Aggregates and bundles

  • Nyanaponika uses “Gruppen” or “Daseinsgruppen” (“groups” or “groups of existence”). Ven. Nyanatiloka explains in the preface to Ven. Nyanaponika’s translation of the 22nd Samyutta that they are “groups of clinging” in the sense that they are objects of clinging. He finds it misleading to use too “compact” translations like bundles, pieces, or aggregates (he says “Zusammenhäufungen”). The reason for that is, if I manage to put it correctly into English, that they are only abstract classifications and don’t have a reality as such in terms of one complete group with all its constituents. For example, in a given state of consciousness, there is only one sort of feeling that is present, i.e. pleasant, not the entire group of feelings.
  • Nyanatiloka in his translation of the AN uses “Daseinsgruppen” too, and “die Objekte des Anhaftens bildende Daseinsgruppen” (= groups of existence that form the objects for clinging) for grasping aggregates. :open_mouth:
  • Mettiko has similarly “Daseinsgruppen” for aggregates, and “Daseinsgruppen, an denen angehaftet wird” (groups of existence that are clung to) for grasping aggregates.
  • Neumann has “Stücke” (pieces) and “Stücke des Anhangens” (pieces of attachment).
  • Kusalagnana-Maitrimurti-Traetow have “Gruppen des Anhaftens” (groups of clinging).
  • Hellmuth Hecker has “Faktoren des Ergreifens” (factors of grasping).
  • Ekkehard Saß (translator of Thag and Thig) has simply Khandhas. :woman_shrugging:
  • Geiger has “Gruppen des Erfassens” (groups of comprehending?) for grasping aggregates. In the definition of death in SN12.2 he has “Wesensbestandteile (khandha)” (i.e. components of being + the Pali word in brackets).
  • In the DN suttas translated by Franke “khanda”, as it seems, does not occur.

None of those does really convince me. Maybe I should consider “Daseinsgruppen” (groups of existence), for lack of a better solution. :thinking:

Right now I have “zusammenwirkende Faktoren” (factors that work together), but that’s also a bit clumsy.

Any thoughts by other German speakers here? @Nessie, @Gabriel, @anon82557130, Ven. @vimalanyani, or others?

8 Likes

IMO, it’s important that the idea of each khanda being a group of many pieces, and not one uniform whole, is rendered in the translation. Which is why I think that “Stück” or “Faktor” does not work well. “Gruppe, Aggregat, Haufen, Bündel” or similar words seem to work better.

I think it’s better to go with a simple word that’s clear, rather than going with something fancy but obscure.

2 Likes

I also could go with ‘Gruppe’ for the lack of a better term. Right now I would have more doubt about ‘Dasein’. It sounds too existential, too metaphysical, too Heidegger. How about something more daring like ‘Gruppen der Identifikation’ as a clumsy different direction than the more old-fashioned sounding ‘Anhaften’ or ‘Anhangen’?

3 Likes

Thanks, this is useful! As translators, we face many of the same kinds of obstacles.

On the one hand, using simple colloquial expressions is good, on the other hand, it is useful to render “technical” terms in technical ways, as then a reader can clearly recognize that it is in fact a technical term.

Yesterday, BTW, I went on a walk with some Dhamma friends here in Sydney, and we were joined by a translator, who had made a unique translation from Farsi to English. Needless to say, we had a lot to talk about!

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-47072023

1 Like

This is a really challenging question; I didn’t sense that whenever I read about it in the texts. At the moment I’ve not a good alternate idea.
But one thought I’d like to share: for difficult translations it is IMO wise to allow technical, even if they seem obscure, long and complicated, expressions as a working hypothese in the beginning - which might be made more and more precise in some turn of time, dicussion and thinking routine. Usually, good short terms come up after that, and good new creations of words or terms are only then likely[1]. I’m curious how far I’ll come with that recipe myself, giving it a try and giving me some days from now …


[1] I’m partly socialized from my early age in the computer scene (from 1972 on) which is -historically- very young and has created many short terms for complicated technical aspects&processes - but often after certain time of “chewing” on the problem of expressing them so complicated

1 Like

Thank you all for your feedback. And thank you, Bhante @sujato, for suggesting to look at the options other translators have come up with. Explicitly compiling this list was in fact very helpful!

