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.
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?