╕▒р╣Ир╕ЩтАЛ тАЛр╣Ар╕гр╕╖р╣Ир╕нр╕ЗтАЛр╣Ар╕ер╣Зр╕БтАЛ р╣Т,р╣Хр╣Рр╣Р тАЛр╕Др╕ЩтАЛ тАЛр╕Цр╣Йр╕▓тАЛр╕Щр╕▓р╕вр╕Бр╕птАЛ тАЛр╣Др╕бр╣ИтАЛр╣Др╕Фр╣ЙтАЛр╕Чр╕│тАЛ тАЛр╕Щр╕▓р╕вр╕Бр╕птАЛ тАЛр╣Др╕бр╣ИтАЛр╣Др╕Фр╣ЙтАЛр╕Чр╕│тАЛ тАЛр╕Чр╕╕р╕Бр╕Ыр╕╡тАЛ тАЛр╣ЖтАЛ тАЛр╕Ир╕ФтАЛр╣Др╕зр╣ЙтАЛр╕Щр╕░тАЛ тАЛр╕бр╕╡р╕бр╕▓р╕Бр╕Бр╕зр╣Ир╕▓тАЛ р╣Т,р╣Хр╣Рр╣Р тАЛр╕Др╕Щр╕Чр╕╡р╣Ир╕Хр╕▓р╕втАЛ тАЛр╕Чр╕╡р╣Ир╕Хр╕▓р╕втАЛр╕Чр╕▒р╣Йр╕ЗтАЛр╕Др╕Щр╕Чр╕╡р╣ИтАЛр╣Ар╕кр╕Юр╕Хр╕┤р╕ФтАЛ тАЛр╣Бр╕ер╣Йр╕зтАЛр╕Бр╣Зр╕Вр╕╢р╣Йр╕Щр╣Др╕ЫтАЛ тАЛр╕Жр╣Ир╕▓р╕Др╕ЩтАЛ тАЛр╕лр╕гр╕╖р╕нтАЛр╕Чр╕│тАЛр╕нр╕░тАЛр╣Др╕гтАЛ тАЛр╣Ар╕Ьр╕▓р╕нр╕░тАЛр╣Др╕гр╕Хр╣Ир╕▓р╕ЗтАЛ тАЛр╣ЖтАЛ тАЛр╕гр╕зр╕бтАЛр╕Чр╕▒р╣Йр╕ЗтАЛр╣Ар╕Ир╣Йр╕▓р╕лр╕Щр╣Йр╕▓р╕Чр╕╡р╣Ир╕Чр╕╡р╣ИтАЛр╕Хр╣Йр╕нр╕ЗтАЛр╣Др╕Ыр╕Ыр╕гр╕▓р╕Ър╕Ыр╕Бр╕Хр╕┤тАЛ тАЛр╕Бр╣Зр╕Хр╕▓р╕вр╕бр╕▓р╕Бр╣Ар╕лр╕бр╕╖р╕нр╕ЩтАЛр╕Бр╕▒р╕ЩтАЛ тАЛр╣Бр╕Хр╣ИтАЛр╣Др╕бр╣ИтАЛр╕Юр╕╣р╕ФтАЛр╣Ар╕Чр╣Ир╕▓тАЛр╕Щр╕▒р╣Йр╕ЩтАЛр╣Ар╕нр╕ЗтАЛ тАЛр╣Др╕бр╣ИтАЛр╣Др╕Ыр╕Щр╕▒р╕ЪтАЛ тАЛр╣Бр╕Хр╣Ир╕Щр╕╡р╣ЙтАЛр╣Ар╕Вр╕▓тАЛр╕Бр╣Зр╕Щр╕▒р╕Ър╣Др╕Ыр╕Кр╕╡р╣ЙтАЛ тАЛр╕Кр╕╡р╣ЙтАЛ тАЛр╕Кр╕╡р╣Йр╕Щр╕▒р╕ЪтАЛ тАЛр╕Юр╕зр╕Бр╕Чр╕╡р╣Ир╕Др╣Йр╕▓тАЛ тАЛр╕Юр╕зр╕Бр╕Чр╕╡р╣Ир╕Чр╕│тАЛ тАЛр╕Бр╣Зр╕Хр╕▓р╕вр╣Ар╕вр╕нр╕░тАЛр╣Ар╕лр╕бр╕╖р╕нр╕ЩтАЛр╕Бр╕▒р╕ЩтАЛ тАЛр╕Бр╣Ир╕нр╕Щр╕Щр╕╡р╣ЙтАЛ тАЛр╣Бр╕Хр╣ИтАЛр╣Др╕бр╣ИтАЛр╕Юр╕╣р╕ФтАЛр╕Цр╕╢р╕ЗтАЛ тАЛр╣Ар╕Кр╕╖р╣Ир╕нр╕зр╣Ир╕▓р╕Юр╕нр╣ЖтАЛ тАЛр╕Бр╕▒р╕ЪтАЛр╕Чр╕╡р╣ИтАЛр╣Др╕Фр╣ЙтАЛр╕Ир╕Фр╕зр╣Ир╕▓тАЛ тАЛр╕бр╕╡тАЛр╕Ьр╕╣р╣ЙтАЛр╕Чр╕╡р╣Ир╕Хр╕▓р╕втАЛр╣Гр╕ЩтАЛр╕Бр╕▓р╕гр╕кр╕Зр╕Др╕гр╕▓р╕бр╕Хр╣Ир╕нр╕кр╕╣р╣Йр╕вр╕▓тАЛр╣Ар╕кр╕Юр╕Хр╕┤р╕ФтАЛ тАЛр╕Чр╕╡р╣Ир╕Чр╕гр╕▓р╕Ър╕зр╣Ир╕▓р╕Др╕Щр╕Хр╕▓р╕втАЛ тАЛр╣Ар╕Юр╕гр╕▓р╕░тАЛр╕вр╕▓тАЛр╣Ар╕кр╕Юр╕Хр╕┤р╕Фр╕Щр╕╡р╣ИтАЛ тАЛр╕бр╕▓р╕Бр╕бр╕▓р╕втАЛ
р╣Ар╕Юр╕гр╕▓р╕░тАЛр╕зр╣Ир╕▓тАЛ тАЛр╕кр╕▒р╕Зр╣Ар╕Бр╕Хр╕Фр╕╣р╕Хр╕▒р╣Йр╕Зр╕Ыр╕╡р╕Чр╕╡р╣ИтАЛр╣Бр╕ер╣Йр╕зтАЛ тАЛр╕Ър╕нр╕Бр╕зр╣Ир╕▓тАЛ р╣Фр╣Р тАЛр╕Бр╕зр╣Ир╕▓р╕Ыр╕╡тАЛ тАЛр╕Хр╣Йр╕нр╕ЗтАЛ р╣Фр╣Р тАЛр╕Бр╕зр╣Ир╕▓р╕Ыр╕╡тАЛр╣Бр╕Щр╣ИтАЛ тАЛр╣Ар╕Юр╕гр╕▓р╕░тАЛр╕зр╣Ир╕▓р╕Хр╕нр╕ЩтАЛр╕Щр╕▒р╣Йр╕ЩтАЛр╕нр╕вр╕╣р╣ИтАЛр╕Чр╕╡р╣Ир╕Юр╕гр╕░р╕Чр╕╡р╣Ир╕Щр╕▒р╣Ир╕Зр╕нр╕▒р╕бр╕Юр╕гр╕птАЛ тАЛр╕Бр╣Ир╕нр╕ЩтАЛ тАЛр╕Бр╣Ир╕нр╕Щр╕ер╕╣р╕Бр╕нр╕Зр╕Др╣Мр╕Щр╕╡р╣ЙтАЛ тАЛр╕нр╕вр╣Ир╕▓р╕Зр╕Щр╣Йр╕нр╕вр╕ер╕╣р╕Бр╣Ар╕Бр╕┤р╕ФтАЛ тАЛр╕Др╕ЩтАЛр╣Ар╕ер╣Зр╕БтАЛр╕Щр╕░тАЛр╕вр╕▒р╕ЗтАЛр╣Др╕бр╣ИтАЛр╣Ар╕Бр╕┤р╕ФтАЛ тАЛр╕ер╕╣р╕Бр╕Др╕ЩтАЛр╣Ар╕ер╣Зр╕БтАЛр╣Ар╕Бр╕┤р╕Фр╕Чр╕╡р╣Ир╕Юр╕гр╕░р╕Чр╕╡р╣Ир╕Щр╕▒р╣Ир╕Зр╕нр╕▒р╕бр╕Юр╕гр╕птАЛ тАЛр╣Бр╕ер╣Йр╕зтАЛ тАЛр╣Ар╕гр╕▓тАЛр╕Цр╕╢р╕ЗтАЛр╕вр╣Йр╕▓р╕вр╕бр╕▓р╕Чр╕╡р╣Ир╕Хр╕│тАЛр╕лр╕Щр╕▒р╕Бр╕кр╕зр╕Щр╕Ир╕┤р╕Хр╕гр╕птАЛ тАЛр╕Щр╕╡р╣ИтАЛ тАЛр╕бр╕╡р╕вр╕▓тАЛр╣Ар╕кр╕Юр╕Хр╕┤р╕Фр╕Бр╣Ир╕нр╕ЩтАЛр╣Ар╕Вр╕▓тАЛ тАЛр╕зр╕┤р╕Шр╕╡р╕Чр╕╡р╣ИтАЛр╕Ир╕░тАЛр╕Чр╕│тАЛ тАЛр╕Ыр╕╡р╕Чр╕╡р╣ИтАЛр╣Бр╕ер╣Йр╕зтАЛр╕бр╕▓тАЛр╣Ар╕ер╣Ир╕▓тАЛр╣Гр╕лр╣ЙтАЛр╕Яр╕▒р╕ЗтАЛ тАЛр╣Бр╕Хр╣Ир╕зр╣Ир╕▓р╕нр╕▓р╕ИтАЛр╕Ир╕░тАЛр╣Др╕бр╣ИтАЛр╕ер╕░тАЛр╣Ар╕нр╕╡р╕вр╕Фр╕Юр╕нтАЛ тАЛр╣Др╕бр╣ИтАЛр╣Ар╕Вр╣Йр╕▓тАЛр╣Гр╕ИтАЛ тАЛр╕Ыр╕╡р╕Чр╕╡р╣ИтАЛр╣Бр╕ер╣Йр╕зтАЛр╕нр╕Шр╕┤р╕Ър╕▓р╕вр╕зр╣Ир╕▓тАЛ тАЛр╕Чр╕│тАЛр╣Др╕бр╕Щр╕╢р╕БтАЛр╕Цр╕╢р╕ЗтАЛр╣Ар╕Ыр╣Зр╕ЩтАЛр╕кр╕Зр╕Др╕гр╕▓р╕бтАЛ тАЛр╣Др╕нр╣Йр╕Др╕│тАЛр╕зр╣Ир╕▓тАЛ тАЛр╕кр╕Зр╕Др╕гр╕▓р╕бр╣Ар╕нр╕▓р╕бр╕▓тАЛр╕Ир╕▓р╕БтАЛр╕Ыр╕▓р╕Бр╕Др╕Щр╕Щр╕╡р╣ЙтАЛ тАЛр╕зр╣Ир╕▓тАЛр╣Ар╕Ыр╣Зр╕ЩтАЛр╕кр╕Зр╕Др╕гр╕▓р╕бтАЛ тАЛр╣Ар╕Юр╕гр╕▓р╕░тАЛр╕зр╣Ир╕▓тАЛ тАЛр╕кр╕Зр╕Др╕гр╕▓р╕бтАЛ р╣Т тАЛр╕нр╕вр╣Ир╕▓р╕ЗтАЛ тАЛр╕кр╕Зр╕Др╕гр╕▓р╕бр╕Бр╕▓р╕гр╣Ар╕бр╕╖р╕нр╕ЗтАЛ тАЛр╣Бр╕ер╕░тАЛр╕кр╕Зр╕Др╕гр╕▓р╕бр╣Ар╕ир╕гр╕йр╕Рр╕Бр╕┤р╕ИтАЛ тАЛр╕кр╕Зр╕Др╕гр╕▓р╕бр╕Бр╕▓р╕гр╣Ар╕бр╕╖р╕нр╕ЗтАЛр╣Ар╕Вр╕▓тАЛр╣Гр╕Кр╣ЙтАЛр╕вр╕▓тАЛр╣Ар╕кр╕Юр╕Хр╕┤р╕Фр╕Щр╕╡р╣Йр╕бр╕▓р╕БтАЛ тАЛр╕кр╕│тАЛр╕лр╕гр╕▒р╕Ър╕бр╕▓р╕Ър╣Ир╕нр╕Щр╕Чр╕│тАЛр╕ер╕▓р╕вр╕Ыр╕гр╕░р╕Кр╕▓р╕Бр╕гр╣Др╕Чр╕втАЛ тАЛр╕гр╕зр╕бтАЛр╕Чр╕▒р╣Йр╕ЗтАЛр╕Ыр╕гр╕░р╕Кр╕▓р╕Бр╕гр╕Вр╕нр╕Зр╕Ыр╕гр╕░тАЛр╣Ар╕Чр╕итАЛ
р╣Ар╕Вр╕▓тАЛр╕Бр╣ЗтАЛр╣Др╕Фр╣ЙтАЛр╣Ар╕Ыр╣Зр╕ЩтАЛр╕Ьр╕ер╕Юр╕ер╕нр╕втАЛр╣Др╕Фр╣ЙтАЛр╣Ар╕Чр╣Ир╕▓тАЛр╕Щр╕▒р╣Йр╕ЩтАЛр╣Ар╕нр╕ЗтАЛ тАЛр╕Чр╕╡р╣ИтАЛр╣Ар╕Вр╕▓тАЛр╣Др╕Фр╣ЙтАЛр╣Ар╕Зр╕┤р╕ЩтАЛ тАЛр╣Бр╕Хр╣Ир╕Чр╕╡р╣ИтАЛр╣Др╕Фр╣ЙтАЛр╕Др╕╖р╕нтАЛ тАЛр╕Чр╕│тАЛр╕ер╕▓р╕втАЛ тАЛр╕Чр╕│тАЛр╕ер╕▓р╕вр╕Ыр╕гр╕░р╕Кр╕▓р╕Бр╕гтАЛр╣Гр╕лр╣ЙтАЛр╣Ар╕Ыр╣Зр╕ЩтАЛр╕Др╕Щр╕Хр╕┤р╕Фр╕вр╕▓тАЛ тАЛр╣Ар╕Ыр╣Зр╕ЩтАЛр╕Др╕Щр╕Чр╕╡р╣ИтАЛр╣Ар╕Вр╕▓тАЛр╕зр╣Ир╕▓тАЛ тАЛр╕Вр╕╡р╣Йр╕вр╕▓тАЛ тАЛр╕Др╕Щр╕Вр╕╡р╣Йр╕вр╕▓р╕Др╕┤р╕Фр╕нр╕░тАЛр╣Др╕гтАЛр╣Др╕бр╣ИтАЛр╕нр╕нр╕БтАЛ тАЛр╕Ър╕▓р╕Зр╕Др╕Щр╕Щр╕╢р╕Бр╕зр╣Ир╕▓тАЛр╣Гр╕Кр╣ЙтАЛр╕вр╕▓р╕Щр╕╡р╣Ир╕Чр╕│тАЛр╣Гр╕лр╣ЙтАЛр╣Бр╕Вр╣Зр╕Зр╣Бр╕гр╕ЗтАЛ тАЛр╕Чр╕│тАЛр╣Гр╕лр╣ЙтАЛр╕бр╕╡тАЛр╕Др╕зр╕▓р╕бтАЛр╕Др╕┤р╕Фр╕Фр╕╡тАЛ тАЛр╣Бр╕Хр╣ИтАЛр╣Бр╕Чр╣Йр╕Ир╕гр╕┤р╕ЗтАЛр╣Др╕бр╣ИтАЛ тАЛр╕Др╕Щр╕Чр╕╡р╣Ир╕Бр╕┤р╕Щр╕Щр╕▒р╣Ир╕Щр╕Щр╕░тАЛ тАЛр╣Ар╕кр╕Юр╕вр╕▓тАЛ тАЛр╕Хр╕нр╕ЩтАЛр╕Щр╕▒р╣Йр╕ЩтАЛр╣Ар╕Ыр╣Зр╕ЩтАЛр╣Ар╕ор╣Вр╕гр╕нр╕╡р╕Щр╕Щр╕░тАЛ тАЛр╣Ар╕Вр╕▓тАЛр╣Гр╕кр╣ИтАЛр╣Гр╕ЩтАЛр╕Щр╣Йр╕│тАЛр╕лр╕зр╕▓р╕ЩтАЛ тАЛр╣Гр╕кр╣ИтАЛр╣Гр╕ЩтАЛр╕Бр╕▓тАЛр╣Бр╕ЯтАЛ тАЛр╣Гр╕кр╣ИтАЛр╣Гр╕ЩтАЛр╕Щр╣Йр╕│тАЛр╣Бр╕ер╣Йр╕зтАЛр╕Бр╣Зр╕лр╕ер╕нр╕БтАЛр╕Чр╕▒р╣Йр╕ЗтАЛр╣Ар╕Фр╣Зр╕БтАЛ тАЛр╕Чр╕▒р╣Йр╕ЗтАЛр╕Ьр╕╣р╣ЙтАЛр╣Гр╕лр╕Нр╣ИтАЛ тАЛр╣Ар╕бр╕╖р╕нр╕Зр╕Ир╕╡р╕ЩтАЛр╣Ар╕Вр╕▓тАЛр╕Чр╕│тАЛ тАЛр╣Бр╕ер╣Йр╕зтАЛр╕Бр╣ЗтАЛр╣Др╕бр╣ИтАЛр╣Гр╕Кр╣ИтАЛр╕Др╕Щр╕Ир╕╡р╕Щр╕Чр╕│тАЛ тАЛр╣Ар╕Ыр╣Зр╕ЩтАЛр╕Эр╕гр╕▒р╣Ир╕Зр╕Чр╕│тАЛ тАЛр╕Чр╕╡р╣Ир╕Щр╕╡р╣Ир╕бр╕╡р╕Эр╕гр╕▒р╣Ир╕ЗтАЛр╕лр╕гр╕╖р╕нтАЛр╣Ар╕Ыр╕ер╣Ир╕▓тАЛ тАЛр╣Ар╕Фр╕╡р╣Лр╕вр╕зтАЛр╣Ар╕Вр╕▓тАЛр╣Вр╕Бр╕гр╕Шр╣Ар╕нр╕▓тАЛ тАЛр╣Бр╕Хр╣Ир╕зр╣Ир╕▓тАЛр╣Ар╕Ыр╣Зр╕ЩтАЛр╕Др╕зр╕▓р╕бтАЛр╕Ир╕гр╕┤р╕Зр╕зр╣Ир╕▓тАЛ тАЛр╕Эр╕гр╕▒р╣Ир╕ЗтАЛр╣Ар╕Ыр╣Зр╕ЩтАЛр╕Др╕ЩтАЛр╣Гр╕Кр╣ЙтАЛр╕вр╕▓тАЛр╣Ар╕кр╕Юр╕Хр╕┤р╕ФтАЛ тАЛр╕Чр╕│тАЛр╕ер╕▓р╕вр╣Ар╕бр╕╖р╕нр╕Зр╕Ир╕╡р╕ЩтАЛ тАЛр╣Бр╕Хр╣ИтАЛр╣Др╕бр╣ИтАЛр╕кр╕│тАЛр╣Ар╕гр╣Зр╕ИтАЛ тАЛр╕Ир╕Щр╕Бр╕гр╕░р╕Чр╕▒р╣Ир╕Зр╕бр╕╡р╕кр╕Зр╕Др╕гр╕▓р╕бтАЛ тАЛр╣Ар╕Вр╕▓тАЛр╕Бр╣Зр╕бр╕╡р╕кр╕Зр╕Др╕гр╕▓р╕бр╣Ар╕лр╕бр╕╖р╕нр╕ЩтАЛр╕Бр╕▒р╕ЩтАЛ тАЛр╣Бр╕Хр╣Ир╕Хр╕▓р╕вр╕бр╕▓р╕Бр╕Бр╕зр╣Ир╕▓тАЛ р╣Т,р╣Хр╣Рр╣Р тАЛр╕Др╕ЩтАЛ
р╣Бр╕ер╣Йр╕зтАЛр╕Чр╕╡р╣Ир╕Ър╕нр╕БтАЛ р╣Т,р╣Хр╣Рр╣Р тАЛр╕Др╕ЩтАЛ тАЛр╕Щр╕╡р╣Ир╕Бр╣ЗтАЛр╣Др╕бр╣ИтАЛр╣Ар╕Кр╕╖р╣Ир╕нтАЛ тАЛр╕бр╕╡р╕бр╕▓р╕Бр╕Бр╕зр╣Ир╕▓тАЛ тАЛр╕Чр╕╡р╣ИтАЛр╣Ар╕Вр╕▓тАЛр╕Хр╕▓р╕вр╣Бр╕Хр╣ИтАЛр╣Ар╕гр╕▓тАЛр╣Др╕бр╣ИтАЛр╕гр╕╣р╣ЙтАЛ тАЛр╣Бр╕ер╣Йр╕зтАЛр╕Бр╣Зр╕Юр╕зр╕Бр╕Чр╕╡р╣Ир╕Чр╕▓р╕Зр╣Ар╕Ир╣Йр╕▓р╕лр╕Щр╣Йр╕▓р╕Чр╕╡р╣ИтАЛр╣Др╕Фр╣ЙтАЛр╕кр╕▒р╕Зр╕лр╕▓р╕гтАЛ тАЛр╣Др╕бр╣ИтАЛр╣Гр╕Кр╣ИтАЛ р╣Т,р╣Хр╣Рр╣Р тАЛр╕Щр╕╡р╣ИтАЛр╣Ар╕Вр╕▓тАЛр╕кр╕▒р╕Зр╕лр╕▓р╕гтАЛр╕Бр╕▒р╕ЩтАЛр╣Ар╕нр╕ЗтАЛ тАЛр╣Бр╕ер╣Йр╕зтАЛр╕Щр╕╡р╣ИтАЛр╣Ар╕гр╕▓тАЛр╕Ир╕░тАЛр╕гр╕▒р╕Ър╕Ьр╕┤р╕Фр╕Кр╕нр╕ЪтАЛр╣Др╕Фр╣ЙтАЛр╕нр╕вр╣Ир╕▓р╕Зр╣Др╕гтАЛ тАЛр╣Ар╕Вр╕▓тАЛр╕Фр╣Ир╕▓р╕зр╣Ир╕▓тАЛ тАЛр╕Щр╕▓р╕вр╕Бр╕птАЛ тАЛр╕Чр╕│тАЛр╕кр╕Зр╕Др╕гр╕▓р╕бтАЛ тАЛр╕Чр╕│тАЛр╣Гр╕лр╣ЙтАЛр╕Др╕Щр╕Хр╕▓р╕втАЛ р╣Т,р╣Хр╣Рр╣Р тАЛр╕Др╕ЩтАЛ тАЛр╕Др╕зр╕▓р╕бтАЛр╕Ир╕гр╕┤р╕ЗтАЛр╣Др╕бр╣ИтАЛр╣Гр╕Кр╣ИтАЛр╕нр╕вр╣Ир╕▓р╕ЗтАЛр╕Щр╕▒р╣Йр╕ЩтАЛ р╣Т,р╣Хр╣Рр╣Р тАЛр╕Др╕ЩтАЛ тАЛр╕бр╕▒р╕Щр╕лр╕бр╕ФтАЛр╕Чр╕▒р╣Йр╕ЗтАЛр╕лр╕бр╕ФтАЛ тАЛр╣Ар╕Вр╕▓тАЛр╕Щр╕▒р╕Ър╣Бр╕Хр╣Ир╕зр╣Ир╕▓тАЛ тАЛр╕Юр╕зр╕Бр╕Чр╕╡р╣Ир╕Хр╕▓р╕втАЛр╣Ар╕Ыр╣Зр╕ЩтАЛр╕кр╣Ир╕зр╕ЩтАЛр╣Гр╕лр╕Нр╣ИтАЛ тАЛр╣Ар╕Ыр╣Зр╕ЩтАЛр╕Юр╕зр╕Бр╕Чр╕╡р╣ИтАЛр╣Ар╕Вр╕▓тАЛр╕Жр╣Ир╕▓тАЛр╕Бр╕▒р╕ЩтАЛр╣Ар╕нр╕ЗтАЛ тАЛр╕Юр╕зр╕Бр╕Чр╕╡р╣Ир╕Др╣Йр╕▓тАЛ тАЛр╕Юр╕зр╕Бр╕Чр╕╡р╣Ир╕Ьр╕ер╕┤р╕ХтАЛ тАЛр╣Ар╕Вр╕▓тАЛр╕Жр╣Ир╕▓тАЛр╕Бр╕▒р╕ЩтАЛр╣Ар╕нр╕ЗтАЛ тАЛр╕Ир╕│тАЛр╕Щр╕зр╕Щр╕бр╕▓р╕БтАЛ тАЛр╕Чр╕╡р╣Ир╕Чр╕▓р╕Зр╕гр╕▓р╕Кр╕Бр╕▓р╕гтАЛр╕Ир╕░тАЛр╕гр╕▒р╕Ър╕Ьр╕┤р╕Фр╕Кр╕нр╕ЪтАЛ тАЛр╕Бр╣Зр╕нр╕▓р╕ИтАЛр╕Ир╕░тАЛр╕бр╕╡р╕Ир╕│тАЛр╕Щр╕зр╕Щр╕лр╕Щр╕╢р╣Ир╕ЗтАЛ тАЛр╕Бр╣Зр╕ер╕нр╕Зр╕Цр╕▓р╕бр╕Чр╕▓р╕ЗтАЛр╕Ьр╕╣р╣ЙтАЛр╕Ър╕▒р╕Нр╕Кр╕▓р╕Бр╕▓р╕гр╕Хр╕│тАЛр╕гр╕зр╕Ир╣Бр╕лр╣Ир╕Зр╕Кр╕▓р╕Хр╕┤тАЛ тАЛр╣Др╕Ыр╣Бр╕вр╕БтАЛ тАЛр╕Ир╕│тАЛр╣Бр╕Щр╕БтАЛр╣Ар╕Ыр╣Зр╕ЩтАЛр╣Ар╕Чр╣Ир╕▓тАЛр╣Др╕гтАЛ тАЛр╕Бр╣ЗтАЛр╣Ар╕Кр╕╖р╣Ир╕нр╕зр╣Ир╕▓тАЛр╣Гр╕ЩтАЛ р╣Т,р╣Хр╣Рр╣Р тАЛр╕Щр╕╡р╣ИтАЛ тАЛр╕бр╕▓р╕Бр╕Чр╕╡р╣ИтАЛр╣Ар╕Вр╕▓тАЛр╕Жр╣Ир╕▓тАЛр╕Бр╕▒р╕ЩтАЛр╣Ар╕нр╕ЗтАЛ тАЛр╣Бр╕ер╣Йр╕зтАЛр╕Бр╣ЗтАЛр╕Др╕зр╕▓р╕бтАЛр╕Ьр╕┤р╕Фр╕Вр╕нр╕ЗтАЛр╣Ар╕Вр╕▓тАЛ тАЛр╕бр╕▓тАЛр╣Вр╕вр╕ЩтАЛр╕Др╕зр╕▓р╕бтАЛр╕Ьр╕┤р╕ФтАЛр╣Гр╕лр╣ЙтАЛр╕Чр╣Ир╕▓р╕Щр╕Лр╕╣тАЛр╣Ар╕Ыр╕нр╕гр╣Мр╕Щр╕▓р╕вр╕Бр╕птАЛ”
– From Bumibhol’s birthday speech, 2003
(Sorry, an English translation is really hard to do. His speech is so brilliant it just brings tears to my eyes and rocks my mind! Farang language just can’t capture the eloquence and deep true meaning of his shining words.)
War on drugs: Yingluck’s turn
Aim Sinpeng #13 “…. It was [Thaksin’s] war.”
Thaksin’s war on drugs was discussed in some detail on NM just last month http://www.newmandala.org/2011/08/29/amsterdam-on-thailands-dual-state
Go to Gunter #46 or Albert#68
Albert cites the following good read…
https://thaipoliticalprisoners.wordpress.com/2011/09/11/prem-and-the-war-on-drugs
The war on drugs started at the very highest levels and was not just Thaksin going it alone. And this, Frustrated Reader, explains why committees and commissions will find no evidence because the evidence implicates everybody not just Thaksin.
War on Drugs 2011/2012 seems to be starting in the same way.
The coup: five years on
#
“In this day in age, most anywhere in the world the answer to “what do you want, or what is lacking in your life” is merely “more” with no further effort to articulate. Basically, more data would add to a real analysis.”
Is this an incredibly subtle use of irony?