The proper translation of Avijjāpaccayā saṅkhārā, etc.

Explore the ancient language of the Tipitaka and Theravāda commentaries
ToVincent
Posts: 1839
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 6:02 pm

Re: The proper translation of Avijjāpaccayā saṅkhārā, etc.

Post by ToVincent »

Coëmgenu wrote: Sat Nov 27, 2021 6:15 pm I don't see myself as needing a provide a formal proof that you would be inable to follow anyways if you can't as much as understand the simple examples I am using here.

I asked my partner, who is the linguist, not I, how he would proceed, and he suggested I link this Wikipedia entry:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic ... quivalence

We will be at a point where we can continue when you realize that the translations singled out in your OP are not wrong or incorrect.
It does not prove the validity that you can change the Pali nominative, into an accusative.
Particularly when the left side can be an instrumental or a dative — (and that, again, "condition" is a post-Buddist meaning".
I need more than that "appeal to the stone".


.
.
In this world, there are many people acting and yearning for the Mara's world; some for the Brahma's world; and very few for the Unborn.
User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 8150
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:55 pm
Location: Whitby, Canada

Re: The proper translation of Avijjāpaccayā saṅkhārā, etc.

Post by Coëmgenu »

As I said before, there is no stone fallacy.
What is the Uncreated?
Sublime & free, what is that obscured Eternity?
It is the Undying, the Bright, the Isle.
It is an Ocean, a Secret: Reality.
Both life and oblivion, it is Nirvāṇa.
ToVincent
Posts: 1839
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 6:02 pm

Re: The proper translation of Avijjāpaccayā saṅkhārā, etc.

Post by ToVincent »

Coëmgenu wrote: Sat Nov 27, 2021 6:23 pm As I said before, there is no stone fallacy.
Yes there is.
You don't prove a thing with your wikipedia reference.

In our case, no need for that. It's straight grammar and translation.
.
.
In this world, there are many people acting and yearning for the Mara's world; some for the Brahma's world; and very few for the Unborn.
User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 8150
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:55 pm
Location: Whitby, Canada

Re: The proper translation of Avijjāpaccayā saṅkhārā, etc.

Post by Coëmgenu »

Actually, I do, but I can't rightly take credit for finding the page. You are complaining about a semantically-intact dynamic rendering that eschews a formal equivalence. Your complaint is based on the argument that the dynamism of the rendering compromises the semantics. It doesn't. The two are "functionally" identical. There is a functional equivalence, but you lament the absence of a formal one.

Lisa hit the ball, the ball was hit by Lisa.

Functionally equivalent, but not formally equivalent.
What is the Uncreated?
Sublime & free, what is that obscured Eternity?
It is the Undying, the Bright, the Isle.
It is an Ocean, a Secret: Reality.
Both life and oblivion, it is Nirvāṇa.
ToVincent
Posts: 1839
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 6:02 pm

Re: The proper translation of Avijjāpaccayā saṅkhārā, etc.

Post by ToVincent »

Coëmgenu wrote: Sat Nov 27, 2021 6:29 pm Your complaint is based on the argument that the dynamism of the rendering compromises the semantics.
My complaint is that bhavo is a nominative — upādānapaccayā a dative, or an instrumental (not a nominative) — and paccaya does not mean "condition" ; which is a post-Buddhist meaning.
.
.
In this world, there are many people acting and yearning for the Mara's world; some for the Brahma's world; and very few for the Unborn.
User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 8150
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:55 pm
Location: Whitby, Canada

Re: The proper translation of Avijjāpaccayā saṅkhārā, etc.

Post by Coëmgenu »

It was already explained, the specific sense of "condition" that the translators use when rendering "Xpaccayā Y." It is an accurate word sense.

Why instrumental?
What is the Uncreated?
Sublime & free, what is that obscured Eternity?
It is the Undying, the Bright, the Isle.
It is an Ocean, a Secret: Reality.
Both life and oblivion, it is Nirvāṇa.
ToVincent
Posts: 1839
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 6:02 pm

Re: The proper translation of Avijjāpaccayā saṅkhārā, etc.

Post by ToVincent »

Coëmgenu wrote: Sat Nov 27, 2021 6:44 pm It was already explained, the specific sense of "condition" that the translators use when rendering "Xpaccayā Y." It is an accurate word sense.

Why instrumental?
It is not accurate, as it is post-Buddhist.

---------

Nominative, instrumental or dative.
https://justpaste.it/5j329
.
.
In this world, there are many people acting and yearning for the Mara's world; some for the Brahma's world; and very few for the Unborn.
User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 8150
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:55 pm
Location: Whitby, Canada

Re: The proper translation of Avijjāpaccayā saṅkhārā, etc.

