Re: Vivicca

Here is the usage of vivicca:

vivicceva kāmehi kāmehi vivicca akusalehi dhammehi savitakkam savicāram vivekajam pītisukham paThamam jhānam upasampajja viharati.

It strikes me that the reason why vivicca is translated as “withdrawn” has to do with the fact that in English, having two absolutives that are supposed to occur sequentially is not sensible. The second absolutive that makes matters complicated is upasampajja:

If one were to literally translate the above passage in the order the words appear, it would look like this:

After verily secluding oneself from sensuality, and surely withdrawing oneself from unskillful mental qualities, with directed thought and evaluation, after entering the first jhāna - [which is characterized by] rapture and pleasure born of seclusion - one abides.

Notice that there are the second absolutive here, “after entering” complicates the sentence. From this sort of direct English translation the meaning is not evident. Does it mean that as soon as one secludes oneself from sensuality one enters the first jhāna? I can tell from my regular spoken usage of Sanskrit, that even in Pali the intention is that withdrawal from sensuality and unskillful mental qualities has to happen quite in advance of entering the first jhāna.

In ancient Indic languages and dialects two or more absolutives could be used in a sentence and it makes sense. But in English the sequence becomes very hard to follow. For example:

sālam gantvā, pāTham paThitva, punarāgacchāmi.

“Having gone to the hall, having studied the chapter, I return.” The idea that going to the hall happens first, and then the reading the chapter happens next is not exactly clear in the translation. But to a native Pali speaker this sequence would be clear.

The translation for Ven. Thanissaro Bhikkhu is as follows:

There is the case where a monk — quite withdrawn from sensuality, withdrawn from unskillful qualities — enters and remains in the first jhana

I don’t have Ven. Bodhi’s translation handy in electronic form. But I’m sure it is similar. I think they both make the meaning a little more clear for an English-speaking audience.

Thanks,

Balaji

On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 6:24 AM Aleix Ruiz Falqués ruydaleixo@... [palistudy] <palistudy@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

 

Dear bhante,

Of course, I agree. But that also applies to ādāya and ṭhapetvā. We can use both,more littleral, or less literal. I am not an English native speaker, but I am aware that many translations that are too literal, e.g. translating absolutives as "having + infinitive" sound odd in the ears of native speakers. It is the eternal problem of translators! :)

Mettā,

Aleix

2018-04-04 17:33 GMT+05:30 Kumara Bhikkhu kumara.bhikkhu@... [palistudy] <palistudy@yahoogroups.com>:

 

Thanks, Aleix.

In the case of your examples, it's only
reasonable to be idiomatically English. I get that.

However, in the case of translating "vivicca",
there's no issue of idiomatic expression.

FYI, for "vivicca", PED provides "separating
oneself from (Instr.), aloof from", which may be
a closer meaning in a figurative sense for the jhanas.

Anyway, when translated backwards, "withdrawn"
and "secluded" should be "vivitta", not "vivicca".

with metta,
Kumara Bhikkhu, ven. (I'll be offline till 30 Apr.)

> Posted by: "Aleix Ruiz Falqués" ruydaleixo@...
> Date: Mon Apr 2, 2018 9:46 pm ((PDT))
>
>Dear Bhante Kumara,
>
>I think the reason is purely stylistic. For the same reason that adaya is
>also an absolutive but we translate it as "with", or thapetva is an
>absolutive and we translate it as "except". I think the idea is to make the
>translation more idiomatic. But of course we can translate vivicca as you
>suggest, or adaya as "having taken" or thapetva as "having left aside".
>
>Best wishes,
>Aleix

--

Balaji