The meaning of "發菩提心" in the context of SA 659

[Coemgenu]

@Eric_T

The impression that I get from both readings is that I think yours is more in line with EBTs, while Ven Choong Mun-keat’s is more in line with Mahayana Buddhism.

How are they substantially different? The Buddha’s resolve toward bodhi is what bodhicitta is. It seems to me cdpatton and Mun-Keat largely agree on the meaning of the passage.

It seems the main difference is if the Tathāgata’s resolve for bodhi is presented in an instrumental form or not (generated via/by the Thus Come’s bodhicitta or generated with regard to the Thus Come one).

If anything, I think the opposite might be inferred. Since faith-generation “with regard to” could be a reference to buddhānusmriti, and “by the Thus Come’s bodhicitta” calls the mind of the disciple, calls a non-Tathāgata-mind a Tathāgata-mind, albeit ambiguously and indirectly, which would be very Mahāyāna in its own way.

[anon85245511]

@cdpatton

何等為信根？若聖弟子於如來發菩提心所得淨信心，是名信根。
What is the faculty of faith? If the noble disciple’s pure faith is that attained by the Tathagata’s resolve for bodhi, this is called the faculty of faith.

Hi Charlie , Eric :

If you don’t mind ,
My take is ,
若聖弟子於如來發菩提心
here appear to mean :
如果聖弟子依于佛陀(如來)而志求正覺

If the noble disciple Relying on the Tathagata and aspiring for the bodhi(enlightenment) ,
attained to Confidence ,
this is called the faculty of faith .

Best regards.

[Eric_T]

@Coemgenu

How are they substantially different? The Buddha’s resolve toward bodhi is what bodhicitta is. It seems to me cdpatton and Mun-Keat largely agree on the meaning of the passage.

The reason why I take the meaning to be different is because of cdpatton’s translation:

@cdpatton

何等為信根？若聖弟子於如來發菩提心所得淨信心，是名信根。
What is the faculty of faith? If the noble disciple’s pure faith is that attained by the Tathagata’s resolve for bodhi, this is called the faculty of faith.

Another translation by Gene (thank you very much for another take of the translation):

@anon85245511

My take is ,
若聖弟子於如來發菩提心
here appear to mean :
如果聖弟子依于佛陀(如來)而志求正覺

If the noble disciple Relying on the Tathagata and aspiring for the bodhi(enlightenment) ,
attained to Confidence ,
this is called the faculty of faith .

In both cdpatton’s and Gene’s translations, it seems that a noble disciple’s faculty of faith and the other faculties come to be because of the Buddha’s resolve for awakening. In other words, I take it that the noble disciple is inspired by the Buddha’s resolve for awakening. And because of being inspired by such resolve, the noble disciple develops the other faculties as well in order to become awakened themselves (being awakened is also for the disciples as well in EBTs, which is attested in the teachings of the seven factors of awakening). Being inspired by such resolve is in accord with MN 68 and MA 77.

Now, with Ven Choong Mun-keat’s translation:

What is faith-faculty? If a noble disciple generates bodhicitta with regard to the Tathagata to attain a mind of pure faith, this is called faith faculty. What is effort-faculty? [If] he generates bodhicitta with regard to the Tathagata to strive with effort, this is called effort faculty. … mindfulness-faculty. … concentration faculty. What is wisdom faculty? [If] he generates bodhicitta with regard to the Tathagata to give rise to wisdom, this is called wisdom faculty.

Here, the noble disciple is clearly described as generating bodhicitta themselves. This is why I take Ven Choong Mun-keat’s translation as being more in line with Mahayana Buddhism.

@Coemgenu

The Buddha’s resolve toward bodhi is what bodhicitta is.

It depends on which lens you see such resolve with. In EBTs, the Buddha before his awakening sought out for the end of suffering only for himself. This is attested in MN 26 and MA 204. It’s only after his awakening that the Buddha’s compassion arose in him (more studies can be found in Ven Analayo’s Genesis of the Bodhisattva ideal). While in Mahayana Buddhism, as far as I know, bodhicitta stands for the altruistic wish to save sentient beings which arises since the very beginnning, not after becoming a Buddha.

