Samiddhi Sutta

[Ceisiwr]

Within the Samiddhi Sutta we find these verses:

“Beings who perceive what can be expressed
Become established in what can be expressed.
Not fully understanding what can be expressed,
They come under the yoke of Death.

“But having fully understood what can be expressed,
One does not conceive ‘one who expresses.’
For that does not exist for him
By which one could describe him."

https://suttacentral.net/sn1.20/en/bodhi

In the Agama parallel we find this:

“Whoever says that the signs /
arising from name-and-form do truly exist,
know that this person /
is on the road of death.

Perceiving in name-and-form /
emptiness and absence of self-nature
this is called to respect the Buddhas /
for ever free from the realms of existence.”

https://suttacentral.net/sa-2.17/en/bingenheimer

Are they saying the same thing?

[DooDoot]

Within the Samiddhi Sutta we find these verses:

“Beings who perceive what can be expressed
Become established in what can be expressed.
Not fully understanding what can be expressed,
They come under the yoke of Death.

“But having fully understood what can be expressed,
One does not conceive ‘one who expresses.’
For that does not exist for him
By which one could describe him."

https://suttacentral.net/sn1.20/en/bodhi

The core teaching above is:

One does not conceive ‘one who expresses.’
they don’t identify as/imagine a seer,
Akkhātāraṃ na maññati;

In the Agama parallel we find this:

“Whoever says that the signs /
arising from name-and-form do truly exist,
know that this person /
is on the road of death.

Perceiving in name-and-form /
emptiness and absence of self-nature
this is called to respect the Buddhas /
for ever free from the realms of existence.”

https://suttacentral.net/sa-2.17/en/bingenheimer

Are they saying the same thing?

I would answer "no" because SN 1.20 says:

“Judging is given up, conceit rejected;
“Pahāsi saṅkhaṃ na vimānamajjhagā,

craving for name and form is cut off right here.
Acchecchi taṇhaṃ idha nāmarūpe;

He abandoned reckoning, did not assume conceit;
He cut off craving here for name-and-form.
Though devas and humans search for him
Here and beyond, in the heavens and all abodes,
They do not find the one whose knots are cut,
The one untroubled, free of longing.

It appears SN 1.20 and SA 2.17 use 'namarupa' differently.

[confusedlayman]

Within the Samiddhi Sutta we find these verses:

“Beings who perceive what can be expressed
Become established in what can be expressed.
Not fully understanding what can be expressed,
They come under the yoke of Death.

“But having fully understood what can be expressed,
One does not conceive ‘one who expresses.’
For that does not exist for him
By which one could describe him."

https://suttacentral.net/sn1.20/en/bodhi

The core teaching above is:

One does not conceive ‘one who expresses.’
they don’t identify as/imagine a seer,
Akkhātāraṃ na maññati;

In the Agama parallel we find this:

“Whoever says that the signs /
arising from name-and-form do truly exist,
know that this person /
is on the road of death.

Perceiving in name-and-form /
emptiness and absence of self-nature
this is called to respect the Buddhas /
for ever free from the realms of existence.”

https://suttacentral.net/sa-2.17/en/bingenheimer

Are they saying the same thing?

I would answer "no" because SN 1.20 says:

“Judging is given up, conceit rejected;
“Pahāsi saṅkhaṃ na vimānamajjhagā,

craving for name and form is cut off right here.
Acchecchi taṇhaṃ idha nāmarūpe;

He abandoned reckoning, did not assume conceit;
He cut off craving here for name-and-form.
Though devas and humans search for him
Here and beyond, in the heavens and all abodes,
They do not find the one whose knots are cut,
The one untroubled, free of longing.

It appears SN 1.20 and SA 2.17 use 'namarupa' differently.

Who is the one who is untroubled?

[DooDoot]

Who is the one who is untroubled?

Good question.

I have explained to u many times "convention" in the Pali suttas only applies to personal pronouns. Therefore, it appears in this text, the term "tassa" is found, which appears to be a genitive (possessive) personal pronoun, as found in the phrase: "Namo tassa bhagavato arahato sammāsambuddhassa". The Pali texts are generally always written using personal pronouns, such as in the phrase: "I breathe in long; I breath out long".

