The proper translation of Avijjāpaccayā saṅkhārā, etc.

Explore the ancient language of the Tipitaka and Theravāda commentaries
auto
Posts: 4584
Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2017 12:02 pm

Re: The proper translation of Avijjāpaccayā saṅkhārā, etc.

Post by auto »

ToVincent wrote: Wed Dec 01, 2021 7:05 pm
auto wrote: Wed Dec 01, 2021 4:01 pm ....
Please auto, be kind. Do serve us suttas with parallels, for the extracts you are quoting — (and the Pali for the Abhidhamma). I don't have time to do the job for you - I'm sorry.
Once done, I might be able to answer you better.
.
.
Sutta excerpt what is quoted in abhidhamma,
http://www.buddha-vacana.org/sutta/anguttara/06/an06-063.html wrote: Cetanāhaṃ, bhikkhave, kammaṃ vadāmi. Cetayitvā kammaṃ karoti: kāyena, vācāya, manasā.
"Intention, I tell you, is kamma. Intending, one does kamma by way of body, speech, & intellect.
The reason i posted further Suttas is to show what is different when there is no paṭicca. I think the is in 'intention is kamma' is paṭicca.
https://suttacentral.net/mn118/en/sujato?layout=sidebyside&reference=none&notes=asterisk&highlight=false&script=latin wrote: When they’re energetic, spiritual rapture arises.
Āraddhavīriyassa uppajjati pīti nirāmisā.
When one is ignorant, one does kamma.
http://www.buddha-vacana.org/sutta/anguttara/06/an06-063.html wrote: Katamo ca, bhikkhave, kammānaṃ nidāna-sambhavo? Phasso, bhikkhave, kammānaṃ nidāna-sambhavo.
"And what is the cause by which kamma comes into play? Contact is the cause by which kamma comes into play.
The visible part(coming into play) is paṭicca.

Other words intention is the cause by which consciousness comes into play,
Saṅkhārapaccayā viññāṇaṃ
ToVincent wrote: Thu Dec 02, 2021 7:17 am AND AGAIN,
How do they translate:
Saṅkhārapaccayā viññāṇaṃ
it wouldn't be so confusing for you if you could take into account paṭisandhi(rebirth-linking) citta
ToVincent wrote: Thu Dec 02, 2021 7:17 am The rationale being, that death can't be the cause of birth. It can only be a "condition".
Pages have been written on that useless debate.
and notice that modern translators are aware of the meaning of paṭi in paṭisandhi.

in case of the request of parallels, i don't understand why you need 'em here, besides having no idea how and where to look up them.

Funny guess,
paṭi = re-
paṭicca = is

kamma comes into play by the contact and the experience is feeling. Kamma is(paṭicca) contact; as long there is contact, one feels feelings.
ssasny
Posts: 379
Joined: Thu Jan 23, 2020 10:03 pm

Re: The proper translation of Avijjāpaccayā saṅkhārā, etc.

Post by ssasny »

The word paccaya, a masculine noun, has the literal sense of 'falling back on' (paṭi + i) and often takes the sense of 'requisite'.
-dhonā vuccati cattāro paccayā

In the ablative form, paccayā, it has the sense of 'dependent on', 'by means of'.
-jātippaccayā jarāmaraṇaṃ

The word paṭicca is an absolutive (gerund) of the verb pacceti (also paṭi + i), a -ya absolutive with assimilation to cc (tya --> cc)
It has the sense of 'on account of', because.

"The element of sensuality gives rise to sensual perceptions.
Kāmadhātuṃ, bhikkhave, paṭicca uppajjati kāmasaññā"

Here, in Ven. Sujāto's translation, he takes 'paṭicca uppajjati' together as 'gives rise'.

A more literal translation would be,
"in dependence on the sensuality element there arises sensual perception" (Ven. Bodhi)

"Eye consciousness arises dependent on the eye and sights. The meeting of the three is contact.
Cakkhuñca paṭicca rūpe ca uppajjati cakkhuviññāṇaṃ. Tiṇṇaṁ saṅgati phasso."

Here, paṭicca is 'dependent on', and uppajati is 'arises'.
ToVincent
Posts: 1839
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 6:02 pm

Re: The proper translation of Avijjāpaccayā saṅkhārā, etc.

Post by ToVincent »

auto wrote: Thu Dec 02, 2021 4:03 pm ...

