SA 559 English Translation?

[Coëmgenu]

The 12 dharmas from the start include "the mind and and the dharmas" (有意有法). These dharmas, supposedly, aren't experienced by the mediator when he is in any jhāna.

If the list only included the five bodily senses, i.e. if it outlined 10 dharmas starting with "the eyes and sights," it would be identical to the Pāli, but it includes 6 sense fields and analyses them as 12 dharmas. That is the incoherency. It leads to multiple problems.

I tried to avoid confusing terminology and long sentences. I caught myself wanting to use the term dhyānin rather than mediator, but stopped. Is that better?

[asahi]

You mean the above sutta said mind objects ie dharmas are not experienced in jhana but it does ? According to some chinese scholars the text was corrupted .
ie :「有意有法」

Ps.
https://books.google.com/books/about/%E ... NrAwAAQBAJ

[Coëmgenu]

It actually says that the mind itself is not experienced. It says that both the mind and the dharmas are mutually not experienced. Very odd.

The Pali version seems to be more correct. It says the 5 bodily senses aren't experienced, but the mind and dharmas are. In the following list, take off elements 11 and 12, and that's the Pali version.

At the beginning, it lists these 12 dharmas

1) eye
2) sights
3) ear
4) sounds
5) nose
6) scents
7) tongue
8) tastes
9) body
10) tangibles
11) mind
12) dharmas

Then it says that there are monks who have but aren't aware (有比丘有是等法，能不覺知。) of the 12 listed dharmas. It also says that there are also those who don't perceive at all (無想).

For the first 7 contemplations (1st dhyana, 2nd, etc.), the list of 12 dharmas is incoherent. There are actually 10 dharmas corresponding to 5 bodily senses they aren't aware of. Only the last "unconscious" contemplation has no mind and no dharmas.

According to some chinese scholars the text was corrupted .
ie :「有意有法」

Ps.
https://books.google.com/books/about/%E ... NrAwAAQBAJ

It really makes sense it being corrupted, tbh. Google Books isn't really letting me search this text. The preview isn't long enough, alas.

[Ceisiwr]

You mean the above sutta said mind objects ie dharmas are not experienced in jhana but it does ? According to some chinese scholars the text was corrupted .
ie :「有意有法」

Ps.
https://books.google.com/books/about/%E ... NrAwAAQBAJ

Could you translate or give us the gist of the argument regarding the corruption?

[asahi]

You mean the above sutta said mind objects ie dharmas are not experienced in jhana but it does ? According to some chinese scholars the text was corrupted .
ie :「有意有法」

Ps.
https://books.google.com/books/about/%E ... NrAwAAQBAJ

Could you translate or give us the gist of the argument regarding the corruption?

It says that it shouldnt listed the sixth sense field n objects , ie mind n dharmas because the mano is still active even when attaining the cessation of feeling perception after emerging from it . Also by comparing it to the Pali suttas . Furthermore , attaintment cessation of feeling perception still not yet abandon the asava .

[Ceisiwr]

Interesting, thank you. It is possible that the Bhāṇakas made and error in including the 6th sense amongst the list of dhammas that the meditator is oblivious too when in these attainments.

[Coëmgenu]

Or, more radically, dharmas 11 and 12 are only absent in asaṁjña meditation.

One could take Ven Ānanda's response to Ven Kāmabhū's inquiry as "this is how there are monks without twelve dharmas." The first 7 contemplations explain how there are monks without 10 dharmas. The 8th contemplation, saññavedayitanirodha, is without 12 dharmas. That's another way you can read it, one that preserves the text, but is it really natural to ignore "the mind and dharmas" for 7 of 8 contemplations? I don't think so. That is, however, another way to harmonize it.

[Ceisiwr]

Or, more radically, dharmas 11 and 12 are only absent in asaṁjña meditation.

One could take Ven Ānanda's response to Ven Kāmabhū's inquiry as "this is how there are monks without twelve dharmas." The first 7 contemplations explain how there are monks without 10 dharmas. The 8th contemplation, saññavedayitanirodha, is without 12 dharmas. That's another way you can read it, one that preserves the text, but is it really natural to ignore "the mind and dharmas" for 7 of 8 contemplations? I don't think so. That is, however, another way to harmonize it.

Sylvester had some interesting views regarding the Pāli version and how it actually supports an absorbed view. I'll try to find it.

[waryoffolly]

Sylvester had some interesting views regarding the Pāli version and how it actually supports an absorbed view. I'll try to find it.

Post 54 ownwards: https://discourse.suttacentral.net/t/he ... hana/7784/
(Focus on the discussion between Sylvester and Silence)

There are also debates here between Sylvester and Nyana on this topic.

[Ceisiwr]

Sylvester had some interesting views regarding the Pāli version and how it actually supports an absorbed view. I'll try to find it.

Post 54 ownwards: https://discourse.suttacentral.net/t/he ... hana/7784/
(Focus on the discussion between Sylvester and Silence)

There are also debates here between Sylvester and Nyana on this topic.

I was thinking of posts here, but that is the essence of it. Thanks.

[Coëmgenu]

I miss 2018 SuttaCentral almost as much as I've Ozymandias nostalgia for 2014 DhammaWheel.

[Ceisiwr]

I miss 2018 SuttaCentral almost as much as I've Ozymandias nostalgia for 2014 DhammaWheel.

2009 - 2011 DhammaWheel was one of the best. It's got pretty good again here lately.

[frank k]

...

I asked Dr. Chu for comment on your thoughts and here's his response:


This sutra, SA559, has been rampantly mistranslated and misinterpreted, leading to the common impression that it is enigmatic.

The mistake here is to read youxiang bujuezhi 有想不覺知 as “having perception but being unaware,” and wuxiang bujuezhi 無想故不覺知 as “having no perception and being unaware.”

The correct interpretation/translation should include an abbreviated part (abbreviation being a common practice in classical Chinese): “having perception [of the sensory experience of eyes, ears…] but being unaware [of the presence of covetousness and other defective states].

This part--若比丘離欲、惡不善法…如是，有想比丘有法而不覺知—shows that that which the bikshu in question was not aware of, was the presence of the five hindrances.

So what is the sutra really saying?

In the four jhanas, one is aware of sensory experience [i.e. eyes, ears…] and is free from the hindrances. In the animitta state, one is unaware of sensory experience and is free from the hindrances.

Another way to summarize the sutra is with Ananda’s rhetorical question: 「有想者亦不覺知，況復無想！」--One can be free from the hindrances when one has sensory experience; how much more would one be free from the hindrances when one has no sensory experience (lit. “[Even in the state where] one is percipient of [sensory experience], one can be unaware [of the presence of covetousness and other defective states]; how much more would one be unaware [of the presence of covetousness and other defective states] when one is non-percipient [of sensory experience].

If anything, this sutra is yet another incontrovertible evidence that jhanas do not involve sensory shutdown.

[Coëmgenu]

Where does Dr. Chu find this abbreviated section to do with hindrances? What he has outlined says that the dhyānin must forsake evil, unwholesome dharmas, and desire. That's not quite a formal listing of 5 hindrances.

So, basically, he argues that the "dharmas" they are unaware of are the 5 hindrances, which are no where overtly outlined, not the 12 dharmas overtly outlined at the very start of the sūtra?

I'm skeptical, but open to it. I'm open to it because it's more sensible than ignoring "the mind and dharmas" for 7 of 8 contemplations, but I think it's at least equally likely (more likely IMO) that the scholars referred to by Asahi are correct and that this text has become compromised.

Also, I am hardly the only one translating this sūtra. I also know PhD's I can ask about difficult points. I am a bit skeptical that it was "rampantly mistranslated" as well, but am open to it. If by "rampantly mistranslated" he means "constantly or perennially mistranslated by multiple independentent translators," then that would make more sense, since I pretty much encountered unanimous consensus about 1) the sūtra's contents, and 2) that it was textually corrupted. You should also have Dr. Chu look at the text that Asahi posted suggesting that SĀ 559 is textually corrupt, if he just meant that he thought my translation was bad.

[asahi]

Here's a chinese monk plain translation .
He said from 1st jhana to nothingness , jhanin are unaware of the 6 (should be 5) sense objects .


http://www.xuefo.net/nr/article61/613331.html

”眼色、耳声、鼻香、舌味、身触与意法，是六根六境的总称。虽有六根，然而却不能觉知六境(法的具体表现)