Talk:Doṇa Sutta

Dona Sutta
Sacca, I have changed back the tense of the questions and answers. Any competent Pali scholar will tell you that it is incorrect to translate the questions in the future tense -- they are intended to express surpise, wonderment or confusion. It's a well-known idiomatic form found both in Pali and Sanskrit: that's a fact, so stop trying to wriggle out of it. Attempts to change it to the future tense are either distorting the meaning for dogmatic POV or even dishonest. A real scholar ahould just live with the facts, awkward though they may be.--Stephen Hodge 23:14, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, actually it's wrongly translated, the wonder is expressed in a future tense, and this is possible in english also, so that would be the proper translation. Then the answer would be put as in the Pali also, in the future tense, and the meaning of the sutta would change dramatically (not allow the non-human Buddha any more), following the correct translations. You might be interested to see the discussion we had about it, and stop using the word wriggling, as a proper scientist does not denigrate reasoned views of others using this kind of language. I will put the proper translation back, if you want to put anything else as acomment to that, you are welcome.Greetings, Sacca 02:09, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The future tense is the proper translation if the range of meaning of the English future tense is identical to the range of meaning of the Pāli future tense. What Stephen Hodge is saying is that they are not identical. That being the case, there are multiple possible translations, and we must take a stance on which of those translations is more correct.&mdash;Nat Krause(Talk!) 03:03, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Sacca, the problem here is not so much what the Pali says, but how it should be understood and translated into English. Some, but definitely not all, Theravadin sources, want to construe the questions and answers literally as future tense.  This distortion of the obvious meaning is presumably motivated by a desire to prevent a possible reading of the text which might suggest the Buddha is not a human-being qua Buddha.  It really does not matter to me either way: what I object to is the attempt to pass off mistranslations as the truth for sectarian ends -- and the article should make it clear that your version is slanted to sectarian considerations.


 * A reasonable knowedege of Pali should tell you that the "future as future" interpretation here is wrong. First, note the form of the brahmin Dona's questions: devo no bhava.m  bhavissati.   This type of expression is idiomatic: even though it uses the future in Pali, it means and must be translated in English with the present tense.   Cf   Warder p55:  "The future also expresses perplexity, surprise and wonder, for example in ki.m ev' ida.m bhavissati, 'What can this be ?' ".   The same idiom is, unsurprisingly, also used in Sanskrit -- see Witney "Sanskrit Grammar" p338, where a very similar sentence is given as an example from the Maha-bharata: ko ayaṃ devo nu yakṣo nu gandharvo nu bhaviṣyati (MBh III) "Who is this ?  He is doubtless a god, a yaksha or a gandharva !" (note present tense).  In fact, the parallel here is so close, this kind of exclamatory question was probably a well-known cliche.


 * Back to Dona's utterance, this must be translated as "Is this being a god ?" or even "Now would this being be a god, [I wonder] ?".  These are not true questions, but more like exclamations. Note well that he is not actually addressing the Buddha, but more thinking aloud, hence the form of the verb "bhavissati" -- 3rd sing (he/it).  If Dona was directly addressing the Buddha, he would have used "bhavissasi" -- 2nd sing (thou).   So logically, Dona cannot be asking the Buddha "Will you become a god", but is expressing his perplexity as an exclamatory question.   The Buddha replies na kho aha.m devo bhavissāmi -- "I am certainly not a god !".  He uses the future form "bhavissāmi", echoing Dona, because the future is used idiomatically to express strong disagreement or disapproval (cf Warder p55), but this again must be translated with the present tense in English.


 * Finally, three parallel versions of the Do.na-sutta can be found in the Chinese translations T2.717c18, T2.28a, T2.467a, which all translate the questions and answers as present tense: simply "Are you a god", "No, I am not a god" etc.


 * So, let's have an end with this nonsense. I shall rewrite the Dona-sutta portion to reflect the above, making it clear in  tactful manner that your preferred version is a mistranslation for sectarian ends.--Stephen Hodge 15:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Addendum:  I forgot to mention the preamble to Dona's "questions".  He was passing by the vicinity of the Buddha and then the text says:  addasā kho doṇo brāhmaṇo bhagavato pādesu cakkani sahassārāni sanemikāni sanābhikāni sabbākāraparipūrāni; disvā, assa  etad ahosi: "acchariyaṃ  vata,  bho, abbhutaṃ  vata,  bho!  Na vat' imāni manussa-bhūtassa padāni bhavissanti".  All importantly, he uses the future form bhavissanti of the footprints, but this only makes sense in English if we translate with the present -- so yet again we have the idiomatic use of the future to express wonder, perplexity or surprise.  Dona is clearly expressing perplexity because he uses the enclitic vata which always expresses surprise etc.  Thus this should be translated as:  'Then the brahmin Dona saw on the footprints of the Bhagavat the wheel-marks with their thousand spokes, with their rims and hubs and all their attributes complete.  On seeing these he thought, "Ah ! How amazing !  Ah ! How marvellous !    These are surely not the footprints of one in human form !" '.--Stephen Hodge 16:59, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Still further to the above, see Duroiselle's Pali Grammar, section 613 Future Tense:


