SuttaCentral
in the EBT the words profusely employed to convey the meaning of cause, reason, condition are hetu and paccaya, so one would expect that the meaning of unconditioned would be transmitted with their cognates
but certainly being no expert in Pali i can’t make any definitive calls in this respect
That is an excellent point. The sense of saṅkhāra/saṅkhata is, generally speaking, something that is made or fashioned, especially something created via will, i.e. intention or choice. It is true, however, that it is, not infrequently, used as a straight synonym for hetu, paccaya, etc., which justifies the reading “unconditioned”. Perhaps translating it as “uncreated” would serve.
I actually recall seeing the word idappaccayatā, meaning something like “fixed conditionality” when exploring the Paccayasutta SN 12.20. That makes sense.
I wonder to what extent though, in the literature, they are treated as “literal” synonyms. For instance, does the Buddha ever say anything to the effect of (and forgive my poor Pāli):
“Katamo ca, bhikkhave, _apaccaya_-maggo?"
I don’t have a good enough grasp of Pāli to construct this sentence with proper grammar, but I hope one can see what I was trying to get across:
“And what, bhikkhus, is the path leading to the unconditioned?", this time literally using the Pāli-equivalent of “unconditioned” (I think?). This is a common enough construction in English, to use “the unconditioned”. Even if the original Pāli consistently uses asaṅkhata where some English renderings use “unconditioned”, I can certainly see how it isn’t “wrong”, but I can see how it isn’t necessarily right either. One can theoretically speak of Nibbāna as being “un-” a great many things and be “technically” correct.
Does a grammatical construction something like “a-paccaya” abound in Pāli Buddhavacana at all though, even if not being in a compound like “apaccaya-maggo”?
EDIT: I’ve found a few compounds, but my Pāli isn’t good enough to know exactly what they mean and their proper context. Does apaccayāmatanibbāna mean “unconditioned deathless nibbāna?”
There is also this passage from DN 2:[quote]Evaṃ vutte, bhante, makkhali gosālo maṃ etadavoca: ‘natthi, mahārāja, hetu natthi paccayo sattānaṃ saṃkilesāya, ahetū apaccayā sattā saṅkilissanti.[/quote]But I can’t find where apaccaya comes up in the English translation.[quote=LXNDR]to the extend that my meagre knowledge of Pali and non-existent knowledge of Classical Chinese allow me i would venture to propose that 無為 is a pretty accurate literal rendering of asaṅkhata, to be sure Chinese is rich enough lexically to render it in several other different ways but as it stands, to me it appears good enough
saṅkhata/saṃskṛta essentialy means made up, concocted, constructed, prefabricated (from the root kṛ - to do, to make, to create etc) hence the popular translations of saṅkhāra/saṃskāra in the suttas as fabrication/formation/preparation
[/quote]I’ve been thinking this over in my head for a while, and I think more knowledge of the history of Daoism is needed, on my part at least. Because the way that it is being used here is sufficiently ambiguous as to call into question if the translators did indeed know that much about Daoism after all.
It is possible that the translators borrowed 無為 because they weren’t highly familiar with Daoist usage of the term as well, but they knew the term was used nonetheless.
無為 is a methodology in Daoism, which makes the coinage 無為道跡 (wú wéi dào jì) particularly appropriate, since that is the asaṅkhatagāmimaggo “to” the asaṅkhataṃ (hopefully I am using that term correctly).
However its usage in 無為法 is interesting because it seems less appropriate, given that Daoism already has a concept that literally means “unfabricated/unmade”, it is 樸 (pǔ), which is traditionally poetically translated as meaning “the uncarved block”, but modern trends in translating have it more literally rendered as “unworked wood”. It refers to a simple untampered with and unfabricated way of being and/or nature. As a word it literally refers to something that is unmade, or perhaps from a Buddhist perspective, unarisen.
However (and sometimes I feel like my posts consist of nothing but the word “however” followed by a contradiction of what I last said) this fact could also strengthen the notion that the translators were familiar with Daoism and specifically chose the slightly more awkward adaption 無為法 deliberately over something like 樸法 because of the connotations that 樸 has for anattā/無我. 樸 refers to an unmade nature that is generally conceived of, in Daoism, as “within us”, or “our original nature”, or even “our true nature”. Daoism does not have a theory of the mind that maps onto Buddhist discourse perfectly, but it is possible that the early āgama translators chose 無為法 over 樸法 specifically to avoid an “eternal citta” interpretation of Nibbāna, or possibly to avoid a “eternal self” interpretation of Buddhavacana.