Thanks anyway for the try, auto.
Parallels can be simply found from here: https://legacy.suttacentral.net/sn1 - Akanuma classification). Just change the last part of the url - like sn2, sn3, etc. Or an1, an2, etc. Or just mn or dn.
If you are using the Opera browser, you can translate the Chinese page, from the menu on the upper right.
The (very approximate) translation will give you some idea of what the sutra is all about; and if the extract in the Pali text has a parallel.

_________

Paṭisandhi [paṭi+saṁ+dhā] = reunion (of vital principle with a body), aka reincarnation.
Pratisaṃdhā [prati-saṃ-√ dhā ] = to put together again (ŚBr.)
is the reunion, the "put together again" of the khandhas, for a new birth.

Paṭisandhi could be considered the paccaya (the feedback) of death, so to speak — although this would be aiming a bit beyond limits.
One thing for sure, is that death is the feedback (paccaya) of birth.

__________

Paṭicca, like paccaya come from pacceti - (paṭi+i / prati-√ i).
This is why one should translate paṭiccasamuppāda as:
"What flows out (ud/ut) together (sam) and fall down (pad) (samuppāda/samutpāda), to appear and be understood (paṭicca/pratītya)" .

Paṭicca, like paccaya, have these underlying meanings of come on (to), come back (return), and realise (understand) —as seen above.
.
.
[/quote]
Last edited by ToVincent on Thu Dec 02, 2021 6:08 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.
ToVincent
Posts: 1839
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 6:02 pm

Re: The proper translation of Avijjāpaccayā saṅkhārā, etc.

Post by ToVincent »

Coëmgenu wrote: Thu Dec 02, 2021 1:25 pm ...
Well!

On one hand, I would say that feedback, in the suttas, resemble both the definitions here:
http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/we ... 22001100#c
Namely, both a response to an inquiry (from ignorance) - which, when still not understood, (the truth being dukkha) - will lead to a vicious cycle (maintenance of consciousness).
That is what paccaya seems to be.

------------

Secondly, that's not what I get from there.: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhis ... d_Sanskrit

I think that the definition from the RV., namely "pratītya" = confirmation , experiment - goes pretty well with the second definition above (feedback = response to an inquiry or experiment)) .

And it wouldn't matter anyway, if paṭicca comes from pacceti.?!?!

And there was no "Hindus" in the time of Buddha.

-------------

Thirdly, why should I choose between dynamic or formal evidence, or whatever — if plain grammar, leads to a straight translation.
Avijjāpaccayā saṅkhārā
Saṅkhārā (nom. pl. m.) are the feedback of (from) avijjā.
In other words, avijjā is the "impulse/cause" (hetu), whose feedbacks (paccaya) are saṅkhārā.
Ignorance requires some answer.

Saṅkhārapaccayā viññāṇaṃ
Viññāṇaṃ (nom. sing. nt.) is the feedback of saṅkhāra.

Viññāṇapaccayā nāmarūpaṃ
Nāmarūpaṃ (nom. sing. nt.) is the feedback of viññāṇa.

Nāmarūpapaccayā saḷāyatanaṃ
Saḷāyatanaṃ (nom. sing. nt.) is the feedback of nāmarūpa.

Saḷāyatanapaccayā phasso
Phasso (nom. sing. m.) is the feedback of saḷāyatana.

phassapaccayā vedanā (f.)
Vedanā (nom. sing. f.) is the feedback of phassa.

etc.
vedanāpaccayā taṇhā, (f.)
taṇhāpaccayā upādānaṃ, (nt.)
upādānapaccayā bhavo, (m.)
bhavapaccayā jāti, (f. )
jātipaccayā jarāmaraṇaṃ (f. nt.)


Again, there is no way one can use "condition" for paccaya, with a straightforward grammar.
Saṅkhārapaccayā viññāṇaṃ
Viññāṇaṃ is the "condition" of saṅkhāra.
That's odd - isn't it?
.
.
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.
ssasny
Posts: 379
Joined: Thu Jan 23, 2020 10:03 pm

Re: The proper translation of Avijjāpaccayā saṅkhārā, etc.

Post by ssasny »

"Saṅkhārapaccayā viññāṇaṃ
Viññāṇaṃ is the "condition" of saṅkhāra.
That's odd - isn't it? "


yes, I think that is correct.
paccaya here as ablative. 'from'

so, when there is this, there is (also) this.
when there is viññāṇaṃ, there are saṅkhārā.
viññāṇaṃ is a condition for saṅkhārā.

one can debate if it's a necessary or sufficient condition, but a condition for sure.
ToVincent
Posts: 1839
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 6:02 pm

Re: The proper translation of Avijjāpaccayā saṅkhārā, etc.