Therefore, as i posted, what differentiates the enlightened mind from the unenlightened mind is not the use of "convention" but the use of "mannati", which means "imagining" or "misconstruing". For example, Nagaruna appeared to imagine emptiness rather than realise emptiness.

This is similar to when u post about "impermanence". If u realised impermanence, the defilements in your mind would end. But instead, it seems u read posts on DW and "imagine" u are seeing impermanence.

Therefore, as i wrote in my answer:

The core teaching above is:

One does not conceive ‘one who expresses.’
they don’t identify as/imagine a seer,
Akkhātāraṃ na maññati

;

In summary, both when referring to puthujjana & Arahants, the Pali texts always use personal pronouns. Such personal pronouns are mere conventions and have no relevance to the teachings.

Kind regards

[asahi]

For your information , perhaps this is a better translation .


「名色中生相，　　謂為真實有，
當知如斯人，　　是名屬死徑。
若識於名色，　　本空無有性，
是名尊敬佛，　　永離於諸趣。」

Form arises from namarupa
This is called the true existence
Do know that such a person
Is belongs to the path of death
Realising that the namarupa
Essentially empty without essence
That is called respecting the Buddha
Permanently being freed from all existence

[Ceisiwr]

For your information , perhaps this is a better translation .


「名色中生相，　　謂為真實有，
當知如斯人，　　是名屬死徑。
若識於名色，　　本空無有性，
是名尊敬佛，　　永離於諸趣。」

Form arises from namarupa
This is called the true existence
Do know that such a person
Is belongs to the path of death
Realising that the namarupa
Essentially empty without essence
That is called respecting the Buddha
Permanently being freed from all existence

I did attempt to translate some of this myself after posting (by that I mean simply using the SuttaCentral function). It became clear that the translator had possibly put a certain slant on it. Thanks for this. My Chinese is terrible.

[asahi]

Please take note :
I would like to point out an error in the samiddhi sutta . The Deva suddenly turns into a yakkha !


Then the Buddha addressed the deity in verse:
Atha kho bhagavā taṃ devataṃ gāthāhi ajjhabhāsi:

............


.............




Tell me if you understand, spirit.”
Sace vijānāsi vadehi yakkhā”ti.

[Coëmgenu]

For your information , perhaps this is a better translation .


「名色中生相，　　謂為真實有，
當知如斯人，　　是名屬死徑。
若識於名色，　　本空無有性，
是名尊敬佛，　　永離於諸趣。」

Form arises from namarupa
This is called the true existence
Do know that such a person
Is belongs to the path of death
Realising that the namarupa
Essentially empty without essence
That is called respecting the Buddha
Permanently being freed from all existence

So I'm not deeply contesting this, but how do you account for 中 in 名色中 in the first stanza? Also, why is "form" duplicated twice in the first line of your rendering? Please don't take this as a grill-session with you on the barbeque, I've a problem with tone I've been told (many times). I'm just asking for a few points of clarification.

I read the first four lines as

Amidst name and form, there arises the marks that are (so-)called "possessed of truth." You should know that persons like that (who call name and form "possessed of truth") are those called "(those) of death's path."

[Pulsar]

OP asked

Are they saying the same thing?

They are saying the same thing, different poetic expressions of what happens when consciousness bonded to craving and ignorance creates Nama-rupa.
Nama-rupa is never used in different contexts within the cognitive component of DO.
This is a remarkable sutta, conditioned origination packed inside two verses.

Asahi wrote

The Deva suddenly turns into a yakkha

The yakkha is translated as a spirit, also. If you read the entire sutta
Buddha addresses the deva as

"If you understand, spirit, speak up"

Part of the reason might be the devata was too shy or maybe intimidated by the Buddha to directly approach him. Devata chose tio remain invisible to Buddha. For the sutta writes, Devata says to Ven Samiddhi

"Ask bhikkhu! Ask bhikkhu! For I have arrived"

Coëmgenu wrote

Amidst name and form,
there arises the marks that are (so-)called "possessed of truth." You should know that persons like that (who call name and form "possessed of truth") are those called "(those) of death's path."