When I had finished speaking, Makkhali Gosāla said to me: ‘Great king, there is no cause or condition for the defilement of beings; beings are defiled without any cause or condition.
It is an interesting line of inquiry, and I am not quite sure what to make of it. As LXNDR shows, there are passages that speak of apaccaya, though these do not have the same sense as asaṅkhata. Asaṅkhata is a past participle, (“unconditioned”) whereas paccaya is not.
The meanings of saṅkhāra and paccaya do overlap in some contexts, eg. SN 48.40:
uppannaṃ kho me idaṃ dukkhindriyaṃ, tañca kho sanimittaṃ sanidānaṃ sasaṅkhāraṃ sappaccayaṃ
The faculty of pain has arisen in me. And that has a precursor, a source, a condition, and a reason.
However this does not mean that they always do. In fact, it is fairly rare, and normally they have distinct meaning; saṅkhāra refers to an energy or force, especially an ethically potent volitional act, i.e. choice. So the normal sense is that the saṅkhāra is the energy, force, or action by which something is conditioned (paccaya).
Something else that just occurred to me is that this is another potential example of a Chinese Sarvāstivāda āgamā-recension bringing something into the domain of potential dharma-theory, while that tendency is significantly less strong in the sutta-parallel.
The word “dhamma” never appears at all in the sutta-parallel (SN 43.11). It appears three times in the āgama. (Edit: five times if we count my eccentric-and-probably-wrong theory about the translation of 道 presented later).
“Asaṅkata” in the Pāli, “asaṃskṛtadharma/無為法” in the āgama, at least the Chinese recension, if a Sanskrit one exists I do not know, none were listed at SuttaCentral when I checked.
It is not a significant point necessarily, however this āgama seems to specifically go out of its way to frame Nibbāna as a dhamma, and to classify that dhamma (無為). This is completely absent from the nikāya parallel, where there is no reason given to conclude that the asaṅkata is a dhamma.
With the above discussion in mind, I would like to put up a revised translation for pondering.
It is not a workable translation effort that would be terribly useful, necessarily, for introducing the Dhamma to learners, but it does attempt to do something characteristic: to preserve as accurately as possible the rhythms and the underlying structure of the Chinese.
Original text of 雜阿含經（八九〇）無為法:[quote]如是我聞：
一時，佛住舍衛國祇樹給孤獨園。
爾時，世尊告諸比丘：「當為汝說無為法，及無為道跡。諦聽，善思。云何無為法？謂貪欲永盡，瞋恚、愚癡永盡，一切煩惱永盡，是無為法。云何為無為道跡？謂八聖道分，正見、正智、正語、正業、正命、正方便、正念、正定，是名無為道跡。」
佛說此經已，諸比丘聞佛所說，歡喜奉行。
如無為，如是難見、不動、不屈、不死、無漏、覆蔭、洲渚、濟渡、依止、擁護、不流轉、離熾焰、離燒然、流通、清涼、微妙、安隱、無病、無所有、涅槃，亦如是說。[/quote]Altered translation:[quote]Thus I heard this:
At one time, the Buddha dwelt at Śrāvastī at Jetavana at Anāthapiṇḍada’s park. At that time, the Lord said to the myriad monks: “Presently, here with you, I speak of the uncreated dharma, and the uncreated principle of the path leading there. Listen careful, think wise, what is the uncreated dharma? To speak of, greed, craving? Permanent exhaustion. Aversion, rage, ignorance, and delusion? Permanent exhaustion. All vexing afflictions? Permanent exhaustion. This is the uncreated dharma. What is the following of the uncreated principle of the pathway there? To speak of the eight ranks of the principles of the sage, true view, true wiseness, true speech, true karma, true livelihood, true proficiency, true mindfulness, true dhyāna: this is called the uncreated principle of the pathway there.”
Buddhavacana this sūtra thereafter was, many monks heard the Buddha teach it, and, joyful, they practiced.
Thus is uncreation, thus is what is difficult to know: no moving, no bending, no dying, no secretion. Smothered in yìn- it is the shore of an island. There is ferrying, there is crossing, there is the cessation of dependency. There are no circulating transmigrations. Removing kindling from the flame removes the burning itself. Flowing openly, pure and cool, secret and subtle, calm and hidden. Lacking ailment, lacking owning: thus is Nirvāṇa.
-also thus so said by the Buddha. [/quote] It certainly would need some formatting that deviates from the 3-paragraph grouping of the Chinese characters if it were to be more easily read. Given that certain odd features it has really show that it is non-English grammar being represented in English, which few are familiar dealing with. Some of these formatting decisions would be regarding indentations and new paragraphs/lines for certain “ideas”/“images” presented, etc.
