SuttaCentral
Well, precisely why I think translating samvidyante as exists would be wrong, because Buddha wouldn’t talk about Dharmas existing.
Conversely, we reserve the words “exist” for when we see “asti”. Obviously there’s a difference. Asti/Nasti are wrong words to describe Dharmas, but a/samvidyante are apparently not.
But I’m afraid I have little chance of convincing you. 
On samvidyate vs. astitā, see the following section of the sūtra for a discussion:
atha khalvāyuṣmān śāriputra āyuṣmantaṃ subhūtimetadavocat - kiṃ punarāyuṣman subhūte asti taccittaṃ yaccittamacittam? evamukte āyuṣmān subhūtirāyuṣmantaṃ śāriputrametadavocat kiṃ punarāyuṣman śāriputra yā acittatā, tatra acittatāyāmastitā vā nāstitā vā vidyate vā upalabhyate vā? śāriputra āha - na hyetadāyuṣman subhūte /
subhūtirāha - sacedāyuṣman śāriputra tatra acittatāyāmastitā vā nāstitā vā na vidyate vā nopalabhyate vā, api nu te yukta eṣa paryanuyogo bhavati yadāyuṣmān śāriputra evamāha - asti taccittaṃ yaccittamacittamiti? evamukte āyuṣmān śāriputra āyuṣmantaṃ subhūtimetadavocat - kā punareṣā āyuṣman subhūte acittatā? subhūtirāha - avikārā āyuṣman śāriputra avikalpā acittatā //
Sounds like a good enough reason to choose different words to translate them differently, as it implies those are categorically different questions (even if there’s a similar answer to both of those inquiries)! 
If your problem is purely one of word-choice, and you don’t like “exist/does not exist”, I can suggest “found/not found”, which would be faithful to the primary meaning of the verb vindati/te. But then, why not say “they do not exist”, if “they are not found (at all)”?
When we say something “exists”, it’s an ontological claim, which the EBTs are generally not interested in. Even “The World” is defined as 6 sense bases, and the texts do not concern with for example whether this cup exists or not.
However, the texts do analyse our perception of the cup, whether it brings us joy or suffering, and so on. This is a phenomenological distinction. So the cup is found in our six sense base.
As you would know, Dharmas became real existent entities beyond our perception of them in Abhidhamma.
I believe this distinction is an important one, and a hallmark of PP literature - away from ontological claims of Abhidhamma and back to phenomenological perspective.
It can be so, but it is not necessarily so. It depends on the intention of the speaker.
But, to make a long story short, prajñāpāramitā does say that nothing exists. You can word it differently, saying that nothing whatsoever is/can be found, etc. But the meaning would be the same: nothing exists, everything is an illusion.
When you have read the whole of the Aṣṭa or one of the longer prajñāpāramitās, the idea that you must have learnt and understood is exactly that – there is truly nothing, everything is an illusion. That’s the intention and message of the authors, what they are trying to get across. Śūnyatā !!!
Is that so?
I would say, it’s less about whether, for example, whether this cup in front or me exists or not (something externally); but how Buddhas are not under illusion and do not grasp at namarupa.
“There is no Buddha” doesn’t mean there is no Shakyamuni talking and teaching Buddha - it’s that these conventional explanations are insufficient and are ultimately false, unable to describe the experience.
Ontological vs Phenomenological (& Epistemological)
Those are my pronouns. 
How do you know that (only) what the BHSD says is right, and nothing else? Even for Pali and Gandhari (which are limited to early-Buddhist literature and their commentaries), I dont rely exclusively on what their dictionaries say, and I have found faulty entries even in modern dictionaries like that of Dr. Cone.
Here is the entry for saṃ+√vid in other dictionaries, I dont see where it means the meaning you are imputing to it.
Besides, there are five verb roots called √vid according to the Dhātupāṭha :
Of the above only the first one normally takes the upasarga ‘sam’
Even if we take Dr. Edgerton as authoritative where he says “saṃvidyate (Pali saṃvijjati) = Skt. vidyate”, why is there another word without the saṃ (avidyamānāḥ) in the same sentence? What is the significance of the upasarga saṃ missing in avidyamānāḥ?
