SuttaCentral
Looking at the Merriam-Webster dictionary definition of aggregate as, “a mass or body of units or parts somewhat loosely associated with one another. “ seems to capture the sense well.
As mentioned above, the contextual sense of ‘khandha’ in the Pali texts seems to generally be ‘collection’ or ‘mass’.
Isn’t the issue that it is simply not possible to separate “purely technical translation problems” from “views on the meaning”? This issue arises not only for common doctrinal terms such as khandha, but also for more obscure passages that are occasionally invoked as cornerstones of interpretations (such as viññāṇaṁ anidassanaṁ).
Obviously, in such cases diligent translators base their “view on the meaning” on their knowledge of how the terms are used in various contexts across the texts and also definitions and contexts found in commentaries. Furthermore, their choice of English terms is influenced by the flavour of English that they speak. And English changes over time. Some translation choices made in the early and middle 20th C now seem rather antiquated.
Given that none of the translators are infallible, it’s wonderful that for we have consistent translations of most of the early suttas by both Vens Bodhi and Sujato. We also have many translations by others, such as Vens Thanissaro, Ānandajoti, etc. In my opinion, having these different translations, and the Pāli-English display on SC, is quite liberating. It significantly reduces the unattainable craving for a “perfect” translation.
I am actually less worried about the translations of common terms such as khandha than the passages that require a wide and deep understanding of Pāli idioms. For the former, it’s trivial to mentally substitute one’s preferred term. It’s the latter where comparing two or three translations has been particularly enlightening.
You know Stephen, I have thought about this notion of aggregate in Deleuzian terms - that of “assemblage.” All this involves the concepts of smooth and striated space. Quite complicated things, but basically smooth space is “open” and moves, and striated space is “captured.” Now an assemblage is some sort of blending of the two - more or less smooth, more or less striated - and assemblages are fitting into other assemblages, where there are possibilities for connections, openings, etc. So for me, aggregate denotes “line” which denotes “capture” and thus an aggregate is a striated thing, more or less determinate and fixed in form. Another term Deleuze uses for this is “molecular” and “molar.” My sense of the khandas as envisioned in the suttas is that they are closer to assemblage. As well, Deleuze includes all these “forces” at work in the “emergence” of the molar (through capture) and his prime “force” is desire. So assemblages come together on the basis of where desires “fit.”
I suppose that is a good enough of a description without going into major complexity. What do you think? Assemblage or aggregate?
PS. He also says that men are so “molar” they are practically beyond hope and his structure of emancipation towards the open is - becoming woman, becoming girl, becoming animal, becoming vegetal … I don’t personally think (and this is shared by quite a number of feminist philosophers) that his structure of emancipation is “feminist” in any sense. The qualities he ascribes to becoming woman, becoming girl … are … not cool.
I like the idea of ‘assemblage’, and it also seems to capture the idea of something ‘made together’ or ‘constructed’, like a sankhara.
Of course, sankharas are one of the 5A, but in another sense all of the 5 can be said to be sankharas as they are constructed, put together based on conditions.
I wonder how “this whole assemblage of suffering” reads?
To translate a text accurately and professionally, the translator does not need to be an expert in the field to which the text he is translating belongs. The translator must be an expert in the language from which he is translating and into which he is translating, and an expert in the specific lexicon of the field to which the document he is translating belongs. In other words, if the translator’s personal views influence the translation, they are only views concerning the choice of lexical means for translating the text: style, the choice of specific synonyms for a given word, the general tendencies of the translator’s lexicon in the target language, the choice of equivalent idioms, and so on. A translator who allows his or her views on the meaning of the material to be translated to influence the meaning of the translation, whether consciously or not, is substituting himself or herself for the author of the source text and an expert in a field in which he or she is not an expert. In other words, instead of the words of the Buddha and his disciples, in such a case we would get an adapted, close to the text, retelling by the “translator” of his understanding of the given text under the guise of a translation of the words of the Buddha and his disciples.
In the case of ambiguous or difficult to translate phrases, there is always the option of either leaving them untranslated, with a footnote explaining the difficulties encountered and possible translation options, or translating them at least in some way, but again with an obligatory footnote explaining the translator’s own difficulties in translating the phrase. In any case, the reader of the translation must be informed of the ambiguity of the phrase and the difficulty in translating it.
If in order to find out what was actually said and how, in what specific terms and expressions, it is necessary to compare three different translations, and even to compare them with the original in Pali, then this just means that we have a big problem with the accuracy of the available translations.
Well I know Deleuze sees dissolution and new assemblages as - possibly - the most natural state of affairs. Forces, all these different forces acting in all sorts of different ways - vectors and such - this is change, which is a good thing. He’s quite brutal in his approach and has a lot of brutalist influences, and at the end of the day he was really only interested in one thing - production of the new, specifically knowledge. He’s actually classified as a modernist, even though he fits in many ways into the post-structuralist camp. He’s definitely not a Buddhist. To make it plain, he basically thinks suffering is a good thing - as long as it’s not a cliche. Which is funny, because his only option, therefore, is cliched Nietzsche thing, “that which doesn’t kill you makes you stronger.” (it’s why no one wrote about his difficult life - he had one lung - and his suicide by defenestration, and then very carefully, until at least 20 years after his death).