Did you know that the Duden doesn’t know the word “Anhaftung”? You only find it in Buddhist contexts, nowhere else.

Definitely, yes!

Thanks, that’s a good point.

I hear from various sides that there is no inherent bad with something sounding a bit technical. But it should definitively be clear and not obscure! So the “zusammenwirkende Faktoren” I have so far isn’t that bad after all. Perhaps I should say “Gruppen” instead of “Faktoren”.

“Zusammenwirkende Gruppen”; and “zusammenwirkende Gruppen, die ergreifen”—that would come a bit towards the function of a hand.

There are still a few more German speakers that come to mind: @Thanuttamo, @Kykiliee, @Wanschura, @Wolfgang. Maybe @anon31486827, @ZenKen, if I’m not mistaken. Maybe there are more that I forgot or am not aware of. Any ideas to the discussion?

I find it really helpful to discuss translations with others. I haven’t asked much for feedback here so far because—well, it’s an English language forum. :woman_shrugging: But I haven’t any other forum to discuss with German speakers, so I might as well use this one a bit.

Sorry, Bhante, that I’m capturing your thread. I hope English speakers can also benefit from the discussion. Or else it could be split into a separate topic if you find that more appropriate.

4 Likes

:sweat_smile: Well, I don’t know what your pay grade is, but it would already be very helpful for me to hear how different translations of the term work for some native German speakers.

Maybe I should post a few examples to make it more concrete. So far khandha occurs in 19 Suttas that I have translated, with or without upādāna. I’m posting the examples here with “zusammenwirkende Gruppen” resp. “zusammenwirkende Gruppen, die ergreifen”.

MN 10:

Dann meditiert da ein Mönch, indem er einen Aspekt der natürlichen Gesetzmäßigkeiten in Bezug auf die fünf zusammenwirkenden
Gruppen, die ergreifen, beobachtet.

AN 5.30:

Wenn man meditiert, indem man das Entstehen und Vergehen bei den fünf zusammenwirkenden Gruppen, die ergreifen, beobachtet, festigt sich der Abscheu vor dem Ergreifen.

SN 12.2 (definition of death and rebirth):

Das Hinscheiden, zugrunde gehen, die Auflösung, das Ableben, die Sterblichkeit, der Tod, der Hingang, das Auseinanderbrechen der zusammenwirkenden Gruppen und das Ablegen der Leiche bei den verschiedenen Wesen der verschiedenen Gattungen von Wesen;

Die Wiedergeburt, der Anfang, die Empfängnis, Wiederverkörperung, die Manifestation der zusammenwirkenden Gruppen und der Erwerb der Sinnesfelder bei den verschiedenen Wesen der verschiedenen Gattungen von Wesen;

MN 23:

‚Schildkröte‘ ist ein Ausdruck für die fünf zusammenwirkenden Gruppen, die ergreifen, nämlich: …
‚Wirf die Schildkröte fort‘ bedeutet ‚gib die fünf zusammenwirkenden Gruppen, die ergreifen, auf‘

SN 56.11:

Wiedergeburt ist Leiden; Alter ist Leiden; Krankheit ist Leiden; Tod ist Leiden; Kummer, Klage, Schmerz, Traurigkeit und Verzweiflung sind Leiden; mit Ungeliebtem verbunden sein ist Leiden; von Geliebtem getrennt sein ist Leiden; nicht bekommen, was man wünscht, ist Leiden. Kurz, die fünf zusammenwirkenden Gruppen, die ergreifen, sind Leiden.

The others are repetitions or variations of these.

4 Likes

I like the term ‘Bündel’ especially it’s connotation with looseness as per the Duden: “Packen lose zusammengefasster oder zusammengeschnürter [gleichartiger] Dinge.”

The looseness immediately opens up the opportunity for breaking them up again.