In fact, the whole point of the teaching you interpret as “dhammas do not exist” is to avoid such bipolar interpretations of it, for such polarized interpretations are only done by those who don’t understand i.e. the uneducated and immature puthujjanas.
The sentence “tena ucyante avidyā iti” makes it clear that the topic being addressed is not the non-existence of dhammas but their un-knowability (avidyā is never translated as non-existence) even in BHS.
So please show what the connection is in your interpretation between the words avidyā, avidyamānāḥ, saṃvidyamānāḥ, samvidyante, na saṃvidyante etc.
I believe so.
On the conventional level, everything exists. On the ultimate level, there is nothing.
I would say, it’s less about whether, for example, whether this cup in front or me exists or not (something externally)
It doesn’t have a svabhāva, any fundamental reality or any truth, so it is (like) an illusion.
but how Buddhas are not under illusion and do not grasp at namarupa.
Yes, this is your peculiar interpretation.
na khalu punaḥ śāriputra bodhisattvā mahāsattvā kaṃciddharmamabhiniviśante
But I believe we’re running in circles now.
Best of luck in your practice!
why is there another word without the saṃ (avidyamānāḥ ) in the same sentence?
Because vidyate also means to exist, to occur, to be:
BHSD
vidyate Page 488 Column 1vidyate (Skt., is found, occurs, exists, is…), seems to be used practically as a passive auxiliary, with ppp., like Eng. be, Ger. werden, in: yathaite upacīrṇā (line 2) vidyetsuḥ (Senart em. °nsuḥ), svastinā ca abhinirbhedaṃ gacchanti Mv i.273.1–2 (prose), that these (eggs) may be cared for, and may felicitously come to hatching-out.
Regarding
In fact, the whole point of the teaching you interpret as “dhammas do not exist” is to avoid such bipolar interpretations of it
I showed above that for prajñāpāramitā authors themselves there was not any problem here: ucchedavāda, the extreme of nihilism, is about something existing that stops existing at some point. But for śūnyavāda nothing has ever existed (truly).
Regarding
The sentence “tena ucyante avidyā iti ” makes it clear that the topic being addressed is not the non-existence of dhammas but their un-knowability (avidyā is never translated as non-existence) even in BHS.
There is obviously some wordplay at play here (pun intended), and my best guess would be that the authors intend to blend both meanings of the root into one semantic unit: ignorance-nonexistence.
Besides, the Petersburg Dictionary lists the meaning “Nonexistence” for avidyā:
avidyā [Printed book page 1-0500]
avidyā (wie eben) f. das Nichtwissen, Unwissenheit Ak. 1,1,4,16. H. 1374. Av. 11,8,23. Vs. 40,12-14. Śat. Br. 14,7,1,20. 2,4 (= Bṛh. Ār. Up. 4,3,20. 4,3). Kaṭhop. 2,4. Śvetāśv. Up. 5,1. Vgl. u. abhiniveśa 3. Im Vedānta = māyā Śkdr. Bei den Buddhisten: Unwissenheit und zugleich Nichtsein Burn. Intr. 473. 485. 488. 506. 507. 638. Lia. II,461. Colebr. Misc. Ess. I,396. avidyāvarṇana Verz. D. B. H. No. 642. [ID=6753 ]
[Printed book page 5-1067]
avidyā als Śakti Verz. D. Oxf. H. 149,b,38. Weber, Rāmat. Up. 325. fg. 351. [ID=65624 ]
You’re quoting fringe opinions, how do you know that that dictionary is correct about it? Where exactly do Pali or BHS literature have avijjā/avidyā translated as non-existence? And why would the Buddha be saying " tena ucyante avidyā iti i.e. dharmas are called non-existence rather than saying dharmas are all non-existent" i.e. here avidyā is not a plural, dharmāḥ is plural? Where exactly in buddhist literature are dharmas described as non-existent? Does vidyā / vijjā then mean existence? Under what etymological or grammatical authority do you or someone else suggest such meanings? The affix kyap ( √vid+kyap=vidyā) is applied only to the first of the above 5 dhātus, so the meaning of existence/non-existence does not apply to vidyā & avidyā respectively.
