Alternate translation/interpretation of AN 3.136

Translations
1

Since we have been discussing Dhp 277-279 (and I believe @johnk suggested that we should try and translate as a post class exercise), I have decided to translate the related sutta AN 3.136 instead. Many thanks to @sabbamitta for drawing my attention to linkage between the two.

My motivation for tranlating AN3.136 rather than Dhp 277-279 is that @johnk has already covered the translation of the latter in class. Also I felt the wording in AN3.136 makes it clear (to me) that this sutta is a commentary or refutation of traditional and established Vedic beliefs.

From the structure of the sutta, it seems that the Buddha is once again engaged in one of his most common method of exposition: in Sanskrit “upāya-kauśalya” or “Skill in Means”. Note that in the 3 paragraphs, the Buddha juxtaposes a Vedic technical term (saṅkhāra, dhamma) alongside Buddhist concepts, and thus artfully redefining these technical terms to reflect the Buddha’s teachings and at the same time refuting the original Vedic thinking behind these technical terms.

Also in the use of the phrase ṭhitāva sā dhātu dhammaṭṭhitatā dhammaniyāmatā the Buddha once again playfully takes the braministic characterisation of Vedic beliefs as “stable, regular, invariant natural principles” and twists it to show that these beliefs are in fact false, so these principles are not invariant or stable after all! A great example of the Buddha’s sense of humour.

The phrase ācikkhati deseti paññāpeti paṭṭhapeti vivarati vibhajati uttānīkaroti is also I believe an example of what Mark Allon refers to as the “ordering by waxing syllable” method of exposition. So all, in all, a great sutta to translate which demonstrates some of the typical styles and techniques used for exposition in the Pali canon.

I enjoyed doing this translation, so much thanks to @johnk for bringing the related Dhp verses in class and @sabbamitta for referencing this sutta.

Uppādāsutta (AN 3.136)

“Uppādā vā, bhikkhave, tathāgatānaṁ anuppādā vā tathāgatānaṁ, ṭhitāva sā dhātu dhammaṭṭhitatā dhammaniyāmatā. Sabbe saṅkhārā aniccā. Taṁ tathāgato abhisambujjhati abhisameti. Abhisambujjhitvā abhisametvā ācikkhati deseti paññāpeti paṭṭhapeti vivarati vibhajati uttānīkaroti: ‘sabbe saṅkhārā aniccā’ti.

Uppādā vā, bhikkhave, tathāgatānaṁ anuppādā vā tathāgatānaṁ ṭhitāva sā dhātu dhammaṭṭhitatā dhammaniyāmatā. Sabbe saṅkhārā dukkhā. Taṁ tathāgato abhisambujjhati abhisameti. Abhisambujjhitvā abhisametvā ācikkhati deseti paññāpeti paṭṭhapeti vivarati vibhajati uttānīkaroti: ‘sabbe saṅkhārā dukkhā’ti.

Uppādā vā, bhikkhave, tathāgatānaṁ anuppādā vā tathāgatānaṁ ṭhitāva sā dhātu dhammaṭṭhitatā dhammaniyāmatā. Sabbe dhammā anattā. Taṁ tathāgato abhisambujjhati abhisameti. Abhisambujjhitvā abhisametvā ācikkhati deseti paññāpeti paṭṭhapeti vivarati vibhajati uttānīkaroti: ‘sabbe dhammā anattā’”ti.

Uppādā vā, bhikkhave, tathāgatānaṁ anuppādā vā tathāgatānaṁ, ṭhitāva sā dhātu dhammaṭṭhitatā dhammaniyāmatā.
:mens:①⨂(uppāda) :arrow_up_small:(vā) :mens:⓪⨂(bhikkhu) :mens:⑥⨂(tathāgata) :mens:①⨂(anuppāda) :arrow_up_small:(vā) :mens:⑥⨂(tathāgata) :mens:①⨂(ṭhita) :arrow_up_small:(va) :mens:①⨂(sa) :womens:①⨀(dhātu) :womens:①⨀(dhammaṭṭhitatā) :womens:①⨀(dhammaniyāmatā)
arising | or | o bhikkhus | of realisation | non-arising | or | of the Buddha | stability | state | self | regularity of natural principles | invariance of natural principles
Whether there is the arising or non arising of realisation, there is the stability, regularity and invariance of natural principles.

