What is the best translation of the Kāḷakārāma Sutta in relation to sense perception? For example, here are 3 translation from Ven. Bodhi, Ven. Sujato and Ven. Nanananda:
Ven. Bodhi
“So, having seen what can be seen, the Tathāgata does not misconceive the seen, does not misconceive the unseen, does not misconceive what can be seen, does not misconceive one who sees."
Ven. Sujato
"So a Realized One sees what is to be seen, but does not identify with what is seen, does not identify with what is unseen, does not identify with what is to be seen, and does not identify with a seer."
Ven. Nanananda
Thus, monks, a Tathagata does not conceive of a visible thing as apart from sight; he does not conceive of an unseen; he does not conceive of a 'thing-worth-seeing'; he does not conceive about a seer."
Ven. Bodhi's and Ven. Sujato's translations can be found here: https://suttacentral.net/an4.24/en/sujato
Ven. Nanananda's translation can be found here (page 8 onwards): http://seeingthroughthenet.net/wp-conte ... ev_4.0.pdf
The pali in question is this:
Iti kho, bhikkhave, tathāgato daṭṭhā daṭṭhabbaṃ, diṭṭhaṃ na maññati, adiṭṭhaṃ na maññati, daṭṭhabbaṃ na maññati, daṭṭhāraṃ na maññati;
Obviously, the question revolves around what is mean't by "maññati". Ven. Nanananda states in his notes, in regards to "maññati":
He continues, in relation to his translation of "a visible thing apart from sight":Na maññati: Maññati‘ marks that stage in sense perception when one egotistically imagines or fancies a perceived 'thing' to be out there in its own right. It is a fissure in the perceptual situation which results in a subject—object dichotomy perpetuating the conceit : 'I' and 'mine'
The Comm. (AA. SHB. 519) takes the words ‘dattha‘ datthabbam’ in the text to mean: ‘having seen, should be known' and explains the following words 'dittham na maññati' as a separate phrase meaning that the Tathagata does not entertain any cravings, conceits or views, thinking: 'I am seeing that which has been seen by the people.‘ It applies the same mode of explanation throughout.
It is perhaps more plausible to explain dattha‘ or dittha‘ (vl. In Burmese MSS; see A. II 25 fn. 3) as an ablative form of the past participle giving the sense : 'as apart from sight'; and datthabbam dittham taken together would mean : 'a visible thing'. So also the other three corresponding terms: suta, muta and vinnata. The Buddha Jayanthi Tipitaka Series (No. 19, Sinhalese script) recognizes this reading but follows the Comm. in rendering them as absolutives. The Chattha Sangiti Pitaka edition (Burmese script) as well as the P.T.S edition, has the absolutive form: sutva‘, mutva‘ and vififia‘tva‘ — which is probably a re-correction following the commentarial explanation.
Thoughts on the best translation?
Metta