Translation of an excerpt from Aṣṭa-Prajñāpāramitā

My sanskrit is essentially non-existent. :sweat_smile: So my attempt relies entirely on my Pāli knowledge and my personal attempt to visualise the Dharma within.

I would love to hear some feedback on how I handled some particular cases. This is not a lion’s roar; at best, it’s a whimpering question mark! I’m trying to understand this bit for my own pleasure, not trying to make a translation or even offer it up as valid. Just trying to understand it. :slight_smile:

Generally, as I see it, this section repeats the warning of Prajñāpāramitā tradition of reification of Dharmas - Dharmas are ideas about reality (or to be precise, about our experience); they are not true in the absolute sense of the word: Map is not the territory.

Abhidhamma project went on to materialise Dharmas, which in turn gave the interesting Sarvastivādin idea that Dhammas exist in all three times. It’s clear in this section that this three-times idea is being criticised.

I’ve handled quite a bit of things different from Conze, removing mystical aspects of it. His translation, for example: “As [Dharmas] do not exist, so they exist. And so, since they do not exist, they are called [caused by] ignorance.” Like, what.

Here’s my translation of that part:

bhagavānāha - yathā śāriputra na saṃvidyante, tathā saṃvidyante evamavidyamānāḥ / tenocyante avidyeti

The Blessed One replied: “Śāriputra, the ignorant people understand Dharmas in ways they are not understood by the Blessed One; that’s why it’s called ‘ignorance’

saṃvidya I’ve chosen to read as “understand”. Could be something like “apprehend, comprehend”, etc. Something more precise could be used. I’m just not privy to why it should be “exist”. According to WisdomLib it’s something like agreement, consensus. So I simplified it to “understand” but again, the point is it’s a mental process or recognition / agreement, not a statement of “exist/doesn’t exist” etc.

And the following section is generally translated as if it’s about ignorant people fabricating their Dharmas - but in line with the bold statement at the beginning that is “Buddha does not practice any Dharma”, the point I believe that’s lost is that all Dharmas are fabrications.

tān bālapṛthagjanā aśrutavanto 'bhiniviṣṭāḥ / tairasaṃvidyamānāḥ sarvadharmāḥ kalpitāḥ

Indeed, the immature ordinary beings who haven’t heard the teaching are beholden. It’s not understood by them that all Dharmas are fabricated.

This is an unorthodox reading according to Sanskrit grammar as I see, since it’s outside of the usual Subject-Object-Verb pattern. It could be something like

“All the Dharmas they fabricate are not understood [by the Blessed One.]”

As I can see it, that would be the appropriate way to read according to strict grammar rules. But then, it doesn’t really answer Sariputra’s question: “How does Buddha understands (samvidya) Dharma?” The point of this text seems How the Dharmas should be understood, not What Dharmas should be understood. And so I translate it as “They don’t understand Dharmas are fabricated” and ask for Sanskrit speakers to tell me how far off the mark it is. :slight_smile:

And I admit I had troubles with this part:

tasmātte 'saṃvidyamānān sarvadharmān kalpayanti / kalpayitvā dvāvantāvabhiniviśante abhiniviśya tannidānamupalambhaṃ niśritya atītān dharmān kalpayanti, anāgatān dharmān kalpayanti, pratyutpannān dharmān kalpayanti

Therefore, they do not understand that they’re fabricating Dharmas. Fabricating Dharmas at the two extremes, they’re beholden, clinging to their reification of causality; they fabricate past dharmas, future dharmas, present dharmas.

tannidānamupalambhaṃ is not an easy word to tackle. This is how I understand it could mean.

Here’s the full translation for your critique:

evamukte āyuṣmān śāriputro bhagavantametadavocat - evaṃ śikṣamāṇo bhagavan bodhisattvo mahāsattvaḥ katamasmin dharme śikṣate?

Having thus said, Venerable Śāriputra said this to the Bhagavat: “Bhagavat, what Dharma does a Bodhisattva-Mahāsattva thus practices?”

evamukte bhagavānāyuṣmantaṃ śāriputrametadavocat evaṃ śikṣamāṇaḥ śāriputra bodhisattvo mahāsattvo na kasmiṃściddharme śikṣate / tatkasya hetoḥ?