Post by Coëmgenu »

ToVincent wrote: Sat Nov 27, 2021 6:58 pm
Coëmgenu wrote: Sat Nov 27, 2021 6:44 pm It was already explained, the specific sense of "condition" that the translators use when rendering "Xpaccayā Y." It is an accurate word sense.
It is not accurate, as it is post-Buddhist.
It is accurate and is not post-Buddhist.

Instrumental is "by means of," "via." Highly unlikely, IMO.
What is the Uncreated?
Sublime & free, what is that obscured Eternity?
It is the Undying, the Bright, the Isle.
It is an Ocean, a Secret: Reality.
Both life and oblivion, it is Nirvāṇa.
ToVincent
Posts: 1839
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 6:02 pm

Re: The proper translation of Avijjāpaccayā saṅkhārā, etc.

Post by ToVincent »

Coëmgenu wrote: Sat Nov 27, 2021 7:03 pm
ToVincent wrote: Sat Nov 27, 2021 6:58 pm
Coëmgenu wrote: Sat Nov 27, 2021 6:44 pm It was already explained, the specific sense of "condition" that the translators use when rendering "Xpaccayā Y." It is an accurate word sense.
It is not accurate, as it is post-Buddhist.
It is accurate and is not post-Buddhist.

Instrumental is "by means of," "via." Highly unlikely, IMO.
It is post-Buddhist.

Take another error from the PTS. They say that paṭicca comes from pratītya.
But the only pre-Buddhist meaning for pratītya is "confirmation , experiment" (RV.)
Doesn't it also look like "feedback"? - Paccaya & paṭicca, both comme from pati+i.

Where did they get that "according to", or "cause"?
?!?!?!

__________

Not highly unlikely (unless you use "condition") — It can also be dative: "from" — and that does not settle your nominative case.
.
.
Last edited by ToVincent on Sat Nov 27, 2021 7:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.
In this world, there are many people acting and yearning for the Mara's world; some for the Brahma's world; and very few for the Unborn.
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22391
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: The proper translation of Avijjāpaccayā saṅkhārā, etc.

Post by Ceisiwr »

ToVincent wrote: Sat Nov 27, 2021 7:14 pm It is post-Buddhist.
All of the early schools, all of the early Masters, interpreted it that way. How is that non-Buddhist?
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
ToVincent
Posts: 1839
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 6:02 pm

Re: The proper translation of Avijjāpaccayā saṅkhārā, etc.

Post by ToVincent »

Ceisiwr wrote: Sat Nov 27, 2021 7:15 pm
ToVincent wrote: Sat Nov 27, 2021 7:14 pm It is post-Buddhist.
All of the early schools, all of the early Masters, interpreted it that way. How is that non-Buddhist?
All the translations from the early schools use the word "condition". But that is not how it should be translated.

See also paṭicca in the post above.
.
In this world, there are many people acting and yearning for the Mara's world; some for the Brahma's world; and very few for the Unborn.
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22391
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: The proper translation of Avijjāpaccayā saṅkhārā, etc.

Post by Ceisiwr »

ToVincent wrote: Sat Nov 27, 2021 7:20 pm
Ceisiwr wrote: Sat Nov 27, 2021 7:15 pm
ToVincent wrote: Sat Nov 27, 2021 7:14 pm It is post-Buddhist.
All of the early schools, all of the early Masters, interpreted it that way. How is that non-Buddhist?
All the translations from the early schools use the word "condition". But that is not how it should be translated.

See also paṭicca in the post above.
.
Yes they do, so how is "condition" post-Buddhist?
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
ToVincent
Posts: 1839
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 6:02 pm

Re: The proper translation of Avijjāpaccayā saṅkhārā, etc.

Post by ToVincent »

Ceisiwr wrote: Sat Nov 27, 2021 7:21 pm
ToVincent wrote: Sat Nov 27, 2021 7:20 pm
Ceisiwr wrote: Sat Nov 27, 2021 7:15 pm

All of the early schools, all of the early Masters, interpreted it that way. How is that non-Buddhist?
All the translations from the early schools use the word "condition". But that is not how it should be translated.

See also paṭicca in the post above.
.
Yes they do, so how is "condition" post-Buddhist?
Have you read about paṭicca up there. Is there any notion of "according to", or "cause" into that?

"Condition" appears in the MBh.

Check the verb from which paṭicca and paccaya come from:
https://www.sanskritdictionary.com/prat%C4%AB/145804/1

Any "condition" here.
.
.
.
.
In this world, there are many people acting and yearning for the Mara's world; some for the Brahma's world; and very few for the Unborn.
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22391
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: The proper translation of Avijjāpaccayā saṅkhārā, etc.

