Sorry, I’ve had quite a bit going on lately, and this got away from me somewhat. I’d like to thank everyone for their contributions heretofore, and, if there’s nothing further with the first question and answer set, let’s move on to the stanzas three and four.
The Chinese reads:
世可愛何從起？ 轉世間何所貪？
從置有不復欲， 從不復轉行受，
本所欲著世愛， 以利是轉行苦。
不捨有從是起， 以故轉後復有。
for which, Bapat gives the following English rendering:
“Things beloved-—what are they due to?
So also greeds that in the world strut about?
By the stopping of what [things], will expectations be no more,‘
So that, to the worldly life, there will be no more return?” (Sn. 864.)
“These dear ones exist because of passionate longing,
Favouring the springing up of suffering in this world,
The perfection‘ of expectations doth arise from them,
And hence are returns to the lives here-after.”(Sn. 865.)
CBETA lists no emendations or alternate character readings for the Chinese text. The corresponding Pāli stanzas read:
“Piyā su lokasmiṁ kutonidānā, [Variant: Piyā su → Piyānu (sya-all) Piyassu (ka)]
Ye cāpi lobhā vicaranti loke; [Variant: cāpi → vāpi (sya-all, pts-vp-pli1)]
Āsā ca niṭṭhā ca kutonidānā,
Ye samparāyāya narassa honti”.
“Chandānidānāni piyāni loke,
Ye cāpi lobhā vicaranti loke; [Variant: cāpi → vāpi (bj, sya-all, pts-vp-pli1)]
Āsā ca niṭṭhā ca itonidānā,
Ye samparāyāya narassa honti”.
My thoughts are as follows:
As stated above, I originally thought the 坐 of the previous stanza may have been a copyist’s error for 世 here. @cdpatton cleared that up with some great detective work. This stands to reasons as 世, which is so clearly a translation of lokasmiṁ, only makes its first appearance here. English translations of the Pāli generally treat this phrase as signifying lusts or desires being in the world (or, alternatively, their causes). Obviously, this is a wholly acceptable, literal translation. However, the Chinese 世可愛 reads to me something more like love for the world, which is in keeping with the general theme of common people’s concern for rebirth. There is a slight difference in the second line where the same loke (the shortened form probably used for metrical purposes) is translated 世間–the suffix 間 implying a space within which vicaranti 轉 could take place. That this sense is not present in the first line is more strongly implied by the Chinese, though, when viewed together with the Chinese, it becomes apparent that neither is it present in the Pāli (at least not explicitly). Therefore, I am inclined to read the first line of the Chinese a little differently than how the corresponding Pāli is usually translated. (I am also now questioning those common translations of the Pāli: are we perhaps reading into the first line a sense more appropriate to the second?)
Bapat seems to completely ignore the 世 character in the first line.
While the second line in the Pāli is not explicitly a question, the ca/va would seem to tie it in to line 1, thus lending it an interrogative sense by association. The Chinese, however, adds the character 何 (what?, which?, wherefore?) to the second line to clearly mark it as a question. This is strange as the next two lines, which are clearly questions in the Pāli, are not obviously so in the Chinese: Bapat’s “what [things]” appears to be an insertion. (That is, unless @cdpatton is able to discern something similar going on here as with 坐 in the stanza above. Perhaps with 置?)
The first two lines of stanza four, answering lines 1&2 of stanza three, correspond well enough–at least in the case of the first line. 世愛 here replaces 世可愛 above, with the adjectival sense of this 世 as a modifier of (可)愛 being even more pronounced thereby. Again, Bapat inexplicably ignores any notion of world, worldly, or worldliness in the first line. 欲 here translates chandā, though we saw it translate an entirely different term, probably āsā or something resembling it, in line 3 of the third stanza above. Line 2, however, is quite puzzling, and Bapat’s translation is “interpretive,” to say the least.
First, “world” appears nowhere in the line. One could say he’s transposed it from the previous line, but there it was part of compound: it was the subject of piya, and we would have to remove it from that context in order to move it here, This would be arbitrary on both counts, but it is precisely what Bapat appears to have done. Next, we have the character 利, “gain” or benefit," which Bapat appears to interpret as a verbal: “favouring.” Barring for the moment the possibility that the source-text differed greatly from the Pāli, 利 could possibly stand for lābha or some derivative which may have been a misreading of lobha. Of course, we have no idea what the source read, but lobha or something similar seems to be what the source read, at least in the third stanza, where we have 貪, a standard rendering of lobha. At the same time, there’s an internal logic here insofar as 利 (*lābha) does logically follow as what would give rise to 貪 (lobha). However, 轉行苦, the second half of the second line, is a puzzle.
We took 轉 for vicaranti in the preceding stanza and would expect it to stand for the same here, as the Pāli is a simple repetition of the corresponding line from the previous stanza. But, as we see, the two Chinese lines diverge significantly. In any case, are we to take 轉行 then as a compound signifying vicaranti? 行 as a derivative of vicarati finds a precedent in SĀ984/AN 4.199: 十八愛行 = aṭṭhārasa taṇhāvicaritāni. Bapat seems indeed to read them as a compound, which he renders “springing up.”
At this point, I think I’m going to postpone saying more about lines 3 and 4 of both stanzas for a subsequent post, as they are quite complicated in and of themselves, and I’ve said a lot already for one post.
Peace.