Thanks for the improvement. I am impressed that Asahi understands Chinese. Quite a few talented people we have around us. Thank you all.
With love

[asahi]

For your information , perhaps this is a better translation .


「名色中生相，　　謂為真實有，
當知如斯人，　　是名屬死徑。
若識於名色，　　本空無有性，
是名尊敬佛，　　永離於諸趣。」

Form arises from namarupa
This is called the true existence
Do know that such a person
Is belongs to the path of death
Realising that the namarupa
Essentially empty without essence
That is called respecting the Buddha
Permanently being freed from all existence

So I'm not deeply contesting this, but how do you account for 中 in 名色中 in the first stanza? Also, why is "form" duplicated twice in the first line of your rendering? Please don't take this as a grill-session with you on the barbeque, I've a problem with tone I've been told (many times). I'm just asking for a few points of clarification.

I read the first four lines as

Amidst name and form, there arises the marks that are (so-)called "possessed of truth." You should know that persons like that (who call name and form "possessed of truth") are those called "(those) of death's path."

名色中生相

名色 is namarupa
中 here means "in" (such as in the middle / inside)
生 is arise or appear
相 is form or appearances


I stick to pali and not translating namarupa as name-form to let the readers decides on their owns .
To render it a bit different ,
Appearances arises (in dependent on) namarupa .


I dont know how you came up with "possessed" !

謂 said , called or means
為 as
真實 true / truth / reality
有 existence

[Coëmgenu]

I noticed that Bingenheimer has 中 in a dative sense as "from" too. I am wondering if he had access to an Indian manuscript we don't. The sense you have of "in" for 中 makes a lot more sense than "from," but I can see where Bingenheimer got "from" from. "Within/In/Amidst" can be like "from." It is like 中 is specifying the "source" of the 生相 as "in" 名色, so one could say maybe that the 生相 "comes from" the midst of 名色, and then we can see how Bingenheimer got "from."

"Possessed of" and "possessed" have different meanings in English. One refers to something being in possession of something else, like "I am possessed of a body" meaning "I have a body." "Possession" as I think you read it often refers to demon and ghost possession (!). That isn't what I meant, but looking back, I can see how using that language actually introduced ambiguity if you didn't know to pronounce the "ed" at the end as its own syllable. I have been thinking about forms like these that sometimes stick around in "fancy religious speech," like how we say "blessèd one" in Buddhism but often omit the accent indicating the specific usage in spelling. I'm not even necessarily convinced that "blessèd" is sufficiently distinct as a lexical item from "blessed" to warrant being a different word, but others contest me greatly on this and I suspect I'm in a minority position with regards to it. Sorry for digression, back to topic.

There is "has/is ambiguity" in 有 similar to the Japanese term "aru" (ある), meaning that there is an ambiguity between the senses of "has" and "is." The Japanese actually used to write ある as 有 in some contexts. ある, like 有, means both "has" and "is." It can be both an existential quantifier and a quantifier for possession/attribution. This ambiguity is actually very common globally in most languages, and English is something of an odd one out for not having it. English has other ambiguities that English speakers often don't notice, but "has/is ambiguity" is not one of them. French has "has/is ambiguity" in the form of the common structure "il y a," which means "there is." "A" in this sentence is a conjugation of the French verb "avoir" (to have).

il y a une pomme
there is an apple

However, the French literally reads "He there has an apple." The "he" is a null pronoun that doesn't refer to anyone at all, but is necessary in the language. But you'll notice that they have "has an apple" and not "is an apple," despite the fact that the sentence means "There is an apple." Consider it in Chinese:

這兒有書嗎?

Does this mean "Are there books here?" Does it mean "Does this place have any books?" Both, technically, unless you're to correct me and I'm unknowingly wrong and should be more careful of what I speak concerning.

Another example: 古語有云

Does it mean "As the old saying has said?" Does it mean "As it is said in the old saying?" This is "has/is ambiguity."

