Proposed new translation of AN 3.23

Translations
1

Offer a new translation of AN 3.23 in the hopes that it will be useful to migrating beings. This is my first attempt at a translation of a pali sutta and would welcome constructive critique by other more experienced translators.

Conditions Sutta

Monks, there are three types of individuals existing in the world. What three?

Here, Monks, with a certain person, depending on body as condition, depending on speech as condition, depending on mental activities as condition, harmful activity arises. That person, depending on body as condition, depending on speech as condition, depending on mental activities as condition, arises in a world filled with harmful activities. Arising in a world filled with harmful activities, that person comes into contact with harmful activities. That person experiences harmful contact, feeling completely painful sensations, just like beings in hell.

Here, Monks, with a certain person, depending on body as condition, depending on speech as condition, depending on mental activity as a condition, non-harmful activity arises. That person, depending on body as condition, depending on speech as condition, depending on mental activities as condition, arises in a world filled with harmless activities. Arising in a world filled with harmless activities, that person comes into contact with harmless activities. That person experiences harmless contact, feeling completely pleasent sensations, just like beings in heaven.

Here, Monks, with a certain person, depending on body as condition, depending on speech as condition, depending on mental activity as a condition, both harmful and non-harmful activity arises. That person, depending on body as condition, depending on speech as condition, depending on mental activities as condition, arises in a world filled with both harmful and harmless activities. Arising in a world filled with both harmful and harmless activities, that person comes into contact with a mixture of harmful and harmless activities. That person experiences a mixture of harmful and harmless contact, feeling a mixture of painful and pleasent sensations, just like some humans and some beings in heaven and some beings in hell.

These, monks, are the three types of persons found in the world.

May whatever merit Achieved by this task Accrue to the cause For the liberation of all.
3 Likes
2

Sādhu @yeshe.tenley ! Indeed, “activity” is also my preferred translation for saṅkāra :grin:

2 Likes
3

Hi Venerable, congrats on setting out on your journey. On your invitation, let me analyze a few details of syntax from the Pali.

The main thing I would emphasize is that you need to clarify the verbal voice. This affects the force and directness of the translation, giving quite a different feel to what we find in the Pali.

The translation syntax is indirect, implying a passive relation to the harm, but the Pali uses the direct and most common syntax, a nominative agent performing an action:

A certain person … performs harmful actions

Likewise, this construes the agent in passive relation to their deeds, but the Pali would use a past participle for this (such as nissita), which is not found. It means:

bodily action

The construction here (sabyābajjhaṁ kāyasaṅkhāraṁ abhisaṅkharoti) is an example of the “accusative as object of contents”. This is used in cases where the noun exists simultaneously with the verbal action.

Usually—and especially in cases such as this where the noun and verb are cognate words—the duplication is merely emphatic, so we can leave out the duplication without affecting the meaning: “they act harmfully by way of body”. Stylistically we may or may not want to do this, but it’s a useful exercise to find out whether resolving the duplication in this way affects the meaning.

You’ve translated as if saṅkhāra qualifies “world”, but it does not, it is an absolutive here, signifying previously completed action.

having performed harmful mental activities, arises in a harmful world.

This shifts the force of the verb from the contact to the person, again creating a more passive voice. Sometimes phusati can mean “one experiences”, but here it is in plural (phusanti), so it definitely means the “contacts” afflict/strike/touch them.

Keep going! :pray:

3 Likes
4

Thank you kindly for your critique and kind words Venerables.

One of the reasons I’ve used the specific construction depending on body as condition is to emphasize the meaning of saṅkhāra as a condition.

I’m interested in the history of the alternative definitions of saṅkhāra that I’ve sometimes seen described as intentional activity, volitional formations, karmic activity and so on. From what I have gathered, the alternative definitions might have originated with Buddhaghosa and his commentary on the twelve links of dependent arising rendering the second of the links as volitional formations or similar. The Tibetan Kangyur also renderers saṃskāra as volitional formations or activities in the twelve links of dependent arising according to the analogous authoritative sutra on https://84000.co.

I’m exploring what faults would entail from reducing saṅkhāra to the general meaning of condition (or at least incorporating condition whenever saṅkhāra is mentioned) in various sutta and sutra. This translation is a proposal motivated to see what doctrinal consequences might follow. The motivation behind this project includes potentially clarifying subtleties in the understanding of Nagarjuna’s Mūlamadhyamakakārikā (MMK) for a western audience partially by relying upon a Theravada perspective and supported by suttas from the Pali canon.

Your critique is very helpful and I will endeavor to incorporate them in a constructive way, but I’m also interested in your critiques of the doctrinal faults you might anticipate such a project might produce.

PS: I am not ordained so ‘Venerable’ is unnecessary.

5

Hi @yeshe.tenley,

Welcome to the D&D forum! We hope you enjoy the various resources, FAQs, and previous threads. You can use the search function for topics and keywords you are interested in, there are for example a lot of topics about translation already. Forum guidelines are here: Forum Guidelines. May some of these resources be of assistance along the path.

If you have any questions or need further clarification regarding anything, feel free to contact the moderators by including @moderators in your post or a PM.

Regards,
Danny (on behalf of the moderators)

2 Likes
6

I understand your intent, it’s just not grammatically supportable.

As a rule, in the suttas we find saṅkhāra in the sense of “conditioned phenomena” quite rarely. It’s in the sabbe saṅkhārā aniccā and a few other places. Also fairly rare is saṅkhāra in the sense of “condition, cause, reason”, where it is listed along with other terms as a synonym (paccaya, etc.). Occasionally too we find it in the sense of “energy”, or as “processes” (of body and mind).

