MN 1 Mūlapariyāyasutta revolves around an enigmatic sentence which depicts the process of conceptualization using a series of grammatical forms. The exact interpretation is not easy and has been construed in different ways by various translators. The sentence concerns how a person “conceives” (maññati) a series of elements, starting with “earth” (which I use as the example in this essay).
Up until now I have used “identify” for the sake of clarity for maññati, but I am reconsidering that. The verb maññati while obviously associated with the process of identification, means rather “conceive”, “imagine”, “think”, “suppose”. Here it has the sense of the active construction via creative thought (Comm: kappeti vikappeti).
The Buddhist usage draws upon such passages as Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad 4.3.20, where due to ignorance, a person “imagines” in a dream the fearful things they saw when awake, or at the highest level, “imagines I am this all” (ahamevedaṁ sarvo’smīti manyate). Here we clearly see the idea that a confused or partial understanding based on past experience is built up into something new in the present, which is driven by or associated with the concept of the self.
Let’s sort some of the basics out. Here is the first phrase.
pathaviṁ pathavito sañjānāti;
pathaviṁ pathavito saññatvā
pathaviṁ maññati,
pathaviyā maññati,
pathavito maññati,
pathaviṁ meti maññati,
pathaviṁ abhinandati.
Most translators render the first line, “they perceive earth as earth”. Now, the grammar here is somewhat nuanced. Normally in Pali a subject may be implicit in the verb, as it is here. The direct object of the verb is expressed by the accusative case (pathaviṁ), while the locative (pathaviyā) and ablative (pathavito) cases are used in an oblique sense. The genitive of the personal pronound then expresses ownership, distanced by the close -ti (pathaviṁ meti) which should be rendered with “that”, i.e. “conceives that earth is mine”.
Now, the literal sense of the ablative case is “from”. This would imply that one perceives earth “from” earth. In other words, having “seen” a visual percept of earth, one “perceives” it, with the percept being a mental representation of earth based on recognition and memory.
Typically, however, such idioms are read according to the so-called “ablative of viewpoint”, which is typically expressed in English with “as” or “in terms of”.
https://www.ancient-buddhist-texts.net/Textual-Studies/Syntax-of-the-Cases/05-Ablative.htm#toc17
While this is technically simply one of the spectrum of uses of the ablative case, it has a number of peculiar features.
- It is strongly employed in doctrinal cases, for example anattato “as not-self”.
- In such cases, it is strongly associated with verbs of cognition, “one sees form as not-self”.
- It always uses the special ablative ending -to rather than the regular forms.
These characteristics all apply in the Mūlapariyāyasutta, so we should read the ablative in this sense. So far this is uncontroversial.
Where it gets tricky is in dealing with the second phrase. There we find a series of five clauses, one of which uses exactly the same ablative form. Despite this, many translators, following the commentary, render the second ablative “from” rather than “as”.
Bodhi: perceives earth as earth … he conceives himself apart from earth
Suddhaso: perceives earth as earth … conceives from (a basis of) earth
Thanissaro: perceives earth as earth … he supposes (things) coming out of earth
Horner is an exception, she renders both with “as”:
recognises extension as extension … he thinks (of self as) extension
Nyanamoli on the other hand renders both with “from”:
From earth he has a percept of earth … he conceives [that to be apart] from earth
As you can see, translators have struggled to express the passage, as the structure and meaning is closely embedded in the Pali grammar.
Now, given the above considerations and the fact that the grammatical forms are identical, I think it is clear that:
- we should interpret both cases the same way
- in both cases should use “as”
A second level of ambiguity revolves around the object of the conceiving. We can see from above that Ven Bodhi and Horner takes that as “oneself”. Thanissaro has, rather, “things”. Suddhaso’s translation avoids specifying an object.
Nyanamoli, on the other hand, takes the “percept” as the object. And I believe this is required by the flow of the sentence. The second sentence opens by re-iterating that one has “perceived earth as earth”. Nyanamoli tries to clarify that what the means is that one has created a mental image (“percept”) that is an idea of the sense stimulus. This oversteps the Pali, which treats “perceives” solely as a verb.
Nonetheless, I think he is clearly correct in taking the percept as the object throughout the sentence. It is simply incoherent otherwise; in leaving the object implicit, the sentence must be assuming what has come before.
Note that, while from a doctrinal point of view the passage is clearly about the formation of the subjective sense of self, there is no mention of the word “self” here or indeed anywhere in the sutta: it comes from the commentary. So it is unlikely to be the implicit object, and best to leave it out of a translation.
Returning to Wijesekera’s Syntax of the Cases in the Pali Nikayas as linked above, he quotes from this passage as an example of the “ablative of viewpoint”:
paṭhavito na maññati
“does not regard (it) as earth”
Wijesekera inserts the implicit object “it”, which must refer back to previously in the sentence, i.e. the percept “earth” (rather than the “self”).
Thus we should translate:
They perceive earth as earth. Having perceived earth as earth, they conceive it to be earth, they conceive it in earth, they conceive it as earth, they conceive that ‘earth is mine’, they take pleasure in earth.
Each phrase has a distinct sense:
- accusative is identification: to conceive “it to be earth” creates an identification between what is perceived and what is imagined as earth: they are one and the same.
- locative is inherence: to be “in earth” suggests that what is perceived is a part of the conceived earth, or is understood in relation to it, but is not fully identical.
- ablative is perspective: to be “as earth” is conceive in terms of or in light of the idea of earth. There is a subtle distancing here, as the idea is distinct from the thing. Consider the sentence, “She recognized the car as a Corolla”. The abstract idea of “Corolla” is understood as related to but distinct from the sight of the car.
- genitive is appropriation: earth is something that belongs to oneself. The process of separation and objectification is complete.
The oblique cases of the locative and the ablative are similar is sense, both conceiving in some kind of relation. But the locative has a closer, more intimate sense, whereas the ablative stands back. These are subtle nuances. In such cases, where the Pali itself is deliberately expressed in a subtle way requiring careful consideration, a translation should try to reflect that.