Re: Chinese translation of 'Neta.m mama'

[This message was copied from the PDF file Khristos sent 2 days ago. Bryan
has already responded in an earlier post. --ja]

Dear Bryan, Jim, and friends:

Bryan, thanks very much for the reference to the Mahaavastu and the
translation with notes from the Tibetan. That has been most valuable.

With the assistance of a friend who is not an expert in the field and whose
English is not perfect, I have been able to discover a little more about the
Chinese translation, although I’m currently trying to get this confirmed by
an expert.

My friend located what appears to be the affirmative form of the formula in
a short Chinese sutra entitled 佛說五蘊皆空經 (BUTSU-SETSU-GO-UN-KAI-KUU-GYOU),
literally: ‘Buddha-expounds-five-aggregates-all-empty-Sutra’. Please note
that I’m going to use ‘Japanese’ readings of the Sino-Japanese characters,
because I’m not very familiar with the Chinese, but just a little bit more
familiar with the Japanese context, through my study of the ‘Heart Sutra’
(心經 SHIN GYOU) and of the work of Zen Master Dogen.

This text can be found at
http://www.cbeta.org/result/normal/T02/0102_001.htm.

I won’t go into detail, but just get to the point that I think you’ll find
most interesting and useful. As I’d suspected, from having closely compared
the Sanskrit version of the ‘Heart Sutra’ (H.rdaya Suutra) with its
Sino-Japanese translation, there are certain typical peculiarities of
Chinese translation (no doubt because of fundamental differences between the
relevant languages) which amount, in some instances, to subtle modifications
of the grammatical and even logical structure of the original texts.
Sometimes I think it would be more accurate to speak of the ‘Chinese version’
rather than of the ‘Chinese translation’. It would seem that the translation
of our Pali formula is another example of this phenomenon.

If we’re correct, the affirmative formula in 五蘊皆空經GO-UN-KAI-KUU-GYOU looks
like this:

色 即是我，我有諸色，色屬於我.

SHIKI-SOKU-ZE-GA , GA-U-SHO-SHIKI, SHIKI-ZOKU-YO-GA.

“Form-indeed/then-is/this-I, I-am/have-all-form, form-belongs-to-I”

色 SHIKI: ruupa (literally, ‘colour, form’, just like the Sanskrit and Pali).
The other five aggregates are 受想行識 JU-SOU-GYOU-SHIKI. 我 GA: ‘I’ (aham),
first person singular pronoun; also, ‘self’. (This occurs, as Bryan noted,
in 非我HI-GA, ‘selflessness, absence of self, denial of self-nature’, and 無我
MU-GA, ‘nonself’. But there are many other terms that can also be used for
‘self’ (attaa), depending upon context, especially perhaps 自JI and 己 KO,
both of which mean ‘self’. Whereas ‘asmimaana’ is represented by 我慢 GA-MAN.)
是 ZE (Ch. SHI) can be either a (distance-neutral) demonstrative pronoun,
‘this, that’, or (copulative) ‘be’.
有 U can mean either ‘be’ or ‘have’.

It is possible, reflecting on this, that the first clause of the Chinese,
here, in fact corresponds with the second Pali clause, ‘eso aham asmi’ (so
that 是 ZE could equally be read ‘this’ or
‘is/am’), while the second clause of the Chinese corresponds with the first
of the Pali, ‘na eta.m mama’ (so that 有 U should better be read ‘have’). But
I’ll try to get this clarified and confirmed by an ‘expert’.

Perhaps the important point of difference between the Chinese and the Pali
is of course that the Chinese actually inserts a noun, i.e., the first of
the khandhaa, into each clause of the Chinese version of the Pali formula.
So if 是 ZE is read as ‘this’ (rather than ‘is/am’), it would seem to refer
to 我 GA, rather than to 色 SHIKI. Also, there are no demonstratives in the
other two clauses.

The remaining khandhaa are then typically referred to by adding the formula:
受想行識 亦復 如是 JU-SOU-GYOU-SHIKI YAKU-BU-NYO-ZE, ‘vedanaa, sa~n~naa, sa”nkhaaraa,
vi~n~naa.na, also again like this (or: also again like are)’. (We see this
formulation a couple of times in the text: e.g., 應知受想行識 . . . 亦復 如是. The
first two characters here are YOU-CHI, ‘You should know (understand). . .’)

Only the first clause of the negative Pali formula, as such, occurs in this
text:

色不是我 SHIKI-FU-ZE-GA.
‘Form-not-is/this-I (self)’.

The negative particle used here is 不. Sino-Japanese has two other negatives,
非 HI and 無MU. Their usage in Sino-Japanese Buddhist texts is very
interesting, but that’s not of immediate relevance here.

This statement is followed immediately by 受想行識，亦復如是. Later, the text has 知無
有我 及以我所 CHI-MU-U-GA KYUU-I-GA-SHO, “Know (understand) there is no I (self),
nor what belongs to self”.

We’ve reconstructed the rest of the negative formula by simple substitution,
and we think that the full negative formula might look like this:

色不是我, 我無諸色, 色不屬我.

SHIKI-FU-ZE-GA, GA-MU-SHO-SHIKI, SHIKI-FU-ZOKU-GA.

“Form not is/this I, I not/without all form, form not belongs (to) I.”

And so on for the other aggregates. I’d better wind it up there and get back
to work! I’ll let you know if and when I get this information confirmed or
disconfirmed, or if  I find out anything else of relevance.

With respect and metta,

Khristos