[Buddha-l] Pudgalavada #3a

[Stephen Hodge]

Dear Dan et al,

Here is my stab at the first part of T1505, with notes explaining some of my 
decisions.  The text is quite challenging so it is inevitable that different 
translators will come up with different renderings.  But perhaps somewhere 
along the line, somebody will hit on the right interpretation :)

Best wishes,
Stephen Hodge

T 1505
DL:  Why is it not said?  A: The not-said: [This refers to what is] not said 
in the heuristics for
appropriation, metaphorical device, and cessation. (sutra)
SH: What is the avaktavya-[pudgala] ?   It is the avaktavya-[pudgala] with 
reference to the
prajñaptis concerning appropriation, upaaya (?) and cessation.
NOTES:  *  Delete the reduplicated "bu shuo".  *  Despite Dan's valiant 
effort, I think that "upaaya" here is unsatisfactory.  I have no idea what 
"fangbian" is meant to translate, but is should be something connected with 
the perceived continuity of an individual from the past into the future. 
The short version has "prajñapti concerning the past" and elsewhere in this 
Sammitiya material we find some versions that seems to correspond to 
"sa.mkraanti-prajñapti".  Another, non-Buddhist, meaning in Chinese is 
"occasion" or "opportunity", which might perhaps fit.  One could also 
feasibly extract the idea of "past and future" from the two characters, 
which would also fit the (presumed) intended meaning.  Or else, I wonder, if 
the original of this text was in some Prakrit, whether the intended term was 
misread.  *  The use here of "jiao-shou" for prajñapti is probably based on 
a non-technical understanding of the verb from shich it is derived.  I 
personally would not read anything significant into this -- "heuristic" is 
interesting, but it seems a bit OTT to me.

DL:  Those are the heuristics for appropriation, heuristics by metaphorical 
device, and the
heuristics for cessation. This means that whoever is stupid concerning these 
'not saids' lacks insight.
SH:  These are the prajñaptis of appropriation,the prajñaptis concerning 
upaaya and the prajñaptis concerning cessation.  It is said that confusion 
about these is ignorance (ajñana) concerning the avaktavya-[pudgala].

DL:  The heuristics for appropriation [involves] using the name "a 
living-one".  [The idea] that the presently appropriated skandhas, dhatus, 
and ayatanas are appropriated by an inner living-one is a heuristic. This 
means that [when one talks about the] present appropriation of an inner 
living-one appropriating dharmas due to sa.mskaras and the fetters 
(sa.myojana), these are heuristics for appropriation. The dharmas that the 
living-one heuristically appropriates are not the same as the living-one. 
It's not as if one seeks to get the jiva and the body to combine [into a 
single thing]. If they are the same, then [the jiva would be] impermanent 
and [prone to] suffering; if they are different, then [the jiva] would be 
permanent [and yet] deemed as [prone to] suffering [which is absurd, since 
"what is impermanent is suffering"].
SH: The prajñapti concerning appropriation applies the name "jiiva" to the 
skandhas, dhaatus,
and aayatanas.  It is a jiiva with respect to present appropriation that is 
the prajñapti of appropriation.  That is to say, it is the jiiva and dharmas 
that are appropriated with respect to
present appropriation due to the sa.mskaaras and sa.myojanas.  The prajñapti 
of appropriation
[refers to] neither past or future dharmas and jiiva.  The jiiva is not the 
same [as the appropriated skandhas, dhaatus, and aayatanas].  The jiiva and 
the body are not combined in the slightest.  If it were the same, it would 
be impermanent and [prone to] suffering, but if it were different, it would 
be permanent and yet [prone to] suffering.
NOTES:  *  I have re-arranged the punctuation here, as reflected by my 
translation. *  I insert an extra "shou" before "ming" in accordance with 
the note in T.  *  I read "nei" as a non-standard way of translating a 
locative, rather than its full value as "internal / within". *  I suggest 
that characters "shou" and "shi" should be reversed.  Thwe compound "ruogan" 
does not mean "if", but "somewhat, partially".   As "yi ruogan", which 
occurs a couple of times later, I assume it is likely to stand for 
"ekaanta".

DL:  If it is permanent, one wouldn't [need to] practice brahmacarya [a 
religious life]. If it is not permanent, one would be unsuited for the 
brahmacarya fruit. For that which is impermanent, receiving and giving would 
be ineffective. Ineffectiveness is tantamount to nihilism; in these two 
metaphorical devices [of permanence and annihilation] there is no dharma 
[conducive to either] suffering or the favorable.  The heuristic 
metaphorical device  is naming.
SH:  If it were permanent, there would be no cultivation of brahmacarya, 
while if it were impermanent,  one could not expect the fruition of 
brahmacarya.   Giving and receiving would be
meaningless.  That which lacks constancy is meaningless, for that would 
utterly eradicate painful, pleasant and neutral qualities in the past and 
the future.
NOTES:  * "xu" is tricky.  It might work as "expect", a common enough 
meaning of the word.  *  I have not attempted Dao-an's comment -- it is 
quite unclear to me.  I have taken "fangbianzhong" as an awkward expression 
for "past and future".   *  I think the phrase "fangbian jiaoshou ming" 
should be construed as the opening phrase for the definition of that 
praj~napti, so I have moved it there.