It actually says/means both "has" and "is," unless you would like to argue to the contrary, and in which case I will consider your arguments. Consider a more elaborate example:

谷以虛故應，鑑以虛故照，管籥以虛故受聲，耳以虛故能聽，目以虛故能視，鼻以虛故能。有實有中，則有礙於此
It is because the valleys are empty that they echo. It is because the mirror is empty that it reflects. It is because the flute is empty that it affects sound. It is because the ears are empty that they can listen. It is because the eyes are empty that they can see. It is because the nose is empty that it can smell. If these had substance inside, then there would be obstruction in these. [the last "these" referring to the valleys, mirror, flute, etc., from earlier]

Now, compare that to this rendering, just 有實有中則有礙於此 this time since we already have the context:

If these were substantial inside, then there would be obstruction in these.

Because 實 can function as both "substance" and "substantial" and also "substantiality," the when we are dealing with older translations, I'm not actually sure if 實有 had that meaning yet. The passage above is from 沖虛至德真經, a Daoist text, that people really disagree as to the dating of. Some say it is very, very, old. Some say it is from around 400AD. If this usage I pointed out is from 400AD, then I might have a point. I am in lessons in contemporary modern Mandarin in addition to studying classical Chinese to try to get access to more resources that would help me actually answer these questions, as there really isn't anything I have found in English detailed enough as to distinct ways that different historical time periods used words. For instance, 實 has a sense of "substance," but later comes to have a sense of "real/reality" and even sometimes "truth." In English learning resources, all these senses are chaotically jumbled up with no context, making it seem like Chinese has impossibly wide semantic ranges for every single word in it (leading to all sorts of weird assumptions and conclusions from Western students!). I know there have to be better resources with more detailed accounts of exactly when each word has each given sense, so hopefully I can access those in the future.

[Pulsar]

Asahi wrote

I stick to pali and not translating namarupa as name-form to let the readers decides on their owns .
To render it a bit different ,
Appearances arises (in dependent on) namarupa

Appearances arise?? Is it not

• Consciousness arise dependent on Nama-rupa.

What does appearance mean?

You translated the Chinese version as...

Form arises from namarupa

Again is it not consciousness that arises from Nama-Rupa?
Does the Chinese version say form arises from Nama-rupa?

Coëmgenu's translation makes sense to me

Amidst name and form,
there arises the marks that are (so-)called "possessed of truth." You should know that persons like that (who call name and form "possessed of truth") are those called "(those) of death's path."

I find that in suttas relating to Dependent origination, occasionally Chinese versions make more sense. Maybe the error lies in the Pali??? I know neither Pali nor Chinese.
With love

[Coëmgenu]

I noticed that Bingenheimer has 中 in a dative sense as "from" too.

I always do this. It's why I'm rubbish at Sanskrit. Ablative. "From" has a sense of ablativity, not dativity.

[asahi]

I noticed that Bingenheimer has 中 in a dative sense as "from" too. I am wondering if he had access to an Indian manuscript we don't. The sense you have of "in" for 中 makes a lot more sense than "from," but I can see where Bingenheimer got "from" from. "Within/In/Amidst" can be like "from." It is like 中 is specifying the "source" of the 生相 as "in" 名色, so one could say maybe that the 生相 "comes from" the midst of 名色, and then we can see how Bingenheimer got "from."

"Possessed of" and "possessed" have different meanings in English. One refers to something being in possession of something else, like "I am possessed of a body" meaning "I have a body." "Possession" as I think you read it often refers to demon and ghost possession (!). That isn't what I meant, but looking back, I can see how using that language actually introduced ambiguity if you didn't know to pronounce the "ed" at the end as its own syllable. I have been thinking about forms like these that sometimes stick around in "fancy religious speech," like how we say "blessèd one" in Buddhism but often omit the accent indicating the specific usage in spelling. I'm not even necessarily convinced that "blessèd" is sufficiently distinct as a lexical item from "blessed" to warrant being a different word, but others contest me greatly on this and I suspect I'm in a minority position with regards to it. Sorry for digression, back to topic.

