The usage of 是我 & 有我 in Chinese translations of the Dhamma

Discussion
22

[quote=“knotty36, post:21, topic:5038”]
神
[/quote]This is also the character for “ancestors” and “the dead”, in many of the traditional indigenous “village religions” of East Asia. Sometimes it means “ancestors” or “the dead” in the sense of “ancestors or other dead that one worships in the manner of gods”, functionally. It can also mean “immortals” or “immortal spirit”, so its interesting to see it used as “soul” and what this specific conceptualization of “soul/spirit” would have meant to the religious mindset of China at the time, very interesting. I’ve never seen 神 used for “self”, but I have seen it a few times, which tells me its time to go look at some problems passages that have been giving me a hard time. Thank you.

Guṇabhadra was very daring here. It is certainly an interesting choice, and certainly one that would have been very immediately familiar to the people he was translating for. It is very, very, interesting to see 神 pop up as pseudo-equivalent to ātman. Just one more significant usage for a very interesting character.

People here might recognize 神 from the Japanese religion 神道 (Shintō), which comes from the Chinese: shén dào. 神, in Japanese, is also pronounced kami, which should be interesting to anyone interested in Comparative Religion.

Although the name Shintō is associated exclusively with Japan, many of these cultures, such as China, Korea, Vietnam, etc, have indigenous “Shinto-like” local religions. Even the Philippines used to practice some sort of Filipino 神道 , which was called Dayawism.

Thats the end of my irrelevant dump about some of the cultural associations this character has.

[quote=“knotty36, post:21, topic:5038”]
(I do not know, though, one would have to check which respective Āgamas use 無我 vs. 非我 viz a viz 有我 vs. 是我 to know if this is historical.)
[/quote]Both 無我 & 非我 have historical precedent, 非我 is slightly more common, both usages are spread out pretty evenly over SA, DA, MA, etc.

As opposed to, oddly enough, 有我 & 是我, where 是我 is overwhelmingly over-represented compared to 有我 (是我 occurs over four times more frequently than 有我 on SuttaCentral’s databases!)

1 Like
23

@Coemgenu
@knotty36

Early Chinese writing show that
神 has to do with nature ,
later it developed as spirit of Ancestors .
Ancestors spirit might sometimes has super natural power .

~神 —— separate it , became 示 申
从示从申，
~示 meaning 启示 ( reveal )
~示 also meant image first
then came sounds
~申亦声 same pronouncing with sound
~“申”本义为“雷电”、originally was lightning
And “巨大的轰鸣” thunder

We should not take 神 as western God .
although later part it evolved into many dimension of god and also heavenly beings .

:slight_smile:

1 Like
24

[quote=“James2997, post:23, topic:5038”]
Early Chinese writing show that
神 has to do with nature ,
later it developed as spirit of Ancestors .
[/quote]Indeed, there are some anthropologists who believe many ancient peoples who lived in East Asia shows signs of having worshipped trees at a very early stage in their development, then also animals, nature spirits, and ancestors/“the dead”. It would make sense if the changing usages of 神 match these stages. This postulated tree-worship is particularly believed to have been more prominent in Japan, but also must have occurred in China, if it isn’t all just academic speculation.

1 Like
25

The idea of 神 has 2 main schools of thought. The first is shamanistic one and that’s what the character hints at with a worship vessel on the left and lightening on the right. Most people know that early and late Siberians had shamans follow them around. It is thought that very early Northern Chinese were from Siberian origins. So yes it was probably used as the earliest form to represent the ‘natural spirit world’ that the Shaman who could speak to. Hence, we have Shinto or 神道 (Japanese). Later on, ancestors were added to this of course.

神 though has another early meaning all together that came about from the old 黄老 traditions. In this case, 神 is consciousness, which is also made of 魄, 魂, 意，志. These 2 different lines of thinking had massive opposing impacts on Chinese culture and ideas.

1 Like
26

@Shaun

In the 黄老Tradition ,
teachings came from 黄帝 and 老子 ，
It is the combination teachings of
1st Emperor of China and Lao Zi .
But, in fact it is just Lao Zi student that
uses 黄帝 as a Model of attractions
to draw people to achieve
stabilization in the politics only .
And the teachings actually was from Lao Zi plus the YingYang teachings ( 阴阳学 ）
and politics ( 法 or Fa ) .

In 黄老 , 神 is spirit ,
神 is not same as consciousness .
Rather it derived from YingYang .