 * iv)  bhavissati, the 3rd pers. sing. of  bhavati, to be, is often used in the sense of "it must be that ...":  corā pathamaṃ ñeva bheri-saddaṃ sutvā issara-bheri bhavissatī ti palāyitvā, the thieves, on first  hearing the beating of the drum, [said], "It must be the drum of an official" and fled; ayaṃ me putto bhavissati, he must be my son.


 * v)  bhavissati preceded by the negative particle na may be translated by "it cannot be": nāyaṃ issara-bheri bhavissati -- This cannot be an official's drum.


 * Note that these are not translated by a literal future tense.--Stephen Hodge 17:51, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * One final point at this stage: Sacca has written that the Buddha says "that he would not be any kind of these beings (in the future)".  This completely misunderstands the Pali.  The Buddha gives a series of hypotheticals about his being a god etc thus: ahaṃ āsavānaṃ appahīnattā devo bhaveyyaṃ.  He is not referring to the future at all.  He is saying, "If I had not eradicated the asavas, I would/might be a god [but I am not]".  The Pali text here does NOT use the future tense, but the optative bhaveyyaṃ.  The optative does not indicate tense (future or otherwise), for it indicates suppositions or hypothetical situations.  This English use of "would" here is confusing for non-native speakers, I know, because it looks as though it refers to the future but it does not.


 * All the above grammatical points are facts which can be ascertained in any standard Pali grammar (try Geiger), not opinions. The translation of the Dona-sutta should reflect this.  If some Theravadin followers choose to ignore these facts, then the aim is, of course, exactly as Sacca says above in his own words, to "not allow the non-human Buddha any more".  Sacca's preferred translation is preceded by a sectarian interpretation or preconception which determines how the translation is to be done.  I'm sorry to that I do not consider this an honest approach to truth -- it should be the other way round, no matter how inconvenient for one's pet views.--Stephen Hodge 22:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Sacca, one afterthought: you said somewhere that you have compared the Pali suttas with the Chinese Agamas and that they are virtually identical. I presume therefore that you can read Chinese.  I have given the Taisho references, so have a look and see how you would translate the relevent portions.  Let me know if they confirm your version--Stephen Hodge 04:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, My pali is not that good so I can go into detailed grammatical discussions about this. My knowledge of pali is limited to translations of individual words, not on grammatical structures of sentences. I do have contacts with a group of people who specialize into scholarly studies comparing the Pali Canon with the Agamas, identifying commonalities and differences. I myself just read the English (and other language) translations of the two real pitakas, as was specifically recommended and allowed by Buddha ;-). This wrong translation of the Dona Sutta only becomes really relevant when translating the words of Buddha in the Dona Sutta, Dona's words there don't matter so much. I based my statements on the Dona Sutta exclusively on the notes that come with Ven. Thanissaro's translation. Your label of that as sectarian is not correct, it was just using the information I had at the time. I have no interest in the whole theravada line of commentaries and abhidhamma-stuff. I asked a friend of mine (who does have good knowledge of Pali), to check up on the Pali version of the Dona Sutta. I'll wait for his response. Greetings, Sacca 06:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * So, you have been wasting my time. In effect, you have admitted that you have no personal knowledge which would enable you to determine which rendering of the DS is correct, even though you seem to persist in referring to my version as "this wrong translation". Curious. Is this how you always do things ?  And, by " a group of people who specialize into scholarly studies comparing ..", are you referring to Rod Bucknell's group ?  If so, I too have contacts with them -- I have also been asked to contribute to their project.