Although “uncreated” was one of the possible translations I had been considering, for a while, for the Chinese 無為, credit should also go to Ven Sujato, who considered it aloud earlier and inadvertently convinced me it was the proper rendering after all.
The only problem with “uncreated” is that it forces the non-standard grammatical coinage “uncreation” during the ending dialogue, if one wants to try to slavishly stick to exactly how the Chinese is presented in-and-of itself, a unique problem to this translation experiment.
Uncreated, unfabricated, and unconditioned might all be fundamentally unable to express the Classical Chinese because they all eclipse the importance of the fact that this is a two-word construction in the source text, as there were no polysyllabic words in Classical Chinese. This makes the seperateness of the two words, wu and wei, “heavier”, although I suppose that could just be me projecting. Perhaps it is pedantic, but it seems that “lacking X” or “without X” would be even better, but that has the drawback of simply sounding pedantic.
Seeing how keeping dào with the reading of “principal” (as per some Daoist discourse) throughout, and seeing how that obscured “noble eightfold path” (which the “eight ranks of the sage” no-doubt refers to), is not highly convincing. The original intended meaning, here at least, for dáo is probably “path”, which calls into question the readings of dào presented earlier.
With that in mind, in the above postulated translation featuring 道 (dào) as “principle”, substituting “path” for “principle”, as an experiment, as a reading of dào, we get something like this, for the relevant sentences:[quote][…] the uncreated path leading there?
[…]
What is the following of the uncreated path leading there?
[…]
To speak of the eight ranks of the path of the sage, […][/quote]This translates a little closer to the Pāli, however, there is an issue.
Now the path itself is unconditioned. We have at least two unconditioned dharmāḥ (unacceptable in non-Sarvāstivāda early Buddhist discourse!).
Is this inherent in the Pāli word asaṅkhatagāmimaggo? That the path itself is “unconditioned”, not only the goal?
Calling the path itself “unconditioned” seems like a subversion of the “Parable of the Raft”, wherein what applies to the “other shore” does not necessarily apply to the raft that one assembles to get there.
No, the path is explicitly said to be sankhata, and the compound means “the path leading to the asankhata”.
As you mention, other schools acknowledge more than one asankhata—in fact the Theravada seems to be quite rare in insisting on only one—and it is possible that they had a variant phrase in a different meaning. But, as it stands, the Pali phrase must mean “the path leading to the asankhata”.
More thoughts on the usage of 無為 (wú wéi), 法 (fǎ), & 道/道跡 (dào, dào jì) in this āgama, in light of the fact that asaṅkhatagāmimaggo, it seems, cannot be said to mean “unconditioned path to the unconditioned”:
As said before, it is tempting to read 跡 as a semantic doubling of 道 in 道跡, which would render it simply meaning “path [to there]”, however, this creates the issue of the text speaking about an “uncreated path” (無為道跡).
This means that it is likely that the usage of 道 here, as I initially suspected, is probably a borrowing from Daoist religious terminology, and is an effort to engage in explaining Dhamma through traditionally un-Dhammic linguistic means. If we consider the notion of this āgama truly arguing for a “uncreated path” equally as uncreated as a/the “uncreated dharma” to be unacceptable, it means that 道 here, is very possibly actually a translation of the word “dhamma” itself.
Consider how 道 appears in the piece. It appears once in “noble eightfold path” (八聖道分), where it seems very likely that it means “path”, but could also mean “principal, law, etc.” It is its appearance in [quote]為無為道跡？[/quote]
is what makes me think of this, admittedly eccentric idea, that 道 is being used as a translation of the term “dhamma”, specifically the idea of the “dhamma” as a principle.
A while ago, Ven Sujato posted this possible rendering of the word “dhamma” as principle in this passage from the Paccayasutta:[quote]ṭhitāva sā dhātu dhammaṭṭhitatā dhammaniyāmatā idappaccayatā
that property indeed stands, that stability of principle, that lawfulness of principle, specific conditionality.[/quote]I think it might be possible that the translators of the āgamāḥ may not have used the same Chinese word to translate “dhamma” every time “dhamma” may have come up in the source text. This is in much the same way that English renderings of Pāli generally translate “dhamma” when it appears, contextually.
With this in mind, the reading of 為無為道跡 comes to mean something like “[what is the] acting/doing/fabricating [of] [the] uncreated principle (dharma?) [of the] pathway [to the “uncreated dharma” spoken of earlier]”. This presumes a great deal of flexibility in the possible usage of 跡 which I need to check, and it is possible that 無為 refers exclusively to 道 and 跡 might not be referred to as 無為 at all, which would bring the passage into closer consistency with the Nikāya-parallel, if it proves to be a convincing and plausible set of readings for these characters. If it does prove to be a convincing set of readings, 為無為道跡 could well mean something more like “doing of the uncreated dharma’s pathway-there”, but like I said I need to do more research on how 跡 is used.