So, the Buddha of EBTs didn’t have bodhicitta, he had compassion for beings after his awakening. Buddhas of Mahayana Buddhism, on the other hand, have bodhicitta even before their awakening. Since SA 659 belongs to T 99, a collection of EBTs, so I read SA 659 in the context of EBTs. Ven Choong Mun-keat’s translation just happened to be in line with Mahayana Buddhism, so I have to read his translation in the context of Mahayana Buddhism. It’s simply impossible to read it otherwise.

[cdpatton]

I guess another thing to think about is whether the resolve for bodhi was understood the way we are assuming it was. By the 4th century CE it would be, but maybe in some early texts it was something not necessarily referring to bodhisattvas. It’s pretty thorny when we encounter passages like this. The passage could be older than the popularization that bodhisattva theories, or it could be a later addition or emendation. It turns into a judgement call, semantically.

Overall, I think Mun-keat’s reading is the more straightforward option; mine is more awkward.

@anon85245511

My take is ,
若聖弟子於如來發菩提心
here appear to mean :
如果聖弟子依于佛陀(如來)而志求正覺

If the noble disciple Relying on the Tathagata and aspiring for the bodhi(enlightenment) ,
attained to Confidence ,
this is called the faculty of faith .

Hmm, I think 於 is introducing a direct object before a verb. But yeah, that’s another way to read it.

[Eric_T]

Okay, so there’s now three translations for the passages in SA 659.

The first is cdpatton’s:

@cdpatton

何等為信根？若聖弟子於如來發菩提心所得淨信心，是名信根。
What is the faculty of faith? If the noble disciple’s pure faith is that attained by the Tathagata’s resolve for bodhi, this is called the faculty of faith.

Some comments about this translation are:

@cdpatton

Overall, I think Mun-keat’s reading is the more straightforward option; mine is more awkward.

@cdpatton

The issue is the prepositional phrase, which might include only Tathagata or the entire phrase “Tathagata’s resolve for bodhi”.

@cdpatton

My reading makes a little better sense to me, but it’s still a little cryptic, and I’m stretching the grammar.

Next is Ven Choong Mun-keat’s:

What is faith-faculty? If a noble disciple generates bodhicitta with regard to the Tathagata to attain a mind of pure faith, this is called faith faculty.

Some comments about this translation are:

@cdpatton

Choong Mun-keat’s is the more ordinary way to read the Chinese, grammatically speaking.

@cdpatton

Overall, I think Mun-keat’s reading is the more straightforward option

And the last (but not least) translation is Gene’s:

@anon85245511

My take is ,
若聖弟子於如來發菩提心
here appear to mean :
如果聖弟子依于佛陀(如來)而志求正覺

If the noble disciple Relying on the Tathagata and aspiring for the bodhi(enlightenment) ,
attained to Confidence ,
this is called the faculty of faith .

A comment about this translation is:

@cdpatton

Hmm, I think 於 is introducing a direct object before a verb. But yeah, that’s another way to read it.

I would like to ask the following questions to both @cdpatton and @anon85245511 if they don’t mind. Now that there are three translations, does this mean that all three translations are equally valid for the aforementioned passage? I just can’t make sense of how the seemingly bodhicitta and the five faculties are mentioned in the same place (in an EBT of all places too). They are completely unrelated aren’t they? The five faculties are obviously for the “sravaka”, while bodhicitta is for bodhisattvas.

@cdpatton

I guess another thing to think about is whether the resolve for bodhi was understood the way we are assuming it was. By the 4th century CE it would be, but maybe in some early texts it was something not necessarily referring to bodhisattvas. It’s pretty thorny when we encounter passages like this. The passage could be older than the popularization that bodhisattva theories, or it could be a later addition or emendation. It turns into a judgement call, semantically.

I wonder if it’s possible to apply the case of “Dhammakaya” (法身) here. In Mahayana Buddhist texts, it means one thing, which is the truth body, one of the three bodies of a Buddha. But in DN 27 and DA 2, it means quite another, which is either the embodiment of truth (Ven Sujato) or the equation of the Buddha with his teachings (Prof. Paul Harrison). Do you think the same can be said of “發菩提心” or “初發菩提心” as well?

