[Buddha-l] a question to diamond sutra

[Dan Lusthaus]

Dear Bernhard,

> But coming back to 壽者相 or 壽者想 for jiva-samjna.
> 壽 is (long) life, isn't? So is 'lifespan' justified?
> Or is the Sanskrit version refering to the Jain concept of a jiva?

Context offers: atma-samjna + sattva-samjna +  jiva-samjna + pudgala-samjna.

The passage is providing synonyms or an unpacking for the idea of "self", 
specifying that ideas of "beings" (sattva), "living beings" (jiva), or 
"persons" (pudgala) are all implicated. The different terms for how we 
conceive of "selves" are not exactly isomorphic, but interlinked. This list, 
and similar ones, are common in the literature.

Jiva is a common term for "living being", and needn't refer to Jain (or 
other) metaphysics specifically.

As for alternate Chinese versions -- and an example of the proliferation and 
embeddedness of such substitutions -- a CBETA search for 壽者相 yielded 675 
hits, including in Kuiji's commentary to the Diamond Sutra (Kuiji was 
Xuanzang's successor, and should have known better). That is how influential 
Kumarajiva's typo (or whoever introduced that) became. By Song and Ming 
dynasties the Kumarajiva list, using 相 instead of 想, has become 
ubiquitous.

By way of contrast, 壽者想 yields only 33 hits!!

Bodhiruci's Diamond Sutra translation uses:
我想、眾生想、壽者想、受者想

Paramartha's translation is identical to Bodhiruci.

Xuanzang's showcases his equivalents for the Skt terms:
我想、或有情想、或命者想、或士夫想

Note, he even includes 或 to indicate va ("or").

Dan