SuttaCentral
@cdpatton I just wanted to cjheck a detail with you.
In the definition of right action you have 婬 as “sexual misconduct”. DDB says it also means “fornication” and can stand for either kāmesu micchācarā or abrahmacariyā.
The pali parallel here is odd, because where we would expect kāmesu micchācarā we in fact have abrahmacariyā. Bodhi assumes this is a scribal error, which seems reasonable.
But I just wanted to check. Is it possible that both Pali and Chinese do, in fact, read abrahmacariyā?
邪淫 is usually used for sexual misconduct, whereas 淫 is broader in its definition. For example 不淫 means abstaining from sex.
Though in the context of 殺，盜，淫，妄 it usually refers to sexual misconduct.
But expert opinion is better than this amateur’s.
Literally, 婬 just refers to sex, and in a sordid way. This is an issue I need to deal with in general - figuring out whether the context is people who’ve taken vows of abstinence or laypeople. It’s sometimes in the place for a layperson’s five precepts, too, which I doubt really means “no sex” if they are married. Sometimes it’s not obvious. I suppose 婬 could be a translation abrahmacariyā where brahmacariyā means celibacy. It’s certainly the opposite.
Ok thanks. Well in any case it’s an interesting detail. It at least seems possible the Indic original had _ abrahmacariyā, which would agree with the Pali.
Does this occur in SA?
Looking through SA, the term is usually 邪婬 (“wrong sex”). There is a passage that uses abrahmacariyā as a synonym in SA 1040. The Buddha asks a brahmin how he practices renunciation, and then he tells the brahmin about the path of ten good deeds. The one for sexual misconduct reads: "Free of all wrong sex, not enjoying wrong sex, and relying on not being sexual, one renounces what’s not the religious practice (i.e. celibacy): 離諸邪婬，不樂邪婬，依於不婬，捨非梵行。
非梵行 would be a straightforward translation of abrahmacariyā (非 = a-, 梵 = brahma, 行 = cariya).
It’s also an example of how 不婬 (“not sex”) seems understood to mean “not [wrong] sex” since that was the term twice before it.
Interesting, thanks. So there’s two definitions of this in Pali. Clearly it’s not this one, which is in the ten good deeds:
They commit sexual misconduct. They have sexual relations with women who have their mother, father, both mother and father, brother, sister, relatives, or clan as guardian. They have sexual relations with a woman who is protected on principle, or who has a husband, or whose violation is punishable by law, or even one who has been garlanded as a token of betrothal.
But it is a little closer to this one, which is in the gradual training:
Abrahmacariyaṁ pahāya brahmacārī hoti ārācārī virato methunā gāmadhammā.
They give up unchastity. They are chaste, set apart, avoiding the vulgar act of sex.
I found a Sanskrit version of this in the Sanghabhedavastu, so from a similar sectarian background as SA. Very roughly:
sa abrahmacaryaṃ prahāya abrahmacaryāt prativirato bhavati; brahmacārī kucaryāvirataḥ, śuddhaḥ śuciḥ nirāmagandhaḥ, virato maithunād apeto grāmyadharmād abrahmacaryāt prativirato bhavati
Giving up unchastity, he refrains from what is unchaste, he is chaste, refraining from bad conduct, pure, clean, untainted, refraining from sex, bereft of vulgar deeds, he refrains from unchastity.
What joins these two is that the definitions freely repeat versions of brahmacariya in different phrasings. I don’t think we find similar passages with kāmesu micchācara. In such cases it’s easy to see how the definitions might expand through adding new synonyms, etc. Also, as a translator I can understand introducing variations to bring out nuances of the original idea, eg. by rendering abrahmacariya as both “wrong sex” and “what’s not the religious practice”.
None of this is definitive at all, of course.
To sum up, my reason for asking was whether the Chinese parallel supported Bodhi’s proposal that abrahmacariya be amended in that one case to agree with similar passages elsewhere, though the proposal lacks any manuscript support. The Chinese is at least ambiguous on this point, so it doesn’t clearly support the emendation. In this case, it seems to me that the difference does not require any great explanation: it might simply have arisen because the passage was taught to different audiences, i.e. monastic or lay. So, since there’s no strong reason to suppose it must have been kāmesu micchācara, and since the parallel is not definitive, it’s probably best to translate the text as-is.
It’s quite possible. SA 784 was probably in a monastic context rather than the laity.
I would. On the other hand, your question has brought this old translation of an important text to my attention. I think it was among the first Agama translations I made for Dharma Pearls in 2019. I’d say it could use a good review.
Charles your work continues to inspire and inform!