One of the most important technical terms in Buddhism is the Pāḷi 'khandha, Skt. ‘skandha.’ The translation many in the English speaking world are familiar with is ‘aggregate,’ and this is the translation currently in use by Ven. @sujato here on SuttaCentral. I would like to discuss this a bit, mainly pointing out an inconsistency I see in the translation of related technical terms.
This came to mind when reflecting on the following stock definition in the suttas:
And what is rebirth?
The rebirth, inception, conception, reincarnation, manifestation of the aggregates, and acquisition of the sense fields of the various sentient beings in the various orders of sentient beings.
Yā tesaṁ tesaṁ sattānaṁ tamhi tamhi sattanikāye jāti sañjāti okkanti abhinibbatti khandhānaṁ pātubhāvo āyatanānaṁ paṭilābho
Notice anything?
‘Āyatana’ is translated as ‘sense field.’ But ‘āyatana’ does not mean ‘sense field,’ it simply means ‘field’ or ‘domain.’ ‘Khandha,’ on the other hand, is translated as ‘aggregate.’
Both of these terms are equivalent in that they are (1) both technical terms used in Buddhism to refer to models for dividing up experience, and (2) both ambiguous as stand-alone words without prior context to understand what they refer to within Buddhism.
The favoritism to translate ‘āyatana’ as “sense-X” while leaving ‘khandha’ general and un-qualified is not unique. Ven. Bodhi and Ven. Suddhāso have both done the same. ‘Khandha’ is left translated as a meaningless stand-alone term, but ‘āyatana’ is provided with standard supplementary translation material. Ven. Ānandajoti has the following translation:
khandhānaṁ pātubhāvo, āyatanānaṁ paṭilābho.
the manifestation of the components (of mind and bodily-form), the acquisition of the sense-spheres.
This is a bit better, in that both terms are qualified. But notice here there is the impression given of literal accuracy with ‘sense-spheres’ in that this is given with no parentheses, right next to ‘components (of mind and bodily-form)’ which does give the supplementary material in parenthesis, implying it is added. Still, then, there is a bias to translate ‘āyatana’ as though it needs and entails qualification, whereas ‘khandha’ as though it needs to be stand-alone and any qualification is somehow less literal and secondary than with ‘āyatana.’
I’m not proposing a particular translation solution — that is up to each translator. But I am calling for some consistency, and possibly for some re-consideration of “aggregates” as the translation for “khandhā.” Hoping Ven. @sujato would consider this for SuttaCentral
I personally would advocate not for reducing ‘āyatana’ to “fields” but rather with supplementing (and/or replacing) “aggregates” to fit with the standard with the former, as translators clearly have believed to be important for the sake of clarity. Translating “āyatana” just as “fields” is a perfect demonstration of how non-sensical “aggregates” on its own is. In this case, the text itself is ambiguous, so following the convention of the text would be fine; but at least using a more readable and accessible word like has been done with ‘āyatana’ would be nice.
Much mettā for all the translators out there and the work you do!