Below please find Rod Bucknell's remarks regarding my suggestions on
SA 1. Forwarded by Rod's permission.
I spent Friday in the pleasant company of Mark Allon, who showed me
some of the work he is doing in deciphering Anguttara-type suttas
from manuscripts in Gandhari (an Indian dialect, probably later than
Pali). He and a group of international scholars are working on a
project to edit a small group of suttas. He's on a five year grant -
that's how long it takes to do just a few suttas. It made me
appreciate how lucky we are to have such wonderfully preserved,
accessible scriptures in Pali.
On SA 1
First regarding the cognate, there is no doubt that you have got it
right: the true SN parallel is SN 22.51, not 12. I propose that the
Concordance be amended accordingly forthwith! The points you make
regarding correspondence in content, problems in the Pali, etc. are
all very cogent, and deserve to be mentioned in the discussion
on "cognacity" for Sutta-Central.
I checked to see what Yinshun has to say in his SA Sutta and
Commentary. It turns out that he gives the parallels for SA 1 as "SN
22.12, also SN 22.51" (vol 1, p6, note 7). Despite this wording, he
evidently considers 51 the more significant, using it to justify a
proposed amendment to the text of SA 1, namely changing zheng4 guan1
to zheng4 jian4 (right view). In justifying this amendment, he
points out that SA 1 follows a pattern very similar to SA 188, the
first discourse in the SA Salayatana-samyutta, and that SA 188 has
zheng4 jian4 rather than zheng4 guan1 in the corresponding position.
(The Concordance shows SA 188 as a partial parallel to SN 35.155-
156, which I think Bhikkhu Bodhi reckons as 156-157.) Yinshun also
cites Asanga's commentary, which speaks of zheng4 jian4 in
commenting on SA 1, and of course he refers to the Pali wording (SN
22.12 and 51), for which he would, however, have been reliant on the
modern Chinese translation. In any case, this is yet another
reminder of the value of Yinshun's book as a source of hints like
this regarding SN/SA cognates.
As for your translation, I'll insert some comments in italics.
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 [or contemplate?] physical form as impermanent.
Seeing thus is then deemed to be right view.
[I think the zhe3 phrases are probably more naturally interpreted
as "the act of . . .". Significant is that wei2 means "be, is"]
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 he sees feeling, perception, conceptual activities, and
cognition 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.
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 one will not experience further becoming.
[This is virtually the literal meaning of bu4 shou4 hou4 you3, if we
recognise that you3 = bhava, "becoming" (see Soothill, p 213). This
closely parallels the standard Skt phrasing ". . . k.rtam.
kara.niiya.m naaparam asmaad bhava.m prajaanaamiiti" -- as in
Gnoli's text of Skt Samannaphala-sutta (from Sanghabhedavastu).]
Like seeing impermanence, also suffering, emptiness, and not-self
are similar.'
or: As with seeing impermanence, so also with suffering, emptiness,
and not-self.
[The meaning is that the whole is to be repeated with the
words "suffering" etc. substituted in turn for "impermanent".]
Then (all) the monks having heard what the Buddha said, delighted in
it, and respectfully put it into practice. [Zhu1 "all" often
functions just to indicate the plural. Wen2 is "hear", as in the
standard opening phrase; "listen" would be ting1, as in di4
ting1 "listen attentively".]
As always, there are also the general methodological problems
associated with translating from Chinese, such as whether we ought
to be guided at all by the Pali, given that discrepancies from the
Pali are precisely the most interesting fruit of the exercise. No
need to mention the perennial problem of how to translate the Pali
words once they have been recognised, e.g. shi4 = vinnana =
cognition? or consciousness? or ?
The lack of the closing paragraph in SN 22.12 could be interpreted
another way. Whereas in SN the standard introduction and conclusion
are often missing or drastically abbreviated, in SA they are so
consistently present in full as to suggest mechanical addition.