Sabbe saṅkhārā aniccā.
:mens:①⨂(sabba) :mens:①⨂(saṅkhāra) | :mens:①⨂(anicca)
all | saṅkhāra* | impermanent
*saṅkhārā is a complex technical term which has different meanings depending on Vedic or Buddhist beliefs. Here I am taking it to mean “constructions or formations from intentional or volitional mental activity, it could also mean our volitional thought processes, or more precisely the results of those processes, but in Vedic philosophy saṅkhāra is related to the Vedic worship of fire and sacrifice, as Agni (Fire) is the appetitive consciousness, the cause of mental activity and both the subject and object of cognition. In Vedic philosophy, saṅkhārā is related to desire, and by vanquishing desire, the “mortal” becomes “immortal” and attains “brahman” (the Universal Principle). Here the Buddha appears to be refuting this belief.
All saṅkhāras are impermanent.

Taṁ tathāgato abhisambujjhati abhisameti.
:mens:②⨀(ta) :mens:①⨀(tathāgata) :arrow_forward::love_you_gesture:⨀(abhisambujjhati) :arrow_forward::love_you_gesture:⨀(abhisameti)
that | Realised One (the Buddha) | completely understands | fully grasps
The Realised One completely understands and fully grasps that.

Abhisambujjhitvā abhisametvā ācikkhati deseti paññāpeti paṭṭhapeti vivarati vibhajati uttānīkaroti: ‘sabbe saṅkhārā aniccā’ti.
:arrow_up_small:(abhisambujjhitvā) :arrow_up_small:(abhisametvā) :arrow_forward::love_you_gesture:⨀(ācikkhati) :arrow_forward::love_you_gesture:⨀(deseti) :arrow_forward::love_you_gesture:⨀(paññāpeti) :arrow_forward::love_you_gesture:⨀(paṭṭhapeti) :arrow_forward::love_you_gesture:⨀(vivarati) :arrow_forward::love_you_gesture:⨀(vibhajati) :arrow_forward::love_you_gesture:⨀(uttānīkaroti) : :mens:①⨂(sabba) :mens:①⨂(saṅkhāra) | :mens:①⨂(anicca) :arrow_up_small:(ti)
having understood | having realised | (he) describes | teaches | declares | sets forth | clarifies | analyses in detail | explains : “All saṅkhāras are impermanent.”
Having understood and realised, he describes, teaches, declares, sets forth, clarifies, analyses in detail and explains: “All saṅkhāras are impermanent.”

Uppādā vā, bhikkhave, tathāgatānaṁ anuppādā vā tathāgatānaṁ ṭhitāva sā dhātu dhammaṭṭhitatā dhammaniyāmatā. Sabbe saṅkhārā dukkhā. Taṁ tathāgato abhisambujjhati abhisameti. Abhisambujjhitvā abhisametvā ācikkhati deseti paññāpeti paṭṭhapeti vivarati vibhajati uttānīkaroti: ‘sabbe saṅkhārā dukkhā’ti.
Whether there is the arising or non arising of realisation, there is the stability, regularity and invariance of natural principles. All saṅkhāras are unsatisfactory. Having understood and realised, he describes, teaches, declares, sets forth, clarifies, analyses in detail and explains: “All saṅkhāras are unsatisfactory.”

Uppādā vā, bhikkhave, tathāgatānaṁ anuppādā vā tathāgatānaṁ ṭhitāva sā dhātu dhammaṭṭhitatā dhammaniyāmatā. Sabbe dhammā anattā. Taṁ tathāgato abhisambujjhati abhisameti. Abhisambujjhitvā abhisametvā ācikkhati deseti paññāpeti paṭṭhapeti vivarati vibhajati uttānīkaroti: ‘sabbe dhammā anattā’”ti.
Whether there is the arising or non arising of realisation, there is the stability, regularity and invariance of natural principles. All dhammas+ are not the Eternal Self. Having understood and realised, he describes, teaches, declares, sets forth, clarifies, analyses in detail and explains: “All dhammas are not the Eternal Self.”

+dhamma is also a complex technical term meaning nature/characteristic, inherent quality, truth, reality but also virtuous acts, moral duty or obligation. In Vedic philosophy, dhamma is related to the ritualistic practices that lead to the liberation of the atta (or Eternal Soul, or the microscopic or individual manifestation of the universal principle or the Creator God Brahmā), sometimes described as the atta metaphorically joining or linking with the universal principle or Creator God. Here, the Buddha is asserting once again that this belief is not true.