Then the Blessed One said to the Venerable Śāriputra: "Thus is it: the Bodhisattva, the Great Being, does not practice in any Dharma. And what is the reason for that?

na hi te śāriputra dharmāstathā saṃvidyante yathā bālapṛthagjanā aśrutavanto 'bhiniviṣṭāḥ

For, Śāriputra, Dharmas are not understood in the way that the ignorant, unlearned ordinary beings—who are beholden—understand them."

āyuṣmān śāriputra āha - kathaṃ tarhi te bhagavan saṃvidyante?

Then Śāriputra asked: “But how, then, are those Dharmas understood by the Blessed One?”

bhagavānāha - yathā śāriputra na saṃvidyante, tathā saṃvidyante evamavidyamānāḥ / tenocyante avidyeti

The Blessed One replied: "Śāriputra, the ignorant people understand them in ways they are not understood by the Blessed One; that’s why it’s called ‘ignorance’

tān bālapṛthagjanā aśrutavanto 'bhiniviṣṭāḥ / tairasaṃvidyamānāḥ sarvadharmāḥ kalpitāḥ

Indeed, the immature ordinary beings who haven’t heard the teaching are beholden. It’s not understood by them that all Dharmas are fabricated.

te tān kalpayitvā dvayorantayoḥ saktāḥ tān dharmānna jānanti na paśyanti

They fabricate Dharmas at the two extremes. Attached to those Dharmas, they neither know nor see.

tasmātte 'saṃvidyamānān sarvadharmān kalpayanti / kalpayitvā dvāvantāvabhiniviśante abhiniviśya tannidānamupalambhaṃ niśritya atītān dharmān kalpayanti, anāgatān dharmān kalpayanti, pratyutpannān dharmān kalpayanti

Therefore, they do not understand that they’re fabricating Dharmas. Fabricating Dharmas at the two extremes, they’re beholden, clinging to their reification of causality; they fabricate past dharmas, future dharmas, present dharmas.

te kalpayitvā nāmarūpe 'bhiniviṣṭāḥ / tairasaṃvidyamānāḥ sarvadharmāḥ kalpitāḥ

Having fabricated these Dharmas, they’re attached to name and form. They don’t understand that all Dharmas are fabricated.

te tānasaṃvidyamānān sarvadharmān kalpayanto yathābhūtaṃ mārgaṃ na jānanti na paśyanti

Not understanding how all Dharmas are fabricated, they don’t see nor know the path as it really is.

yathābhūtaṃ mārgamajānanto 'paśyanto na niryānti traidhātukāt, na budhyante bhūtakoṭim

Not seeing or knowing the path as it really is, they do not exit the three realms, not awakening to the end of living beings.

tena te bālā iti saṃjñāṃ gacchanti / te satyaṃ dharmaṃ na śraddhadhati

This is why they are called ‘immature.’ They don’t have faith in the True Dharma.

na khalu punaḥ śāriputra bodhisattvā mahāsattvā kaṃciddharmamabhiniviśante

Śāriputra; great bodhisattvas are no longer beholden by any Dharma like that."

With metta

:hearts: :lotus:

2 Likes

I think the confusion is that the verb saṃvidyate means “to exist, be there, be obtained or found.” The Pali equivalent would be saṃvijjati.

But the noun sāṃvidya does mean “mutal understanding, agreement.” Which I would guess is equivalent to P. saṃvida.

They are different words that look very similar. Isn’t translation fun?

2 Likes

It’s interesting - they both are saṁ + √vid. Looking a few examples that list “exist”, an alternative meaning given is “found”. Perhaps the connotation is something like “discerned”?

:upside_down_face: :rofl:

1 Like

It’s a near exact synonym of words like ‘upalabbhati.’ It means ‘to be found, to be discerned,’ yes. It’s used very frequently and specifically in that literature, echoing the suttas such as the Anurādha Sutta which say the Tathāgata cannot “be found” etc.