The Chinese recensions of the āgamāḥ seem, and this is very tentative, to generally have a tendency to want to label various things as dhammā that the Indic recensions might not label as such. If “dhamma” was a generally more common word in the Prākrit source text for the āgamāḥ that would later constitute the ZA (SA) and BZA (SA-2), this phenomena of diversely labelled linguistic insignifiers for a single word, “dhamma”, would be multiplied greatly. Unfortunately proving that is completely impossible so it is just an interesting idea.
The question now is, is it at all correct, from a perspective informed by actual Buddhism, not just meta-linguistic speculation, to say that there is such a thing as an uncreated “principle” of the path? Is the category of “asaṅkhatadhamma” something that is expounded in the EBT Buddhavacana? Is the notion of a dhamma called a “asaṅkhatadhamma” a product of later dhamma-theories, like the Abhidhamma?
This is really fascinating to me. I’d like to read the Pali/English version of the Agama that was translated so that I have a better feel for the word choices; which sutta is it?
[quote=“AndyL, post:19, topic:4572, full:true”]
This is really fascinating to me. I’d like to read the Pali/English version of the Agama that was translated so that I have a better feel for the word choices; which sutta is it?
[/quote]SN 43.11
A lot less potential proto-dhamma-theory in the Nikāya than the Āgama, as per the discussion above. It is certainly a fascinating artefact, this āgama, if anything I have brought up has merit.
This āgama also isn’t necessarily a translation of a text that resembles SN 34.11 100%.
The peculiarities of this āgama, IMO, can be explained as having two, among other no-doubt, potential causes: 1) possibly the oddness of it is a result of trying to “indegenize Dhamma” into Chinese society to convert the Chinese, or 2) this āgama’s oddness comes from the Prākrit or Sanskrit original, and as such, it has a rather divergent emergent dhamma-theory, possibly Sarvāstivādin, that exists in-parallel with emergent Theravāda dhamma-theory.
My own belief is that option 1 is more likely, but it is certainly possible that option 2 is the case.
My apologies to all.
I am sorry, I don’t usually post out of embarassment because I foolishly promised Bhante Sujato a translation some time back which, quite frankly, was beyond me. But I read the list faithfully. Your post, Coemgenu, is interesting and informative: though I do think how well 無為法 captures asaṃskṛtadharma is a matter of personal taste (I believe something similar has been expressed by someone else further down in the thread). I also did not like it at first, but it has grown on me.
One thing, though, I think it is important to point out (I don’t think anyone else here has) that, in regards to[quote=“Coemgenu, post:1, topic:4572”]
In Early Chinese Buddhism it may well have been impossible to speak of things as “conditioned” or “unconditioned” because those words simply didn’t exist as opposites. There is no “為法/wèi fǎ”, or “action/doing-dharma” to be the opposite of a “無為法 /wú wèi fǎ”, and thus, the soteriological relationship between the path and the goal is subtly changed, and is not linguistically manifest as so obvious an opposite in terms. Buddhists with no access to Indic texts thus could have developed a subtly different notion of “what is conditioned” and “what is not conditioned” on account of the language used to express that notion. This linguistic barrier can obviously be overcome, especially in the present-day, but if knowledge of the Indic linguistic expression of the Dhamma is lost, I think it is fair to say that the Dhamma that is communicated is communicated in a different way than it would have, depending on the attainment of the translator and the education of the text-reader.
[/quote]
there is certainly an opposite to 無為法, used plentifully in East Asian Buddhism as a translation for saṃskṛtadharma: 有為法 (you3 wei2 fa3). I mention it because I think this should affect some of the conclusions drawn on “the Dhamma that is communicated” by the ancient Chinese, and perhaps stimulate new discussion.
Regards,
knotty36
[quote=“knotty36, post:21, topic:4572”]
there is certainly an opposite to 無為法, used plentifully in East Asian Buddhism as a translation for saṃskṛtadharma: 有為法 (you3 wei2 fa3)
[/quote]“Bhāva-saṃskṛta-dharma”, interesting coinage. Thank you!
I am a learner of Classical Chinese who is too big for his britches and ought to be taken down a notch (he said half-jokingly).
