Here is a translation based on Stephen Hodge's lesson on Buddhist
Textual Chinese. Below are some remarks on the cognate and a few
random notes on the Chinese. I wrote these notes to give feedback on
Hodge's lesson.
SA 1
Thus have I heard.
On one occasion the Buddha was living at Savatthi, in Jeta's Grove,
Anathapindika's Park. At that time, the Blessed One addressed the
monks:
`You should see physical form as impermanent. One who sees thus is
hence deemed to have right view. Rightly seeing gives rise to
repulsion. Being repulsed, desire and lust are exhausted. Desire and
lust being exhausted, I say the mind is liberated.
Likewise regarding feeling, perception, conceptual activities, and
cognition. One who sees thus is hence deemed to have right view.
Rightly seeing gives rise to repulsion. Being repulsed, desire and
lust are exhausted. Desire and lust being exhausted, I say the mind
is liberated.
In this way, monks, one whose heart is thus liberated may, if they
wish, verify for themselves: for me birth is exhausted; the holy
life has been lived; done is what was to be done; one understands
that there is none of this hereafter.
Like seeing impermanence, also suffering, emptiness, and not-self
are similar.'
Then all the monks listened to what the Buddha said. They delighted
in it, and respectfully practiced.
Cognate:
The cognate given by Hodge is SN 22.12. Actually, from Akanuma on
(eg, Fo Kuang Shan) the concordances list SN 22.12-14. This reflects
the fact that the Chinese mentions anicca, dukkha, sunnata, anatta
(as usual, the Sarvastivada includes sunnata where the Pali just has
the three). But there are a number of problems with this
identification. First, the Pali does not at the beginning
mention `seeing'. (The Chinese kuan can stand for a number of Indian
originals: passati, anupassati, samanupassati, etc. Here I have
rendered it in accord with the Pali: `see' = passati, `view' =
ditthi). Second, the Pali goes first through all five khandhas as
impermanent, and only then goes on to repulsion, etc. Third, there
is no mention of `desire and lust'.
I would suggest SN 22.51 as the cognate. Here is the basic passage
(BB's trans) line for line with the Chinese translation:
`A monk sees as impermanent form that is actually (`eva)
impermanent:
You should see physical form as impermanent.
that is his right view.
One who sees thus is hence deemed to have right view.
Seeing rightly, he experiences revulsion.
Rightly seeing gives rise to repulsion.
With the destruction of delight comes the destruction of lust; with
the destruction of lust comes the destruction of delight.
Being repulsed, desire and lust are exhausted.
With the destruction of delight and lust the mind is liberated and
is said to be well liberated '
Desire and lust being exhausted, I say the mind is liberated.
(repeats for the other khandhas).'
Thus we have the `seeing' at the start; this is said to be `right
view' leading to repulsion, then desire and lust are exhausted.
I find the phrases involving zhe a bit tricky. According to Hodge
they can be read either as `one who (sees).' or as `the act of
(seeing)'. From the Chinese alone, one would assume that they were
meant to be read consistently, either in one way or the other. But
the Pali is inconsistent: The first two phrases are `personal': `a
monk sees '; `that is his right view' (saassa hoti ). This would
suggest the `one who...' rendering of zhe. But the following phrases
are impersonal: seeing rightly (sammaa passa.m nibbindati ). This
seems to suggest the `act of ' rendering of zhe. I have therefore
followed the Pali in rendering the Chinese idiom inconsistently. In
fact the point is of some philosophical delicacy, as the act
of `right seeing' (=Sotapatti) is the elimination of self-views, and
so it is quite apt that the practice from then on is described in
impersonal terms. The same kind of usage is found in the key passage
in the Madhupindika Sutta.
The Pali appears to be in error, since the experience of repulsion
(nibbida) has no consequence : it is likely that it originally
followed the Chinese, saying `when repulsed, desire and lust are
exhausted .'. There was some textual mishap, and desire and lust got
separated and made to be reciprocal; since they are really
identical, this passage doesn't make sense (despite the valiant
attempts by the commentary). Notice that here we have the
coincidence of two means of textual verification: one is the
concordance with the Chinese, the second is the anomalous nature of
the Pali itself. While either of these alone would remain merely
suggestive, when the two coincide neatly as here we can have a fair
degree of confidence in our conclusions.
The Pali has no equivalent to the Chinese saying at the end that one
can verify that birth is exhausted. Nor does the Pali continue
through dukkha and anatta. It seems likely that these differences
arise through textual loss in the Pali. (It is very easy to
abbreviate such suttas using `pe', and then subsequent editors may
not realize how the material is meant to be expanded).
It is, therefore, I think, quite clear that SN 22.51 is the genuine
cognate, as it shares all the distinctive features of the Chinese,
and the differences are easily explained as mere editorial slips.
What is a bit disturbing, though, is that the incorrect cognate (for
the first sutta in SA!) has persisted from the time of Akanuma
(1929!) through to the latest updated concordances. Bahum karaniyam!
Random Notes:
Shou is used both for vedanaa (khandha) and itthattaaya (!)
The text uses er shi, where the Pali (and Skt) has tatra; but er shi
would seem to render tena samayena.
There are a couple of minor errors in Hodge's text: top of page 8,
katam and karaniyam should be swapped around.
Middle of pg 7, a few typos under `neng' : translations [sic] styles
neng [not italics] active form a [sic of] verbs