In the Niddesa, for example, it gives a list of synonyms:

natthi na atthi na saṁvijjati nupalabbhati pahīnaṁ samucchinnaṁ vūpasantaṁ paṭippassaddhaṁ …
Cnd 10

3 Likes

Yeah, I don’t think it’s exactly the same as bhava, it means found or known to be, literally. There’s a knowing involved, not just a simple statement of existence. But in ordinary usage, it ends up meaning that something exists or not. This is where translation gets very difficult, when we see these subtle differences in a language, how it uses figurative expressions. Reproducing those subtleties in another language in the same context can be hard to do. Sometimes there’s a ready equivalent, sometimes there isn’t.

1 Like

Just a tip from an Indologist:

If you don’t separate the Sanskrit words, the impression is that you don’t understand where one word ends and another starts, ergo, that you don’t understand what is/was written at all.

We teach students to separate the words in old editions at the very beginning of their training.

So it should be:

evam ukte āyuṣmān śāriputro bhagavantam etad avocat - evaṃ śikṣamāṇo bhagavan bodhisattvo mahāsattvaḥ katamasmin dharme śikṣate?

Your translation doesn’t do justice to Sanskrit, and indeed gives an impression that you don’t understand it. It should be,

When this was said, Venerable Śāriputra said this to the Bhagavat:
O Bhagavat, a Bodhisattva-Mahāsattva, thus practising/training, practices which teaching/phenomenon / trains in which teaching/phenomenon?

Although prajñāpāramitā texts are not very difficult, it’s not a good idea to delve into them without having taken a solid 2-year course in the basics of Sanskrit.

1 Like

You could’ve chosen to answer my questions and helped me understand the text, instead of just offering diatribes, if you’re an Indologist. :slight_smile:

I’m not offering this even as a valid translation, just an attempt to personally understand the text, because to my knowledge, there’s no good english translations of 8000 lines except Conze’s. And his misgivings are well documented.

Metta. :slight_smile:

I gave you a tip which is explained to the B.A. students in their first years of training.
Then, I corrected your translation. How is that “a diatribe”? Or “diatribes” (plural)?!

You wanted feedback and you got it. I don’t understand the problem. I wasn’t trying to offend you, by any means, if that is your impression.

there’s no good english translations of 8000 lines except Conze’s. And his misgivings are well documented.

Well, Conze’s translation does justice to Sanskrit. The only problem is that his English wasn’t really idiomatic. Nevertheless, it is still a standard translation, and it is essential for everyone studying this text.

There is now this wonderful translation into French:

Which is also “a must” for everyone working on/with the Aṣṭasāhasrikā.

2 Likes

This is interesting, because I’ve read several papers contesting this. Again, not being privy to Sanskrit myself, I can only watch the arguments and he-said-she-saids.

No problems.

This is actually brilliant since I do speak French. This might be illuminating, thanks. :slight_smile:

3 Likes

Can you share some links? I know only of Jayarava’s, which I would recommend to disregard. :slight_smile:

I’ve handled quite a bit of things different from Conze, removing mystical aspects of it.

You call it “mystical”; I would rather use “paradoxical”. And, having read quite a bit of that literature, I do think that paradox is its main feature.

1 Like

So, would you say this Conze’s translation is accurate to Sanskrit?

yathā śāriputra na saṃvidyante, tathā saṃvidyante evamavidyamānāḥ / tenocyante avidyeti
tān bālapṛthagjanā aśrutavanto 'bhiniviṣṭāḥ / tairasaṃvidyamānāḥ sarvadharmāḥ kalpitāḥ

As they do not exist, so they exist. And so, since they do not exist [avidyamana], they are called [the result of] ignorance [avidya]. Foolish, untaught, common people have settled down in them. Although they do not exist, they have constructed all the dharmas.

The context here is how Dhamma is saṁvidyante by ignorant people and Buddha. “It’s found just as it’s not found” i.e “Dharmas are found not in the ways they’re thought to be found” sounds like a more logical conclusion to me, given the context of the sutra.