Post by ToVincent »

ssasny wrote: Thu Dec 02, 2021 6:25 pm "Saṅkhārapaccayā viññāṇaṃ
Viññāṇaṃ is the "condition" of saṅkhāra.
That's odd - isn't it? "


yes, I think that is correct.
paccaya here as ablative. 'from'

so, when there is this, there is (also) this.
when there is viññāṇaṃ, there are saṅkhārā.
viññāṇaṃ is a condition for saṅkhārā.

one can debate if it's a necessary or sufficient condition, but a condition for sure.
Do you read what people have just said, before you jump on board?
+
It's quite painful to have to repeat the same thing — (sometimes to the same person).
For instance:

-----

Have you read about pacceti up there. Is there any notion of "according to", "on account of", or "cause" into that?
https://dictionary.sutta.org/browse/p/pacceti/

------

Paṭicca/pratītya can be a gerund, or a future past participle, or even a noun.

------

Etc.
Etc.
Etc.
.
.
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: 8151
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:55 pm
Location: Whitby, Canada

Re: The proper translation of Avijjāpaccayā saṅkhārā, etc.

Post by Coëmgenu »

ToVincent wrote: Thu Dec 02, 2021 6:07 pm
Coëmgenu wrote: Thu Dec 02, 2021 1:25 pm ...
Well!

On one hand, I would say that feedback, in the suttas, resemble both the definitions here:
http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/we ... 22001100#c
Namely, both a response to an inquiry (from ignorance) - which, when still not understood, (the truth being dukkha) - will lead to a vicious cycle (maintenance of consciousness).
That is what paccaya seems to be.
These are the two definitions that you say both resemble "feedback in the suttas" (which does not exist because you've made it up).

1. the process in which part of the output of a system is returned to its input in order to regulate its further output

2. response to an inquiry or experiment

The second absolutely does not support your suggestion that we translate "paccaya" as "feedback." The first sense still seems derived from the sense of "Can I get some feedback on this paper?" The output, the paper, is returned to its originator, the writer, with corrective comments that can regulate further output. We can use the second of these two definitions to further show how "feedback" is a poor translation choice.

The sankharas are the response to an inquiry or experiment (which is "ignorance").

If Definition 2 was truly in your mind as a viable candidate, then what you mean to write in this post is that "Xpaccaya Y" means "X is a response to Y." This re-incorporates all the alleged "mistakes" that you believe Vens Thanissaro, Sujato, Bodhi, etc., make in their English-language renderings of the pericope.

It just doesn't work. Furthermore, with Definition 1, you've painted yourself again into a corner where one "feedback" must spontaneously transform into a separate system with its own distinct feedback.
ToVincent wrote: Thu Dec 02, 2021 6:07 pmSecondly, that's not what I get from there.: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhis ... d_Sanskrit
It ought to be. I reviewed that Wikipedia article as well as the (much better) articles linked in it (such as Franklin Edgerton's wonderful publication entitled The Prakrit Underlying Buddhistic Hybrid Sanskrit) before speaking about BHS in this thread. I don't think you'll find anything in that article that contradicts what I've said concerning BHS, which is all rather pedestrian.
ToVincent wrote: Thu Dec 02, 2021 6:07 pmI think that the definition from the RV., namely "pratītya" = confirmation , experiment - goes pretty well with the second definition above (feedback = response to an inquiry or experiment)) .
But it doesn't. "Feedback," when used in that sense, refers to the comments that a professor or supervisor etc. might make in response to a student or employee asking how they can improve. That kind of feedback is evaluative and refers to "the suggestions given."
ToVincent wrote: Thu Dec 02, 2021 6:07 pmAnd it wouldn't matter anyway, if paṭicca comes from pacceti.?!?!
Here, I'll just do what you do whenever someone corrects you in response to this.

Pish posh!

.
.
.
.
./ etc. etc. etc.
ToVincent wrote: Thu Dec 02, 2021 6:07 pmAnd there was no "Hindus" in the time of Buddha.
Because I am a contemporary person, I am using the contemporary term for the religion, not a term that the religion was known at the time as. I call Theravada, for instance, "Theravada," even if I'm speaking about it during the 500s AD when it wasn't yet universally calling itself "Theravada." The same with "Hindu." There wasn't, at the time of the Buddha, a practice of naming the entire philosophical/religious dynamo with its various diverse sects and traditions after the Indus River. So your objection is more than a little bit artificial here. My comment on Brahmanical, Vedic, "Hindu" naysaying to Buddhist Sanskrit was accurate.
ToVincent wrote: Thu Dec 02, 2021 6:07 pmThirdly, why should I choose between dynamic or formal evidence, or whatever — if plain grammar, leads to a straight translation.
Avijjāpaccayā saṅkhārā
Saṅkhārā (nom. pl. m.) are the feedback of (from) avijjā.
In other words, avijjā is the "impulse/cause" (hetu), whose feedbacks (paccaya) are saṅkhārā.
Ignorance requires some answer.

