Question about 波羅蜜 (pāramitā) in SA 653

Discussion
1

I encountered this complicated and perplexing passage a while ago, and although it has confusing language, it seems to say:[quote]「若比丘於彼五根增上明利滿足者，得阿羅漢俱分解脫。
"If [a] monk in those pañcendriyāṇi [is] superior [in] brilliant attainment[,] satisfied he-is, [the] attainment [of the] arhat unifies [his] diversity to-understand escape.

若軟、若劣者，得身證。於彼若軟、若劣，得見到。
Seem feeble, seem inferior they-do, [those who] attain kāya adhigama. Compared-to that seems feeble, seems inferior, attainment [of] dṛṣṭi-arriver.

於彼若軟、若劣，得信解脫。於彼若軟、若劣，得一種。
Compared-to that seems feeble, seems inferior, attainment [of] belief in liberation. Compared-to that seems feeble, seems inferior, attainment [of (only?)] one kind.

於彼若軟、若劣，得斯陀含。於彼若軟、若劣，得家家。
Compared-to that seems feeble, seems inferior, attainment [of] sakṛdāgāmin. Compared-to that seems feeble, seems inferior, attainment [of] many houses [or “householdership?”].

於彼若軟、若劣，得七有。於彼若軟、若劣，得法行。
Compared-to that seems feeble, seems inferior, [the] attainment of [only] seven bhāva. Compared-to that seems feeble, seems inferior, attainment [of] dharma saṃskāra.

於彼若軟、若劣，得信行。
Compared-to that seems feeble, seems inferior, attainment [of] faith [in] saṃskāra.

是名比丘根波羅蜜因緣知果波羅蜜，
This [is] called[,] monks[,] [the] origination/root [of?] pāramitā[,] causes [and] conditions[,] knowledge [of this is the] consequence/fruit [of?] pāramitā,

果波羅蜜因緣知人波羅蜜。
[The] consequence/fruit [of?] pāramitā[,] causes [and] conditions[,] knowledge [of this] is self/personhood [of?] pāramitā.

如是滿足者作滿足事，減少者作減少事，
Thus so fulfillers create fulfillment [in] artha, lesseners create lessening [in] artha,

彼諸根則不空無果，若無此諸根者，我說彼為作凡夫數。」
These myriad plant-roots however [are] not void [and] without fruit, if none [of] this myriad [a] plant-root is, I say they are made [to be among] pṛthagjana['s] counting."
[/quote]
(SA 653, 成 / chéng, “Accomplishment”)

Please forgive my haphazard rendering. Obviously this āgama’s strangeness is being severely over-stated by my strange rendering of it (but it is still strange!).

It is very possible this is a Maháyána accrual to the literature, the enumeration of various páramitáḥ is a frequent feature of earlier Maháyána elaborations.

If it is a Maháyána accrual, it is a particularly bizarre one, as I’ve never heard of an “origination-páramitá” or a “self-páramitá”.

Is there anything else anyone thinks this could refer to?

If it is an expounding of two Maháyána páramitáḥ, the subschool that taught them must have disappeared. Very interesting.

The usage of 人 (ren) is the oddest. It means “person”, “people” or “personhood”. It is not what is used in the compound “anattá” in Chinese, which is 我 (wo)(“anattá” in Chinese is translated in Chinese as “without I” or “lacking I”, using the pronoun “I”). How 人 and 我 differ, as relating to degrees of “self-postulation”, I cannot say at present.

The parallel is not in English, but I see the word “puggala”. This could be what ren translates?

1 Like
2

So I found a German translation on SuttaCentral, and I ran it through an internet translator and I got this BabbleFish rendition:[quote]
Who, monks, have fully completed these five faculties is a saint. If they are weaker, one is a non-return; If they are still weaker, one is a one-time recurrence, a weaker one a current-entry, a still weaker one, and a weaker one after the other.

2 Thus, monks, the difference of abilities, the disparity of the fruits, the disparity of the forces, the differentness of the persons.

3 Thus, their monks, perfect success is achieved through perfect action, partial success through partial: not sterile, I say, their monks, are the five faculties. "[/quote]
The part that is relevant is here: “Thus, monks, the difference of abilities, the disparity of the fruits, the disparity of the forces, the differentness of the persons.”