Also re the earlier passage:

na hi te śāriputra dharmāstathā saṃvidyante yathā bālapṛthagjanā aśrutavanto 'bhiniviṣṭāḥ

If you agree that it literally means “As they do not exist, so they exist”, well, you’re the indologist, I’m just a puthujjana. :smiley:

I’ll have to get back to you , even though we agree about he-who-shall-not-be-named.

Also, the French translation kinda makes the distinction, but leaves it ambiguous enough:

“Elles existent de telle maniere qu’elles n’existent pas.”

Which means “They exist in ways they don’t exist.”

Again, one could also understand this from Conze’s translation, but his phrasing is so foreign to English that it’s hard to make it out.

I personally don’t see a paradox in this passage (in the French edition at least) - just a demonstration of how Buddha and ordinary people treat Dharmas differently.

Pretty much, except for some stylistic elements.

The context here is how Dhamma is saṁvidyante by ignorant people and Buddha.

It is not “by ignorant people”. It is dharmas which are not found/do not exist. It is intransitive, meaning just “exists”.

Here is the entry saṃvidyate in Edgerton’s Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit Dictionary:

saṃvidyate Page 541 Column 1

saṃvidyate (= Pali saṃvijjati = Skt. vidyate; pw is not justified in saying ‘esp. in questions and with neg.’), is found, exists; often virtually = asti: saṃvidyayanta (= °dyante, § 38.21) ima āsana LV 115.9 (vs); saṃvidyanta (read so, transposing daṇḍa before this) imāny…ati- riktāny āsanāni, saced ākāṅkṣasi, niṣīda 408.4; mātṛgrāmo ‘saṃvidyamāna-guṇo ’pi 141.9, even when no virtues exist (in them); puṇyasaṃbhāro na °te Kv 52.20; ko ’smākam upāyaḥ °te 53.18; sthānam etan na °te LV 215.19, that‘s out of the question, that can‘t be; with gen., like asti, = …has: yasyā ete guṇāḥ °yante LV 139.19, who possesses these qualities; (prabhūtaṃ me…koṣṭhāgāraṃ) °te SP 102.11, I have abundant…; (na ca me)…kiṃcit °te Kv 43.21; na cāsmākaṃ svāmī °te Kv 45.15, and we have no husband.

As Ven. Dhammajoti astutely observed in his Abhidharma Doctrines and Controversies on Perception (2007: 41):

In the Abhidharma period, the question of the ontological status of the
objects of knowledge (jñāna) became an increasingly important topic
of investigation. Several terms, some of which with distinguishable
significations, are used. Perhaps the most generic term corresponding to
‘object of knowledge’ is jñeya, ‘knowable’, which increasingly occupied the
mind of the Buddhist scholiasts. Consistent with the ‘empirical attitude’ —
in the broader sense — throughout the whole Buddhist tradition from its
inception, this term came to be synonymous with ‘existent’ or dharma-s as
factors of existence.

The prajñāpāramitā authors react to such Abhidharmic doctrines and presuppositions.

But it had been a tendency in the Sanskrit language for a long time.

2 Likes

Isn’t it better translated “They exist in such a way that they don’t exist”?

Exactly the paradox Conze stresses, IMHO.

1 Like

I use Pali cognates of the Sanskrit in my English translation below of the relevant passage

evam ukte āyuṣmān śāriputraḥ bhagavantam etad avocat -
When this was said, āvuso Sāriputta said this to Bhagavā (Buddha) :

evaṃ śikṣamāṇaḥ bhagavan bodhisattvaḥ mahāsattvaḥ katamasmin dharme śikṣate?
Hey Bhagavā - When a venerable bodhisatta trains in such a manner, what is the dharma that they train in?"

evam ukte bhagavān āyuṣmantam śāriputram etad avocat -
When this was said, Bhagavā said this to āvuso Sāriputta :

evaṃ śikṣamāṇaḥ śāriputra bodhisattvaḥ mahāsattvaḥ na kasmiṃścit dharme śikṣate /
Hey Sāriputta - When a venerable bodhisatta trains in such a manner, they don’t train in any dhamma"

tat kasya hetoḥ? na hi te śāriputra dharmāḥ tathā saṃvidyante yathā bālapṛthagjanāḥ aśrutavantaḥ abhiniviṣṭāḥ /
Why is that? Sāriputta, the dhammas are not of a kind that immature and uneducated puthujjanas can seek to get drawn towards (or seek to identify with).

