[Buddha-l] Rain / Query on Non-Local Consciousness

[Dan Lusthaus]

Like Stephen, I enjoy and learn from our exchanges. So, in the spirit of
learning more:

> > na aaddharati
> There is no great mystery about this at all. The Sanskrit is obviously a
> typo -- the printed Sanskrit edition of that section of the YBS is known
for
> its many errors. The Sanskrit term here should be "noddharati" (na +
> uddharati) -- this has been noted and corrected, see Yokoyama's YBS
lexicon.

I'm glad that I hit on the solution, and annoyed at myself for not having
checked Yokoyama.

>  the 而 goes with the previous
> 生 -- 

This is what you say. I will plainly admit that I am unaware of any cases of
而 being used in the way you say. In years of reading Chinese Buddhist
texts, I've either never seen it, or didn't recognize it when it was there.
I perused the Chinese canon searching for such "Buddhist" usages, and can't
find any. Can you provide some actual examples?

>whereas the Tibetan has followed the basic meaning of the verb rather
> than the more specialized meaning. But to say that the Tibetan is
> problematic or misleading is like quibbling over the use of "vomit" versus
> "throw up".

I don't think I used those words -- I said that Xuanzang was more accurate;
you prefer to call it "specialized." I've tried to insist that "vomit" needs
to be part of the passage, something the Tib has obscured with the more
"basic" meaning. If one is only concerned with lexical mixing and matching,
the distinction makes no difference, either will do. If one is concerned to
identify the medical theory at play, then the aama that doesn't vomit (as
opposed to eliminating some other way) does make a difference. While you
have said repeatedly that Xuanzang didn't understand the passage, I think
our exchange shows that he understood it better than the Tib translators.
But, to repeat what I said which started this whole thing off, the sheng for
aama is still baffling (your "raw" theory is clever but not satisfying).

As for the 生  熟 pair, you may be reading your rawness into the
definitions. So, in the spirit of learning, do you have any actual examples
of a passage from a Chinese (Buddhist) text which uses sheng in the sense of
"raw"? Please share that.

They are a well-known pair, but the sheng means someting like immature,
undeveloped, or, as I noted in an earlier message, "initially arising, still
being 'born,' not yet
having reached maturity."

Here are some actual examples from the Buddhist canon (some have the added
feature of including an 而 after the 生, though I think Stephen here will
agree that each of these instances uses 而 in its standard conjunction
function:

A frequent formula gives variations on this phrasing (I will let our
"competent" translator translate these). The sheng here is, however, used in
a compound meaning sentient being.
《攝大乘論釋論》卷10：「未成熟眾生而成熟之。已成熟者而解脫之。」(CBETA, T31,
no. 1596, p. 317, b29-c1)

Here is a passage about fruit that is mature or immature, which is compared
to Buddha's disciples. This is also a frequent theme:

《增壹阿含經》卷17〈25 四諦品〉：「爾時。世尊告諸比丘。有此四[4]果。云何為
四。或有[＊]果生而似熟。或有[＊]果熟而似生。或有[＊]果熟而似熟。或有[＊]果生
而似生。是謂。比丘。世間有此四[＊]果。世間有此四人。亦復如是。云何為四。或有
人熟而像生。或有人生而[5]像熟。或有人生而[6]似生。或有人熟而[＊]似熟。」
(CBETA, T02, no. 125, p. 634, a18-24)
[4]果＝菓【宋】＊【元】＊【明】＊。[＊4-1]果＝菓【宋】＊【元】＊【明】＊。[＊
4-2]果＝菓【宋】＊【元】＊【明】＊。[＊4-3]果＝菓【宋】＊【元】＊【明】＊。[＊
4-4]果＝菓【宋】＊【元】＊【明】＊。[＊4-5]果＝菓【宋】＊【元】＊【明】＊。[5]
像＝似【聖】。[6]似＝像【宋】＊【元】＊【明】＊。[＊6-1]似＝像【宋】＊【元】
＊【明】＊。

In English, anyway, we wouldn't call the 生 fruit "raw" -- we would say it
is unripe. Raw (in the sense of uncooked) applies to both the ripe and
unripe fruit.

Then there is:
《大智度論》卷22〈1 序品〉：「如菴羅果。生而似熟熟而似生。生而似生熟而似熟。
佛弟子亦如是。」(CBETA, T25, no. 1509, p. 224, c14-15)

《達摩多羅禪經》卷2：「已種生而未受名為未來生。生已熟謂為老死。」(CBETA,
T15, no. 618, p. 323, b23-24)

And a version of that from the Yogacarabhumi itself:
《瑜伽師地論》卷60：「非時結實時不結實生而似熟。」(CBETA, T30, no. 1579, p.
633, c20)

And a few more for good measure:
正法念處經》卷44〈6 觀天品〉：「彼持戒者。以愚癡故。生而不熟。」(CBETA, T17,
no. 721, p. 262, c15-16)

《楞伽阿跋多羅寶經註解》卷4〈第四〉：「如但觀指而不觀物。不善修方便。則不契
不生不滅之理。如嬰兒食生而不食熟如是而不發狂者幾希矣。」(CBETA, T39, no.
1789, p. 407, b1-3)

《楞伽經通義》卷5：「然愚夫不了觀指而不觀物食生而不食熟凡」(CBETA, X17, no.
323, p. 208, b6-7 // Z 1:25, p. 286, d17-18 // R25, p. 572, b17-18)

《八識規矩頌注》卷1：「雖徧趣生。而不恒有。唯異熟心。及彼心所。是政趣生也。」
(CBETA, X55, no. 897, p. 448, a21-22 // Z 2:3, p. 319, b9-10 // R98, p. 637,
b9-10)

《居士傳》卷55：「又想死人。被火所燒。焦縮在地。或熟或生。而我此身。終亦如
是。」(CBETA, X88, no. 1646, p. 290, a12-13 // Z 2B:22, p. 504, d4-5 //
R149, p. 1008, b4-5)

《妙法蓮華經文句》卷1〈序品〉：「引生為熟。[10]故迹為別不生。引熟為醍醐。故迹
為圓不生。而其本地住阿字門。謂一切法初不生故。若聞阿字門。」(CBETA, T34, no.
1718, p. 9, c12-15)
[10]（蘇）＋故【甲】。

The usage in each of these is fairly consistent, and I wouldn't select "raw"
for any of them.

>Ogiwara's Bon-Wa Daijiten under āma, which gives 生 as the Chinese
> equivalent.

I don't have this on hand to check, but suspect our single Yogacarabhumi
passage is the sole basis on which that equivalence is made. If you are
aware of any other instance in which sheng renders aama, please share that
with us.

Awaiting your enlightening response.

Dan Lusthaus