Chinese Parallels to Pārāyana

Discussion
1

I know of four Pāli suttas with parallels in Chinese that quote from the Pārāyanavagga.

SA 345 (SN 12.31)
SA 982 (AN 3.32)
SA 983 (AN 3.33) + SA3 8
SA 1164 (AN 6.61)

If you know of others, please share!

I’ve opened this thread to see if anyone with skill in translating Buddhist Chinese is interested in comparing the references to the Pāli counterparts. I’ve done some minimal preliminary comparison.

The collection is called the “波羅延那” at SA 345, but the shorter “波羅延” elsewhere.

SA 345 seems to be the most straightforward parallel, as it clearly is referring to Ajita with “阿逸多所問,” and the poem cited seems to match relatively closely the one in the Pāli. The verse runs.

「若得諸法數, 若復種種學，
具威儀及行, 為我分別說。」
SA 345

Compare Pāli:

“Ye ca saṅkhātadhammāse,
ye ca sekkhā puthū idha;
Tesaṁ me nipako iriyaṁ,
puṭṭho pabrūhi mārisa”
Snp 5.2

SA3 8 does not seem to mention the name of the collection at all, but the verse quoted does appear to be a version of the same one found at SA 983 and AN 3.33.

「度世說不致, 壞欲欲思想,
意不可俱爾, 亦除曉睡瞑,
亦還結疑, 觀意除淨,
起思惟法, 已說度世慧, 亦說壞癡。」
SA3 8

「斷於愛欲想, 憂苦亦俱離,
覺悟於睡眠, 滅除掉悔蓋,
捨貪恚清淨, 現前觀察法,
我說智解脫, 滅除無明闇。」
SA 983

Compare Pāli:

Pahānaṁ kāmasaññānaṁ, domanassāna cūbhayaṁ;
Thinassa ca panūdanaṁ, kukkuccānaṁ nivāraṇaṁ.
Upekkhāsatisaṁsuddhaṁ, dhammatakkapurejavaṁ;
Aññāvimokkhaṁ pabrūmi, avijjāya pabhedanaṁ.”
AN 3.33

Interesting note: The version here is slightly different from the one found at Snp 5.14 that it is meant to quote. There, the word is not ‘kāmasaññānaṁ‘ (‘sensual perceptions’) as at AN 3.33, but rather ‘kāmacchandānaṁ,’ one of the five hindrances. The double ‘-cch-‘ in the latter changes from the standard pathyā siloka meter, and in fact there is the variant reading ‘kāmachandānaṁ’ to fit the standard meter. The rendering with ‘saññā’ found here does not have the variation, and so it is possible that the meter was a contributing factor here. Comparison with the Chinese versions would be helpful in potentially establishing an older reading!

Both seem to be parallels to a passage from Udaya’s Question (Snp 5.14), which it seems is the name referenced SA 983: “憂陀耶所問.”

The Pāli parallel to SA 982 quotes from Puṇṇaka, but the Chinese name says: “富隣尼迦所問.” It seems maybe this is a Sanskrit form of the name (Pūrṇaka) as at the Pāli parallel, but maybe it is Pingiya (the last of the questioners). The verse reads:

「世間數差別， 安所遇不動，
寂靜離諸塵， 拔根無悕望，
已度三有海， 無復老死患。」
SA 982

Compare Pāli:

“Saṅkhāya lokasmiṁ paroparāni,
Yassiñjitaṁ natthi kuhiñci loke;
Santo vidhūmo anīgho nirāso,
Atāri so jātijaranti brūmi.”
AN 3.32 / Snp 5.4

This seems to be the same passage, but as far as I can tell the Pāli and Chinese versions seem more distant.

At SA 1164, it seems to be referring to ‘Tissametteyya’ as in the Pāli, with the Chinese transliteration being “低舍彌德勒所問.”

The Chinese:

『若知二邊者， 於中永無著，
說名大丈夫， 不顧於五欲，
無有煩惱鏁， 超出縫紩憂。』
SA 1164

And the Pāli:

“Yo ubhonte viditvāna,
majjhe mantā na lippati;
Taṁ brūmi mahāpurisoti,
sodha sibbanimaccagā”
AN 6.61

Again of note is that the Pāli version at AN is slightly different from the one at Snp 5.3, here a bit more significantly. When discussing the above verse, it would be good to compare both versions of the Pāli as well as the other parts of the verse at SN 5.3

Reconstructing the original names would be good, as well as digging into the verses themselves!

