Yeah, I feel the same way. The appearance of 天 twice, in what feels like 2 separate groupings, seems to indicate that we’re talking about two different classes of beings. Upon further reflection, it does seem like the 若 is indicating that the first 天 is higher gods (“like Mara and like Brahma”), whereas the second 天 is lower heavenly beings. That would explain why the second 天 is in the same group as humans.
In the Pali, the term is a compound, hence the relation between the items is not specified.
We find the terms upādinna (grasped) and upādāniya (graspable, i.e. “stimulating grasping”). It is clear that we can think of the aggregates as “grasped” in the sense that they are attached to; they are “graspable” in the sense that they give rise to or stimulate grasping. I also think that the aggregates taken as a whole are “graspers”, which is why there are five of them: they are a hand. It takes the action of all five aggregates working together to grasp something. So yes, they grasp themselves.
2 Likes
Thank you for your input, Bhante!
Wow, I never knew you could have such a long dictionary entry for the word “five,” ha-ha.
It’s one of the charming features of the PTS dictionary. They weren’t afraid to be a bit digressive and speculative, to talk about things rather than just list meanings and cases.
1 Like
於諸
Among the various
天若魔若梵
devas, māras, and brahmās,
沙門婆羅門
and the śramaṇas and brāhmaṇas,
天人眾中
the devas and humans of the assembly…
This is how I would naturally parse it. The grammar is awkward, but the whole thing is also kind of an abbreviated summary just describing the various devas and humans of the assembly. The punctuation can be misleading.
It’s similar to an expression in SA 379:
於諸天、魔、梵、沙門、婆羅門聞法眾中
Parallel in SN 56.11:
Yāvakīvañca me, bhikkhave, imesu catūsu ariyasaccesu evaṁ tiparivaṭṭaṁ dvādasākāraṁ yathābhūtaṁ ñāṇadassanaṁ na suvisuddhaṁ ahosi, neva tāvāhaṁ, bhikkhave, sadevake loke samārake sabrahmake sassamaṇabrāhmaṇiyā pajāya sadevamanussāya ‘anuttaraṁ sammāsambodhiṁ abhisambuddho’ti paccaññāsiṁ.
3 Likes
How about this line?
Thanks for pointing this out. One of the problems we face with translating SA is that it isn’t very consistent as a translation. So, if we look for parallels of this same expression, we do find many versions of it. I would say we weren’t the only ones who felt like it’s unclear.
When I search for parallels in SA, I can find about 33 of them. Things I notice when I scan them:
- 若 only occurs in SA 13 and 14.
- “諸天、魔、梵、沙門、婆羅門” occurs 29 times in SA, and the endings vary. Some use 及諸世間 or 及餘世間 “and all/rest of the worldly people/beings”.
- There’s a variation that reads 世間諸天、魔、梵、沙門、婆羅門 (SA 1079) that has loka at the start like the Pali version.
- And there’s a few passages that read 諸天、魔、梵、沙門、婆羅門、諸神(or 天神)、世人, which would support @dayunbao’s reading of the second “deva” as lesser spirits.
It does look like it’s really three parts given the other versions that use a conjunction 及. So, then, our passage should probably read “於諸天、[若]魔、[若]梵、沙門、婆羅門、(及)天、人眾中”, and the 若 are inserted only in these two sutras, so they are probably a translator’s addition.
Text search is definitely our friend when parsing specific passages. If only we always had so many instances to build context around.
2 Likes
若我於此五受陰不如實知味是味、患是患、離是離者，
Regarding these five grasping aggregates, if I had not known them as they really are, their gratification, their danger, and separation from them…
This is just an example of a first pass at the passage. The above rendering does not attempt to replicate the exact forms like “離是離”.
It would make sense that over time, as the terms were better understood, transliterations would be used less and less.
By the time of Kumarajiva, more terms like dhyana, samadhi, prajna, paramita, bhiksu, bhiksuni, upasaka, upasika, asura, gandharva, etc., were transliterated. Readers were presumed to be well-read enough to understand the terminology. Similar to how some Pali and Sanskrit terms are used in forum posts here.
Off topic, but a good place to post this. A professor at the University of Ghant created this Centre for Buddhist Studies | Database of Medieval Chinese Syntax.
1 Like
I wonder what the audience was? Were Chinese-language sutras read only by monastics? I guessing there was a large literate and educated portion of the population, so were they actively reading sutras? Or was it more like Theravada, where (for the most part) the monks would read them and teach the layfolk?