 * Your comment that Dona's words don't matter is astonishing -- this is not how we read texts ! The entire thing is important since it contextualizes each segment of information.  In this case, the form of Dona's questions are vital since they provide the grammatical and semantic context. Ignore them and you will end up with a wrong translation.  My label of sectarian is correct regarding your preferred version.  I am not necessarily saying that you personally are being sectarian, since you did not do and -- as you admit -- are actually incapable of doing a translation of the DS.  The way I translate is to set aside all preconceptions about the content and translate what the text itself says, following established grammatical and semantic principles.  That is the only honest way of translating.  Some people have a preconception, consciously or unconciously, about the nature of the Buddha -- though note that Thanissaro does actually follow my understanding, even though he equivocates in his footnote, so presumably you would say that Thanissaro is also wrong.  Armed with that preconception, they then "translate" or, rather, project a meaning onto the text so that it fits that preconception, often relying on the atthakathas for the meaning (circular logic !).  This is a dishonest and unscholarly way of translating, but it is rampant.


 * Anyway, I still have not finished with this Dona-sutta subsection. I have something in mind :)--Stephen Hodge 19:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello Stephen, I think maybe you need to look at your character a bit, I also don't know any Rod other than danda. I stand by my opinion, it is a valid conclusion based on Thanissaro's translation and his comments about it. What's done in that translation is changing the tense of the words of Buddha in order to make it confer with the tense of one possible translation of Dona's words. However you translated Dona's words, Buddha's words are not words of wonder and amazament. This matters. Calling any other translation than your own sectarian is just, plainly, wrong and not even verifiable. And then the want to discredit other people - this reminds me too much of sectarianism. This will bring you various kinds of problems. It's also what they call POV. So yes, just do it and go ahead. Just don't forget to reflect on the meaning of the words of Buddha (that you analyse so impartially and without any preconceptions) also. Greetings, Sacca 15:09, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, we all need to look at ourselves from time to time, don't we Sacca.  But I'll tell you something:  for better or worse, I don't not suffer fools gladly.    I'll ignore your irrelevent ad hominem attack and let others judge the merits of my argument.   As for Thanissaro's translation, I have already indicated that I have no problem with it, though it is noteworthy that he relegates your preferred translation to a footnote.


 * But what makes me really annoyed is when you write "[the] Buddha's words are not words of wonder and amazament". It becomes clear to me that you haven't even bothered to read what I wrote in detail.  Just to remind you, I said "The Buddha replies na kho aha.m devo bhavissāmi -- "I am certainly not a god !".  He uses the future form "bhavissāmi", echoing Dona, because the future is [also] used idiomatically to express strong disagreement or disapproval (cf Warder p55), but this again must be translated with the present tense in English."   So, as you do even read carefully what I wrote, I really can't be bothered to discuss the matter any further with you.


 * Ah, just one last thing: for your information, Rod Bucknell of Queensland University heads a project involving an international team of scholars to collate and compare all extant versions of the Nikayas and Agamas. I initially, but mistakenly it seems, thought that you were somebody involved in serious study of this nature and so would know of Rod.--Stephen Hodge 20:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes well I am very sorry you did. Your translation of "I am certainly not a god !" is, I would like to point out to you, a present tense translation of a future tense original. It would thus be better to translate it as "I would certainly not be a god!". You kind of smuggle the am in there (without properly reflecting on it?), while the use of would would be much better. It's a more valid reply to the question (which is put in future tense with a sense of wonder and amazement), it doesn't remove the future tense, and expresses strong disagreement. What more do you want? If you translate like this it's ok. You also don't generate proclamations which do not fit in with the rest of the Suttapitaka (always do check on this when translating - it's circumstantial evidence and prevents obvious mistakes). "I will certainly not be a god" is another valid translation. "I am certainly not a god" is not a good translation, no matter how many lines you write on pali grammar.


 * So, depending on the translation of the question, there two valid ways of translating the answer:
 * Will he/it be a god? --> I will certainly not be a god.
 * Would he/it be a god? ---> I would certainly not be a god.


 * Well it's funny you mention Queensland, because the people I know actually do live in Queensland (which for me is the other side of the world). So maybe I am connected to this Rod. Never heard of his name though. Happen to have heard of Mark Allon? Received his name in an email from Queensland today, on a related issue. These names actually don't matter much. Science is about the method, and not about the names or 'who you know'. We use these names here for Verifiability (with a big V), and because they sometimes make some discovery or have an opinion, that's all. Thanks for telling me his (Rod's) name, I'll try to remember it. And I think you didn't get my joke, but I kind of expected that. Greetings, Sacca 17:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Sacca,you write, "the use of 'would' would be much better ... it doesn't remove the future tense".  Good though your English is, as a non-native speaker, you might not realize that "would" is NOT a future tense.  Formally, it is actually the past tense of "will" !   Apart from cases involving reported speech, the main usages in English are to express the conditional or probability.  These uses obviously do not fit here.