4 Likes
2

Could you translate the Pali counterparts?

3

Bhante Sujato’s translations are available through the links in the post. :slight_smile:

4

It will be better if you could translate the relevant Pali counterparts (or simply just copy the Sujato’s translations) in which you consider the Pali texts in fact have the Chinese parallels.

5

I’m traveling at the moment, so I don’t have all my references on hand to confirm the exact transliterations for the names in SA, but they all look correct to me. There may just be some superficial differences in pronunciation due to the names being pronounced in different languages.

Re: SA 983 and AN 3.33, the Chinese has 愛欲想, which definitely looks like an equivalent to kāma (愛欲) saññā (想). The first verse in SA 983 is nearly verbatim AN 3.33. The words that mean the same thing in each line are:

Pahānaṁ (斷) kāmasaññānaṁ (愛欲想),
domanassāna (憂苦) cūbhayaṁ (亦俱),
Thinassa (睡眠), [In the next line 滅除 = panūdanaṁ]
kukkuccānaṁ (掉悔) nivāraṇaṁ (蓋),
Upekkhā (捨) saṁsuddhaṁ (清淨),
dhammatakka (觀察法) purejavaṁ (現前),
Aññāvimokkhaṁ (智解脫) pabrūmi (我說),
avijjāya (無明) pabhedanaṁ (~滅除, see above).

There are just a few changes in SA, which is par for the course when looking at parallels.

That’s all I have time for at the moment.

4 Likes
6

Great! Thanks. Your knowledge in this area is very helpful and appreciated!

Very interesting! So possibly this is the original reading, which as I said fits the meter. I recite ‘-ch-‘ here metri causi, but ‘-s-‘ would work too.

The Pāli has ‘sati’ (‘mindfulness’) as well after ‘upekkhā.’ Is there a possible way to render this from the Chinese, maybe with an alternate reading?

2 Likes
7

Um … now that you mention it, there is an alternate reading that reads:

捨念恚清淨

instead of

捨貪恚清淨

The first one says “equanimous, mindful, and pure of dislike,” and the second one says “equanimous and pure of greed and dislike.” I guess it’s a toss up which is right. The Taisho reading assumes 念 was a misprint for 貪, which is an antonym to 恚. The reading in AN 3.33 echoes the pure equanimous mindfulness of samādhi.

3 Likes
8

As for SA 982, there seem to be some extra verses in the Chinese. I’m not sure how creative translators would get in adding to the Indic original. Here is what I’ve put together as a basic starting point for correction. Please beware that this analysis likely has many mistakes and is only here to help establish some ground.

The first line seems to parallel the rough ideas of the Pāli:

“世 (loka) 間 (~parovarāni?) 數差別 (saṅkhāya?)”

One note here is that ‘parovarāni’ means something like ‘high & low,’ i.e. everywhere or the whole lot. It seems that '間 ’ just means ‘between; space; interval’ etc. Unless I’ve parsed it or other characters wrong, or if it has a different meaning in Middle/Buddhist Chinese.

‘Sankhāya’ is a difficult word to render and translate. It looks to me like the Chinese tries to capture different connotations in the word with a series of characters.

Then the next line also seems relatively close:

“安 (santo?) 所(yassa?kuhiñci?) 遇不(natthi?)動 (iñjitaṁ)”

Not sure what ‘所’ means here. ‘安 ’ seems to parallel a Pāli word from the next line (e.g. ‘santo’). But there are many words meaning peaceful in the Chinese, so it’s a bit unclear if there were more in the Chinese source text or if they are compounds denoting single words.

Then:

“寂(santo/anīgho?)靜(santo/anīgho?) 離 (leave) 諸(he)塵(dust)”

Maybe ‘離 塵’ is ‘vidhūmo.’ This one seems to be less similar but close in meaning. ‘Dhūmo’ is more literally ‘smoke,’ rather than dust. I wonder if the Chinese characters here relate to older sacrificial rites, and ‘dust’ is a mere approximation? Because in context, the verse is a response to people who practiced sacrifice and offerings.

“拔根(uproot foundation? nirūpadhi?) 無悕望 (nirāso?)”

‘無悕望’ seems a relatively close match to ‘nirāso’ in meaning. Not sure what ‘拔根’ is supposed to mean; seems like it possibly does not correspond to the Pāḷi version.