At first, I thought that “發” or “初發” might mean something like “intent”, which would make “發菩提心” or “初發菩提心” correspond with the earlier Pali “bodhisatta” (one who intents on awakening) instead of the later BHS or standard Sanskrit “bodhisattva” (an awakened being) where the original meaning of the word was somehow preserved in SA 659, but since there’s “心” in the phrase, my guess becomes unlikely.

[cdpatton]

@Eric_T

I would like to ask the following questions to both @cdpatton and @Gene if they don’t mind. Now that there are three translations, does this mean that all three translations are equally valid for the aforementioned passage? I just can’t make sense of how the seemingly bodhicitta and the five faculties are mentioned in the same place (in an EBT of all places too). They are completely unrelated aren’t they? The five faculties are obviously for the “sravaka”, while bodhicitta is for bodhisattvas.

As in English, we can sometimes argue about how to read a sentence in classical Chinese based on how we decide to divide it into clauses or their relationship to each other. It’s not as precise as Indic languages because there’s not separation of terms or even punctuation in the original. So, even compound words can be a point of confusion in poorly written sentences.

This passage is a case in point, mainly because we’re scratching our heads about how to interpret bodhicittôtpāda occurring without much context, and it doesn’t occur anywhere else in the Agama. In that situation, I tend to avoid over interpretation, having caught myself forcing strange readings on texts in the past.

@Eric_T

At first, I thought that “發” or “初發” might mean something like “intent”, which would make “發菩提心” or “初發菩提心” correspond with the earlier Pali “bodhisatta” (one who intents on awakening) instead of the later BHS or standard Sanskrit “bodhisattva” (an awakened being) where the original meaning of the word was somehow preserved in SA 659, but since there’s “心” in the phrase, my guess becomes unlikely.

初發菩提心 usually means specifically the first time someone makes the resolve for full enlightenment in the future, which is the official starting point of a bodhisattva career. 初 means “initial” or “first.” 發心 is a translation of cittôtpāda, which can mean making a firm decision or resolve to do something. The Chinese inserts bodhi in between the terms as a matter of grammar, keeping the verb at the head of the expression.

But, yes, I wonder a little bit if this term could have a meaning that fits early teachings, maybe taking bodhi to be the four fruits of sramanas instead of anuttara-samyak-sambodhi. I don’t know the history of the term, though, so it may just be a spurious idea. Also, the Pali parallel has terms that mean having full confidence in the Tathagata where this term occurs. Maybe it was a meant to translate a term like that?

[Eric_T]

@cdpatton

maybe taking bodhi to be the four fruits of sramanas instead of anuttara-samyak-sambodhi.

I don’t know if this will help but in early Buddhist thought, there’s no difference whatsoever between the liberation of the Buddha and the liberation of disciples (arahant) according to MA 145 at T I 655c28. SN 22.58 and SA 75 both say that the only difference between the Buddha and arahants is that the Buddha discovered the path and taught it, while arahants followed the discovered path.

@cdpatton

I don’t know the history of the term, though, so it may just be a spurious idea.

If you mean the history of the term “bodhisatta”, which is in Pali and other Middle Indo-Aryan languages, I found the following studies:

Steven Collins in “A Pali Grammar for Students” writes:

This word has traditionally been analyzed as bodhi + sattva, enlightenment-being, which makes no grammatical sense. What seems to have happened is that the Pali (or related MIA) word satta has been re-Sanskritized as sattva. This is possible correspondence, but satta in Pali can be equivalent to two other words in Sanskrit, both of which make better sense than sattva. From √sañj, to adhere to, be intent on, the past participle is sakta which → satta in Pali. From √śak, to be able to, be capable of, the past passive participle is śakta, which also → satta in Pali.
Intent on enlighment or capable of enlightment are both more à propos than enlightment-being, so it is likely one of these two sense of bodhisatta was the original

In Bodhisattva-Bodhisakta Ven Sujato writes:

The compound bodhisatta is uncomfortable: “awakening-being”. What does that even mean?