“魂” is maintaining the spirit energy ，
called Yang spirit “阳神” ,
it responsible for conscious part ,
thinking ,
whereas ；
“魄” is maintaining the body energy ，
Called Ying spirit “阴神”，
responsible for
unconscious subconscious layers ,
of organs senses 、
regeneration of the organism.

意 as the sounds of mind
On the other hand ,
志 as the ambition of mind ( will ) .

27

James > In the 黄老Tradition ,
teachings came from 黄帝 and 老子 ，
It is the combination teachings of
1st Emperor of China and Lao Zi .

Shaun > Qin Shi Huang was the first emperor of China, Huang Lao traditions did not come from him. Huang of Huang Lao refers to the Huang Di in terms of Huang Di as of 2600 BCE. Huang Lao traditions and those that came before can be categorized as yin yang school of thought. But in the end, very few books remain in their tardtion. The most famous are the Huang Di Nei Jing. It is the Huang Di Nei Jing therefore that gives us an idea into their thinkings.

James > But, in fact it is just Lao Zi student that
uses 黄帝 as a Model of attractions
to draw people to achieve
stabilization in the politics only .

Shaun > I’m sorry but Lao Zi’s teaching are far, far deeper than just ‘stabalization in politics.’ 老子 does have a hint of 法家 in it, but it is very, very far from 法家.

James > 神 is the spirit ,
神 is not same as consciousness.
Rather it derived from YingYang

“魄” is maintaining the body energy

“魂” is maintaining the spirit energy ，
called Yang spirit “阳神”

意 as the sounds of mind
On the other hand,

Shaun > Your definitions are not quite right and it is much more complex than this, if we look at them in terms of the way they are used in Huang DI Nei Jing and taught for that matter, this is what they are (I’m making this as simple as possible - I don’t have time to write so much):

神: Refers to the energy that gives you consciousness. This is commonly translated in English as spirit but is a very bad mistranslation.

魂: Hun is the consciousness energy that shows up in dreaming and imagination (as being outside of the body).

魄: Is actually conscious ability to affect breathing.

意: This is the conscious ability to think.

志: Will

All their energies combine to make up the 神. If one is ill or out of balance then so is the 神. Each consciousness also has a negative to it. 意 allows us to think, hence we shouldn’t eat and think (overthink such as study) at the same time we eat otherwise you have bad digestion. The negative of the 魄 is crying (affecting the breath), etc etc. This is what was taught in the 黄老 tradition. The Huang Lao predecessors were naturalists and focused on the science of yin and yang, hence they made arts such as Chinese Medicine.

28

@Shaun

I meant BCE 黄帝,
( 1st King Huang or Emperor Huang )
not Qin Shi Huang !
Huang Lao teachings was after Lao Zi ,
And it’s teaching not just
center around Lao Zi teaching .
Huang teachings 黄学 and
Lao Zi teachings 老学 ，
That’s why it’s called Huang Lao .

They already found the
4 books of Huang 黄学.
Namely ,
〈十六经〉、〈经法〉、〈道原〉和〈称〉.
It is called 黄帝四經 。

Plus the Lao Zi teachings 老学.
老子～道經＆德经 。ie 道德經 。

29

James,
The Huang Lao movement combined, Laozi, Zhuangzi, the Yellow Emperor, the School of Naturalists, elements of Chinese folk religion etc to make their thoughts. They were most popular during the Western Han in particular but are have said to derive from the Zhou dynasty.

The truth if that Huang-Lao is a banner term for what wold become known as Daoist, not 道教 but 道家. As soon as the 《黄帝四經 》was found they bannered it under Huang-Lao, this is a very typical thing that mainland Chinese historians do without any proper consideration. There are a huge number of scholars that state the four manuscripts in the 《黄帝四經 》 are mutually incompatible texts deriving from diverse philosophical traditions. Consequently, many of the interpretations of the nature and characteristics of Huang-Lao Taoist thought that have been based on a reading of the Mawangdui manuscripts are debatable, since they are based on the assumption that these texts form an integral whole and are really affiliated with Huang-Lao. (Yates 2008:509).

Therefore in terms of understanding deeper aspects (re. medicine, cosmology etc) of the 黄老 tradition and their thinking we only really have the《黄帝内经》

30

@Shaun

神 has no suitable translation for it .

魂 In daylight is the thinking aspect
And at night is the energy in dreams.
Maintain the mental ( yang ) energy .