1 Like
Early on, there was always a literate class who liked to delve into philosophical subjects. Those with interests in Daoism and neo-Daoism were reading Buddhist texts because they dovetailed philosophically with the Daoist ideas of everything arising from nothing (roughly equivalent to emptiness in prajnaparamita sutras) and also with meditating in seclusion away from society. The parallels made many people believe Buddhism and Daoism were directly connected in some way, such as through the legend of Laozi leaving China in ancient times. They theorized that Laozi must have taught people outside of China, and then this changed form of Daoism had returned again. This was a major way Buddhism gained respectability, and that respectability was cemented during the early Tang dynasty when the dowager Empress Wu adopted Buddhism as her religion in her fight with the Confucian traditionalists who were incensed with her reign.
Before that, though, we have to also realize that when the Agamas were translated to Chinese during the 4-5th centuries, China wasn’t a united country. The north had been conquered when they were hit by the same wave of barbarian invasions that would ultimately destroy the western Roman Empire (when Attila arrived with the coup de grace). In the south, the Chinese continued rule for a couple centuries where things remained fairly traditional. In the north, the new barbarian princes adopted Chinese government culture but sometimes converted to Buddhism like other Central Asian peoples did. It wasn’t until a great enough military leader arose that the north was reconquered and assimilated into the Tang Empire in the late 6th century, a couple centuries after the Agamas were translated.
Kumarajiva’s own translation project, for example, was actually forced labor as he was basically put under house arrest by one of these northern rulers and made to translate Buddhist texts to Chinese.
4 Likes
What!!! I had no idea. Was he really forced to do it?
1 Like
Well, it’s maybe an oversimplification. He probably was fine with translating texts to Chinese, but he was essentially fought over by warlords and sovereigns as a kind of war trophy because he was apparently quite famous in Kucha. He didn’t travel to China consensually and was stuck there, being forced to be part of various courts. Here’s the summary of events on Wikipedia.
5 Likes
From what I understand, he was placed under house arrest by the warlord Lü Guang, who also forced him to marry the daughter of the king of Kucha (so he would have genius wizard-babies). Eventually he was released after many years, though, and was able to go to the capital at Chang’an, after which he developed a team and began his translation project.
2 Likes
I wonder what the audience was? Were Chinese-language sutras read only by monastics? I guessing there was a large literate and educated portion of the population, so were they actively reading sutras? Or was it more like Theravada, where (for the most part) the monks would read them and teach the layfolk?
My impression is that the sutra translations themselves were aimed primarily at monastics. But in practice, some educated laypeople were reading them as well. Their practices were also often pretty similar to those of monastics (e.g. meditation, mantras, copying sutras, reciting sutras, etc.).
Although some of these texts seem difficult now, I think they were much easier for people at the time. The language used was closer to the vernacular than what was found in most other forms of literature required for a basic education.
1 Like
Wow, what a story! And people think Xuanzang’s life story is one of adventure and excitement!
You better watch out, Bhante. If SuttaCentral gets too famous, you might be abducted and end up a prince, lol.
1 Like
So a Buddhist eugenics program? What could possibly go wrong!
It wouldn’t be the strangest thing that’s happened to me as a monk.
1 Like
These early translators were quite noble in their work ethic really. The translators and editors of Ekottara Agama said in the preface of their translation is that they had managed to finish them while just outside the city walls they could hear the battle drums are beating and pounding. Turbulent times indeed. Their faith must be really strong.
3 Likes
I’m not quite sure about this detail, but in the Biography of Eminent monks, there were this passage:
"When he was about to embark, Kumarajiva’s mother [a non-returner at this point] said to him: "My child, the profound and hidden Dharma needs to be promulgating in the East, and it can be counted only on your ability. But for you yourself, child, it is not beneficial. Alas, what else could be done? Kumarajiva said: “The path of the noble ones is to sacrifice oneself for the benefits of others. If the Dharma were to be preserved for posterity, were to clean the coarse custom of people, making them enlightened, then even if I myself have to pass through fire and death, no matter what the hardship I’ll be facing, I will not regret.”
The passage before this also mention his intention to go to China too.
2 Likes
Yeah, I am adding my own “read between the lines” interpretation to it. The reason I brought up the story of Kumarajiva up was less about his intentions or his experience of the events and more to illustrate the situation that existed in northern China at the time. If Kumarajiva was as accomplished a Buddhist practitioner as he was a scholar, then I would imagine he just went along with the flow of events and did what he could with the situation. His students as well as his translations moved Buddhism in China forward despite the capriciousness of the rulers at the time.
It reminds me of the Chinese way of looking at fate in the context of the whole story. Just because something seems bad (like being capture by a ruler’s general and held hostage) doesn’t mean it ultimately is. Just because something seems good (like having a reputation as a spiritual luminary that travels far and wide) doesn’t mean it is.
2 Likes