And the last two:

“已度(atāri)三有(three bhava)海(sea/ogha)
無復(not repeat) 老死(jarāmaraṇa)患(soka?pariddava?)”

Again, quite close in meaning to the Pāḷi. But here it specifically refers to the ‘three realms,’ adds a word for suffering (not the modern ‘dukkha’ one, so maybe mental suffering), and also adds a word for a body of water that is very common in this collection of verses. Probably ‘ogha.’

Someone with more knowledge of how these translators rendered other Indic words could maybe identify parallels beyond the Pāli we have available. Calling @knotty36 as well!

4 Likes
9

Not a bad attempt!

世間 = loka. The Chinese word refers to the human world, so lit. it means “(those) in the world.”

數 = saṅkhāya. The Chinese means to count or calculate.

I think 差別 must be an attempt at trans. paroparāni. It means to distinguish or differentiate, so not exactly the same in meaning.

For line 2:

安 does probably equal santo, but I think here it must be a subject, describing a person as peaceful.

所 is usually grammatical, indicating the verb that follows is done by the noun before it, or it can nominalize a verbal phrase that follows it. 所 also means a place or location when it isn’t used grammatically. Here, though, I think 所遇 is an adverbial noun phrase, the subject of which is 安(人).

I’d guess that 不動 might = yassiñjitaṁ, but here it is the verb rather than the subject.

Given the Pali, I’d translate this line as “The peaceful (安) are undisturbed (不動) by what they meet (所遇).”

For line 3:

We can see now that the third line in AN 3.32 has been expanded into several lines in SA 982. The previous line was the first one. This is the second one.

“The tranquil (寂靜) are free of defilements (離諸塵)” - free here meaning without any. So, this must correspond with vidhūmo.

For line 4:

拔根無悕望 = “The root uprooted (拔根), they hope for nothing (無悕望)”. This line corresponds to nirāso.

For line 5:

已度三有海 = “Having crossed over (已度) the sea (海) of three existences (三有).” This line just has the verb atāri in common with the last line in AN 3.32.

For line 6:

無復老死患 = “No more (無復) are they troubled (患) by old age and death (老死).”

This line might correspond to anīgho in the third line, but it also has 老死 in common with the last line in AN 3.32.

The trick of reading Chinese Buddhist verses like these is to expect the verb to be last like it is in Indic languages, and usually there’s a two part rhythm to each line. The first two characters are the subject and last three the predicate. And subjects are typically understood, where adjectives describe the person without ever using pronouns or other other words to tell us that. We’re supposed to “just know”!

4 Likes
10

@Vaddha, @cdpatton, I’m currently in the throes of putting together my thesis proposal (I’m draft 15 at this point, I think). So, I arrived late to what seems to have been a great party, only to find that @cdpatton has already eaten most of the cake! I’ll search for crumbs, but I doubt I’ll find any.

But, seriously, I agree, @Vaddha, that your translations and reconstructions were more than halfway there, anyway.

The only thing I want to offer is that, personally, I really no longer think in terms of “original” readings, just more or less closely aligned ones. I can think of no justification for favoring a stemmatic model over the possibility that two (or more) different readings could have been travelling side-by-side down through time right from the very beginning.

Other than that, I’m looking at the excerpts and trying to concentrate, but my head is swirling and I can’t really focus. (Being cloistered with this proposal has left me in such a different headspace.) But I want to have some fun, too! Is there anything left? What’s next? Or, did we get everything?

3 Likes
11

Hi @knotty36 ! Sorry to hear about your exhaustion! I hope things go well for you and that you are able to find peace and contentment amidst the turmoil.

We still have not discussed SA 1164 or SA 345. SA 1164 is interesting, because it seems to have more differences also in the prose from AN 6.61. That would be good to learn more about!

If you had anything to add to the other verses of course, that would also be nice! For example, there was the variant reading in Chinese corresponding to ‘sati/smṛti’ for one of the characters. But perhaps that was not in the Chinese source text. Maybe the editors for the Chinese edition knew about the Pāḷi and added it? I’m not sure how variant readings in the Chinese editions work, TBH.

Thanks. I think this is a reasonable domain of inquiry. I can easily see differences like the ‘kāmasaññā’ vs. ‘kāmacchanda’ one we discussed arising early on. And it’s possible that people would know about some of these variants and discuss the meaning of the verses in a more inclusive way.

