On having recite line by line

[Brahmali]

@sujato

It means “having them recite”, which is part of a process that was often used for memorizing.

It is the critical part, without which any further process is impossible. In fact, the rest is just repetition or rehearsal. You would not normally call that memorisation.

I feel the above quotes justify my point that “to make memorise” is at the very least implied in the word vāceti. When they heard this word in ancient India, they may well have heard “cause to recite”, but they would also have heard something like “make remember”.

@sujato

Intention is not a mitigating factor here.

Whether intention is a mitigating factor for the offence or not, verbs often have implied intention.

@sujato

And, hate to say it, but every other translator agrees.

They probably agree to make their rendering fit the Vibhaṅga. You have pointed out that

@sujato

Your Vibhanga translates padaso as “memorizes”. I’m looking at it and thinking, “does he know something I don’t?” Because that sure ain’t what it means.

which is really just an artefact of my translation. The problem is that if we follow the word analysis too closely, we are compelled to translate word for word, rather than sentence by sentence or even paragraph by paragraph, which is really the only sensible way to translate. And so we should not allow ourselves to be too bound by the word commentary. But yes, it does lead to some awkwardness. If I don’t change my rendering, which I might, I should at the very least add a comment.

[thomaslaw]

Is it possibly this is a sectarian Vinaya teaching, not shared with other early Buddhist sects?

[sujato]

@Brahmali

we are compelled to translate word for word

It’s a legal text. Words matter. If it were a narrative or poetry, okay, but the Vinaya, especially word analysis, is not supposed to be readable, it’s supposed to be precise. It’s a reference work. The only reason you look up the Vibhanga is to see the precise meaning. So general translation principles for prose or whatever don’t really apply.

I’ve been tripped up by this more times than I can count. I found out another case today. There’s an idiom tibbo vanasando, translated by Bodhi as “dense thicket”. But how does tibba mean “dense”? Well, we can read it from context and say it must be sharp, then maybe unpleasant, then dense? I’m not sure.

But the sense “dense” doesn’t seem to be attested anywhere in Pali or Sanskrit. The basic meaning of tibba is “sharp, hot, acrid”. And while we normally assume a forest would be cool, that’s not always the case. On a hot day, a tropical jungle is “sweltering”, and that’s what tibba means here. Now, in our context in MN 12, our hero is walking in a “sweltering jungle” and comes across a cool lotus pond. Nice!

Point is, words aren’t blanks, they have meanings that are sticky, and you can’t just assume context into a word. The meaning of the word changes the context. Meaning arises at every level of language: the roots, the words, the phrases, the sentences, the paragraphs, the passages, the whole corpus. They’re all interdependent.

You’ll get a case in verse where it says something like, “a sage has desires” (can’t think of an exact example now, sorry!), but you know from the overall meaning of the Buddha’s teaching that it must have an elided initial a-, “a sage has no desires”. So the biggest scope of all can determine the reading of a single missing letter. On the other hand, the presence of a negative can make a huge difference in interpretation, such as the ending of the Mulapariyayasutta.

All I’m saying is, “translate by sentence” is fine as a rule of thumb, but it’s not an excuse to not pay attention to words.

[sujato]

No, as shown by Vimalanyani, it is shared across all Vinayas, as are virtually all of the Vinaya rules (apart from sekhiyas).

[Brahmali]

@sujato

It’s a legal text. Words matter.

Right. This is an important point!

Still, the rules themselves existed before the Vibhaṅga. The early monks were ordinary people who would have understood the rules according to natural language, not as legal specialists. Indeed, the Buddha would no doubt have expressed the rules in such a way that everyone would understand them with relative ease. True, later on the texts did become more legalistic, with the word analysis and the rest of the Vibhaṅga, and there were specialists on the Vinaya who no doubt functioned a bit like lawyers. So the question then arises whether one should translate according to the natural language of the rule or according to the specialist understanding of the Vibhaṅga.

If we follow the former course, then I still believe my rendering is justified, even the best. If, however, we are to adapt the translation to suit the Vibhaṅga, then I would probably have to render things differently.

I’ll consider it further. I may just add a note to explain how it is that “memorize” renders padaso.

@sujato

The only reason you look up the Vibhanga is to see the precise meaning.

Yes, but my alternative rendering does not affect the actual word explanations. And so I don’t think anything is lost.

[sujato]

No worries. Well, I guess I’ll just get back to my own day job of killing cats.

[Brahmali]

LOL! At least you’re not alone …