There is "has/is ambiguity" in 有 similar to the Japanese term "aru" (ある), meaning that there is an ambiguity between the senses of "has" and "is." The Japanese actually used to write ある as 有 in some contexts. ある, like 有, means both "has" and "is." It can be both an existential quantifier and a quantifier for possession/attribution. This ambiguity is actually very common globally in most languages, and English is something of an odd one out for not having it. English has other ambiguities that English speakers often don't notice, but "has/is ambiguity" is not one of them. French has "has/is ambiguity" in the form of the common structure "il y a," which means "there is." "A" in this sentence is a conjugation of the French verb "avoir" (to have).

il y a une pomme
there is an apple

However, the French literally reads "He there has an apple." The "he" is a null pronoun that doesn't refer to anyone at all, but is necessary in the language. But you'll notice that they have "has an apple" and not "is an apple," despite the fact that the sentence means "There is an apple." Consider it in Chinese:

這兒有書嗎?

Does this mean "Are there books here?" Does it mean "Does this place have any books?" Both, technically, unless you're to correct me and I'm unknowingly wrong and should be more careful of what I speak concerning.

Another example: 古語有云

Does it mean "As the old saying has said?" Does it mean "As it is said in the old saying?" This is "has/is ambiguity."

It actually says/means both "has" and "is," unless you would like to argue to the contrary, and in which case I will consider your arguments. Consider a more elaborate example:

谷以虛故應，鑑以虛故照，管籥以虛故受聲，耳以虛故能聽，目以虛故能視，鼻以虛故能。有實有中，則有礙於此
It is because the valleys are empty that they echo. It is because the mirror is empty that it reflects. It is because the flute is empty that it affects sound. It is because the ears are empty that they can listen. It is because the eyes are empty that they can see. It is because the nose is empty that it can smell. If these had substance inside, then there would be obstruction in these. [the last "these" referring to the valleys, mirror, flute, etc., from earlier]

Now, compare that to this rendering, just 有實有中則有礙於此 this time since we already have the context:

If these were substantial inside, then there would be obstruction in these.

Because 實 can function as both "substance" and "substantial" and also "substantiality," the when we are dealing with older translations, I'm not actually sure if 實有 had that meaning yet. The passage above is from 沖虛至德真經, a Daoist text, that people really disagree as to the dating of. Some say it is very, very, old. Some say it is from around 400AD. If this usage I pointed out is from 400AD, then I might have a point. I am in lessons in contemporary modern Mandarin in addition to studying classical Chinese to try to get access to more resources that would help me actually answer these questions, as there really isn't anything I have found in English detailed enough as to distinct ways that different historical time periods used words. For instance, 實 has a sense of "substance," but later comes to have a sense of "real/reality" and even sometimes "truth." In English learning resources, all these senses are chaotically jumbled up with no context, making it seem like Chinese has impossibly wide semantic ranges for every single word in it (leading to all sorts of weird assumptions and conclusions from Western students!). I know there have to be better resources with more detailed accounts of exactly when each word has each given sense, so hopefully I can access those in the future.

有實有中則有礙於此 :

If these were substantial inside,
then there would be obstruction in these.

If internally it were being solidify
Then there would be a blockage to these

=============================






冲虚(至德)真经 is believes to be composed around 5 B.C. to 3 B.C. where its original title was《冲虚真经》and the author(s) is 列子 (Lie Zi) , his students and the later pupils / followers . In the year of 745 (C.E.) he ( i.e. 列子 Lie Zi) was conferred of the title 冲虚真人 meaning a contented tranquil True person or Immortal person whom already attained to the Dao / Tao .
The words 至德 (utmost virtue) was the title conferred in the years of northern song (dynasty) to this literary 冲虚真经 .

[asahi]

Appearances arise?? Is it not

• Consciousness arise dependent on Nama-rupa.

What does appearance mean?

Form or appearance here refers to sight consciousness (and other corresponding sense consciousness), what appears to the eyes are forms or appearances .

You translated the Chinese version as...

Form arises from namarupa

Again is it not consciousness that arises from Nama-Rupa?
Does the Chinese version say form arises from Nama-rupa?

名色中生相
中 here is "in" as i highlighted earlier ,
but how does rendering of ( in / inside namarupa ) suppose to deliver the actual meaning implied ?


If you prefer ,
Amidst the namarupa give rise to form
(or amidst namarupa form arises) .