You don’t know what the Saint-Petersburg Dictionary is?
Hailed as “the greatest achievement of indological scholarship in 19th-century Europe” (Basham), the Sanskrit-Worterbuch by Otto Von Bohtlingk and Rudolf Roth…
It it the best Sanskrit dictionary that we have (in the West). Monier-Williams is just an abridgement of that dictionary.
I’ll answer to the rest later.
That the PWG is infallible is perhaps your personal belief, I dont share that belief. I asked for a grammatical and/or etymological authority (as it goes against my understanding of both etymology and grammar), not a fringe opinion. Nobody who knows proper Sanskrit would equate avidyā with non-existence (and conjunctively vidyā with existence), so if a dictionary translates the word as non-existence, when it doesnt give anything to support such a meaning, then it is likely wrong.
That the PWG is infallible is perhaps your personal belief, I dont share that belief.
I have never said that.
I asked for a grammatical and/or etymological authority (as it goes against my understanding of both etymology and grammar),
I gave you one, the most respected.
not a fringe opinion
No, you don’t understand. If the S.-Petersburg Dictionary says something, and you say otherwise, it is most likely that your opinion that is fringe.
You, indeed, often contribute fringe opinions and contentions in this forum. Only in this thread I am counting a number of them. You are for some reason bold enough to comment on the texts of the tradition of thought, of which you know nothing about. You think that your ongoing training in Sanskrit morphology gives you the key to Sanskrit, but, I am afraid, you are ignorant regarding the way words acquire their meanings in a language.
so if a dictionary translates the word as non-existence, when it doesnt give anything to support such a meaning, then it is likely wrong.
A scientific dictionary never gives anything without references, and the Petersburg Dictionary, by all means, does not do that: Burn. Intr. 473. 485. 488. 506. 507. 638. Lia. II,461. Colebr. Misc. Ess. I,396. avidyāvarṇana Verz. D. B. H. No. 642.
Haven’t you read that?
Burn. Intr. = Burnouf’s Introduction to the History of Buddhism
Lia. II,461. = Lassen’s Indische Altertumskunde
Colebr. Misc. Ess. I,396. = Colebrook’s Miscellaneous Essays
I don’t have time to look through all those sources, but I have found in Burnouf’s History this translation of the Aṣṭa:
Then, Śāriputra spoke to the Bhagavat in this way: “Th e bodhisattva who
studies in this way, O Bhagavat, does he study the perfection of wisdom?” Th at
said, the Bhagavat spoke to Śāriputra in this way: “Th e bodhisattva who studies
in this way studies the perfection of wisdom.” Th at said, Śāriputra spoke to the
Bhagavat in this way: “Th e bodhisattva who studies in this way, which condition
does he study?” Th at said, the Bhagavat spoke to Śāriputra in this way: “Th e
bodhisattva, O Śāriputra, who studies in this way does not study any condition.
Why is that? It is that conditions, O Śāriputra, do not exist as ordinary and ignorant
men who are not instructed believe while becoming attached to them.”
Śāriputra said: “How thus do they exist, O Bhagavat?” “Th ey exist, O Śāriputra,”
replied the Bhagavat, “in such a manner that they do not really exist. And since
> they do not exist, because of that they are called avidyā, that is to say, what does
> not exist or ignorance. It is to that that ordinary and ignorant men who are not
instructed become attached. Th ey imagine as existing all conditions of which
none exists. When they have imagined them in this way, then, chained to two
limits, they do not know, they do not see conditions. Th is is why they imagine all
conditions as existing, when none exists. When they have imagined them in this
way, they become attached to two limits. Once attached in this way, and having
conceived the idea of the chain of cause and eff ect, they imagine past conditions,
future conditions, and present conditions. Aft er they have imagined them in this
way, they become attached to name and form. It is in this way that they imagine
all conditions, when none exists. Imagining all conditions as existing, when none
exists, they do not know, they do not see the true path. Not knowing, not seeing
the true path, they do not depart from the collection of the three worlds; they
do not know the true aim; so they go among the number of those who are called
ignorant; they do not believe in the true law. Th is is why, Śāriputra, bodhisattvas
do not become attached to any condition.”