Saṅkhārapaccayā viññāṇaṃ
Viññāṇaṃ (nom. sing. nt.) is the feedback of saṅkhāra.

Viññāṇapaccayā nāmarūpaṃ
Nāmarūpaṃ (nom. sing. nt.) is the feedback of viññāṇa.

Nāmarūpapaccayā saḷāyatanaṃ
Saḷāyatanaṃ (nom. sing. nt.) is the feedback of nāmarūpa.

Saḷāyatanapaccayā phasso
Phasso (nom. sing. m.) is the feedback of saḷāyatana.

phassapaccayā vedanā (f.)
Vedanā (nom. sing. f.) is the feedback of phassa.

etc.
vedanāpaccayā taṇhā, (f.)
taṇhāpaccayā upādānaṃ, (nt.)
upādānapaccayā bhavo, (m.)
bhavapaccayā jāti, (f. )
jātipaccayā jarāmaraṇaṃ (f. nt.)
That you are still claiming to eschew both dynamic and formal equivalence means to me that you do not yet understand what the terms mean. When you say "if plain grammar leads to a translation," you are talking about a formal equivalence. Unfortunately, there is no such formal equivalence in English to the "Xpaccayā Y" formula. It is simply not possible.
ToVincent wrote: Thu Dec 02, 2021 6:07 pmAgain, there is no way one can use "condition" for paccaya, with a straightforward grammar.
Saṅkhārapaccayā viññāṇaṃ
Viññāṇaṃ is the "condition" of saṅkhāra.
That's odd - isn't it?
This appears to be a strawman translation that you made yourself, no?
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.
auto
Posts: 4584
Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2017 12:02 pm

Re: The proper translation of Avijjāpaccayā saṅkhārā, etc.

Post by auto »

ToVincent wrote: Thu Dec 02, 2021 6:06 pm Thanks anyway for the try, auto.
Parallels can be simply found from here: https://legacy.suttacentral.net/sn1 - Akanuma classification). Just change the last part of the url - like sn2, sn3, etc. Or an1, an2, etc. Or just mn or dn.
If you are using the Opera browser, you can translate the Chinese page, from the menu on the upper right.
The (very approximate) translation will give you some idea of what the sutra is all about; and if the extract in the Pali text has a parallel.
No problem.
I thought there are sanskrit parallels and thinking about you made me suspicious that these are parallels there.
ToVincent wrote: Thu Dec 02, 2021 6:06 pm aṭisandhi [paṭi+saṁ+dhā] = reunion (of vital principle with a body), aka reincarnation.
Pratisaṃdhā [prati-saṃ-√ dhā ] = to put together again (ŚBr.)
is the reunion, the "put together again" of the khandhas, for a new birth.

Paṭisandhi could be considered the paccaya (the feedback) of death, so to speak — although this would be aiming a bit beyond limits.
One thing for sure, is that death is the feedback (paccaya) of birth.
you have translated hetu to be impulse and in case of dosa it is worry. Abhidhamma translators have reserved impulse to javana. Javana is a citta
and itself is hetu'ed in three poisons. Also have noticed some translate chanda as impulse. I think you are causing short-circuit somewhere down the line of translating terms.
abhidhamma translator? comment wrote:25. Javana derived from √ ju, to run swiftly.

The Dictionary of Philosophy defines apperception as
“the introspective or reflective apprehension by the mind
of its own inner states. Leibniz, who introduced the term,
distinguished between perception (the inner state as representing
outer things) and apperception (the inner state
as reflectively aware of itself). In Kant, apperception denotes
the unity of self-consciousness pertaining to either
the empirical ego (empirical apperception) or to the pure
ego (transcendental apperception).” p. 15.