In the interest of trying to see if the oddness of this āgama can be “toned down” to comply somewhat more closely with the nikāya-parallel, I have put forward some very sketchy readings of characters, my suggestions about the possible readings of 跡 being one of the things I am least sure-of-myself on:[quote=“Coemgenu, post:18, topic:4572”]
With this in mind, the reading of 為無為道跡 comes to mean something like “[what is the] acting/doing/fabricating [of] [the] uncreated principle (dharma?) [of the] pathway [to the “uncreated dharma” spoken of earlier]”. This presumes a great deal of flexibility in the possible usage of 跡 which I need to check, and it is possible that 無為 refers exclusively to 道 and 跡 might not be referred to as 無為 at all, which would bring the passage into closer consistency with the Nikāya-parallel, if it proves to be a convincing and plausible set of readings for these characters. If it does prove to be a convincing set of readings, 為無為道跡 could well mean something more like “doing of the uncreated dharma’s pathway-there”, but like I said I need to do more research on how 跡 is used.
[/quote]I am still in the process of learning how to use properly Chinese dictionaries (so many radicals!), so for the moment I am beholden to internet resources, do you happen to know if translating 跡 alone as path-way there, given that it specifically refers to a “signed path”, or that is to say “a path with clear signage”, but technically refers more to the insignifier than the “path” itself?
有為法 also only appears in DA literature, not in ZA (SA) (it actually does appear in SA but only once, in scroll 50, possibly once more in SA 1356, but SA 1356 could well be “in” scroll 50). Mainstream usage of 有為法 seems to be more-so a linguistic tendency of Mahāyānasūtrāṇi (where it appears literally all the time in frequency searches), as its use in āgamāḥ (from a few frequency searches in SuttaCentral & Nan Tien Institute Buddhist frequency dictionary, so don’t take this as definitive), seems much much less frequent.
Compare this with 無為法, which has 5 hits in SA alone from a similar quick search at SuttaCentral (this actually seems very low to me, which makes me really doubt these search engines I am using) . These internet-based searches through the literature, though, are highly problematic, and don’t actually offer the proof they may seem to offer on first glance, but they are all I have currently. 
As I learn more there will definitely be many “wow, I was so wrong” moments.
SN 43.11
A lot less potential proto-dhamma-theory in the Nikāya than the Āgama, as per the discussion above. It is certainly a fascinating artefact, this āgama, if anything I have brought up has merit.
This āgama also isn’t necessarily a translation of a text that resembles SN 34.11 100%.
The peculiarities of this āgama, IMO, can be explained as having two, among other no-doubt, potential causes: 1) possibly the oddness of it is a result of trying to “indegenize Dhamma” into Chinese society to convert the Chinese, or 2) this āgama’s oddness comes from the Prākrit or Sanskrit original, and as such, it has a rather divergent emergent dhamma-theory, possibly Sarvāstivādin, that exists in-parallel with emergent Theravāda dhamma-theory.
My own belief is that option 1 is more likely, but it is certainly possible that option 2 is the case.
Thank you! One of my little hobbies is looking through early texts and trying to spot where Zen came from, and since your example has a little Taoist/Zen flavor, it rang a chime for me. Very nicely done indeed, and thank you for your article and your work.
[quote=“AndyL, post:23, topic:4572”]
Thank you! One of my little hobbies is looking through early texts and trying to spot where Zen came from, and since your example has a little Taoist/Zen flavor, it rang a chime for me. Very nicely done indeed, and thank you for your article and your work.
[/quote]Well don’t take my speculations as solid evidence for the definite assuredness of anything. If anything, it is just the pointing out of a possibility. I still have much reading and learning to do before I would feel qualified to make any definite conclusions on any of this.
There is one last point that I can’t believe I didn’t think of until now.
無為法 is not necessarily a “direct” adaption of the Indic asaṃskṛtadharma.
Why?
Because 99% of the time, when the Sarvāstivāda āgamāḥ speak of saṃskṛta, they use 行 (xíng). This is not “hard” evidence, but I think it pushes reason for the oddness of this āgama more towards cultural adaption than doctrinal difference. If the Chinese translators were trying to be very consistent, they would have employed the terminology, theoretically, of 無行法, as 行 is the second nidāna in every single āgama account of the twelve links that I have read so far. [quote]無明、行、識、名色、六入處、觸、受、愛、取、有、生、老、病、死、憂、悲、惱、苦，[/quote]
(an overlong list of “fated dharmāḥ” from SA 296, 行 appears as the third character)
Then again, no one is forcing these translators to use consistent terminology, and “consistent terminology” itself is a culturally relative term.