And later his comments on that:
Th e first result in the belief in the existence of what is not; and this is why it is said that they have their causes in avidyā, “ignorance or nonbeing.”
…
Avidyā, or ignorance, is the twelft h and last cause going backward. It is, as the
text oft en cited by Mr. Hodgson says, “false knowledge,” to which its commentator
adds: “Th e existence of the world which is in perpetual movement derives
uniquely from the imagination or the belief one has in the reality of things; and
this false opinion is the fi rst act of the sensible principle not yet individualized or
endowed with a body.”119 It is also in this manner that the Brahmanical authorities
understand it according to Colebrooke: “Avidyā, ignorance or error, is the
misunderstanding that consists in considering durable what is only passing.”120
Th ere cannot remain the slightest doubt about the value of this term; nevertheless,
it is important to remark that it has a double meaning, one that is objective,
drawn from the very etymology of the word avidyā, that is to say, avidyamānam,
“what is not found, what does not exist, nonbeing”; the other subjective, drawn
from the ordinary use of the word avidyā, that is to say, a-vidyā, “nonscience, ignorance.”
Nonbeing and nonknowledge are thus identical; and so the existence
of the object or the world, and to a certain point, of the essentially relative subject
that lives in the world, is denied in its origin.
119. Hodgson, “Quotations from Original Sanscrit Authorities in Proof and Illustration of Mr. Hodgson’s
Sketch of Buddhism,” in Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, vol. 5, p. 78.
120. Colebrooke, Miscellaneous Essays, 1:396.
And so on.
Basically, he bases his definition of avidyā namely on the very passage the OP wants to understand.
Moreover, Monier-Williams also quotes this view in the Dictionary:
Page 108 Column 3
ignorance together with non-existence. Buddh.
And why would the Buddha be saying " tena ucyante avidyā iti i.e. dharmas are called non-existence rather than saying dharmas are all non-existent " i.e. here avidyā is not a plural, dharmāḥ is plural?
It can be both. Like I said, I believe we have a wordplay here on the meanings of the √vid.
Even if it doesn’t mean “non-existence”, which, I believe, fits the context very well and makes good sense of the passage, but simply “ignorance” (and Conze indeed translates “ignorance”), it does not support your arguments because in the rest of the sūtra text avidyamānāḥ etc. mean precisely “non-existent, not found”. So it is not “imperceptible” etc., but “non-existent” or “not-found”.
Here, in the new translation into French, the translators explain, that in the passage about avidyā it is exactly the wordplay at place (p. 50):
(those which do not exist OR ignorance).
Where exactly in buddhist literature are dharmas described as non-existent?
What is this question? It is the basics of Mahāyāna philosophy. All dharmas are śūnya, empty, zero, non-existent.
Here you can see some explanations regarding svabhāva of all dharmas as abhāva.
The affix kyap ( √vid+kyap=vidyā) is applied only to the first of the above 5 dhātus, so the meaning of existence/non-existence does not apply to vidyā & avidyā respectively.
This is the misleading idea that you have. This is not how the meanings of the words are established. The meanings of the words can be properly ascertained only as a result of a proper study of a carefully vetted linguistic corpus (or corpora).
See here:
So you support a translation based on the authority of a dictionary, which itself claims the authority of another translation, which claims the authority of another dictionary/translation etc? You call that scientific? No they are just statements of the type “he said this because she said that because they said that…” ad nauseum. That reminds me of the sutta of the blind leading the blind (don’t remember exactly which sutta it was).