In the EBTs, bodhisatta is almost always used of the period of striving between leaving home and awakening, and there, “one intent on awakening” has a perfect sense. Regardless of how you construe the terms, the sense of the term must be something like that in the EBTs, so I translate, for example:

Pubbeva me, bhikkhave, sambodhā anabhisambuddhassa bodhisattasseva sato etadahosi
Mendicants, before my awakening—when I was still unawakened but intent on awakening—I thought:

In “Arahants, Buddhas and Bodhisattvas”, Ven Bodhi writes:

Incidentally, in any Middle Indo-Aryan (MIA) language, the word would be bodhisatta. This was Sanskritized as bodhisattva, “enlightenment being,” and we take this meaning for granted; but the Sanskritized form might be an erroneous back-formation. For MIA bodhisatta could also represent Sanskrit bodhisakta, meaning “one intent on enlightenment,” “one devoted to enlightenment,” which in context makes better sense than “an enlightenment being.”

[cdpatton]

@Eric_T

If you mean the history of the term “bodhisatta”, which is in Pali and other Middle Indo-Aryan languages, I found the following studies:

No, I meant the history of the term bodhicittôtpāda, which the Chinese appears to translate. The issues with the term bodhisattva are definitely interesting and make sense. In later texts, the bodhisattva largely became a title or a personal noun, so perhaps that’s why it settled into the derivation that it did.

[Coemgenu]

@Eric_T

In Bodhisattva-Bodhisakta Ven Sujato writes:

The Chinese translated bodhisatta phonetically and 埵 seems to have some elements of a voiced labio-velar approximant glide, namely possibly w. This isn’t anything you could base a thesis on though, for instance. The is a great deal of v/w ambiguity in Prākrits like Gāndhārī, as well as various traditions of how to pronounce Sanskrit (to this day, in fact).

菩提薩埵 *bɨuhdeisɑttuɑh
(Middle Chinese, Baxter-Sagart, IPA but X replaced with h for clarity’s sake)

The u in the *tuɑh (technically, with good IPA it’s *tuɑ^x & * bɨu^xdeisɑttuɑ^x) being the aforementioned voiced labio-velar approximant (glide?).

There is no indication that Chinese makes any attempt to preserve a consonant cluster like -kt-, but this consonant cluster would likely have been reduced by the time of the Prākrit in question (almost definitely so) that the Chinese was translated from anyways.

[anon85245511]

Hi Charlie / Eric ,

If refer to Sa 658 , there is no bodhicittôtpāda to be found .
So , my guess is the issue with Sa659 could be due to the translator Guṇabhadra (394年－468年) was a mahayanist .

SuttaCentral

爾時，世尊告諸比丘：「有五根——信根、精進根、念根、定根、慧根。何等為信根？謂聖弟子於如來所起信心，根本堅固，諸天、魔、梵、沙門、婆羅門及諸世間法所不能壞，是名信根。

Regards

[Coemgenu]

@anon85245511

my guess is the issue with Sa659 could be due to the translator Guṇabhadra (394年－468年) was a mahayanist

Ven Guṇabhadra was an early Yogācāra practitioner AFAIK, so yes, I agree. This could have influenced his decisions on how to translate certain terms, technical vocabulary, concept, &c. But this scripture had likely passed through many layer of Mahāyānika copying, possibly copy-editing, and possibly also inter-Prākrit translation and also possibly even a layer (or two) of (potentially differing) Sanskritization(s) before it even entered into the Chinese language through Ven Guṇabhadra’s efforts. So, he could have added it or translated it that way from the Prākrit or someone added it earlier, both are possible IMO.

[Eric_T]

@cdpatton

No, I meant the history of the term bodhicittôtpāda, which the Chinese appears to translate.

@anon85245511

If refer to Sa 658 , there is no bodhicittôtpāda to be found .

Sorry, my bad.