I have not yet read the Dharmaguptaka āgamāḥ (DA), but they already I have some reason to think they show a tendency to use slightly different language, such as 有為法 (“bhāva-saṃskṛta-dharma?”).
It would be interesting to see how DA frames these same concepts. I have some reading ahead of me.
If I ever become qualified enough. I want to publish an comparative analysis of contemporary Chinese (Mahāyāna) linguistics (i.e. what terms are used for what, etc), and compare this with the Chinese of the āgamāḥ, to see when certain terms arose, and if certain terms were abandoned after the writing of the āgamāḥ. If such a resource were to exist, it would greatly beneficial to Buddhist textual criticism.
Greetings, Coemgenu.
Thank you for your reply. Some thoughts
I apologize if I made you feel like I was taking you down. I wasn’t thinking like that at all: I just love the study of Chinese. So, such as it is, I offer what knowledge I can to others. I am not an expert, I just lived in China for a really long time. And I have had a lot of “wow, I was so wrong” moments. (Still do, in fact; and I am grateful for every one of them.)
No. Even though 有 standing alone is elsewhere a translation for bhāva, it is not here. 有為 is a single unit: the opposite of 無為. I don’t know, maybe languages are all the same, but the meaning of any Chinese character is VERY contextual. Also, historically, the basic linguistic unit changed from one character(ancient times) to two (more modern times). (Actually, it is the influx of Buddhist texts and the influence upon Chinese of Indic language that drove much of this evolution.) So, when coming upon any ancient text, where to break words is a BIG issue about which the real Chinese experts argue all the time. I think you were a part of that thread about half a year ago where they were stumped by 空相應 and where to break it:空相 應, or 空 相應: because there is the word, 空, and also the word, 空相; there is the word, 相應; and there is also the word, 應. (I don’t know how to insert a link back to that thread.)
Though Buddhist Chinese is somewhat based on it, Buddhist Chinese isn’t Classical Chinese, per se–which is, for all intents and purposes, not at all an oral, but strictly a literary language; and, so, lacks the flow of a spoken Chinese language like, say, Mandarin or Cantonese. Buddhist Chinese is actually like Pāli, I guess, in that it is a vernacular, colloquialization based on a literary model. So, if I were to make a suggestion to anyone wanting to work with Buddhist Chinese (at, least, the Āgamas), it would be to simultaneously learn a modern, spoken Chinese language, too: probably Mandarin (though Cantonese would be fine, too). First, an estimated upwards of 80% of modern Mandarin vocabulary is Buddhist in origin (not to mention how much of the syntax, etc. is based in Indo-Aryan construction). Second, the rhythm of Chinese, which cannot be easily gotten from reading Āgamas, will be an invaluable guide in how to decipher the meanings of words: as in the 空相應 example above, where any speaker of Chinese, even with no Buddhist knowledge at all, would have instinctively known where to break it. (相應 is a common, contemporary word–again, of Indic origin.)
Radicals? Yeah. They just have to be memorized.[quote=“Coemgenu, post:25, topic:4572”]
無為法 is not necessarily a “direct” adaption of the Indic asaṃskṛtadharma.
Why?
Because 99% of the time, when the Sarvāstivāda āgamāḥ speak of saṃskṛta, they use 行 (xíng). This is not “hard” evidence, but I think it pushes reason for the oddness of this āgama more towards cultural adaption than doctrinal difference. If the Chinese translators were trying to be very consistent, they would have employed the terminology, theoretically, of 無行法, as 行 is the second nidāna in every single āgama account of the twelve links that I have read so far.
[/quote]
Yeah. But, actually, again, 為 might not be as bad as it looks at first glance. I know, in classical Daodejing translations, 無為 is often rendered, “non-action,” or, “non-doing,” or something of the sort; but 為 has little to do with either doing or action. 為 is more like the purpose or intent behind acting, or the intent to act: the modern 為甚麽, “why?” (literally, “for what?”) 行, on the other hand, “to go,” “to move,” “to progress or advance,” is a far more active word which can even compliment 為. Case in point: the contemporary compound, 行為 can be rendered “behavior,” or, “conduct,” or even, “deportment:” all of which point to or include both the outer activity (行) and the inner motivation informing it (為).
I have observed that translators, when trying to tackle the layered meanings of saṃskṛta/saṅkhata or saṃskāra/saṅkhāra, tend to use several different words to bring out these nuances, depending on the usage (especially, the notoriously difficult, saṃskāra/saṅkhāra). So, to me, between them, 行 and 為 divide nicely the internal and external, intention and action. Like I said, it grew on me. But, yeah, you’re probably right: “無為法 is not necessarily a ‘direct’ adaptation of the Indic.”