Post by Ceisiwr »

16. This term “dependent origination,” when applied to the total of states produced from the [total] conditionality, must be taken in two ways. [521] For that [total] ought to be arrived at (paþicco—adj.),2 since when it is arrived at (paþiyamáno), it leads to [supramundane] welfare and bliss and so the wise [regard] it as worthy to be arrived at (paccetuí); and then, when it arises (uppajjamáno), it does so “together with” (saha) and “rightly” (sammá), not singly or causelessly, thus it is a co-arising (samuppádo). Consequently: it is to be arrived at (paþicco) and it is a co-arising (samuppádo), thus it is dependent origination (paþicca-samuppáda). Again: it arises as a togetherness (saha), thus it is a coarising (samuppáda); but it does so having depended (paþicca—ger.) in combination with conditions, not regardless of them. Consequently: it, having depended (paþicca), is a co-arising (samuppáda), thus in this way also it is dependent origination (paþicca-samuppáda). And the total of causes is a condition for that [total of states produced from the conditionality], so, because it is a condition for that, this [total of causes] is called, “dependent origination,” using for it the term ordinarily used for its fruit just as in the world molasses, which is a condition for phlegm, is spoken of thus, “Molasses is phlegm,” or just as in the Dispensation the arising of Buddhas, which is a condition for bliss, is spoken of thus, “The arising of Buddhas is bliss” (Dhp 194).
17. Or alternatively:

The sum of causes too they call
“Facing its counterpart,” so all
Is in that sense “dependent,” as they tell;
This sum of causes too, as stated,
Gives fruits that rise associated,
So “co-arising” it is called as well.


18. This total of causes—indicated severally under the heading of each cause, beginning with ignorance—for the manifestation of formations, etc., is called “dependent” (paþicco—adj.), taking it as “facing, gone to, its counterpart” (paþimukham ito) owing to the mutual interdependence of the factors in the combination, in the sense both that they produce common fruit and that none can be dispensed with. And it is called a “co-arising” (samuppádo) since it causes the states that occur in unresolved mutual interdependence to arise associatedly. Consequently: it is dependent (paþicco) and a co-arising (samuppádo), thus in this way also it is dependent origination (paþicca-samuppáda).
19. Another method:

This total conditionally, acting interdependently,
Arouses states together equally;
So this too is a reason here wherefore the Greatest Sage,
the Seer,
Gave to this term its form thus succinctly.


The first: the word “dependent” (paþicca) indicates the combination of the conditions, [522] since states in the process of occurring exist in dependence on the combining of their conditions; and it shows that they are not eternal, etc., thus denying the various doctrines of eternalism, no cause, fictitious-cause, and power-wielder.3 What purpose indeed would the combining of conditions serve, if things were eternal, or if they occurred without cause, and so on?
23. The second: the word “origination” (samuppáda) indicates the arising of the states, since these occur when their conditions combine, and it shows how to prevent annihilationism, etc., thus preventing the various doctrines of annihilation [of a soul], nihilism, [“there is no use in giving,” etc.,] and moral-inefficacy-of action, [“there is no other world,” etc.]; for when states [are seen to] arise again and again, each conditioned by its predecessor, how can the doctrines of annihilationism, nihilism, and moral-inefficacy-of-action be maintained?
24. The two together: since any given states are produced without interrupting the [cause-fruit] continuity of any given combination of conditions, the whole expression “dependent origination” (paþicca-samuppáda) represents the middle way, which rejects the doctrines, “He who acts is he who reaps” and “One acts while another reaps” (S II 20), and which is the proper way described thus, “Not insisting on local language and not overriding normal usage” (M III 234).

This, in the first place, is the meaning of the mere words “dependent origination” (paþicca-samuppáda).
CHAPTER XVII The Soil of Understanding (conclusion): Dependent Origination

Ācariya Buddhaghosa gives several glosses of how to understand the term. I don't see anything in there which supports your view.
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 8150
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:55 pm
Location: Whitby, Canada

Re: The proper translation of Avijjāpaccayā saṅkhārā, etc.

Post by Coëmgenu »

An issue that is unaddressed is that the OP freely mixes Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit with Vedic Sanskrit. The two are not the same Sanskrit. Pratītya is likely used very differently in the Vedas and Upanishads. Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit is Sanskritized Prākrit, not true Sanskrit according to Vedic standards.
What is the Uncreated?
Sublime & free, what is that obscured Eternity?
It is the Undying, the Bright, the Isle.
It is an Ocean, a Secret: Reality.
Both life and oblivion, it is Nirvāṇa.
Post Reply