Unterschiedlichkeit seems to mean difference or disparity.

Why on earth does the Chinese have 波羅蜜 (bō luó mì)/pāramitā where the German has
Unterschiedlichkeit? This is very strange.

I think the Pāli has vemattatā, which is congruent to the German, but not at all to the Chinese.

1 Like
3

Thanks for some more interesting points. First up, the parallel for this is listed as SN 48.13, and here is my translation of that.

Mendicants, there are these five faculties. What five? The faculties of faith, energy, mindfulness, samādhi, and wisdom. These are the five faculties. Someone who has completed and fulfilled these five faculties is a perfected one. If they are weaker than that, they’re a non-returner … a once-returner … a stream enterer … a follower of principle … a follower by faith. So from a diversity of faculties there’s a diversity of fruits. And from a diversity of fruits there’s a diversity of persons.

From your translation, it seems the Sanskrit text had a different list of noble individuals. The EBTs have a number of more-or-less interchangeable lists. Probably the identification of the parallel was done on the basis of the closing statement. I am not sure if the list here corresponds exactly with any we find in Pali, but compare say AN 2.48, with my suggested equivalents for the Chinese:

The mendicant so-and-so is freed both ways; so-and-so is freed by wisdom; so-and-so is a direct witness (kāyasakkhi = 身證); so-and-so is attained to view (diṭṭhippatto = 見到); so-and-so is freed by faith (saddhāvimutto = 信解脫); so-and-so is a follower of principle (dhammānusārī = 法行); so-and-so is a follower by faith (saddhānusārī = 信行); so-and-so is ethical, of good character; so-and-so is unethical, of bad character.’

Compare also SN 48.24:

Someone who has completed and fulfilled these five faculties is a perfected one. If they are weaker than that, they’re one who is extinguished in-between one life and the next … one who is extinguished upon landing … one who is extinguished without extra effort … one who is extinguished with extra effort … one who heads upstream, going to the Akaniṭṭha realm … a once-returner … a one-seeder (ekabījī = 一種)… one who goes family to family (kolaṃkolo = 家家) … one who has seven rebirths at most (sattakkhattuparamo = 得七有) … a follower of principle … a follower by faith.

Yes, most likely.

Indeed, this looks like a mistake, perhaps on the part of the Chinese translator.

1 Like
4

[quote=“sujato, post:3, topic:4661”]
Indeed, this looks like a mistake, perhaps on the part of the Chinese translator.
[/quote]If I might be sarcastic for a moment, it looks like the whole ending line could have been a “mistake, perhaps on the part of the Chinese translator.”

What do you make of it? I realize my rendering of it was not that clear, but that is simply because I am unclear myself as to exactly what the last line is supposed to mean. Does the Sanskrit have an ending similar to it?

I am unused to seeing the word “artha” used in Buddhist literature as well, but I can’t yet read Buddhist literature in Pāli or Sanskrit. Is it common? Does it have a Pāli equivalent?

5

It doesn’t look like a mistake to me, just obscure. I am not aware of a direct Sanskrit parallel for this passage, nor can I immediately identify it with anything in the Pali.

Yes, we find attha used very commonly in Pali, in a wide variety of senses.

https://suttacentral.net/define/attha

6

FYI , ekabiji in the Chinese
is 一种籽 。

7

[quote=“James, post:6, topic:4661, full:true”]

FYI , ekabiji in the Chinese
is 一种籽 。
[/quote]This is a matter of different “layers” of Buddhist Chinese.

8

I won’t try to correct everything I got wrong above in my OP (there is plenty), but this part here, I am 80% sure, should read like this:

是名比丘根波羅蜜因緣知果波羅蜜，
This is called, monks, difference of faculties on account of causes and conditions informing the difference of fruits,

果波羅蜜因緣知人波羅蜜。
the difference of fruits on account of causes and conditions informing the difference of persons.

Which matches the Pāli rather closely actually, save for the interesting insertion of “causes and conditions”:

Iti kho, bhikkhave, indriya­vemat­tatā phalavemattatā hoti, phalavemattatā ­pugga­la­vemat­tatā”ti.