Re: Dipavamsa passage

From: Bryan Levman
Message: 3794
Date: 2013-11-27

Dear Suan

"Disowning originality" means rejecting the quality of being original.

Originality has the following meanings (Oxford English Dictionary):

1) The fact or quality of being primary, or produced at first hand; authenticity, genuineness.

 2. As an attribute of persons: original thought or action; independent exercise of one's creative faculties; the power of originating new or fresh ideas or methods; inventiveness.

3) The quality of being independent of and different from anything that has gone before; novelty  or freshness of style or character, esp. in a work of art or literature.
(italics added)
 
You are using it in sense #1: the Mahāsaṃghikas rejected the authentic tradition (of the Theravādins). However as a native speaker, I am hearing it in senses #2 and #3 (which I believe is the more common usage): the Mahāsaṃghikas rejected fresh ideas and inventiveness, or they rejected novelty or being different from what had gone before. In fact they didn't reject novelty or new ideas, they invented them; that is, they embraced novelties and rejected the earlier, authentic teachings of the Theravādins.

Since the sentence in English can mean two contradictory things, I think it would be better to simply say "Disowning (or rejecting/abandoning) their original (earlier, authentic) form or nature or condition, they...." to make it clear they you are talking about "originality" in sense #1 above, not sense #2; that is original in the sense of "genuine, earliest or first" as opposed to original in the sense of "inventive, new, novel." The Mahāsaṃghikas rejected the genuine, earlier tradition and embraced/created a new, novel series of practices which were different from the earlier ones.
 
I hope that is clear,
 
Bryan
 



On Wednesday, November 27, 2013 9:14:41 AM, "suanluzaw@..." <suanluzaw@...> wrote:
 
 
 
Dear Bryan
 
You wrote:
 
"when one says "disowning originality" in English, my first thought is that they gave up being fresh and unusual, whereas what actually happened is the opposite,"
 
Can you elaborate and explain the above statement, especially the bit "what actually happened is the opposite" in particular?
 
Thanking you in advance.
 
Suan Lu Zaw
 
 
 


---In palistudy@yahoogroups.com, <bryan.levman@...> wrote:

Dear Suan,

Thanks for the translation which I think is good.

"Disowning originality" is not a good choice in English as the word "originality" can mean "preceding all others in time, i. e. first" but it can also mean "not derived from something else, fresh and unusal;" (American Heritage Dictionary). You mean I think "their original nature or state" here (pakatibhāvaṃ) so something that makes that clear would work better; when one says "disowning originality" in English, my first thought is that they gave up being fresh and unusual, whereas what actually happened is the opposite,

Bryan





On Friday, November 22, 2013 8:26:01 PM, Saccassa Esako <bhutavadi@...> wrote:
 
Suvatthi!
How about this, based on the Kathāvatthu Mūlaţīkā passage:
Giving up the original state [of] name, attire, requisites, deportment and duties, they made otherwise.
Dhammagaaravena,
Esako
On 22 Nov 2013 22:31, <suanluzaw@...> wrote:
 
 
 
Dear Venerable Nyanatusita
(and greetings to Petra Kieffer Pulz, Jim, Lance, and Nina as well)
 
How are you?
 
You wrote the following:
 
“Perhaps someone can help with translating an obscure passage in the Dipavamsa, which I need for an article I am working on.
 
Nāmam liňgam parikkhāram ākappakaraņāni ca,  pakatibhāvam jahitvā tañca aññam akamsu te.”
 
I have edited the above Dīpavamsa verse portion and will offer a translation in light of the following Kathāvatthu Mūlaţīkā passage.
 
“Nāmanti yam buddhādipaţisamyuttam  na  hoti mañjusirīti-ādikam, tam nikāyanāmam. Liňganti nivāsanapārupanādivisesakatam saņţhānavisesam. Sikkādikam parikkhāram.
Ākappo ţhānādīsu aňgaţţhapanaviseso daţţhabbo. Karaņanti cīvarasibbanādikiccaviseso.”
 
Please allow me to translate first how the Kathāvatthu Mūlaţīkā comments on those terms in the Dīpavamsa verse.
 
“‘Nāmam’ refers to such a sectarian name as ‘Manjusirī’ which is not related to the Buddha and his disciples. ‘Liňgam’ refers to the unique looks such as the costumes specially made and how they were worn. Extra requisites (more than recommended eight) such as a yoke for carrying things are made. Ākappo should be noted as unique deportment or distinctive body positioning in standing and so on. ‘Karaņam’ refers to such special tasks as stitching robes and the like.”
 
Now, here comes a simpler translation of the Dīpavamsa verse portion.
 
“Nāmam liňgam parikkhāram ākappakaraņāni ca,  pakatibhāvam jahitvā tañca aññam akamsu te.”
 
“Disowning originality, they altered the sectarian name, the guise, the requisite, the deportment, and the chore.”
 
What do you think?
 
Suan Lu Zaw
 
 
 


---In palistudy@yahoogroups.com, <nyanatusita@...> wrote:

Dear All,

Perhaps someone can help with translating an obscure passage in the Dīpavaṃsa, which I need for an article I am working on.

Nāmaṃ liṅgaṃ parikkhāraṃ ākappakaraṇīyāni ca, / pakatibhāvaṃ jahitvā tañca aññaṃ akaṃsu te.  = Geiger, 5.38, 44, 50; SL edition (on GRETIL) verse 77, 83, 89.

This was translated by Oldenberg in 1879 as:

“Forsaking the original rules regarding nouns, genders, compositions, and the embellishments of style, they changed all that.”

The context is a description of the changes that the Mahasamghikas and other schools made to their canons and texts.
< snip >
 
Remarkably, there is no English translation of the Dipavamsa other than Oldenberg's 135 year old translation.

Best wishes,
                        Bh Nyanatusita




Previous in thread: 3793
Previous message: 3793
Next message: 3795

Contemporaneous posts     Posts in thread     all posts