āyuṣmān śāriputraḥ āha - kathaṃ tarhi te bhagavan saṃvidyante?
Āvuso Sāriputta said - in that case, how are they (dhammas) to be perceived?

bhagavān āha - yathā śāriputra na saṃvidyante, tathā saṃvidyante evam avidyamānāḥ /
Bhagavā said - Sāriputta - they are to be perceived as imperceivable, for they are not seen.

tena ucyante avidyā iti /
So they are called ‘the not-known’

tān bālapṛthagjanāḥ aśrutavantaḥ abhiniviṣṭāḥ /
The immature uneducated puthujjanas seek to develop an attachment to them.

taiḥ asaṃvidyamānāḥ sarvadharmāḥ kalpitāḥ /
They have conceptualized all the imperceivable dhammas.

te tān kalpayitvā dvayoḥ antayoḥ saktāḥ tān dharmān na jānanti na paśyanti /
Having conceptualized those dhammas, they become attached to both dogmatic extremes (such as - ‘dhammas exist’ or ‘dhammas dont exist’) - as a result they don’t know or see the dhammas.

tasmāt te asaṃvidyamānān sarvadharmān kalpayanti /
Moreover, they conceptualize all the inconceivable dhammas.

kalpayitvā dvau antau abhiniviśante, abhiniviśya tat nidānam upalambham niśritya atītān dharmān kalpayanti, anāgatān dharmān kalpayanti, pratyutpannān dharmān kalpayanti /
Having conceived, they adopt the two extremes, and relying on (the two) extremes, they conceptualize past dhammas, future dhammas and present dhammas.

te kalpayitvā nāmarūpe abhiniviṣṭāḥ /
Having conceived all that, they get attracted to nomenclature (nāma) and figurations (rūpa)

taiḥ asaṃvidyamānāḥ sarvadharmāḥ kalpitāḥ /
They have conceptualized all the imperceivable dhammas.

te tān asaṃvidyamānān sarvadharmān kalpayantaḥ yathābhūtaṃ mārgam na jānanti na paśyanti /
Conceptualizing those inconceivable dhammas - the dont know or see the (noble-eightfold) path as it really is.

yathābhūtaṃ mārgam ajānantaḥ apaśyantaḥ na niryānti traidhātukāt, na budhyante bhūtakoṭim /
Not knowing or seeing the path as it really is, they are unable to leave the three planes of existence (heavens, hells and this world), and don’t understand the end of becoming.

tena te bālāḥ iti saṃjñām gacchanti /
Therefore they get known as ‘immature’ (bāla)

te satyam dharmam na śraddhadhati /
They don’t trust (or place faith in) the true dhamma

na khalu punaḥ śāriputra bodhisattvāḥ mahāsattvāḥ kaṃcit dharmam abhiniviśante //
But Sāriputta - A venerable bodhisatta isn’t attracted/attached to any dhamma

By the way, why do people not just let the untranslatables stay as-is (words like Bhagavā in Pāli, Bhagavān/Bhagavat in sanskrit for example - no single-word translation of them is going to convey the right meaning. An equivalent for bhagavān simply does not exist in English).

3 Likes

:pray: :pray: :pray:

Thanks a lot for your efforts, @srkris.

This makes so much sense.

tena ucyante avidyā iti /
So they are called ‘the not-known’

Interesting!

Right. This is literally what the Abhidhamma project did - trying to conceptualise pretty much every Dharma.