Don’t we all.
Peace.
I do really appreciate conversations like this here in SC’s D&D.
I am truly enthusiastic about this growing interest in the Agamas and am hopeful comparative studies and analyses will only help to polish further our understanding of what has been so gracefully preserved and passed down to us in both Pali and Chinese sides of EBTs.
Let us take time to reflect and appreciate how unique, fortunate and powerful this moment is: after many many centuries these two bodies of scriptures are now found in a same repository and people from different backgrounds are free to access, investigate, learn and develop their own understanding and practice of the path taking all this in consideration.
Back in the times of those who first made the humongous effort of standardising, recording and preserving all this only few had actually the merit of truly benefiting from the result of all their effort. It would probably have taken many years of scholarship and experience with the texts to do the same we are now able to do by simply pressing “search button”!
Please do keep up with these beautiful conversations!
[quote=knotty36][quote=Coemgenu]I am a learner of Classical Chinese who is too big for his britches and ought to be taken down a notch (he said half-jokingly[/quote]I apologize if I made you feel like I was talking you down.[/quote]Not at all! My self-effacement was an attempt at humour 
. It was also a self-aware statement, that my tendencies are to overestimate my skills (the Dunning-Kruger effect I suppose!), so I go in the opposite direction, and try to make sure that everything I say is caveated with advertisements of my amateur status
My original drafts are actually quite egotistical sounding when I reread them, that is why I always edit them several times to make what I say less “forcefully put”, if you will, because generally what I am presenting are possibilities produced by my lack of expertise. They are generally possibilities I truly believe are very plausible, but when writing it is easy to forget that it is necessarily to caveat (i.e. “I think”, “IMO”, “it seems to me”, etc), as other users/readers are not privy to my thoughts.
In this very post, in the original draft, near the ending, I had originally wrote “As I learn more I may come to disagree with it, like you do.” I changed this to “as you may” at the end. That is an example of what I mean.
It is always pleasant, on one level, to be disagreed with, particularly when it is in such a civil manner, because that is how learning occurs (for me at least), and how illusions of attainment are shattered, and real attainment thereby becomes more of a possibility.
Apologies for my departure from relevance. To address what you wrote:[quote=“knotty36, post:26, topic:4572, full:true”][quote=“Coemgenu, post:22, topic:4572”]
“Bhāva-saṃskṛta-dharma”, interesting coinage. Thank you!
[/quote]
No. Even though 有 standing alone is elsewhere a translation for bhāva, it is not here. 有為 is a single unit: the opposite of 無為. I don’t know, maybe languages are all the same, but the meaning of any Chinese character is VERY contextual. Also, historically, the basic linguistic unit changed from one character(ancient times) to two (more modern times). (Actually, it is the influx of Buddhist texts and the influence upon Chinese of Indic language that drove much of this evolution.)[/quote]I do not mean to be contrarian, but do you happen to have a source for this? This is very interesting to me.
[quote=knotty36][quote=“Coemgenu, post:22, topic:4572”]
I am a learner of Classical Chinese
[/quote]
Though Buddhist Chinese is somewhat based on it, Buddhist Chinese isn’t Classical Chinese, per se–which is, for all intents and purposes, not at all an oral, but strictly a literary language; and, so, lacks the flow of a spoken Chinese language like, say, Mandarin or Cantonese. Buddhist Chinese is actually like Pāli, I guess, in that it is a vernacular, colloquialization based on a literary model. So, if I were to make a suggestion to anyone wanting to work with Buddhist Chinese (at, least, the Āgamas), it would be to simultaneously learn a modern, spoken Chinese language, too: probably Mandarin (though Cantonese would be fine, too).[/quote]I have been using “Classical Chinese” when I should have been using the term “Literary Chinese” or even “Buddhist Hybrid Literary Chinese” because I figured it would cause less misunderstandings. It seems my attempt to subvert misunderstandings has bred them!
I have actually gotten the opposite advice from most people I have consulted while trying to seriously delve into Literary Chinese, most people have told me, in rather strong terms actually, absolutely not to base any of my study into Literary Chinese on how any modern Chinese dialects function, semantically or grammatically. I have long suspected that this might be slightly misleading, and might be a result of native speakers of modern Chinese dialects “hypercorrecting” and assuming the ancient literary language is actually further than it is from modern Chinese. Indeed, for instance, to a native speaker of English, old English seems “further” from English than, say, modern Dutch, despite actually being a closer language. A native speaker of English might inadvertently exaggerate and stress the difference, rather than the similarities, between ancient and modern English, and present a portrayal of Old English that frames it as “further” from modern English than it is. This might be the case with advice that exists out there trying to persuade learners of older Chinese not to learn modern Chinese.
