Re: Vivicca

From: Balaji
Message: 5049
Date: 2018-05-11

One point I want to make about upasampajja is this: The act of upasampādana is not something you actually do separately, although the phrase “upasampajja viharati” sounds like “after having done upasampādana, [he/she] remains”. It happens as the first two actions are done.

Actually I don’t even like to translate upasampajja as “having entered”. Entering sounds as if it is a place to go. The Pali is actually pregnant with a lot of meaning. The upa- prefix implies coming near, sam- implies intensity, and the pad- root has to do with placing a foot. So the English translation “entering” comes from that. But it is not such a good translation from the standpoint of a spiritual seeker. The more natural way to think of it is to think in terms of “earning”. And this is consistent with the idea that jhāna is a result - a reward - for the activity of vitakka and vicāra.

The Buddha’s last word was sampādetha. English speakers think the last word had to do with appamāda. That’s because when you translate, you have to put “with heedfulness” at the end of the sentence. That’s not how it works in Pali. I believe the great one chose the very last word he would speak very carefully. He said sampādetha. And nibbāna - the goal of his teaching - is better thought of as something earned/attained through effort. Now that verb sampādeti is related to upasampajja.

In Tamil and some other modern Dravidian languages, one would say “sampādyam” for the English word “salary” - which is an exact Sanskrit word.

So you don’t literally earn something separately when you think of upasampajja - the earning happens as you do the work.

Thanks,
Balaji

On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 8:22 AM Balaji <balaji.ramasubramanian@...> wrote:
Hello Venerable,

Quite frankly, to me it doesn’t matter what it should be called in English because I learned Pali in Pali, not in English. If one is even a little familiar with spoken Sanskrit, learning Pali through Pali is more natural.

In fact, I didn’t even think so much about “vivicca” as this or that grammatical form. For me it conveys that one activity precedes another activity.

For example we say: “after taking a bath, eat”. In Pali one would say that “after taking a bath” part (which indicates that bathing comes first) with one single word - snātvā. The ktvā and lyap suffixes in Pali and Sanskrit serve the same function. Just that you use lyap when your word has a prefix. In this case vi- is the prefix. For example gacchati is the verb from gam root and adding ktvā to the root would give gantvā in Pali or gatvā in Sanskrit. But if you had a prefix to gam, such as ā-, or vi-, or nih-, or ava-, you’d have to use lyap instead of ktvā. So āgamya, vigacca (vigatya Skt.), niggacca (nirgatya Skt.) or avagamya. But regardless the whole phrase “after doing <action verb>” in English is said with one single word. So there can never be an exact equivalent between English and Pali/Sanskrit. Even modern Indian languages like Hindi or Tamil have this same feature.

Now, because English does not have this grammatical form it makes for very bad sentences if one were to translate complex Pali sentences into English in an exact way. Suppose you encounter a sentence that goes like this: “After taking a bath, after eating your breakfast, after boarding your bus, go to school”. In Pali or Sanskrit that is very common and absolutely normal. A chain of actions is merely indicated by the order in which they appear in the sentence. In modern Indian languages like Hindi or Tamil too this is extremely common and normal.

Now when a sentence that has this sort of form is to be translated from Pali, one has to write it in English in a way that reads like an educated English translation. So instead of saying “after taking a bath, after eating your breakfast, after boarding your bus, go to school”, you’d say “having taken a bath and having eaten your breakfast, board your car and go to work.” We make it sound as if the bathing and eating have already occurred and that all that is left to do is to board the bus and go.

So when Ven Ñānamoli/Bodhi and Ven. Thanissaro did their translation from the Pali, they find a sentence that implies a chain of actions. The best way to translate in a way that makes for good English sentences is to write it the way they have written it: “having withdraw from sensuality...” This doesn’t mean that one has already withdrawn from sensuality - in Pali it means that the first order of business is to gain some control over sensuality, and to gain control over akusala dhammas. Only after these two are done, while still endowed with vitakka and vicāra (two forms of “thinking processes”), one can enter jhāna.

This inability to say things as they are in Pali, poses some serious problems. For example, if you look at a standard description of jhāna in English, it says that vitakka, vicāra, pīti, sukha and ekaggatā are the five factors of the first jhāna. But this is very misleading. It sounds like a recipe where you put them all together. But the original Pāli is very clear that you can only do the first two activities of controlling sensual and unskillful thoughts. It is only those activities where you have a sense of action - vivicca (related to the act of subduing). And as one sustains that practice (ekaggatā) even though he is otherwise thinking and evaluating, the jhāna he enters has the qualities if pīti and sukha - that means the jhāna is rapturous and pleasurable. You cannot do rapture or pleasure, they are the results of skillful vitakka and skillful vicāra done in a consistent and sustained manner over time.

Once again, I must say that translating from an ancient Indian language to English is more difficult than mastering the ancient Indian language directly - at least that is the case for one born and raised in south- or southeast-Asia where the native languages have arisen from these ancient languages. The English translations are largely useful only to hold meaningful conversations with western Buddhists.

Thanks,
Balaji

On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 10:36 PM Kumara Bhikkhu kumara.bhikkhu@... [palistudy] <palistudy@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
 

Wait. Actually, "gerund" isn't even correct, as it's supposed to be a noun. I've been so conditioned by English Pali grammar terms.

Kumara Bhikkhu wrote thus at 12:16 PM 10-05-18:

Balaji, you wrote:
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:

On this matter, I'd like to raise a long time issue: This Pali form we're talking about has been called in English "absolutive" and "gerund", neither of which is satisfactory. A more encompassing English term is preferred. I remember seeing one on DhammaWheel, but don't remember it now.

In any case, I view "vivicca" here as functioning as an absolutive, and "upasampajja" a gerund. The latter can be substantiated. See attached.



with metta,
Kumara Bhikkhu, ven.

Balaji balaji.ramasubramanian@... [palistudy] wrote thus at 10:27 PM 04-04-18:


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 — quuite 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


--
Balaji
--
Balaji
Previous in thread: 5048
Previous message: 5048
Next message: 5050

Contemporaneous posts     Posts in thread     all posts