This is greatly eye opening. Thank you so much again for your time. :lotus:

No problem :pray:

tairasaṃvidyamānāḥ sarvadharmāḥ kalpitāḥ /

Here the sentence is in karmaṇi-prayoga (passive-voice) - so the kartā/agent (te) is in tṛtīyā-vibhakti i.e. instrumental case (taiḥ)

taiḥ kalpitāḥ = by them have been fabricated/conceptualized
kim? = (fabricated) what?
asaṁvidyamānāḥ dharmāḥ = the dharmas that are not saṁvidyamāna.
saṃvidyamāna = conceived/known/comprehended/sensed

It is to be noted that words/phrases like asaṃvidyamāna , na samvidyante etc are not to be translated as non-existent - because that is exactly what the Buddha here says the uneducated puthujjanas do - they take one of the two extremes and argue that dhammas are existent or non-existent.

No, I am afraid this is not correct. It is exactly how these words should be translated.

And this is exactly how reputed scholars have translated this.

Your translation “inconceivable” and “imperceivable” is simply wrong – see the entry from the BHSD above.

“Inconceivable” would be derived from acintya, “imperceivable” - अगोचर, अतीन्द्रिय, अप्रत्यक्ष, अभौतिक, अविषय, अव्यक्त, इन्द्रियातीत, परोक्ष.

because that is exactly what the Buddha here says the uneducated puthujjanas do - they take one of the two extremes and argue that dhammas are existent or non-existent.

The ordinary people think that either dharmas exist forever, are eternal, or that they perish / are perishable at some point and stop existing.

How does it makes sense that Buddha says “Ordinary people take these two extremes” (a la Kaccānagotta Sutta, neither asti nor nasti) and then directly talks about “exist / doesn’t exist” (From the entry above: “saṃvidyate often virtually = asti”) ?

It doesn’t make any contextual sense. There’s obviously a nuance here that goes beyond “exists/doesn’t exist”.

Also consider that early canon is entirely based around experience (and not the objective reality or metaphysics) while Abhidhamma is an attempt to explain how Dhammas exist - and PP literature is a direct refutation of this to go back to canonical roots.

Ergo, Dharmas maybe perceived, understood, recognised, found, etc; but to say that they exist (or doesn’t exist) is to fall into two extremes that Buddha says not to do.

If it virtually means “asti”, why doesn’t Buddha directly say “asti”?

I don’t think the duration of it matters. The way I see it, the point here is personal experience & attitude towards Dharmas instead of what kind of metaphysical lifespan Dharmas have.

To assert how dharmas exist outside of your experience is to already fall into reification that Kaccānagotta Sutta warns against, which is repeated verbatim here. This is how I see it. :pray:

1 Like

If you check the definitions of ucchedavāda and sassatavāda in the Pāli sources, you will see that ucchedavāda is about the destruction of something that had real existence before (e.g., satta, being), while sassatavāda about eternal existence of that very thing.

The prajñāpāramitā literature, of course, inherits and adheres to these canonical definitions.

Here, Lamotte explains:

The author wants to show that the Śūnyavādin does not fall into the wrong views (dṛṣṭi ) of eternalism (śāśvatavāda ) or nihilism (ucchedavāda ) condemned by the Buddha. By denying these things, he avoids the view of existence (bhāva ) and escapes any blame of eternalism. On the other hand, by denying things inasmuch as he does not perceive them, he denies nothing as it is; he has nothing in common with the nihilist whose negation pertains to things previously perceived; thus he escapes any blame of nihilism. Emptiness is equidistant from these two extremes.

He then quotes the explanation from Candrakīrti’s Madhyamakavṛtti:

“To talk about existence is to accept eternalism; to talk about non-existence is to accept nihilism; this is why the sage does not adhere to either existence or non-existence. Actually, that which exists in itself (asti yad svabhāvena) cannot not exist, and from that, one must conclude that it is eternal (śāśvata); if something no longer exists now but did exist previously (nāstidanīm abhūt pūrvam), from that one must conclude that it has been annihilated (uccheda). But the person who considers existence-in-itself as impossible will never fall into the views of eternalism or nihilism since existence-in-itself exists only as a way of speaking (yasya tu bhāvasvabhāvānupalambhāt).”

Note, that the same argument is used: that annihilation is the destruction of something previously truly existing/perceived.

But śūnyavādins say that nothing exists or could have existed or has ever existed.

That’s the difference from “the two extremes”.

1 Like