As for bodhicittotpāda, I found only one study that talked about it. There is this study “Indian Altruism: A Study of the Terms bodhicitta and cittotpada” where its author, Gareth Sparham, said that the origin of cittotpada is to be found in a later part of Arya-Jasta-sahasrika-Prajna-paramita text (he referred to this as “A” or “the Origin-Passage”). He further said that:

Based on the Origin-Passage, cittotpada was originally an attitude, constucted out of the willful manipulation of ideas or imagination, that welled up within the person banishing negativism and depression and inspiring further effort. In the earliest formulation of cittotpada this uplifting of the heart was to be caused by thinking about living beings in a certain fashion: (a) imagining them to be relatives and (b) reflecting on the sameness of them and oneself. Such thoughts or ideas were to make bearable the difficult work of a bodhisattva. Although altruistic sentiments are clearly identifiable in the Origin-Passage there is no unequivocal altruistic message, in the sense of an exhortation urging the bodhisattva to make work for others his primary motivation.

The author also talked about bodhicitta and cittotpada:

The first part of the compound bodhi-citta (synonymous with bodhi-sattva in the early PP [Prajnaparamita] sutras?) should be understood not as referring to a for-others state of enlightenment (a sambhoga-kaya) but to the the Prajna-paramita herself, beyond all conceptualization and absorbed indivisibly with the ultimate. Rather than a dative tatpurusa, the compound is better construed as a curious Buddhist sort of bahuvrihi meaning (one whose) fundamental state of being or mind is perfect wisdom, i.e., the ultimate. It is a curious compound because the Buddhist axiom which denies the existence of a person beyond the five constituent-aggregates (skandha) leaves both compounds without a clearly identifiable noun to qualify.

The cittotpada set forth in the Origin-Passage cannot, then, be equated with bodhicitta (or bodhisattva) nor can it be thought of as the outcome of a systematic understanding. Rather it was a notion which would itself contribute, as an integral part of a revealed text requiring explanation, to the development of Mahayana scholasticism’s systematic understanding of two truths. The early notion of cittotpada would be transformed, under the influence of later systematization associated paticularly with Madhyamikas, into the conventional or surface level (samvrtya) bodhi-cittotpada, i.e., one concerned with conventional realities such as the needs of other living beings and the attainment of enlightenment. This would be unlike the ultimate bodhi-cittotpada which was none other than the original bodhicitta (i.e., the non-dual liberating vision and ultimate reality called Prajna-paramita) changed insofar as it was now a part of an edifice of scholastic thought.

This explanation of the terms has the great benefit of explaining what are, otherwise, confusing usages of bodhicitta, cittotpada and bodhi-cittotpada. The two former terms were originally different in meaning. Later, however, bodhicitta became even more popular, as a shortened form of bodhi-cittotpada, than the original cittotpada itself and it was used with this secondary sense by later writers in contexts where it is historically inappropriate to do so.

It seems to me even cittotpada by itself has a somewhat different meaning in later periods of Buddhism. In early Buddhism, cittotpāda is equivalent to cittuppāda (rise of a thought) in Pali; it occurs in MN 8 and its parallel in MA 91 where MA 91’s Indian original is translated as “發心”. In both of this versions, this word is used in the context of how even just giving rise to or the arousal of wholesome thinking is of much benefit. But by itself, it simply means rise of a thought.

@anon85245511

So , my guess is the issue with Sa659 could be due to the translator Guṇabhadra (394年－468年) was a mahayanist .

This is one of the things that has been bugging me. If the occurrence of bodhicittotpāda was indeed because of Ven Guṇabhadra’s affiliation of Mahayana Buddhism, then why is it that it occurs only in SA 659 and not other texts of the same collection? It is a possibility, but I’m not sure.

In fact this really strange situation can be compared with the sole occurrence of “Dhammakaya” in Pali Nikayas (DN 27) and “法身” in T 1 (DA 2). In the context of those mentioned two early Buddhist texts, “Dhammakaya (法身)” has a quite different meaning from the one that’s understood in later Buddhisms. In Exploring Dharmakāya in EBTs and Early Sectarian Buddhism - #4 by thenoble, there was a person who asked Ven Sujato whether the occurrence of “Dhammakaya (法身)” in EBTs might be a result of later addition or the term was actually early but it was misunderstood by Buddhists of later periods. This is Ven Sujato’s answer:

I think it’s the latter. It’s quite normal in sacred scripture for words that to be used in a simple, colloquial way, and then to have all sorts of extra significance read into them by later generations. In fact, this is so prevalent that I made it into one of the foundational guidelines of my translation: the principle of least meaning. When faced with two or more options in translating, choose the one that conveys the least significance, treating the passage in the most everyday, obvious sense.