I think it’s a reasonable hypothesis that once a variant is established in a reciter tradition, it would be difficult to remove unless it were forgotten. Because people would not know if it was in fact the original, and so they may be hesitant to remove or delete it. I think it may be more likely that they simply learn it as they are taught, and then any variations they discuss. Some variants they may dismiss as non-sensical or contrary, but some of them may have been left open, because people could not reach consensus. Just some thoughts on how that could go in real life.

I have memorized the questions in the Pārāyana in Pāḷi, and in doing so I had to establish the text I would memorize. And in fact, I often don’t recite certain things which I know are found in variations or current editions of the text, and I could discuss or recite them if I decided to. So extrapolating from that, maybe the same type of thing was going on in ancient times.

12

Oh, darn it. I knew I should have waited. I really do want others to chime in on these questions … I’ve been secretly hoping someday people learning Buddhist Chinese would appear on the forum for the past four years, and you are about the only one who has been really serious about it!

4 Likes
13

:laughing:
No problem! @Vaddha says there’s a little more left. And, trust me, I LOVE wtching you in action!

2 Likes
14

Not the poems, but on the prose of SA 1164.

AN 6.61 is relatively well known among those who study the suttas. It presents six interpretations on a verse from the Questions of Tissa Metteyya. A group of monks respond to a question posed based on the verse, and each responds with their answer. Then, they go to the Buddha to clarify the proper interpretation.

The verse, in brief, says that someone transcends the “seamstress” if they understand “both ends” and therefore do not get stuck “majjhe,” usually translated “in the middle.”

The questions posed for discussion are:

  1. What is one end?
  2. What is the second end?
  3. What is in the middle?
  4. Who is seamstress?

The Chinese prose includes all of those questions for comment, as well as an additional one. I provide the Chinese as well as a tentative rendering. I’m not sure if ‘縫紩’ is a person (‘seamstress’) or an activity (‘stitching together’). It seems to me from looking at some examples though that it can refer to an activity; so unless it is being used here to refer to a person who performs that activity, I’ll render ‘stitching’ tentatively for now.

  1. 云何邊？
    What is [one] end?
  2. 云何二邊？
    What is the second end?
  3. 云何為中？
    What is the middle?
  4. 云何為縫紩？
    What is the stitching?
  5. 云何思？
    What is reflection?

The last question — not found in the Pāli version — uses the character ‘思’ which seems to mean ‘think’ or ‘considerate.’ The Pāli word is ‘mantā,’ which also is derivative of the word meaning ‘to think,’ and seems to here mean either an agent (‘a thinker;’ ‘thoughtful one;’ ‘considerate one’) or a truncated verb form (‘after consideration’). The commentary interprets it as a truncated instrumental of ‘mantā,’ and interprets it as a synonym for ‘paññā,’ which is contextually what it would seem to imply in one way or another.

Now, the six sets of answers in Pāli all interpret ‘the seamstress’ in the same way. They say: “And ‘craving’ (taṇhā) is the seamstress; ‘for craving weaves one into the production of one form of existence or another’ (taṇhā hi naṁ sibbati tassa tasseva bhavassa abhinibbattiyā).”
The remaining answers are as follows:

  1. ‘Contact’ (phassa) is one end. ‘The arising of contact’ (or ‘origin;’ phassasamudaya) is the second end. ‘The cessation of contact’ (phassanirodha) is in the middle.
  2. ‘The past’ is one end. ‘The future’ is the second end. ‘The present’ is in the middle.
  3. ‘Pleasant feeling’ (vedanā) is one end. ‘Painful feeling’ is the second end. ‘Neutral feeling’ is in the middle.
  4. ‘Name’ (nāma) is one end. ‘Form’ (rūpa) is the second end. ‘Consciousness’ (viññāṇaṁ) is in the middle.
  5. ‘The six internal sense domains’ (ajjhattikāni āyatanāni) are one end. ‘The six external sense domains’ (bāhirāni āyatanāni) are the second end. ‘Consciousness’ (viññāṇaṁ) is in the middle.
  6. ‘Conditioned reality’ (sakkāya) is one end. ‘The arising of conditioned reality’ (or ‘origin;’ sakkāyasamudaya) is the second end. ‘The cessation of conditioned reality’ (sakkāyanirodha) is in the middle.

The Buddha affirms the first interpretation as his original intent in speaking the verse, but says all the above interpretations are ‘well spoken.’ There are some interpretive issues, but I’ll set those aside for now to focus on establishing what the texts say.

