Could the Sutta Central editors please consider this post and reply to my 3 questions at the end of it? Thanks. I am posting this because I feel it can help improve the Suttacentral in the long-term:
Case: AN 10:60 Girimānanda Sutta : anicchasaññā vs anicchāsaññā = impermanence vs non-desire
Burmese Pali root text:
“Katamā cānanda, sabbasaṅkhāresu anicchāsaññā?
Idhānanda, bhikkhu sabbasaṅkhāresu aṭṭīyati harāyati jigucchati. Ayaṃ vuccatānanda, sabbasaṅkhāresu anicchāsaññā. (9)
Bhikkhu Sujato: “And what is the perception of non-desire for all conditions? It’s when a mendicant is horrified, repelled, and disgusted with all conditions. This is called the perception of non-desire for all conditions.
Bhikkhu Bodhi (2012, on Sutta Central):
(9) “And what, Ānanda, is the perception of impermanence in all conditioned phenomena? Here, a bhikkhu is repelled, humiliated, and disgusted by all conditioned phenomena. This is called the perception of impermanence in all conditioned phenomena.”
Comment by Dana: After reading both translations and contemplating on that sutta, I was puzzled by that 9th contemplation and wondered why would anyone experience such extreme negative mind-states on contemplating impermanence of (or even contemplating non-desire towards) all conditioned phenomena.
(As I see it, nature of the Cosmos, Universe is change, impermanence. But it is so vast, astounding, amazing in its size and scope, variety, and so humbling when we see our own insignificance in that context. Though on Earth one species feeds on another and it might appear cruel to some, that way controls the overproduction of the young, greed and overpopulation by anyone one species and it enables the life-unfolding or Evolution proceed. That seems to me much less Dukkha (suffering, stress, unsatisfactory) than the Dukkha due to any population explosion and destructive behaviour unchecked, since it would lead to premature collapse, great damage and even destruction of the Earth whole living ecosystems.)
So I approached Venerable Bhikkhu Bodhi regarding the translation of that passage. He kindly explained that in his printed edition of the AN translation he included a note mentioning the variant reading anicchāsaññā.
He also explained his choice in detail. I am copying it here for you, trusting that it, and my 3 questions at the end of this post, that resulted from it, will help towards making the Suttacentral even better for users world-wide than it is now.
Bhikkhu Bodhi (personal comm. 2019) :
“Different editions of the Anguttara Nikaya have different readings of this ninth contemplation. The PTS and Sri Lankan editions have aniccasaññā; the Burmese 6th council edition has anicchāsaññā. Apparently Ven. Sujato relied on the Burmese edition; I consulted all three, giving preference to readings in the SL edition.
The expression anicchāsaññā does not occur anywhere else in the Pāli Canon. The Anguttara commentary does not comment upon the term used here. To my mind, the fact that the commentary is silent here counts partly in favor of aniccasaññā, which is a common expression hardly needing a comment; whereas anicchāsaññā is a unique occurrence of the type the commentary usually comments on. In any case, as I said, either reading is possible. “
He also referred me to MN 62, regarding the above 3 mental states
( MN 62: “… na ca tena paṭhavī aṭṭīyati vā harāyati vā jigucchati vā,” )
and his latest preferred translation of theses states:
Bhikkhu Bodhi: “In the Mahārāhulovāda Sutta (MN 62), the three verbs express how the earth is not repelled when people throw loathsome waste upon it–and the same with water, fire, and air. Perhaps a triad “troubled, repelled, disgusted” would be good.”
Questions:
Q1: Which of the 2 versions of the Pali root text is older and more consistent with other Suttas, so more likely to be the original?
Q2: Why hasn’t the Sutta Central included both Sinhalese and Burmese versions of the Pali root texts, at least where there are significant differences between the two? I believe it would prevent misunderstanding for the students like me, and perhaps also for the translators and mistranslations between languages.
Q3: Also, why haven’t you included there, any comments that the sutta translators had in their press-published texts? This would help the readers quickly clarify for themselves at least some inconsistencies between Bhikkhu Sujatos’ and Bhikkhu Bodhi’s translations, and possibly of other translators. This I believe would prevent misunderstandings.
Thank you.
With metta, Dana.
