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

[Antonio Ferreira-Jardim]

Dear Dan,

Ogiwara's Bon-wa Daijiten relies on the famous C7/C8 early
Chinese-Sanskrit Glossary, the Fan-yu  Za-Ming TaishO Vol. 54, No.
2135 èóÕZësÃû p1235c04  :
Éú¡¡°¢(Òý)üN¡¡aama
(http://www.cbeta.org/result/normal/T54/2135_001.htm).

For details on the text èóÕZësÃû, please see: YUYAMA Akira. "Toward a New
Edition of the Fan-yu Tsa-ming of Li-yen" in Silk, J (ed.) Wisdom,
Compassion, and the Search for Understanding : The Buddhist Studies
Legacy of Godjin M.Nagao. Honolulu:University of Hawai'i Press.
pp.397-412

HIRAKAWA Akira's Chinese-Sanskrit Dictionary also equates Éú to Ama
without reference. However, to be fair, NAKAMURA Hajime's KOsetsu
BukkyO Daijiten in Volume 2 p.826a-c under the entry for the character
Éú, the meaning of "raw"or Ama is not given amongst the 20 different
Japanese definitions for this character.

However, Dr Hodge is correct that the meaning of Éú for "raw/uncooked"
is attested in classical Chinese.  The conveniently one-volume Guhanyu
Dacidian (Íõ½£Òý et al. ¹ÅººÓï´ó´Êµä. Shanghai, 2000 p.2076) under the 7th
definition for Éú quotes a Yang Wanli (12th century) poem where Éú
clearly has the sense of uncooked.

Moreover, the tibetan ma-zhu(-ba) is a well-attested equivalent to
sanskrit Ama.  Weighing up the date of the Fan-yu Za-ming, the
attestation of the meaning "raw/uncooked" for Éú and the usual fidelity
of the Tibetan translation - I would have to agree with Dr Hodge's
definition here.


Hope that helps!