The Chinese recension seems to present only five sets of interpretations. I will put my cautionary rendering in grey; be warned that it also may contain grave misrenderings and is only an amateur attempt.

Setting aside the part of the answers after defining the ‘stitching’ (tentative translation), the interpretations presented there are:

  1. “六內入處是一邊，六外入處是二邊，受是其中，愛為縫紩”

‘The six internal sense domains’ are one end. ‘The six external sense domains’ are the second end. ‘Feeling’ is in the middle. Craving is the stitching.

  1. “過去世是一邊，未來世是二邊，現在世名為中，愛為縫紩”

‘The past life’ is one end. ‘The future life’ is the second end. ‘The present life’ is [called the?] middle. ‘Craving’ is the stitching.

  1. “樂受者是一邊，苦受者是二邊，不苦不樂是其中，愛為縫紩”

‘Pleasant feeling’ is one end. ‘Painful feeling’ is the second end. ‘Neutral [feeling]’ is in the middle. ‘Craving’ is the stitching.

  1. “有者是一邊，集是二邊，受是其中，愛為縫紩”

‘Existence’(?) is one end. ‘The origin [of existence]’(?) is the second end. ‘Feeling’ is in the middle. ‘Craving’ is the stitching.

  1. “身者是一邊，身集是二邊，愛為縫紩

‘Conditioned reality [=sakkāya]’(?) is one end. ‘The origin of sakkāya’(?) is the second end. [sic] ‘Craving’ is the stitching.

The last two questions are less clear to me, and the final one is missing an answer for what is ‘in the middle.’ The second question seems to have a variation for ‘in the middle’ which may be a simple error in the particular recension of the text. I assume ‘身’ in #5 is intended as a translation of the Indic ‘satkāya’/‘sakkāya,’ and not just ‘kāya.’

In the Chinese prose, the Buddha seems to say that the various interpretations were well spoken. He then clarifies what his intended interpretation was, which makes a sixth, not a confirmation of any of the five. He says:
6) “謂觸是一邊，觸集是二邊，受是其中，愛為縫紩”

‘Sense contact’ is one end. ‘The origin of contact’ is the second end. ‘Feeling’ is in the middle. ‘Craving’ is the stitching.

His answer more closely matches what he says in the Pāli edition, which is there also presented as an interpretation by one of the monks before they go to the Buddha. There is a difference though, in that here ‘feeling’ is said to be in the middle.

This all still leaves the other part of the interpretations following their identification of ‘縫紩’ unaddressed. Maybe someone will untangle the Chinese there as well.

The differences are interesting, and have some ramifications on the interpretive issues! I’ll leave it there for now.

2 Likes
15

If anyone knows of any other quotations or references to questions from the “波羅延那” / “波羅延“ in Chinese Abhidharma texts, commentaries, etc., that would also be very interesting to investigate!

1 Like
16

Please, Bhante @Vaddha, pardon how long it’s taken me to respond here. And thank you to @cdpatton for leaving me some toys to play with. For starters:

  1. The question of “stitching” or “seamstress” is kind of irrelevant: “(the actual physical) stitching,” “(the act of) stitching,” or “stitcher (i.e., the seamstress)” all blend into one here, I think: the inclusion of a nominalizer like 者 being negligible and often sufficient to just be implied.

  2. The reason why the authors of the Pāli would include six answers, with the Buddha rather superfluously repeating one of the answers, always perplexed me. Now, looking at the Chinese, I’m open to the possibility that it’s a formulaic error of some sort, either in composition or in transmission.

Now, the hard stuff:

Yes, an additional one, but I would say it’s not the one you (or CBETA, it seems) are thinking it is. Rather than parse and translate as

I would rather parse the last question as,

云何思以智知，以了了；智所知，了所了，作苦邊，脫於苦？

A not very clean translation of this final question would be something along the lines of either, “And what do you think…?” (as in, taṁ kiṁ maññassa…?), or, perhaps better, “How would one think (maybe a reference to that thinking one [mantā] you mentioned from the Pāli–though note there’s neither the corresponding question on the thinking one in the Pāli prose, nor the corresponding allusion to a thinking one in the Chinese verse) such that one would know and understanding, and, having known what is to be known and understood what is to be understood, make an end of suffering, and be liberated from suffering?”

The general meaning of the phrase is clear enough, though the syntax is knotty, which is why I don’t want to tire myself out attempting a really clean translation. Translation is a discipline I never developed the patience for. (@cdpatton?)

