Greetings to All:
I’m starting this thread because, in connection other threads wherein possible connections between Snp 4.11, the Kalahavivāda Sutta, and DN 15, the Mahānidāna Sutta, were discussed, it seemed desirable, and possibly helpful, to get a working translation of Snp 4.11’s Chinese parallel,《異學角飛經》Yixue jiaofei jing, tenth sūtra in T 198《佛說義足經》Foshuo yizu jing (*Arthapada Sūtra), going. I say “translation,” but this is honestly probably more of a “reading” because, despite a heroic effort at translation by the eminent scholar of Buddhism from the last century, P. V. Bapat (found here), the text is still as difficult as it ever was, and remains (criminally, in my opinion) understudied.
I’m tagging @Vaddha and @cdpatton simply because we three had discussed starting this thread beforehand, but, of course, everyone is invited to contribute. I only ask that peripheral subjects not directly concerned with furthering the translation be kept to a minimum. The *Arthapada is indeed a fascinating subject, both doctrinally as well as from a literary standpoint, and, as I alluded to earlier, it is severely understudied. Obviously, more discussion about is desperately needed; I just don’t know if this particular thread would be the place for that. Aside from the subtlety of the content, the Chinese in many places is just really rough, probably corrupt. Bapat has indeed done much of the foundational work, and his translation should probably be kept close at hand for consultation purposes; there is, however, still much room for debate concerning how accurate some of his renderings are. I hope we can get engage with some of that here.
That all out of the way, I’m going to start with the first two stanzas, putting up some of my ideas. Anyone who’s familiar with Snp 4.11 knows that the stanzas run in pairs, questions raised in the first stanzas being answered in the next. For the most part, in the Pāli, these answers are near-verbatim repetitions of that which preceded it. The Chinese, while nowhere near as neat, hints that its source-text adhered to a similar pattern. As such, taking the stanzas two at a time and reading the two in juxtaposition seems a good way to go. I invite critiques, comments, ideas from whosoever sees fit to contribute. Thank you.
T04n0198_p0181b18：鬪訟變何從起？致憂痛轉相疾，
T04n0198_p0181b19：起妄語轉相毀，本從起願說佛。T04n0198_p0181b20：坐憂可起變訟，轉相嫉致憂痛，
T04n0198_p0181b21：欲相毀起妄語，以相毀鬪訟本。疾【大】，嫉【宋】【元】【明】
憂 Piya（可愛）
Here are the first two stanzas as they appear on CBETA’s site (I’m not ready to procure a more critical reading than this right now) with whatever textual notes they provide, for which Bapat gives the following reading:
“Quarrels and dispute—from where do they arise,
Along with grief and lamentation and mutual jealousy as well?
False words and words of slander that are mutually exchanged—
From what source do they arise, I beg of the Buddha to say.”“When there are things beloved there arise quarrels and fights,
Griefs and lamentations as well as jealousies that are mutual,
Words of slander that are exchanged and words that are false.
[So] from mutual slander do originate quarrels and disputes.”
My thoughts are:
-
變, “change, transformation,” in both stanzas, could quite possibly be a misreading for the homophonous 辯, “argue, debate,” as, in my opinion, this better suits the context; though it should be mentioned that 變 does have as an extended meaning “an unexpected, calamitous event.” In fact, this is its most common vernacular usage in contemporary Japanese.
-
CBETA lists 嫉, “jealousy, envy” as an variant reading of the near-homograph 疾, “disease, affliction.” 嫉 would appear to be the preferred reading, and Bapat seems to take this reading. However, it should be mentioned that 疾 is recognized as a loan-word for 嫉 in dictionaries, implying that 疾 is acceptable and amending to 嫉 is superfluous. (Also, 疾 itself can signify feeling hatred towards something–though this is a rarer usage, I think.)
-
For 坐憂可 at the start of the second stanza, I would suggest possibly 從可愛. I don’t see what 坐 could mean here, and I would guess that a confusion arose between near-homographs 坐 and 從. Moreover, 從 x 起 y in the first sentence of the second stanza pairs with y 何從起？in the first sentence of the first. Finally, while CBETA’s suggestion that 憂 should stand for the Pāli piya could be argued for, 愛 not only corresponds much more closely to piya, it also appears in the third and fourth stanzas as the cause for the subsequent link in the chain. Again, Bapat seems to concur.
-
I also wonder about 轉 and 欲 in 轉相毁/欲相毁 in the first and second stanzas, respectively. Should there be a consistency there?
Greetings!