Greetings everyone.
A question for those with experience translating/reading Chinese Āgamas:
Theres a group of 4 sutras in the Samyukta Āgama that have caught my eye (SA 864, SA 867, SA 869, and SA 870), and I would like to double check whether my reading of them is really accurate.
The only thing I feel sure about is that they’re saying there is “such behavior, form, demeanor” (如是行、如是形、如是相) that is necessary to enter each of the four jhānas.
It seems that each of the 4 sutras has it’s own phrase starting off the second sentence:
SA 864: 彼不憶念如是行、如是形、如是相 …
SA 867: 若不如是行、如是形、如是相憶念 …
SA 869: 若不爾者,以如是行、如是形、如是相 …
SA 870: 若不如是憶念 …
I’m wondering if these phrases they might be saying something slightly different, or if they’re just paraphrases. All of them seem to be talking about some sort of negation/contrast with was is said in the first sentence. Also, I would specifically like to ask what is the function of “憶念” which comes up in all except the third sutra, and what does it have to do the overall message? Does it mean if the monk “[does not] remember” the mode of practice necessary to enter the respective jhana, and he should instead contemplate the aggregates [as impermanent, etc.]?
I haven’t looked at these sutras in SA yet myself. MA also has these three terms when describing a practitioner entering a samadhi. It seems to be something peculiar to the Sarvastivadins, how they explained the practice for entering and maintaining a given samadhi. But I haven’t yet found a good explanation of exactly what each term was understood to mean.
MA 176 and MA 177 list these three things as 所行、所相、所標 when describing a monk entering a samadhi (not just the four jhanas). This is an example from MA 177:
In this passage, it says the monk accepts (or experiences) 行 and thinks about 相、標. My naive guess is that the second two are signs or images that he uses to tie his mind to a single thing. And 行 perhaps translates a word related to sankhara or carya. But I’m not at all sure about it.
I think 憶念 probably means to be mindful or give constant attention. My inclination is to think the monk stops minding those three things and instead contemplates the aggregates in SA 864. In SA 869, it seems to be says that contemplating the aggregates while in samadhi leads to becoming a non-returner “upstream.” Otherwise, he is reborn in one of the jhana heavens. SA 870 says the same using the fourth jhana as the example, and it’s clearer about becoming a non-returner because there it says parinirvana upstream.
My impression is that the message is that attaining samadhi leads to rebirth in the form realm, while developing wisdom about the aggregates leads to becoming a non-returner.
If anyone knows of any sources interpreting those three terms 所行、所相、所標 in MA and 行、如是形、如是相 in SA, I’m all ears. I recall when I searched the later Abhidharma translations, it was difficult to find any discussion of them. But it may be a problem of the terms being translated differently by Xuanzang and others, which makes it difficult to find passages discussing them.
I think your first reading is the most straightforward. It’s interesting that in MN 8, the parallel is na kho. I think there must have been a different particle in the original MA that was translated to Chinese that meant “only” or “merely”. Sometimes 但 can function like an adversative conjunction (“but, yet, however, still …”), but not when negated.
I think there must have been a different particle in the original MA that was translated to Chinese that meant “only” or “merely”.
You mean, in order to mirror the Pali?
BTW, I checked the Vietnamese translation of MA 91 and it seems the translator does go for the first option I gave. The Indonesian translation however seems to have been (forcefully?) matched with the Pali, fitting option 2.
Well, I think that in the very early days, different reciters learned a given text and then recited it differently from each other. They were probably paraphrasing or even added in commentary or definitions at their own discretion. Otherwise, the variations don’t make much sense to me. So, that’s my working theory about it.
Some texts are preserved better than others. Sometimes key or repeated phrases are very close. But a word or two in change could cause a given text to evolve in a given direction. Until writing was adopted and set them down in the form they were at that point. That’s my working theory. So here we have Pali:
Na kho panete, cunda, ariyassa vinaye sallekhā vuccanti
And Chinese:
周那!於聖法、律中,不但是漸損
na kho panate is parallel to 不但是, but 但 is not kho. There’s no verb vuccanti either, and dharma has been added. Otherwise, it’s the same expression.
Not surprising. The Vietnamese translator probably has a better grasp of the Chinese since the languages are more closely related. Translators more familiar with Pali or Sanskrit tend to fall back to texts in those languages when the Chinese is difficult. They give their own understanding of Pali or Sanskrit more importance than the readings that the Chinese translators are using. Sometimes, they simply refuse to translate a given passage properly. I personally can’t understand it; it’s unethical to me to do that. And it’s unfortunate because it distorts people’s understanding of the EBTs by making them artificially more similar to Pali in English translation.
Sorry, not sure I follow. If it’s the same expression, then how come the first option would seem to be correct and not the second one? The second one is basically how I would translate “na kho panete… sallekhā vuccanti.”
Sorry if it’s a dumb question, I have experience with Pāli but I’m a total newbie when it comes to Chinese
I only recently started finding these very interesting differences between the Agamas and Nikayas, which has motivated me to start studying the former. I used to think the differences were much more minor.
Parallels are not always so similar even though they’ve diverged. It looks to me like there was an original expression that was key to the passage, like the refrain to a song or poem. Different reciters changed it a little here and there. An extra word here, a different word there. I don’t think it was intentional, more often it was accidental, like all the typos in my translations at Dharma Pearls. It’s just human nature to say things in different ways from one occasion to the next even when we’re trying not to stray.
The problem with parallel studies with only two versions is that it’s a judgement call which one is “right” and which one is “wrong” in terms of preserving the original expression. Unless the changes make the passage incoherent, then it’s kind of obvious.