Everything following the answer regarding “stitching” is a stereotyped formula repeated six times… sort of.

The issue is the editing isn’t so clean. (Again, I’m tempted to think that about both versions.) The six iterations of the formula:

1.習於受者，得彼彼因，身漸轉增長出生，於此即法，以智知，以了了，智所知，了所了，作苦邊，脫於苦。
2. 習近此愛，彼彼所因，身漸觸增長出生，乃至脫苦。
3. 習近此愛，彼彼所得，自身漸觸增長出生，乃至作苦。
4. 如是廣說，乃至「脫苦。」
5. 如是廣說，乃至「脫苦。」
6. 習近愛已，彼彼所得，身緣觸增長出生，於此法，以智知，以了了；智所知，了所了，作苦邊，脫於苦。

Since all respondents unanimously interpret “stitching” as “craving,” the formula first explains how taṇhā leads to sakkāya and jāti by way of phassa and “development and increase”(vuddhiṁ virūḷhiṁ?).* Then, by knowing and understanding this dhamma (or these dhammas), the result is then as noted above.

*There’s a question as to whether 習 here should be read as 修習, “cultivation” (bhāvanā), though I would say this is less likely. I would instead read it as synonymous with 集, implying something analogous to “arising” (i.e., samudaya, for which it was an early translation), because, again, the context seems to speak to the generation of jāti through phassa and taṇhā.

There’re obviously a lot of peyyālas in these formulas, as well as lots of typos, too. Let’s compare phrase by phrase:

  1. 習於受者，得彼彼因，身漸轉增長出生，
  2. 習近此愛，彼彼所因，身漸觸增長出生，
  3. 習近此愛，彼彼所得，自身漸觸增長出生，
  4. 如是廣說，乃至「脫苦。」
  5. 如是廣說，乃至「脫苦。」
  6. 習近愛已，彼彼所得，身緣觸增長出生，

The 受 in #1 is probably just a copyist’s error, writing 受 for 愛 due to mutual resemblance. That aside, 習於受者, 習近此愛, 習近愛已, like 得彼彼因, 彼彼所因, and 彼彼所得, are all the same sentence really; even jumbled, their meanings remain essentially the same: as is the case with 身漸轉增長出生, 身漸觸增長出生, 自身漸觸增長出生, and 身緣觸增長出生. #5 and #6 abbreviate this entire section with the Chinese equivalent of peyyāla. The peyyālas tell us that uniformity was the overall goal (at least semantically, if not lexically), and this reinforces the decision to read all of these as (slightly) different renderings of a single formula. Lastly, punctuation-wise, CBETA chose to conclude this phrase with only a comma. I would choose something stronger–at the very least, a semi-colon or, better yet, a full-stop: there is a distinct shift in meaning in what follows.

  1. 於此即法，以智知，以了了，智所知，了所了，作苦邊，脫於苦。
  2. ……乃至脫苦。
  3. ……乃至作苦。
  4. 如是廣說，乃至「脫苦。」
  5. 如是廣說，乃至「脫苦。」
  6. 於此法，以智知，以了了；智所知，了所了，作苦邊，脫於苦。

#2 through #5 are all elided here: again, a signal to presume uniformity. For the first phrase, #1 has 此即法 for #5’s 此法. There’s no appreciable difference in meaning as far as I can see; 即 simply reinforces the immediacy of 此 (“this/these”): i.e., “this very dhamma/these very dhammas.” Everything is basically the same, and I still translate as given above.

Two small things:

  1. #3 is an outlier in ending “作苦” as opposed to “脫苦.” I’m going to say this was due to phonetic semblance this time, as both are 入聲 characters with similar pronunciations. (I don’t know, @cdpatton, are they close enough to 旁轉?)
  2. Following 了了, CBETA punctuates #1 with a comma and #6 with a semi-colon: I would opt for semi-colons in both cases.

That’s my analysis–and also my translation, such as it is. And, having had my fun, @cdpatton, I heartily invite you to provide a better translation (an actual translation, in fact) and to enrich the discussion as you may see fit. Thank you.

3 Likes
17

There are quite a few mentions of the Pārāyaṇa and a handful of isolated quotes in Chinese texts.

Kumārajīva’s Commentary on the Perfection of Wisdom quotes verses from Pārāyaṇa Sūtras in a couple places, for which we have English translations.