Kind regards,

Antonio Ferreira-Jardim
UQ

On 8/28/07, Dan Lusthaus <vasubandhu at earthlink.net> wrote:
> 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 ¶ø goes with the previous
> > Éú --
>
> This is what you say. I will plainly admit that I am unaware of any cases of
> ¶ø 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 Éú  Êì 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 ¶ø after the Éú, though I think Stephen here will
> agree that each of these instances uses ¶ø 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.
> ¡¶”z´ó³ËÕ“áŒÕ“¡·¾í10£º¡¸Î´³ÉÊ챊Éú¶ø³ÉÊìÖ®¡£ÒѳÉÊìÕ߶ø½âÓ֮¡£¡¹(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:
>
> ¡¶ÔöÒ¼°¢º¬½›¡·¾í17¡´25 ËÄÖBÆ·¡µ£º¡¸ –•r¡£ÊÀ×ð¸æÖT±ÈÇð¡£ÓдËËÄ[4]¹û¡£ÔƺΞé
> ËÄ¡£»òÓÐ[£ª]¹ûÉú¶øËÆÊì¡£»òÓÐ[£ª]¹ûÊì¶øËÆÉú¡£»òÓÐ[£ª]¹ûÊì¶øËÆÊì¡£»òÓÐ[£ª]¹ûÉú
> ¶øËÆÉú¡£ÊÇÖ^¡£±ÈÇð¡£ÊÀégÓдËËÄ[£ª]¹û¡£ÊÀégÓдËËÄÈË¡£ÒàÍÈçÊÇ¡£ÔƺΞéËÄ¡£»òÓÐ
> ÈËÊì¶øÏñÉú¡£»òÓÐÈËÉú¶ø[5]ÏñÊì¡£»òÓÐÈËÉú¶ø[6]ËÆÉú¡£»òÓÐÈËÊì¶ø[£ª]ËÆÊì¡£¡¹
> (CBETA, T02, no. 125, p. 634, a18-24)
> [4]¹û£½Ç‘¡¾ËΡ¿£ª¡¾Ôª¡¿£ª¡¾Ã÷¡¿£ª¡£[£ª4-1]¹û£½Ç‘¡¾ËΡ¿£ª¡¾Ôª¡¿£ª¡¾Ã÷¡¿£ª¡£[£ª
> 4-2]¹û£½Ç‘¡¾ËΡ¿£ª¡¾Ôª¡¿£ª¡¾Ã÷¡¿£ª¡£[£ª4-3]¹û£½Ç‘¡¾ËΡ¿£ª¡¾Ôª¡¿£ª¡¾Ã÷¡¿£ª¡£[£ª
> 4-4]¹û£½Ç‘¡¾ËΡ¿£ª¡¾Ôª¡¿£ª¡¾Ã÷¡¿£ª¡£[£ª4-5]¹û£½Ç‘¡¾ËΡ¿£ª¡¾Ôª¡¿£ª¡¾Ã÷¡¿£ª¡£[5]
> Ïñ£½ËÆ¡¾Â}¡¿¡£[6]ËÆ£½Ïñ¡¾ËΡ¿£ª¡¾Ôª¡¿£ª¡¾Ã÷¡¿£ª¡£[£ª6-1]ËÆ£½Ïñ¡¾ËΡ¿£ª¡¾Ôª¡¿
> £ª¡¾Ã÷¡¿£ª¡£
>
> In English, anyway, we wouldn't call the Éú 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:
> ¡¶´óÖǶÈÕ“¡·¾í22¡´1 ÐòÆ·¡µ£º¡¸ÈçÈCÁ_¹û¡£Éú¶øËÆÊìÊì¶øËÆÉú¡£Éú¶øËÆÉúÊì¶øËÆÊì¡£
> ·ðµÜ×ÓÒàÈçÊÇ¡£¡¹(CBETA, T25, no. 1509, p. 224, c14-15)
>
> ¡¶ß_Ħ¶àÁ_¶U½›¡·¾í2£º¡¸ÒÑ·NÉú¶øδÊÜÃûžéδíÉú¡£ÉúÒÑÊìÖ^žéÀÏËÀ¡£¡¹(CBETA,
> T15, no. 618, p. 323, b23-24)
>
> And a version of that from the Yogacarabhumi itself:
> ¡¶è¤Ù¤ŽŸµØÕ“¡·¾í60£º¡¸·Ç•r½YŒ•r²»½YŒÉú¶øËÆÊì¡£¡¹(CBETA, T30, no. 1579, p.
> 633, c20)
>
> And a few more for good measure:
> Õý·¨ÄîÌŽ½›¡·¾í44¡´6 Ó^ÌìÆ·¡µ£º¡¸±Ë³Ö½äÕß¡£ÒÔÓÞ°V¹Ê¡£Éú¶ø²»Êì¡£¡¹(CBETA, T17,
> no. 721, p. 262, c15-16)
>
> ¡¶ÀãÙ¤°¢°Ï¶àÁ_Œš½›Ô]½â¡·¾í4¡´µÚËÄ¡µ£º¡¸È絫Ó^Ö¸¶ø²»Ó^Îï¡£²»ÉÆÐÞ·½±ã¡£„t²»Æõ
> ²»Éú²»œçÖ®Àí¡£Èç‹ëƒºÊ³Éú¶ø²»Ê³ÊìÈçÊǶø²»°l¿ñÕߎ×Ï£ÒÓ¡£¡¹(CBETA, T39, no.
> 1789, p. 407, b1-3)
>
> ¡¶ÀãÙ¤½›Í¨Áx¡·¾í5£º¡¸È»ÓÞ·ò²»ÁËÓ^Ö¸¶ø²»Ó^ÎïʳÉú¶ø²»Ê³Êì·²¡¹(CBETA, X17, no.
> 323, p. 208, b6-7 // Z 1:25, p. 286, d17-18 // R25, p. 572, b17-18)
>
> ¡¶°Ë×RÒŽ¾Øíž×¢¡·¾í1£º¡¸ëmÌȤÉú¡£¶ø²»ºãÓС£Î¨®ÊìÐÄ¡£¼°±ËÐÄËù¡£ÊÇÕþȤÉúÒ²¡£¡¹
> (CBETA, X55, no. 897, p. 448, a21-22 // Z 2:3, p. 319, b9-10 // R98, p. 637,
> b9-10)
>
> ¡¶¾ÓÊ¿‚÷¡·¾í55£º¡¸ÓÖÏëËÀÈË¡£±»»ðËùŸý¡£½¹¿sÔڵء£»òÊì»òÉú¡£¶øÎÒ´ËÉí¡£½KÒàÈç
> ÊÇ¡£¡¹(CBETA, X88, no. 1646, p. 290, a12-13 // Z 2B:22, p. 504, d4-5 //
> R149, p. 1008, b4-5)
>
> ¡¶ÃɏÈA½›Îľ䡷¾í1¡´ÐòÆ·¡µ£º¡¸ÒýÉúžéÊì¡£[10]¹Ê¼£žé„e²»Éú¡£ÒýÊìžéõ®õ­¡£¹Ê¼£
> žéˆA²»Éú¡£¶øÆä±¾µØס°¢×ÖéT¡£Ö^Ò»Çз¨³õ²»Éú¹Ê¡£Èô„°¢×ÖéT¡£¡¹(CBETA, T34, no.
> 1718, p. 9, c12-15)
> [10]£¨ÌK£©£«¹Ê¡¾¼×¡¿¡£
>
> 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 ¨¡ma, which gives Éú 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> buddha-l mailing list
> buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com
> http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l
>