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?
I’ve raised this issue with the moderators, I didnt report any posts here, maybe someone else has.
Which participle? There are about 35 different participle forms in the language each with a different meaning. The negative past participle would be something like anāvitta or anāvinna. But how is this root relevant to the word avidyā which isn’t derived from āvid, but rather from vid?
It looks like a possible homophone to me. Gandhari script didn’t discern long and short vowels, so sometimes words are confused for each other as a result. As for the type of participle, it would be the ones that would fit the context of the passage you were discussing. Or perhaps there is another type of noun that could be derived. It’s just a thought.
Words sometimes pick up new meanings from confusion of close homophones. People use the two close pronunciations interchangeably in error, and eventually it isn’t an error anymore by convention. In the case of Indic texts, this is complicated by words sounding alike in different dialects.
That is an issue of the Kharoshthi script in its early centuries (4th century BCE to the beginning of the common era) but this text is completely in Sanskrit as we have it and there is no other word that has been interpreted as a residual Kharoshthi corruption. Also if that were the case, the word would start with anavid- rather than avid-
Yeah, me too my friend. Unfortunately, I’m a very arrogant person who can only pretend at humbleness. Still, I have some hope that if I keep pretending with some effort at sincerity that I might actually diminish the enemy of arrogance. Takes constant vigilance to even do that much against the very powerful enemy of arrogance. May all of us under the continual sway of arrogance do our best to banish this enemy and those spiritual heroes who have accomplished the task please pray for us who are still working on it.
maybe helpful
[Vol. XI. Seishi Karashima, A Glossary of Lokaksema’s Translation of the Astasahasrika Prajnaparamita (2010) ISBN 978-4-904234-03-7 (18,687KB PDF).pdf (19.1MB)](https://iriab.soka.ac.jp/content/pdf/bppb/Vol. XI. Seishi Karashima, A Glossary of Lokaksema’s Translation of the Astasahasrika Prajnaparamita (2010) ISBN 978-4-904234-03-7 (18,687KB PDF).pdf)
[Vol. XII. Seishi Karashima, A Critical Edition of Lokaksema’s Translation of the Astasahasrika Prajnaparamita (2011) ISBN 978-4-904234-04-4.pdf (54.1MB)](https://iriab.soka.ac.jp/content/pdf/bppb/Vol. XII. Seishi Karashima, A Critical Edition of Lokaksema’s Translation of the Astasahasrika Prajnaparamita (2011) ISBN 978-4-904234-04-4.pdf) https://iriab.soka.ac.jp/en/publication/bppb.html
The Perfection of Wisdom in 8,000 Lines (RiBa). (2010, May 30). Rangjung Yeshe Wiki - Dharma Dictionnary, . Retrieved 17:37, August 9, 2018
1 ) First of all, It actually doesn’t matter how we translate this word in that context, because participles derived from vidyate mean non-existence, as the BHSD implies. So translating avidyamānāḥ etc. as “imperceivable” etc. is wrong and stems from not knowing /understanding the usages of this verb in actual texts. Context is everything in the language, especially in Sanskrit. This was my main point above.
2 ) However, avidyeti can only be deciphered as avidyā (non-existence, nom. sing. fem.) iti, in this phrase. It is true that ucyante and dharmāḥ would normally require plural nominative, avidyāḥ, but in the actual usage in Buddhist Sanskrit and Prakrits such agreement in number isn’t necessary. Some examples:
Kasmā panesa khuddakanikāyoti vuccati? Bahūnaṃ khuddakānaṃ dhammakkhandhānaṃ samūhato nivāsato ca. Samūhanivāsā hi ‘‘nikāyo’’ti vuccanti.
Khuddakapāṭha-aṭṭhakathā
Ganthārambhakathā
PTS 11
Rūpakkhandho ekena khandhenāti ye dhammā ‘‘rūpakkhandho’’ti vuccanti
3 ) Moreover, if we actually look at the editions of the Aṣṭa and other prajñāpāramitās, we will see that the phrase varies, which shows that the number of the verb is not significant:
Pancavimsatisahasrika Prajnaparamita
Based on the edition by Nalinaksha Dutt: Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā,
Calcutta 1934 (Calcutta Oriental Series, 28). = PSP1
4 ) This proves beyond any doubt that there is nothing “ungrammatical” with interpreting avidyā as a typical wordplay/etymologizing meaning non-existence, as the Petersburg dictionary has it and as numerous scholars translate it.
As this scholar argues, based on this etymologizing, the authors of the prajñāpāramitās attempted to reinterpret avidyā-ignorance as avidyā-non-existence for the sake of avidyā’s being in line with the śūnyatā, emptiness, fundamental non-existence. It looks to be the case.
This paper deals with the wordplay of avidyā based on the
nirukta tradition in the Prajñāpāramitās. In the Aṣṭasāhasrikā
Prajñāpāramitā as well as the Larger Prajñāpāramitā (both of
which are Sanskrit versions), there is an interpretation of “avidyā” traditionally considered to be a synonym of the ignorance (ajñāna) as “non-existent” (avidyamāna). This wordplay
is undertaken based on the phonetic similarity between avidyā
and avidyamāna, which is a strange choice of the meaning of
the root √vid of avidyā i.e., “to exist” over “to know.”
…
Comparing all the versions available to me, I assumed that
the editors of the Prajñāpāramitās had first adopted the nirukta
tradition to change the widely accepted meaning of avidyā, namely, ignorance with non-existence that is interchangeable
with Prajñāpāramitās’ core teaching of “emptiness ”(śūnyatā).
By doing so, they would have intended to show that the newly
invented concept, “śūnyatā” can be applied to (or possibly replace) the twelve links of dependent origination.