The first one is a quote of SĀ 345:

[0082c09] 問曰：若諸阿羅漢所作已辦，逮得己利，不須聽法，何以故說般若波羅蜜時，共五千阿羅漢？

答曰：諸阿羅漢雖所作已辦，佛欲以甚深智慧法試。如佛問舍利弗，如《波羅延經》阿耆陀難中偈說：

「種種諸學人， 及諸數法人，
是人所行法， 願為如實說！」

Which Lamotte-Chodron translate as:

Question. – The arhats who have done what needed to be done (kṛtakṛtya) and assured their personal interest (anuprāptasvakārtha) have no need to listen to the Dharma). Then why is the Buddha accompanied by five thousand arhats when he preaches the Prajñāpāramitā?

Answer. – Although the arhats have done what needed to be done, the Buddha wants to put them to the proof with the doctrine of profound wisdom (gambhīraprajñā). Thus: “The Buddha said to Śāriputra:

– In the Po lo yen king (Pārāyaṇa), in the question of A k’i t’o (Ajitapañhe), it is said (Suttanipāta, v. 1038):

There are all kinds of aspirants (śaikṣa)
And people who have experienced the truth (saṃkhyātadharma).
The doctrine practiced by these people,
I would like that you to tell it to me precisely.

The second passage quotes a parallel to Snp 5.6, Upasīvamāṇavapucchā (v. 1075–1076):

[0085b02] 復次，菩薩得無生法忍故，一切名字、生死相斷，出三界，不墮眾生數中。何以故？聲聞人得阿羅漢道，滅度已，尚不墮眾生數中，何況菩薩？

[0085b05] 如 《波羅延》優波尸難中偈說：

「已滅無處更出不？ 若已永滅不出不？
既入涅槃常住不？ 惟願大智說其實！」

[0085b09] 佛答曰：

「滅者即是不可量， 破壞因緣及名相，
一切言語道已過， 一時都盡如火滅。」

Lamotte-Chodron translation:

Furthermore, the bodhisattvas, having obtained faith in the doctrine of non-arising of dharmas (anutpattikadharmakṣānti), have suppressed all these names and conventions (sarvanāmasaṃketa) that characterize saṃsāra and have left the three worlds; [thus] they are not ranked in the number of beings (sattva). If the śrāvakas who have become arhats and are nirvāṇized are not counted in the number of living beings, what can be said about the bodhisattvas? Thus in the Po lo yen (pārāyaṇa) to the Question of Yeou po che (Upasīvaparipṛcchā), a stanza says:

After cessation (nirodha), is it impossible to reappear?
He who has disappeared is not reborn?
Having entered into nirvāṇa, does one remain there always?
May the great Sage tell me the truth!

The Buddha answered:

He who has disappeared cannot be defined;
He escapes from causes and conditions (hetupratyaya), from names and characteristics (nāmalakṣaṇa).
He has gone beyond the way of all speech (sarvavādapatha);
In one moment he disappears like an extinguished fire.

A third passage might quote a prose passage from a Pārāyaṇa or Arthavargīya sutra:

[0295c01] 《波羅延經》、《利眾經》中說：「智者於一切法不受不著，若受著法則生戲論，若無所依止則無所論。諸得道聖人於諸法無取無捨，若無取捨，能離一切諸見。」

Lamotte-Chodron translates this as:

In the Po-lo-yen king (Pārāyaṇasūtra) and the Li-tching king (Arthavargīyāṇi sūtrāṇi), it is said:

The sage does not accept or retain any dharma.
Accepting and retaining dharmas is to produce idle chatter.
If there is nothing on which to lean,
There is no idle chatter.

The saints who have attained bodhi
Neither take nor reject dharmas.
Free of taking or rejecting,
They eliminate all wrong views.

Lamotte felt this corresponded somewhat to the verses in Snp 4.3 but couldn’t identify specific ones.

The Mahāvibhāṣā quotes from both the Pārāyaṇa and the Arthavargīya (and again at 706a22):

T27n1545_p0017a09║起如是勝解。乃至廣說。波羅衍拏。亦作是
說。
諸有除色想
能除一切身
於內外法中
無有不見者

T27n1545_p0017a13║眾義品中。亦作是說。
於想有想非即離
亦非無想非除想
如是平等除色想
無有染著彼因緣

And commentary follows the quotations.

When I searched for this transliteration 波羅衍拏 by Xuanzang, I find more quotes.