Commenting on Javana Mrs. Rhys Davids says:
“I have spent many hours over Javana, and am content to
throw apperception overboard for a better term, or for
Javana, untranslated and as easy to pronounce as our own
‘javelin’. It suffices to remember that it is the mental aspect
or parallel of that moment in nerve-process, when central
function is about to become efferent activity or ‘innervation’.
Teachers in Ceylon associate it with the word ‘dynamic’. And
its dominant interest for European psychologists is the
fusion of intellect and will in Buddhist Psychology “
(Compendium of Philosophy, p. 249).

Impulse is less satisfactory than even apperception.
As Mrs. Rhys Davids suggests it is wise to retain the
Pàli term.
See Compendium of Philosophy, pp. 42–45, 249.
patisandhi citta,
wrote: This pañisandhi citta, also termed ‘rebirth-consciousness’,
is conditioned by the powerful thought one experiences
at the dying moment, and is regarded as the source
of the present life stream. In the course of one particular
life there is only one pañisandhi citta. The mental contents
of bhavaïga, which later arises an infinite number of times
during one’s lifetime, and of cuti, which arises only once at
the final moment of death, are identical with those of
pañisandhi.
bhavanga,
wrote:19. Bhavaõga. Bhava + aïga = factor of life, or
indispensable cause or condition of existence.
..
Mrs. Rhys Davids and Mr. âung compare bhavaïga
to “Leibniz’s state of obscure perception, not amounting to
consciousness, in dreamless sleep.”
One cannot agree because bhavaïga is a type of consciousness.
There is no obscure perception here.
Some identify bhavaïga with sub-consciousness.
According to the Dictionary of Philosophy sub-consciousness
is “a compartment of the mind alleged by certain psychologists
and philosophers to exist below the threshold of consciousness.”
In the opiõion of Western philosophers subconsciousness
and consciousness coexist. According to
Abhidhamma no two types of consciousness coexist. Nor is
bhavaïga a sub-plane.
The Compendium further states that “bhavaïga denotes a functional state (or moment) of sub-consciousness.
As such it is the sub-conscious state of mind—‘below the
threshold’ of consciousness—by which we conceive continuous
subjective existence as possible. Thus it corresponds
to F. W. Myer’s ‘subliminal consciousness’”
The Dictionary of Philosophy explains “subliminal
(sub, under + limen, the threshold) as allegedly unconscious
mental processes especially sensations which lie
below the threshold of consciousness”. Strictly speaking, it
does not correspond to subliminal consciousness either.

There does not seem to be any place for bhavaïga in
Western Psychology.
..
Bhavaïga is so called because it is an essential condition
for continued subjective existence.
Whenever the mind does not receive a fresh external
object, one experiences a bhavaïga consciousness.88
Immediately after a thought-process, too, there is a bhavaïga
consciousness. Hence it is called vãthimutta—
process-freed. Sometimes it acts as a buffer between two
thought-processes.
Life continuum89 has been suggested as the closest
English equivalent.

89
89. Radhakrishnan says …Bhavaïga is sub-conscious existence, or more accurately
existence free from working consciousness. Bhavaïga is sub-conscious existence
when subjectively viewed, though objectively it is sometimes taken to mean
Nirvana.’ Indian Philosophy, p. 408…. This certainly is not the Buddhist conception.
Bhavaïga occurs in the waking consciousness too immediately after
a ‘Citta-Vithi (thought-process) Bhavaïga is never identified with Nibbàna.
Sorry for long quotes but do you translate terms similar way?
ssasny
Posts: 379
Joined: Thu Jan 23, 2020 10:03 pm

Re: The proper translation of Avijjāpaccayā saṅkhārā, etc.

Post by ssasny »

I have to wonder if at least part of the confusion here lies in the idea of 'conditionality' as expressed by Dependent Origination.

It's not always clear if the conditionality expressed by 'paccaya' is necessary or sufficient, how one thing is dependent on another in the standard formula.

There is also the abstract form 'paccayatā', 'causation', as in idappaccayatā 'specific conditionality'.

duddasaṃ idaṃ ṭhānaṃ, yadidaṃ: idappaccayatā paṭiccasamuppādo.
this thing is hard to see, that is to say: conditionality and conditional origination.
(Ven Ānandajoti trans.)

In any case, best of luck with your dhamma explorations.
ToVincent
Posts: 1839
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 6:02 pm

Re: The proper translation of Avijjāpaccayā saṅkhārā, etc.

Post by ToVincent »

Coëmgenu wrote: Fri Dec 03, 2021 2:29 pm ...
What is all this nonsense?

I don't have to eschew anything.
I don't have to consider any of your inaccurate overwhelming arguments, if I use the proper grammar.