On the other hand, the “do not base your understanding of Literary Chinese on any modern spoken dialect” approach is also the dominant pedagogical philosophy of the textbooks by Paul Rouzer that I am principally using to study, as he argues that Literary Chinese is a language all to itself, barely related to all to any spoken register of Chinese than has existed since the remote past.
[quote=knotty36]First, an estimated upwards of 80% of modern Mandarin vocabulary is Buddhist in origin (not to mention how much of the syntax, etc. is based in Indo-Aryan construction). Second, the rhythm of Chinese, which cannot be easily gotten from reading Āgamas, will be an invaluable guide in how to decipher the meanings of words: as in the 空相應 example above, where any speaker of Chinese, even with no Buddhist knowledge at all, would have instinctively known where to break it. (相應 is a common, contemporary word–again, of Indic origin.) [/quote]This relates to my earlier comments. Paul Rouzer argues that if Literary Chinese can be thought of as having a “flow”, it is a flow all of its own, unrelated to modern vernacular. That being said, Rouzer does not specialize in Literary Buddhist Chinese, and a lack of resources specializing in Buddhist Hybrid Chinese has left me beholden to his approach at the present. As I learn more I may come to disagree with it, as it seems you may.
Also, if I may voice one objection, it is to do with what you bring up here:[quote=knotty36](相應 is a common, contemporary word–again, of Indic origin.)[/quote]Based on my present understanding, it is indeed a common contemporary word, however, at the time of these translations (~4-500AD), this would have been a two-word construction consisting of native Chinese terms, entirely Chinese on their own, being put-together to represent, as a phrase, what is a single word in an Indic language.
Like the English words “therein”, or “earphones”, it is conceived of as one word, but is also two words.
Where have I gone wrong here? Do you know of any resources you would suggest for learning more about Literary Chinese usage specifically at the time of the translations of these texts that I could take advantage of?
I am married to a linguist, so I pick up on a few things here or there (although the danger of merely “overhearing” complicated linguistics, instead of knowing it yourself, is a very real and present danger), and I know that one of the most controversial and heated areas of the study of generative grammar is trying to pin down a workable metric for when one word definitely ends and another definitely begins. For instance, in our speech, as English speakers, we actually use way more “compound words” than we write (i.e. we write them as seperate words, but they are actually structurally bound). Analysis of Literary and/or Classical Chinese, Buddhist or not, it seems, is not exempt from this.
Also, do you have any sources for the theory that modern Chinese is highly influenced by Indo-Aryan syntax? This is also very interesting to me.
Also, lastly, concerning 有 (yǒu), I chiefly use two online dictionaries as well as a digitized dictionary I downloaded (so I can navigate using Command+F). Consulting these, this range of readings is available:[quote]
This is from the Nan Tien Institute’s Dictionary of Buddhist Chinese:
This dictionary is a general-usage dictionary:
I will put some definitions of bhāva here for context in case anyone else is interested. From buddha-vacana.org:[quote]bhava: [m.] the state of existence. || bhāva (m.) condition; nature; becoming.[/quote]
The Pali Text Society’s Pali-English dictionary doesn’t have an entry for bhāva or bhava it seems, or at least I can’t find it using the functionality of the site.
Monier-Williams’s 1899 Sanskrit-English Dictionary:[quote]1. (√ भू) coming into existence, birth, production, origin (= भाव Vop. ; ifc., with f( आ). = arising or produced from, being in, relating to) Yājñ. MBh. Kāv. &c.
2. becoming, turning into (comp.) Kāṭh.
3. being, state of being, existence, life (= सत्-ता L.) ṠārṅgP. (cf. भवान्तर)
4. worldly existence, the world (= संसार L.) Kāv. Pur.
5. (with Buddhists) continuity of becoming (a link in the twelvefold chain of causation) Dharmas. 42 (MWB. 102)
6. well-being, prosperity, welfare, excellence (= श्रेयस् L.) MBh. Kāv. &c.
7. obtaining, acquisition (= आप्ति, प्राप्ति) L.
8. a god, deity. W.[/quote]
Lastly, speaking of:[quote=knotty36][quote=Coemgenu]As I learn more there will definitely be many "wow, I was so wrong"moments.[/quote]And I’ve had a lot of “wow, I was so wrong” moments[/quote]I just found out I have been using bhāva and bhava as essentially interchangeable, based on the notion that the version with the macron was Sanskrit and the version without-macron was Pāli.
Apparently they are two different words altogether in both languages!