That is neither a grammatical nor an etymological authority for it explains neither the grammar nor the etymology. Whether your source is the most respected or not is not what I am enamoured about. I am asking how you can establish it’s suggested meaning to be correct. Are you saying they made an educated guess and therefore the meaning is their own guesswork not backed by anything more than that - and therefore fails the grammatical and etymological test?
What kind of word construction it is, what kinds of verbs take the affix kyap, what meanings are possible for such a grammatical construction, what are other words that have the same affix and what meanings do they have etc are what grammatical and etymological authorities provide (for Sanskrit specificially). What I asked for is a way to determine what the meaning of a word is that doesnt rely on a predetermined meaning - for echoing a pre-conceived meaning ad-nauseum does not make it right or scientific.
No personal attacks please. Whether I know anything I say is for everyone to evaluate for themselves, while you can hold that opinion about me, I don’t want the nastiness to spill out here and poison the mood.
If you think my opinions are fringe opinions, so be it, but at least I explain with reasons why I hold those opinions for those who want to understand my train of thought. You are quoting your authorities and dont want me to question their authority and seek to know how they concluded that a word can get such a meaning.
“Wordplay” makes no sense as an answer here for it trivializes the discussion and adopts an anti-intellectual position. Your interpretation is ungrammatical, it is not a wordplay that makes a sentence ungrammatical. This is not the first time that you have suggested a non grammatical interpretation to me, you have done the same thing before by misinterpreting both the Sanskrit and the Pali forms of another word, and their grammar.
Sanskrit vocabulary and grammar (and by extension Pali vocabulary & grammar) are not to be mucked about in this way. There is an extremely rational and scientific grammatical and etymological apparatus that is at least as old as the Buddha himself that accompanies the language and one who knows the language needs to use them to explain with the greatest and most minute scientific clarity how a word is grammatically structured and can get such a meaning. It is called a word’s prakriyā.
The true meanings of vidyā and avidyā (as used in this text) did not arise with these modern translations or dictionaries, the meanings were known to the whole Indian civilization from pre-Buddhist times. What matters is how they (the Sanskrit speakers) took them to mean - not what a modern German dictionary or translator takes them to mean. If your attributed meanings have no other prop other than these modern reinterpretations (rather misinterpretations), then you are forcing your opinion on a text thousands of years old that has not been interpreted like that all through history.
It doesnt matter how many people hold a wrong opinion, if it is wrong it is wrong. So dont try to bolster an argument by increasing the number of people who have translated it like that. All I want to know is how did they reach that conclusion grammatically and etymologically accurately. I am asking for how the understanding is correct, not who had that understading or how great their CV looked in their lifetime.
That is right, thanks for pointing it out. I’d like to rephrase the English translation below (and put the Pali in Sanskrit), as Katyayana’s question isnt translated properly there (in SN12.15) - i.e. Kātyayana wasnt asking for a definition of right-view, but for more nuance.
There, Kātyāyana asks:
kiyat nu khalu, bhavantaḥ, samyagdṛṣṭiḥ bhavati?
What indeed, are the limits of samyagdṛṣṭi/sammādiṭṭhi [i.e. what is the boundary beyond which a samyagdṛṣṭi (rightview) becomes mithyādṛṣṭi/micchādiṭṭhi], or literally “to what extent, does something remain a right-view”.
The buddha answers:
“dvaya-niśritaḥ (or āśritaḥ) khalu ayam, kātyāyana, lokaḥ yadbhūyasā — astitām ca eva nāstitām ca."
Kātyāyana - the people of this world are mostly attracted (or pick their side) towards polar opposites (dualities) - the sides here being “existence” and “non-existence”.
