[Buddha-l] A vocabulary question for Stephen and Lance(oranyoneelse) 2

[Dan Lusthaus]

(continued from previous message)

> > 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 !

And we should add that many traditional sources have contributed to these
conflations and confusions (as well as lazy habits).

>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.

Were it only that simple! Hirakawa (v.1, p. 380) lists four: 定，正定，三摩地，等持
initially, but if you wade through the entry you'll find more. I've come to
suspect that there are sematic distinctions -- not just word-count
reasons -- for some of his paryāyas.

> 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).

See above re: the weight to give absence in Yokoyama.

>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".

You seem to have the Tib. brtson pa in mind (an equivalence, without
Sanskrit exemplar, in Yokoyama). Yokoyama also attests:
修行 bhāvanâkāra BSGOM PA'I RNAM PA
修行相 bhāvanâkāra BSGOM PA'I RNAM PA

If one follows Yokoyama then 修行者 is most commonly some form of pratipanna
(an "achiever"); e.g.
修行者 pratipanna   ZHUGS PA
修行者 pratipanna   ZHUGS PAR GYUR PA

Yogin is one of its meanings as well. Note that in Hirakawa (v.2, p. 203)
all the yoga (prayukta, etc.) uses are attributed to Paramartha, *not*
Xuanzang.

In any case, it all becomes rather silly when we can plainly see that NONE
of these terms actually appears in the Skt of the Kosa passage in question.

> Perhaps when the Sanskrit is or has become available we should defer to
> that, rather than Xuanzang's heroic but often misleading attempts

When available, it should be consulted, but treated critically as well. In
the sections of the YBh I have been working on the Sanskrit is often corrupt
(e.g, odd sentences ending in a genitive), and Xuanzang's readings are
better. The Sanskrit, especially of craftily written texts, can carry
nuances (niruktas, grammatical inflections) that don't come through in the
translation; sometimes translators gloss or misread. In the case of the
Kosa, however, I would suggest not ignoring the Sanskrit, but paying careful
attention to Xuanzang's reading (treat it as an important commentary
perhaps). Hui Li's biography of Xuanzang tells us that even before leaving
for India, Xuanzang was an expert in the Kosa, lecturing on it at Chang'an,
and that he had "original interpretations." During his travels to India,
when he encountered Hinayana monks, he would debate them on the Kosa and
invariably defeat them. He knew the text as well as anyone has, and felt he
"owned" it, as we might say today. His translation reflects his
understanding, and, I believe, he took more liberties with his translation
of this text than with the others precisely because of the special
relationship he felt he had with it. If it's a "misreading" of the Kosa,
it's a powerful and intriguing one.

Dan Lusthaus