Re: SA 1: translation and cognate

--- In Pali@yahoogroups.com, "Bhante Sujato" <sujato@...> wrote:

>
> Hello all

Hello all

> 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

If this is supposed to be a translation of the Indian word "ruupa"
then it would be a poor translation and more of an interpretation
based on later ideas.

The limiting of "ruupa" to "physical" form [or "body"] would not be
the Buddha's idea of "ruupa" as he points out that all the five
aggregates have a broad range: "the five components are spoken of as
spoken of as, past, future, or present, internal or external, gross
or subtle, ugly or pretty, far or near" [e.g. M i 138-9 = M 22],
[extract from my book]. Translating "ruupa" as material form
basically only refers to one example of form, a "gross" example.

Therefore I suggest such a "translation" would be a
misrepresentation of the Buddha's teaching. It would reduce the
subtlty of it and not call one to investigate further, to see the
subtle etc forms that one clings to.

> 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.

citta-vimutti, the Paali texts also talk of pannyaa-vimutti which
would seem to come after citta-vimutti.

I understand the former to deal with greed and hatred and the latter
to deal with delusion.

> 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

interesting, it the translation is "mind" above, but "heart" here.
Is there a difference in the Chinese words [and the Paali cognate]?

> 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.

If pannyaa-vimutti is actually to be achieved on top of citta-
vimutti then, I'd say this is a corrupted discourse.

> 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