[Buddha-l] A vocabulary question for Stephen andLance(oranyoneelse)

[Stephen Hodge]

Dan Lusthaus wrote:

> Correct. I did so deliberately since dhīḥ is subject to the same 
> translation/semantic problem as prajñā
OK.  I suspected as much but thought I would highlight this for the 
attentive reader.

> I also neglected to mention that Xuanzang, in this passage, consistently 
> uses 慧 hui
> for prajñā instead of the more common 智 zhi (or zhihui).
I am completely mystified by this !   Are you saying that 智 zhi  is more 
commonly used by Xuanzang for prajñā or by other translators ?  Have a quick 
look through Yokoyama's Index to the YBS and you'll see that Xuanzang almost 
always uses 慧 hui for prajñā and 智 zhi for jñāna.

> We've done a very poor job of providing non-misleading English equivalents
> for most of the cognitive, mental ,perceptual, and epistemological terms 
> used in Indian texts.
I am in complete agreed with you here !

  >I would also suggest that he has
> translated "niścayaḥ" in his own fashion, misreading the Sanskrit as
> "niśrayaḥ", which yields his 依.
[snip]
> Note these are fairly parallel in Chinese. Both begin with 依 without a 
> niśrayaḥ in sight [snip]
In short, mistaking > niśrayaḥ for niścayaḥ hardly explains all the 
differences.

Yes, you are probably right -- it was just a quick attempt at a solution.
> Nor (since Stephen wishes to point out what I omitted), is there a clear 
> explanation yet
> for what Xuanzang has in mind when he uses varying Chinese equivalents for 
> meditative terms,
> in this case 等持 deng chi for samādhi (he uses other Chinese terms for 
> samādhi elsewhere).
Xuanzang works his text upon the procrustean bed of 4 - 6 prose.  For those 
who do not know what this is, it refers to the fashion which reached its 
heyday in the Tang period of writing prose in units of four (or sometimes 
six) characters.  Xuanzang has to be a bit flexible in his terminology to 
fit the inflexibility of the 4 character unit.  An example of this if found 
in the line that Dan previously quoted -- 勝慧 - which could be translated as 
"superior / superlative praj~naa", but nothing for the superlative can be 
found in the Skt or Tibetan.  As for samādhi, he normally uses one of three 
terms, which conveniently comprise one character, two characters and three 
characters respectively -- he then cuts his cloth accordingly.



> >  I would also translate 修行者 differently as
> > "yogin" rather than "bhāvanā" as Dan suggests.
> Usually when Xuanzang wants to translate "yogin" he uses the unambiguous 
> 瑜伽者;
> here he deliberately uses 修行 which is his equivalent for bhāvanā, and 
> given the context
> (and the lack of either term in Skt), we should follow his lead when 
> rendering it into English.
Again, look through Yokoyama and you will see that 修行者 is *never* used for 
"bhāvanā" in the YBS nor in AbhKosa (see Hirakawa's Index).  In the YBS, it 
is frequently used for "yogin", as I suggest, or for other terms derived 
from the root YUJ such as "prayukta" or occasionally for "pratipanna".  Of 
course, a yogin is one who does bhāvanā, so your interpretation, though not 
literal, is perhaps implied though I am not really convinced of this.

> Let's just admit that Xuanzang is giving us what he thinks the passage 
> *means*,
> not a literal word-for-word rendering of the exact Sanskrit phraseology.
Perhaps when the Sanskrit is or has become available we should defer to 
that, rather than Xuanzang's heroic but often misleading attempts unless 
Xuanzang's translation techniques and Sinitic understanding are our aim. 
Don't forget Dan that I have now waded through more Xuanzang, via the YBS, 
in fine detail that many other people alive these days, so I believe I have 
a reasonable feel for his work by now.

Best wishes,
Stephen Hodge