2 Likes

I don’t think that it’s understandable in this form unfortunately. “Gruppen, die ergreifen” can be misunderstood by the uninstructed reader as a relative clause. It would be easier to get if it was “Gruppen-die-ergreifen”. In other words, here ‘Daseinsgruppen’ has the advantage of being clearly one compound noun. Is it possible for you to find a similarly working compound?

Something like “Grabsch-Bündel” :slight_smile:
How about “Haft”? It would have the nice connotation of ‘prison’. “Haft-Gruppen”, “Haft-Bündel”

2 Likes

Liebe Anagarika Sabbamitta!
Sorry, ich habe das wieder einmal “verschlafen” (will heißen, war schon
wieder lange nicht auf Sutta Central). Darf ich bitte gleich auf deutsch
und Dir direkt antworten. Für mich ist die Übersetzung “zusammenwirkende
Gruppen” stimmig und aussagekräftig. Womit ich Schwierigkeiten habe ist
“die ergreifen”. Ergreifen denn die Gruppen oder ist es eher, dass sie
ergriffen werden, indem sie als ein “gehören mir, bin ich, sind mein”
wahrgenommen (?) schon wieder eine Gruppe…) werden? Knifflig!
Durch das Ergreifen kleben die Gruppen so zusammen, würde ich sagen.
Sorry, ein bisserl wirr, wenn ich es durchlese (und erst wenn ich das
auf englisch geschrieben hätte!) aber Du bist Dir ja Kummer gewöhnt.
Herzliche Umarmung,
Esther

2 Likes

Sorry Sabbamitta, but German is my second language and I can’t pick up any nuance in German. :man_shrugging:

1 Like

I don’t speak German, but can help brainstorm some more possibilities:

  • zusammensetzung
  • teil (großteil) (bestandteil) (others?)
  • gruppierung
  • agglomerat
  • haufen
  • packen
  • masse
  • stück
  • büschel
  • menge
1 Like

Thanks everyone for your input. I haven’t arrived at a definite answer yet. For now perhaps just one thought:

I hope you don’t mind if I keep answering in English, because this is an English speaking forum. :smiley: I know you understand!

For your question: hmm … I asked more or less this same question further up here, and you can see the answer.

The number five is strongly associated with the hand metaphor. There are probably several layers:

  • the five aggregates come into being through grasping,
  • and once they’re there, they continue to do that very same grasping. Actually, they are both objects of grasping and at the same time they are doing the grasping. My translation would put the emphasis on the latter of these aspects.

Someone else asked if it is not so that, instead of the five aggregates are grasping, we are grasping the five aggregates? But then … who is we, apart from some five aggregates? It’s indeed tricky, as you said!

Maybe one way to escape this would be to say “die fünf zusammenwirkenden Gruppen, die mit Ergreifen verbunden sind”. That’s all the more clumsy, though … :see_no_evil:

It’s in fact meant to be a relative clause. I am not sure what exactly you find misleading. If you could explain a bit more?

If it was a regular relative clause I expect an object, e.g. "in Bezug auf die fünf zusammenwirkenden Gruppen, die [Maßnahmen] ergreifen, beobachtet. I stumble while reading (because I look for an object) and then have to remind myself what the author probably had in mind. Grammatically this can be avoided by Partizip 1 - i.e. die ergreifenden Gruppen. But it’s clear that there is no very elegant solution in German.

Where do you stand on leaving it as a Pali term?

1 Like

That doesn’t make it clearer … ? No, I don’t think that’s a solution.

How about ‘Anklammern’? eg ‘Gruppen des Anklammerns’

1 Like

That’s perfectly fine, no worries! :smiley:

Closer to being liberated!

1 Like

My internal image of “grasping aggregates” is this:

Puzzles are inert, passive aggregates. Yet in the looking the grasping arises. Hence “grasping aggregates”.

For such an image, “zusammenwirkenden Gruppen” matches well. Is there some way to add the sense of compulsion? My german understanding is a bit adrift here.

5 Likes

Yes!
That sense of ‘interlockingness’ is IMO a necessary ingredient of the word ‘khanda’ which is unfortunately downplayed in the english ‘aggregates’ or ‘bundles’.

3 Likes