But overwhelmingly the most common sense is as “volition, creative force, intention, choice”, which is the sense in both the aggregates and dependent origination. In this passage, that’s what it means.

I’ve put a lot of time and effort into these things. May I suggest, as a learning exercise, break down some of my translations and look at why I’m rendering them the way I do, and anything that seems odd, ask me!

No, this is the standard meaning in the suttas. The basic sense of saṅkhāra is “an action well-done in order to secure an outcome”, in which sense it is also a “ritual”. This is the colloquial, pre-Buddhist sense.

The generalization to a philosophical term representing all conditioned phenomena is a specifically Buddhist innovation.

But this got me looking at the pre-Buddhist usages, so here’s a quick survey.

I couldn’t really say without knowing more. I think I understand where you’re coming from, and it can be a good practice to push back against prevailing usage to see what happens. If everyone just goes along, then we never learn anything new. But of course, if we’re basing an argument on the suttas, it has to reflect what they actually say.

Thanks for letting me know! :pray:

2 Likes
7

:100:

Exactly. Even here “activity” works (as, from the Buddhist point of view, all “ordinary objects” are merely processes).

:grin:

8

The problem with “activities” is not that it’s wrong, it’s just not very meaningful in most cases.

all activities are impermanent

What, even crochet? Soccer practice?

Not to be all “get off my lawn”, but it was once my favorite rendering too, like twenty years ago.

1 Like
9

Sure, eventually we have to grow out of the naive, “this Pāḷi word = this one English word in all contexts” style of glossing the Pāli. And I’m sure I will as I actually learn the language. Your class and historical note is a great step towards giving me such nuance. Thanks for sharing it, Bhante! :pray::grin: (I still have yet to digest it though… maybe in 20 years! :face_with_hand_over_mouth:)

2 Likes
10

I understand your intent, it’s just not grammatically supportable.

Thank you for your critique. If it isn’t grammatically supportable, then it cannot be the words of the Teacher. The intent here wasn’t to change or alter the meaning of this sutta, but rather to see if it was grammatically supportable. Thank you for checking.

I’ve put a lot of time and effort into these things. May I suggest, as a learning exercise, break down some of my translations and look at why I’m rendering them the way I do, and anything that seems odd, ask me!

It is precisely because I’m aware of your extensive expertise and experience that I welcome your feedback wholeheartedly. I have looked at your translations with interest and they’ve played a large role helping in my study of the Pali canon so thank you.

But this got me looking at the pre-Buddhist usages

That is quite a collection of usages. Immediately striking is the earliest evolution of the word having to do with activity or production. A question: how does it compare and contrast with kiriya or in sanskrit kriyā?

Another question: in your translation of AN 3.136 you render sabbe saṅkhārā aniccā’ti as “all conditions are impermanent.”

I note the translation is missing the word ‘thing’ or ‘phenomena’ at the end which can be found in some other translations. I anticipate this omission was intentional due to subtle differences in meaning. Consider:

  • “all conditioned things are impermanent” is the statement that resultant products of conditions are impermanent

  • “all conditions are impermanent” is the statement conditions themselves are impermanent

In general, these two statements have an implicit dependency where the latter implies the former so it can be easy to gloss over, but in certain contexts it could reveal a meaningful difference. What is the general method you use to choose which translation is intended in particular suttas?

Another question: where in the evolution of the word saṅkhāra does the sense of ‘intentionality’ or ‘choice’ enter into the picture? From what I can see of pre-Buddhist usages this meaning was not included. Is this correct? If so, it leads to the triplet questions of how, when, and why does a sense of “intentionality” enter the picture?

11

Not exactly sure, but the prefix sam does seem to carry with it here the sense of “right, good”. kiriya is more just general behavior. But I haven’t studied the earlier uses.

Indeed yes. As a general rule my aim is to prioritize the sense that an ordinary reader would get without having to study Buddhist philosophy. Someone should be able to just open it up, read it, and get the gist. Part of the reason for doing this is that I assume that someone with a more serious interest will look more deeply.

Having said which, I have no real objection to either “conditioned things” or “conditioned phenomena”.

One reason to keep it just “conditions” is that it’s more literal. We know that sankhara sometimes means “condition” in the sense of “cause”, so this is less of a stretch that specifying “conditioned things”.

That’s a big question, but basically the older strata of Vedic texts focus on the action, while later texts such as the Brahmanas and Upanishads moved towards a greater interiority. This was in fact the defining innovation of the Kosalan or (“Eastern”) brahmins, of whom Yajnavalkya was the greatest, and who made up the bulk of the brahmins encountered by the Buddha. Contrast the contemplative philosophy of Yajnavalkya or the sixteen brahmins of the Parayanavagga with say AN 10.176:

The western brahmins encourage their disciples like this: ‘Please, good people, rising early you should stroke the earth from your bed. If you don’t stroke the earth, stroke fresh cow dung. If you don’t stroke fresh cow dung, stroke green grass. If you don’t stroke green grass, serve the sacred flame. If you don’t serve the sacred flame, revere the sun with joined palms. If you don’t revere the sun with joined palms, immerse yourself in water three times, including the evening.’

So when Yajnavalkya declared the centrality of good and bad deeds (karma) he was moving much closer to a recognizably Buddhist position. The Buddha, of course, did not have the burden of reconciling an interior ethical perspective with ritualistic tradition, so he made a clean sweep.

That’s a general overview, but as for the specific case of sankhara, a closer look would be needed.

2 Likes