This is why I think there is also a possibility that “發菩提心” or “初發菩提心” in SA 659 might be early and had a different meaning from how they were understood in later times. If Ven Analayo continues his translation of T 99, I wonder how he will translate SA 659.

Ven Sujato’s comment about choosing words that convey the least significance reminds me of cdpatton’s comment about his own approach of translating Chinese Buddhist texts:

@cdpatton

This passage is a case in point, mainly because we’re scratching our heads about how to interpret bodhicittôtpāda occurring without much context, and it doesn’t occur anywhere else in the Agama. In that situation, I tend to avoid over interpretation, having caught myself forcing strange readings on texts in the past.

[Gabriel_L]

Let me take an opportunity to praise you guys for the great discussion here. The main reason I come to this forum every day is to read and learn from interactions such as the above. Keep up with the beautiful conversation!

[Eric_T]

It seems I have reached a dead end regarding the meaning of “發菩提心” or “初發菩提心” in the context of SA 659. I guess there’s nothing much I can do about it.

Let’s review the three available translations for the last time here.
The first is cdpatton’s:

@cdpatton

何等為信根？若聖弟子於如來發菩提心所得淨信心，是名信根。
What is the faculty of faith? If the noble disciple’s pure faith is that attained by the Tathagata’s resolve for bodhi, this is called the faculty of faith.

The second is Ven Choong Mun-keat’s:

What is faith-faculty? If a noble disciple generates bodhicitta with regard to the Tathagata to attain a mind of pure faith, this is called faith faculty. What is effort-faculty? [If] he generates bodhicitta with regard to the Tathagata to strive with effort, this is called effort faculty. … mindfulness-faculty. … concentration faculty. What is wisdom faculty? [If] he generates bodhicitta with regard to the Tathagata to give rise to wisdom, this is called wisdom faculty.

The third is Gene’s:

@anon85245511

My take is ,
若聖弟子於如來發菩提心
here appear to mean :
如果聖弟子依于佛陀(如來)而志求正覺

If the noble disciple Relying on the Tathagata and aspiring for the bodhi(enlightenment) ,
attained to Confidence ,
this is called the faculty of faith .

So, I would like to ask either @cdpatton or @anon85245511 how they would translate “何等為信根？若聖弟子於如來發菩提心所得淨信心，是名信根。” in light of all the available information in this thread, if they don’t mind, in the following contexts:
-In the context of early Buddhist texts where the passages are treated in the most everyday, obvious sense without over interpretation.
-In the context of later Buddhisms like Mahayana Buddhism for example.
-In the context of your very own take of the passage (you don’t need to answer these questions if you think your translation is fine as it is).

And this question is specifically for cdpatton. You said that:

@cdpatton

I tend to avoid over interpretation, having caught myself forcing strange readings on texts in the past.

Could you please give some examples of when you forced strange readings on texts in the past? I think it would be interesting to know what kind of passages are problematic for translators of Chinese Buddhist texts, and why they are so.

[cdpatton]

@Eric_T

Could you please give some examples of when you forced strange readings on texts in the past?

It usually happens when 1) I didn’t understand the grammar of the sentence, 2) didn’t understand the meaning of a term, or 3) read a text outside of its own context.

With Chinese Buddhist texts, it’s the transliterations that are a special kind of fun. Sometimes common word are used to represent syllables instead of meaning, which leads to expressions that look like gibberish. If you don’t realize you’re dealing with a transliteration, you end up creating readings that were never there in the first place just to make sense of it.

There’s also the problem of technical terms that aren’t explained anywhere. Buddhist Sutras were composed assuming they’ll be explained in person, I think, so if we don’t have a record of the explanations, we’re stuck trying to decipher it ourselves. This I think is the biggest difficulty with the Chinese Agamas. We don’t have exhaustive glosses and commentaries to explain the literary devices and double meanings that were intended. So, obscure terms or unusual contexts leave us stumped sometimes.

In cases like this, unless I could find some sort of explanation or similar passage with more context, I’d have to shrug, translate it literally the way I think a classical Chinese reader would understand it and add a footnote with the different possibilities I can think of that might explain it so the reader can judge for themselves.