The Saṅgītiparyāya:

T26n1536_p0395c28║若習若修若多所作為能獲得諸漏永盡。如
薄伽梵於波羅衍拏起問中說：

「斷欲想憂怖，
離惛沈睡眠，
及惡作掉舉，
得捨念清淨。

法輪為上首，
得正智解脫，
我說斷無明，
得勝分別慧。」

A couple verses quoted in the Jñānaprasthāna, both of which also appear in the Mahāvibhāṣā because it is a line-by-line commentary of this text:

T26n1544_p0918c21║佛法僧。生小量信。如世尊為波羅衍拏摩納
婆說。

若於佛法僧
生起微小信
儒童應知彼
名已得頂法

T26n1544_p0919a01║亡失。故名頂墮。如佛即為波羅衍拏摩納婆說。

若人於如是
三法而退失
我說彼等類
應知名頂墮

So, yeah, there are quotations not in the Āgamas. This is probably not exhaustive because the transliterations can vary and cause my text searches to miss them.

5 Likes
18

Today is positively apocalyptic here in Los Angeles. We’ve got ash falling out the sky, and the wind smells like car exhaust! Thankfully, we’re 20 miles away from the two or three apocalypses taking place today, so that’s the extent of our worries.

Let me see if I can help at all with this:

I agree with @knotty36 that 云何思？以智知，以了了；智所知，了所了，作苦邊，脫於苦。 is one whole question. So, the question mark should be placed at the end of it. It seems to be asking, "What do we consider in order to make an end of suffering (作苦邊) and be freed from suffering (脫於苦) by [knowing and comprehending something something].

That series of verb phrases is gobbledygook to me really–I can only assume it’s an attempt to translate something like the Pali since the two main verbs (知 and 了) are equivalent to abhijānāti and parijānāti. The Chinese translator probably didn’t translate the grammar fully. It ends up meaning “knowing with knowledge” (以智知) and “the knowing of knowledge” or “known by the knowledgeable” (智所知). The sense of “should be known” or “should be comprehended” is lost.

The upshot though is that the Chinese answers have an extra answer about this, whereas the Pali has this line as the conclusion of each answer. In those answers, the verb 習近 lit. means “to often be close to” or to “to be familiar with”. I think here it would mean to learn about something in detail and know it well. So, 習近此愛 would basically mean “being familiar with this craving.”

I would read 作苦邊 as “make the end of suffering” and 脫於苦 as “freed from suffering.” It’s probably a pair of synonymous phrases. Sarvastivadins loved to insert a second way of saying the same thing into their texts. And, sometimes it became three or four.

Otherwise, what @knotty36 said sounds good.

Sakkāya is an interesting case in Chinese parallels. Early translations lack the expected equivalents to sa- and simply read kāya. Later translations from Sanskrit render it as 有身 “having body/being individual”. I think it’s possible P. sakkāya is a later Sanskritization in Pali texts based on this.

4 Likes
19

Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait… This is far too big to gloss over. In fact, it might need a separate thread!

By “early translations,” presumably you mean early Chinese translations from some Prakrit? Not Pāli obviously, but something akin to it? What would the original, pre-Sanskritized Pāli then have been? Also, what would the original meaning of the Sanskrit have been if not “having body/being individual” (satkāya)?

1 Like
20

The Agamas and most texts prior to the 6th c. CE seem to be translated from Prakrit, judging by the transliterations and the different readings of some names and terms. Gandhari? Something else? I don’t know. Gandhari doesn’t always fit the transliterations, though it often explains why they differ from Sanskrit. Probably there was more than one source language. Tocharian is also a possibility. I try to document those issues in my footnotes at Dharma Pearls (as best as I can, not being an expert in Prakrit texts).

But I’m not the only one to come to this conclusion. Seishi Karashima wrote an analysis of transliterations in the Dirgha Agama that concluding that it was Prakrit, and he considered the early Mahayana translations to be from Prakrit. That seemed to be his focus of research – establishing the underlying languages for Chinese translations by looking at extant Prakrit texts and the development of Buddhist language as it moved between Indic languages.

In any case, when I look for 有身見 in Chinese translations, it doesn’t appear to become standard until the Sanskrit translations appear, which I think became dominant in the 6th c. in China. It only occurs once or twice in the Agamas, which could be later editors adding 有.

I haven’t tried to pursue the subject further than that, but it’s definitely one of those interesting changes between early and late Chinese translation.

4 Likes