The buddha then explains the answer by asking him to set aside the polar opposites of asti (exists) & nāsti (does not exist) by saying:
“sarvam asti iti khalu Kātyāyana, ayam ekaḥ antaḥ” - Everything exists is one polar view (one extreme)
“sarvam nāsti iti ayam dvitīyaḥ antaḥ” - Everything does not exist is the other polar opposite view (the other extreme)
“etau, Kātyāyana, ubhau antau anupagamya madhyena tathāgataḥ dharmam deśayati” - Keeping away from both polar opposites, the tathāgata teaches the dharma by adopting the neutral (non-partisan/non-aligned) position. [[1 see note below]]
By adopting the neutral position and not getting sidetracked (by not taking sides on dualist polar opposites like existence and non-existence), one remains on the path of samyagdṛṣṭi (right view).
The Buddha therefore has the epithet advaya-vādin (the teacher/propounder of the non-dual doctrine)
Note:
parivrājakaḥ parityajya bandhūn aparigrahaḥ pravrajed yathāvidhi - a mendicant would give up his family (home and hearth) and possessions, and goes forth (into the homeless life) following certain rules.
araṇyaṃ gatvā (goes away from inhabited places into the forest)
śikhāmuṇḍaḥ (with head shaved)
kaupīnācchādanaḥ (wearing un-ostentatious/minimalist attire)
varṣāsv ekasthaḥ (observing rains retreats i.e. by being at one place during the rainy season and not journeying)
kāṣāya-vāsāḥ (clothed in the ochre-robes or kaṣāya i.e. Pāli kasāva)
sannamusale vyaṅgāre nivṛttaśarāvasaṃpāte bhikṣeta (begging for alms from householders and satiated with leftover food not specially cooked for them i.e. with cooking already completed in the households that offer alms)
vāṅmanaḥkarmadaṇḍair bhūtānām adrohī (not causing harm to life by thought, words or deeds)
pavitraṃ bibhracchaucārtham (carrying a purifier for cleanliness)
uddhṛtaparipūtābhir adbhir apkāryaṃ kurvāṇaḥ (and purifying the water before using it for daily activities)
apavidhya vaidikāni karmāṇy ubhayataḥ paricchinnā madhyamaṃ padaṃ saṃśliṣyāmaha iti vadantaḥ (and having given up the vedic rituals, they go about uttering the refrain “abandoning both extremes, we adopt the neutral/middle position”)
Hello
I normally try not to comment on these kind of threads, and I have previously disagreed with @srkris on many things, but I think in this case @srkris is essentially correct.
The history of Buddhism has been misinterpretation after misinterpretation, entire sects have been created and texts written based on misinterpretations of previous texts.
It is entirely plausible that established interpretations of this text are incorrect. Dictionaries are not always reliable, they perpetuate misunderstandings. For example the PTS dictionary basically encapsulates early translations and their definitions just perpetuate how those initial translators interpreted the texts. There are quite a few instances where I disagree with the PTS.
I would urge everyone (and no one in particular) to be open minded.
Buddha also says that. I guess he was a schizophrenic.
Wow, this is turning into a regular pattern. I post in a thread when it starts and then come back a few days later to a bunch of flagged posts. Can we like, grow up a little faster?
As an actual translator whose worked with ancient Buddhist texts for decades and full time for about five years now, I can attest to the fact that human language is largely a case of shifting conventions. Grammar gives it a basic structure, and etymology places words in a general area of meaning. But at the end of the day, a word meant what the author meant it to mean. Sometimes authors don’t use words properly. Sometimes it’s intentional, and sometimes it’s accidental. With ancient Buddhist texts we have the added trouble of texts changing over time. They were copied for centuries and converted from one language to another. Often, ancient Buddhist texts were a mixture of Prakrit and Sanskrit to one degree or another.
So, there’s plenty of room for misunderstandings on multiple levels: Misunderstanding the author, misunderstanding the language of the text, misunderstanding the conventional use of the author’s word choice. There are times when we are stuck with uncertainty, and the wise translator uses footnotes to try to explain it rather than pretend certitude.
All of that said, I am not a Sanskrit expert. I only know enough to understand the background for Chinese translations. One thing I notice, though, is that there was a verb āvidyate that the dictionaries say is derived from root āvid and meant “to exist.” What would it look like as a negated participle?