[Eric_T]

I would like to ask @cdpatton to give his opinion about my research below if he doesn’t mind.

We talked about how “發菩提心” or “初發菩提心” seemed to be translated from bodhicittotpāda. What if “發菩提心” or “初發菩提心” wasn’t translated from bodhicittotpāda at all? What if the phrase was translated from something similar but not quite the same?

While I was searching for something completely unrelated to this topic, I stumbled upon Chinese EA 21.2 by chance, and I found this word: “覺意”.

https://suttacentral.net/ea21.2/lzh/taisho

“覺” seems to be equivalent to “菩提”, while “意” seems to be equivalent to “心”. “覺意” in EA 21.2 seems to mean “awakening” instead of “bodhicitta” where it’s used in the context of practice that is undertaken by disciples and the Buddha himself, namely: the absorptions, sense restraint, and detachment.

The seven factors of awakening in T 125 is also translated as “七覺意” instead of “七覺支” in both T 26 and T 99 or “七覺分” in T 99. I don’t think “七覺意” means “the seven kinds of bodhicitta”, especially when it’s explicitly explained in EA 39.6 and EA 39.7 as “the seven factors of awakening”. It’s also mentioned alongside the other 37 wings to awakening in EA 8.6.

What’s more, “覺意” is listed as synonymous with “菩提心” where its (菩提心) Sanskrit original is listed as “bodhi” instead of “bodhicitta” here: http://www.buddhism-dict.net/cgi-bin/xpr-ddb.pl?q=覺意.

This is purely speculative but “發菩提心” possibly wasn’t translated from bodhicittotpāda, and “心” wasn’t translated from “citta”. Possibly, “發” was translated from Sanskrit “utpāda” which means coming into existence or arising, while “菩提心” was translated not from “bodhicitta”, but from “bodhi”. Why is the word “bodhi” transliterated instead of translated? I have no clue, but the same thing happened with the word “Tathagata” in SA 1158 where it’s the only place in the entire T 99 collection where it’s transliterated as “多陀阿伽度” instead of the usual translation “如來”.

So, just as “覺意” in T 125 wasn’t translated from “bodhicitta”, but from “bodhi” where “意” is added to “覺” for some reason, in the same way, “菩提心” possibly wasn’t translated from “bodhicitta”, but from “bodhi” where “心” is added to “菩提” for some reason.

In other words, in my speculation, “發菩提心” possibly means “arising of awakening”, and “初發菩提心” possibly means “initial arising of awakening” or something like “inception of the arising of awakening”.

So, I would like to borrow yours and Ven Choong Mun-keat’s translations and change them a bit like this:

何等為信根？若聖弟子於如來發菩提心所得淨信心，是名信根。
What is the faculty of faith? If the noble disciple’s pure faith is that attained by the Tathagata’s arising of awakening, this is called the faculty of faith.

What is faith-faculty? If a noble disciple gives rise to awakening with regard to the Tathagata to attain a mind of pure faith, this is called faith faculty.

What do you think about my speculation? Is it sound?

[cdpatton]

@Eric_T

In other words, in my speculation, “發菩提心” possibly means “arising of awakening”, and “初發菩提心” possibly means “initial arising of awakening” or something like “inception of the arising of awakening”.

發 is not the usual verb for “to give rise to ”. Ordinarily, it’s used for beginning a task, firing arrows, and the like. If a Chinese writer wants to say “produced” or “give rise to” they would use verbs like 生, 出,or 起, but it’s true that 發 overlaps those meanings. This doesn’t refute what you’re saying, but I do ask myself “But why didn’t the writer choose another word?” when I speculate like this in my own head.

心 does get placed after mental nouns like emotions and feelings to indicate a state of mind. In that case, you can skip translating 心 literally. A “sad state-of-mind” becomes “feeling sad” or “sadness” in English.

There are a couple interesting passages in T126, which is Faxian’s translation of the introduction section of the Ekottarika. He uses the expression 發菩提心 in the way I think you are arguing for. It seems to just mean that a person takes awakening to be possible in regard to the object. In one passage, the object is the three jewels, and in the other it’s paired with giving rise to faith and confidence. If you search for 發菩提心, you can find them in T126.

