Dear Rett and friends

--- rett <rett@...
An interesting piece of the puzzle is that sometimes
negating a single word and negating the whole
statement amount to the same thing. I'm thinking of
cases where the word 'na' negates the finite verb. By
negating the main verbal action you effectively negate
the sentence as a whole.

Please excuse me for discussing Sanskrit here.
However, this might also be of help for studying Pali,
I hope.

I raise this question because there seems to be a
difference between modern English translations and
ancient Chinese traslations of one and the same
sentence in the Sanskrit Vajircchedika:

...na bodhisattvena vastuprati.s.thitena daana.m
daatavya.m...

for whch Mullier's translation is

..a gift should not be given by a Bodhisattva, while
he believes in objects

Conze's is

...not by a Bodhisattva who is supported by a thing
should a gift be given...

In both cases, na negatives the whole statement or the
main verb, daatavya.m. But, it seems that all the
ancient Chinese translations had na negative
vastuprati.s.thitena, and the meaning becomes

a Bodhisattva, while not living in (being attached to)
objects, should give gift.

Doesn't the latter translation differ from the former
one?

Any comment is much appreciated.

with metta

Tzung-Kuen





Sotthi te hotu sabbadaa 願幸福永遠伴隨您May there always be happiness for you

___________________________________________________ 最新版 Yahoo!奇摩即時通訊 7.0，免費網路電話任你打！ http://messenger.yahoo.com.tw/