I'm just taking the last part.
Saṅkhārapaccayā is a dative (or an instrumental)
viññāṇaṃ is a nominative.

If you SIMPLY keep a nominative as a nominative — and a dative (or instrumental) as a dative (or instrumental), then the translation with "condition" becomes:
Saṅkhārapaccayā viññāṇaṃ
Viññāṇaṃ is the "condition" of saṅkhāra.

And that does not make sense.

Now if you take "feedback" — as explained above from paṭi+i - from which it comes from — then with a straight grammar, where a nominative remains a nominative, and a dative (or instrumental) remains a dative (or instrumental) - then you have:
Saṅkhārapaccayā viññāṇaṃ
Viññāṇa is the feedback of saṅkhāra.

And that makes sense.

--------

I have another grammatical blunder from Sujato.
It has just been brought by ssasny above.
viewtopic.php?p=656198#p656198

Kāmadhātuṃ (acc. sing.), bhikkhave, paṭicca uppajjati kāmasaññā (nom. sing or pl.) - (acc. pl.) - (instr. sing. ++)
The element of sensuality (kāmadhātuṃ) gives rise to sensual perceptions !?!?!?
How can Sujato translate kāmadhātuṃ as nominative?


The proper translation is:
Sensual perception(s) come into existence from the feedback through the element of sensuality.
Here paṭicca is a noun (nt.) , then check the second slide here: https://justpaste.it/5j329
Wouldn't it be an ablative (= "from the feedback").



"Sujato's 'paṭicca uppajjati' together as 'gives rise' ", says ssasny.
?!?!?!?!


--------

Don't be miffed because I showed you that, there was more to "feedback" than the poor definitions of your old dictionnaries.
Your sophistry is getting even worst, when you're peeved.
.
.
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: 8151
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:55 pm
Location: Whitby, Canada

Re: The proper translation of Avijjāpaccayā saṅkhārā, etc.

Post by Coëmgenu »

I'm sorry that this upsets you, but you've chosen an inaccurate translation and you are having a hard time actually defining the sense of "feedback" that you are trying to use. As usual, you show no ability to understand how you are simply and obviously wrong.

You say that Ssasny brings information that exposes a blunder of Ven Sujāto's. He did no such thing. There is no blunder there from Ven Sujāto. When you try to undermine translators who are more qualified than yourself, you only succeed in undermining yourself.

What you think "makes sense" only "makes sense" to you in your own head with regards to your alternative to the established correct translations that you attempt to undermine.

I'm not particularly miffed, because I know what to expect out of you when you are corrected.
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: Fri Dec 03, 2021 5:02 pm There is no blunder there from Ven Sujāto.
You will have a hard time to convince me that I am wrong when I use kāmadhātuṃ as an accusative — and that Sujato is right, when he uses it as a nominative.

Maybe a long page of gish gallop, and argumenta ad lapidem, will help cover that.
.
.
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: 8151
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:55 pm
Location: Whitby, Canada

Re: The proper translation of Avijjāpaccayā saṅkhārā, etc.

Post by Coëmgenu »

I don't think I'll ever convince you of anything, to be quite honest.
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: Fri Dec 03, 2021 5:15 pm I don't think I'll ever convince you of anything, to be quite honest.
On such basis as above - definitely not!
.
.
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.
ToVincent
Posts: 1839
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 6:02 pm

Re: The proper translation of Avijjāpaccayā saṅkhārā, etc.

Post by ToVincent »

ssasny wrote: Fri Dec 03, 2021 3:51 pm duddasaṃ idaṃ ṭhānaṃ, yadidaṃ: idappaccayatā paṭiccasamuppādo.
this thing is hard to see, that is to say: conditionality and conditional origination.
(Ven Ānandajoti trans.)
This thing is hard to see, that is to say: what springs together (samuppāda/samutpāda), to (appear and) be understood (paṭicca/pratītya) — from this feedback (idappaccayatā) .
(- tā as Ablative - See Wijesekera — there is more than a mere computer search on Warder's grammar).
(Proper translation)

A lot harder to see this feedback - than this ~"condition"~.

------------

Have I said "nidāna" ?

Nidāna (instr. of nidā)
nidā (ni-√ dā)
ni = down , back
√ dā = to bind VS.
Nidāna = (what) binds down (and back).

Down & back.
Both definitions of feedback encompasses that — whose all shebang is indeed hard to see (realize) .
.
.
Last edited by ToVincent on Fri Dec 03, 2021 6:06 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.
Post Reply