And I like my initial translation even less. I think Mun-keat is correct in the basic grammar.

[Eric_T]

@cdpatton

心 does get placed after mental nouns like emotions and feelings to indicate a state of mind. In that case, you can skip translating 心 literally. A “sad state-of-mind” becomes “feeling sad” or “sadness” in English.

Ah, I see. Thank you for telling me this. Definitely something to be remembered.

@cdpatton

There are a couple interesting passages in T126, which is Faxian’s translation of the introduction section of the Ekottarika. He uses the expression 發菩提心 in the way I think you are arguing for. It seems to just mean that a person takes awakening to be possible in regard to the object. In one passage, the object is the three jewels, and in the other it’s paired with giving rise to faith and confidence. If you search for 發菩提心, you can find them in T126.

Thank you for pointing me to T 126. I did, indeed, find “發菩提心” in T 126, along with “初發” as well. It seems “發菩提心” can be employed in the context of early Buddhism after all.

If SA 659 were a text of a similar nature to many texts in T 125 or to MA 66 that you mentioned before, I wouldn’t think too much about it since those clearly have the flavor of Mahayana Buddhism, especially with Ven Maitreya’s vow to become a Buddha in the future in MA 66. There is no way to refute that. The problem with SA 659 is that it’s an early Buddhist text where its doctrinal teaching is about the five faculties, something that is associated with “sravaka” rather than “bodhisattva” or “bodhicitta”. This is why I think there’s a possibility, even if it’s very small, that “發菩提心” in SA 659 may be employed in the context of early Buddhism, and how “發菩提心” in the context of SA 659 need not be taken as reflecting Mahayana Buddhism’s influence. In the end though, this is just a possibility.

@cdpatton

And I like my initial translation even less. I think Mun-keat is correct in the basic grammar.

I’m just someone who is very interested in the EBTs of the northern traditions, whether in ancient Chinese or ancient Indian, and just trying to make sense of 發菩提心’s usage in the context of SA 659 had given me quite a headache. I can’t imagine what you and other translators have to go through when you find this kind of word or expression that will definitely pop up here and there in Chinese Buddhist texts.

Since you’re an expert in translating Chinese Buddhist texts, I would like to ask you (this is going to be a little off-topic) a question if you don’t mind. Of all the Chinese Buddhist texts that you translated (doesn’t matter if it’s early Buddhist, Mahayana Buddhist, commentaries, or treatises), which one was the most difficult or took you the longest to translate?

[cdpatton]

@Eric_T

Of all the Chinese Buddhist texts that you translated (doesn’t matter if it’s early Buddhist, Mahayana Buddhist, commentaries, or treatises), which one was the most difficult or took you the longest to translate?

I’m not sure what the best answer to this question would be. It depends on when I was translating it. When I first tried to translate the Lotus Sutra in my 20s I had no idea what transliterations were nor any good references, so it took weeks to get through the list of bodhisattva names. These days, I would say it just depends on how familiar I am with the vocabulary of the translator, which changed quite a bit from one era to the next. I would struggle today with Chu Fahu’s works because I’m more familiar with Kumarajiva-era works.

Overall, the nature of the material is also a major source of ease or difficulty. A text that is mostly philosophical is easier because it’s full of standard terminology.

A story with lots of concrete nouns (animals, plants, furniture, clothing, tools, weapons, etc) can slow to a crawl by comparison because of the detective work required to figure exactly what these things were. Indian animals are translated with names of Chinese animals, for example, and same with plants and trees. And then there are the mythical Chinese animals that you didn’t know existed until you encounter it in these texts. You end up rifling through all kinds of references tracking them down as best you can, and have to give up sometimes and just fudge it or guess.

Even the grammar of texts can cause some consternation. Chinese texts are written documents that sometimes differ in terms of the dialect that was used by the writers. Add to that variation the fact that ancient texts are just naturally more obscure, and you find that sometimes grammar words you don’t quite understand and can’t find good references to figure out. Most of them assume you’re reading classical literature like the Analects or Chuangzi, etc.

[Eric_T]

Thank you very much for your comprehensive answer.