1 Like
2

Another thing I forgot to mention, was that I really liked the two different uses of the word tathāgata in the sutta, one as a taddhita affixed noun meaning “the one who realises” which I have translated as “realisation” and the second usage is as an epithet referring to the Buddha. Another great example of the Buddha’s skilful use of language.

@sujato did reference “taddhita nouns” in class once, which I understood and appreciated, but I wasn’t sure others recognised the term, since it is seldom explained in Pali grammar books written in English. A taddhita-affixed noun is a noun made from other nouns by attaching various affixes. In English there is a similar concept: we attach affixes like -ly, -ion, -er to words creating new words. So I am quite comfortable in translating tathāgatānaṁ as “realisation”

1 Like
3

Further postscript, the phrase ṭhitāva sā dhātu which I have described as “stability” could also be translated as “self-standing” possibly referring to the following statement as complete in itself in accordance with regular, invariant natural principles. Again, this may be a humorous reference to dogmatic Vedic beliefs.

The “self standing” part makes even more sense if we look at the structure of the sutta, where the Buddha, having completely understood and fully realised etc., explains, clarifies, analyses etc. the statement as … a repeat of the statement.

Hahaha … in other words the statement explains itself and is “self standing” :slight_smile:

1 Like
4

An even further postscript to my translation of Uppādāsutta (AN 3.136):

As it so happens, I was rereading Gombrich’s “What the Buddha Thought” and he does discuss the contents of this sutta. Well, he doesn’t mention the sutta specifically, but he alludes to the 3 statements. On page 68

THE BUDDHA’S ANSWER TO ‘BEING, CONSCIOUSNESS, BLISS’

Where the Buddha is positively influenced by the Upaniṣads is in his formulation of the basic conditions of existence. For the Upaniṣads, ultimate reality, being, is forever unchanging; and it is bliss, whereas everything else is the opposite of bliss. The Buddha agreed that the world we normally know and experience is forever changing, and that therefore it is not bliss but the opposite, dukkha. Hence his first Noble Truth, that all we can normally experience is suffering.

… and on page 69:

There is what we may think of as a Buddhist answer to the triad ‘being, consciousness, bliss’. It is the triad referred to as ‘the three hallmarks’ (P: ti-lakkhaṇa), that is, the hallmarks of phenomenal existence. These are impermanence, unsatisfactoriness, absence of self. The order betrays the Upaniṣadic reasoning. Things are impermanent, i.e., ever-changing, and by that token they are not satisfactory, and by that token they cannot be the ātman.

I greatly respect Gombrich’s views and analyses (although I don’t always agree with them) and I acknowledge Gombrich’s expertise in Vedic philosophy, Buddhism and Pali far exceed mine. Therefore, I am particularly gratified that my analysis mostly concurs with his (and to be honest, slightly relieved as well!).

Some of you may ask “Wait, how is the sutta referencing consciousness?” Without delving into theological opinions and sticking to translating the meaning of words, saṅkhāra is one of those unusual words that can mean both a process and the result of a process (as I mentioned in my translation. An English word that does this is ‘building’: a sentence such as “Building a building” makes sense, because the first building is the act/process of construction, and the second ‘building’ is the result of the construction.

So saṅkhāra means both the process of intentional and volitional mental activity or thought, as well as the ‘result’. What is the ‘result’? According to the Buddha in the Paṭiccasamuppādasutta (SN12.1) it is “consciousness” (saṅkhārapaccayā viññāṇaṁ), so equally we could say “consciousness is impermanent” and “consciousness is unsatisfactory.”

The third hallmark is very often mistranslated (sometimes by me too, in the past) as ‘not having a self or essence’. That is indeed how later Buddhists came to interpret it, but that was not its original meaning - in fact, it is doubly misleading. Both Pali grammar and a comparison with the Vedānta show that the word means ‘is not ātman’ rather than ‘does not have ātman’. Comparison with the Vedānta further shows that the translation ‘self’ is appropriate, as the reference is to living beings. However, as time went by the term was taken as a possessive compound and also taken to refer to everything, so that it became the one-word expression of the Buddha’s anti-essentialism.

Note: I am also relieved I translated the phrase mostly correctly although I did use “Eternal Self” rather than “self” because anatta is normally equated to “not ātman” which is the Vedic concept of the Eternal Self.

1 Like