魄 Is the 气 ( qi ) or breath aspect .
Maintain the body ( yin) energy .

意 Is the thought which is
called the " ringing " of the mind
Or sounds of the mind .

31

Hi James,
Saying that 神 has no translation is a fair thing to say. Hence it’s home; the heart doesn’t have a 月 in its symbol which every other organ has. But technically speaking just as with 气 there are actually concrete definitions, the issue is that those definitions are different depending on the context and dynasty. 神 does have about 10 different definitions I know of.

魂：Being yang energy (as the home of the Hun is the liver; the General) and an energy that makes one dream or have out of body experiences is definitely the hun, the reason is that its energy rises upwards. I have never read it being the thinking aspect during daylight hours as this doesn’t imply being outside of the body. That is related to the 脾 and should therefore be 意.

魄：A yin energy (as its home is the ‘delicate lung’ and breathing is nearly tangible 有形为阴), its qi that maintains breathing and as negative is crying which disrupts the breath up; this would be considered a good mainstream definition.

意: Comes from the spleen and is therefore everyday thinking, as a negative it is pensiveness. In nearly 2 decades of studying their stuff, I have never read the 意 in the 黄老 tradition being described as sounds of the mind or ringing of the mind… I’m not sure about that…

32

Hi @Shaun

The combination of
yang qi 阳气& yin qi 阴气 = 神 shen

Early Chinese writing shows that

音 sound is synonym with
言 speech (which is sounds)

意 —— 音 sound / noise

     心 Mind

意 —— Thoughts ( sounds ) in mind

33

I see where you coming from with the idea of the character development. Its never been written as “sound/rining of the mind” in any Haung Lao text I have read. I always tell people to be very careful to not use charcater development or books like the 《说文解字》to look for meanings. Just because there is the character of sound 音 in the character 意 doesnt portray that it means ‘sounds of the mind,’ in any certain tradition, such as 黄老. The 黄老 simpy didn’t use or think of it in that way. It’s better to look at the 黄老 texts themsleves and see how THEY used the word 意. I guess this is the same when translating Pali.

34

In Chinese culture and traditions ,
One has to go back
to the source to understand it .
Almost every features
has their root meaning .
One has to trace back
to find the root word
and how it evolves then.

Of course for the meaning for whole sentence or a connected conversation then will be treated differently .

35

Wow! This discussion has really gone in a new direction; I have been waiting all week to add in! This (Taoism and so on) has always been my first love, but, as this is a Buddhist chat group, I think it would be more appropriate for me to limit myself to the more Buddhist part of the discussion (though I have thoroughly enjoyed reading what everyone else says about Chinese this or that).

MA 2 (parallel to Sabbāsava Sutta) and MA 97 (parallel to Mahānidāna Sutta) are two examples off the top of my head. I think it is exclusively an MA translation.

Okay, maybe I was not specific enough. When I said,

what I meant was not that the historicity of the usage of any of these terms needed to be checked out, but that one would have to check to verify that, historically, 是我 indeed developed directly from 非我, because I was just surmising. (But I do think that it is most likely to have happened that way.)

A question, though, regarding this search of the SC Āgama database: are you certain that, when you searched, all of those 無我s, 有我s, 非我s, and 是我s which came up were indeed stand-alone, two-charactered terms which referred to (an)anattā, and not just parts of larger, unrelated phrases? (Chinese character searches are tricky that way, and that would affect your data significantly.) Because, though I have not searched myself, I cannot believe that 無 vs. 非 and 有 vs. 是 as prefixes for 我 would be spread out evenly over the Āgamas: particular translators tend to stick to their preferred jargon (as, for example, in the case of 神 in the MA vs. 我 in SA and DA).

With respect to the early Taoist textual traditions, I know many people identify (and have identified for thousands of years) some commonality between early Taoist and Buddhist thought, but I want to ask if anyone has ever noticed a similarity specifically between the 2nd chapter of the Zhuangzi, the Qiwulun, and the Aṭṭhaka Vagga. Just as there is a school which identifies the Aṭṭhaka Vagga as the true core, if not the historical foundation, of Buddhist thought, there is a school which identifies the Zhuangzi Qiwulun (and not, as popularly believed, the Laozi) as the root of Taoist philosophy. But, other than myself, I have never heard of anyone pointing out any similarity between these two texts. And, as it seems we have some people intimately familiar with both traditions on this thread, I thought I would take this chance to bring this up. I would be interested in hearing what someone other than myself thinks about this.

Peace.