Desire is his warm thought. He’s practically tantric in that way, but I think he agrees with the idea all is suffering.
Or perhaps a problem with the mode of practice…
Yes, i like that too. Khandha’s are not things that exist in some constant way. Birth, explained as the manifestation of the khandha’s , i feel, cannot refer to…the khandha’s are born with the physical birth. Untill death they exist in a constant way.
No, feelings/sensations accomponing sense moments, vinnana’s, sanna’s, the impression of a body, emotions, drifts, tendencies, always arise and ceases in the moment. Never any constant presence, or it is in dormant or latent state but not actively present.
Minds nature is empty like the sutta’s say (MN121)
This is what we in my field of work call domain language or in popular language jargon.
There is a risk of misunderstanding in two ways:
It’s an universal problem, not related to Buddhist teachings and translations.
It’s similar to the experience of ear, tusk, trunk, body, foot, back, tail or tip of the tail in the story of the blind men and an elephant.
As long as we all agree that the total of these is called elephant, and we can describe the parts separate from it based on qualities, there is no problem at all.
My experience is that far to often people turn this exercise into an anatomy lesson, cutting the elephant into smaller and smaller parts trying to gain understanding from it.
The Buddha however was not aiming at that, he was essentially telling that people got themselves a white elephant.
However, since translating “khandha” with “white elephant” requires a lot of background understanding and is thus an even greater source of confusion, I’d say “aggregates” is just fine.
Yet, we might find that “white elephant” covers the meaning far better, when you are handed one and understand the implication you become dispassionate immediately even if just moments before you considered the animal one of the most valuable possessions a person could have.
This is how domain language allows for efficient propagation of knowledge amongst those who master the domain language, yet can be very confusing to outsiders or people new to it.
With this I’d say translating khandha with aggregates is a decent trade-off for readibility, it will make people search for it’s meaning when they need while not requiring a lot of background knowledge to keep reading the text.
Thanks for the contribution. 
I agree, and I think khandha even in Pāli is part of Buddhist domain language. So it’s fitting enough, and almost inevitable in conversation, for the same to happen in the English translation.
The main danger I see is that when we use technical jargon that people have to learn to paste over ‘khandha,’ that means that the translator is basically saying: “the five [paste in your personal understanding of what this technical term means].” It’s very similar to leaving words untranslated, just that it allows people to technically have a native word become the “loan,” i.e. technical term in a specific domain.
Should we change it then? Not necessarily. But I think it’s worth considering that a more immediately readable translation will tend to more do the actual job of communicating the meaning that the text wants to get across. Especially because part of the translator’s job is to convey to non-experts of the source language what that meaning is. If we use a filler-word, people are left to their own devices to understand what that word is meant to communicate, and this leads to all kinds of problems. Because those people aren’t translators! So they will not have the same access to what the meaning is supposed to be.
A basic, real-life example is “mental formations” as a technical Buddhist term for the Pāli ‘sankhārā.’ This basically means “[fill in whatever you decide this means based on how it sounds or what you’ve been told].” In contrast, something like “choices” or “will” actually contributed to the audience’s understanding of the original meaning of the text, for the betterment of Buddhism. This actually fulfills the purpose of translation: making the source text meaningful to a community of people who don’t have access to the meaning.
(Of course, ultimately the deeper meaning and implication of these words should come from both the particular context and the general discussions throughout the text. So it’s the fault of the reader if they over-interpret single words or phrases without considering the deeper context, whether they are reading Pali, English, or any language.)
Mettā
Taking about aggregates is useful to distinguish this from what is not an aggregate, the sublime ultimate peace of Nibbana. Aggregation refers to heaping up, building up, acquisition, constructing.
“Gotamī, you might know that certain things lead to passion, not dispassion; to yoking, not to unyoking; to accumulation, not dispersal; to more desires, not fewer; to lack of contentment, not contentment; to crowding, not seclusion; to laziness, not energy; to being burdensome, not being unburdensome. Categorically, you should remember these things as not the teaching, not the training, and not the Teacher’s instructions. (AN8.53)
For example, learning is seen as good in the sutta’s, but if it only becomes an accumulation of knowledge, a crowding of knowledge, a heaping up of knowlegde…then this knowledge does not serve the purpose of Dhamma but becomes a burden.
What is not an aggregation? That is what the Buddha points to, and is the use of talking about aggregates. Talking about aggregates is wise and intelligent if there is also no aggregation. An unmade, unbecome, not produced, not a result of building up, not some accumulation.
Yeah, this is very much the case in this instance. It’s one reason why I think we shouldn’t be overly-settled when it comes to our technical terminology: different renderings stimulate understanding.
Thanks to all the translators for all the wonderful work you do 
FWIW … Just an aside about the term aggregate. It can be a noun or verb, as in - they aggregate together. While many see it as a noun in terms of ‘concrete’, i have always seen it as having the qualities of both a verb and a noun.
It gives a reflection of the upadana - grasping/heaping/aggregating action, and the impermanence inherent in it.
In this sense whatever can aggregate, can also disaggregate (arise and cease) (bind together and un-bind). I find this very freeing… how nice to think of the aggregates/khandas finally all disaggregating > cessation 