 * You also write, "'I am certainly not a god' is not a good translation, no matter how many lines you write on Pali grammar" and "there two valid ways of translating the answer".  Now let's get this right:  you have admitted that you cannot read Pali, but you feel you have the expertise to make judgements on this.  Do you have some kind of special abhijña ?   To quote you, Sacca, I think it is you who needs to look at your character a bit.


 * Putting aside the specifics of these discussion, I would be interested to hear from you why you are so certain that your preferred translation is correct. Why is it so important to you that you apparently do not even give my version any consideration ?  I am trying hard to understand.


 * On less important matters, we have already established that you do not bother to read my comments properly, so as you mention Mark Allon, please refresh your memory and have a look at my comment of the 19/07/06 on the Mahayana Talk Page addressed to you under the topic heading From Buddha - god or man talkpage.  Oh, and I did get your joke, but I didn't think it was worthy of comment -- please note the correct spelling is daṇḍa.--Stephen Hodge 21:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * This has turned into some kind of contest now. Just to end it, I think both 'would' and 'will' are acceptable, and 'am' is not.


 * For anyone wanting to see some other usages of the translation of 'will', see Dhammapada verse 264, where Venerable Narada translated bhavissati as 'will be'. In this instance also 'would' would be a valid translation. See here:
 * (264) Icchaalobhasamaapanno sama.no ki.m bhavissati
 * How will one who is full of desire and greed be a monk? (Ven. Narada trs.)
 * In this case, it is clear that the usage of 'is' is the worst option, just as with the Dona Sutta.
 * Greetings, Sacca 06:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * No, Sacca, this is not a contest: among other things, I hope this discussion might inspire you enough to learn enough Pali to make informed judgements.  Your DhP quote is poorly chosen.  Any educated native English speaker will tell you that Narada's version here is clumsy and unidiomatic.   Look at Thanissaro's version of this line:  "filled with greed & desire: what kind of contemplative is he ?" or Rockhill's translation of the identical line in the Sanskrit Udāna-varga: "he who lives in ignorance and lust, how can he be a śramāṇa ?"   Then look at the whole context, the following verse (265) is always linked together with this verse: it's clearly talking about somebody who is already apparently or claims to be a śramāṇa.   In the commentary on this line in the aṭṭhakātha, samaṇo kiṃ bhavissati is glossed as samaṇo nāma na hoti -- [he] is not called a 'śramāṇa'.   Thus to paraphrase you, it is clear that the usage of 'is' is the best option, just as with the Dona Sutta.--Stephen Hodge 23:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Hallo Sacca and Stephen. I have been following this discussion with great interest, not least because I recently contributed to a similar debate elsewhere on Wiki. I think as a general principle or "modus operandi" in our discussion of how to translate certain Indic passages it would be sensible and wise to give very serious attention to the advice and information provided by people who are genuine Buddhist scholars and are noted for their translations of some of the most difficult Buddhist texts. Stephen is one such person, it has to be said. It would therefore seem reasonable to defer to his judgement when we ourselves are not skilled to any substantial degree (I include myself in this) in the Pali language. It seems to me that Stephen has provided ample evidence (quite apart from common sense) that a present tense expresses the spirit and meaning of the disputed sentences far better than a future one. Just think: if you were wandering through a forest and came across a remarkable being sitting there, would you ask: "Oh, what are you going to become in the future?" Of course not! This is absurd. Instead, one would say, "What kind of being is this? Is this a god or a human?" One might phrase it using a different tense, but the intended meaning would be the same: "What kind of being might you be? Might you be a god or a human?" This expresses tentative uncertainty, probing enquiry, and surprise. And as Stephen has taught us, the use of the (technically) future tense in Pali and Sanskrit can be applied in situations of strong disagreement or disapproval (hence the Buddha's adoption of that tense in his reply to Dona). In sum, though, I would make the main point that it surely behoves those of us who do not possess the full range of core Buddhist languages over which Stephen Hodge presides as a genuine and acclaimed Buddhist scholar and translator to respect what such a person says. I can personally guarantee the readers of this discussion page that Stephen Hodge, whom I have often commissioned to do Buddhist translation work for me, is scrupulously objective and unbiased in his renderings of Buddhist texts. He is always guided by what the text, context and grammar of a particular passage communicates, rather than by any extraneous, personal preferences. I know that for a fact. So: I for one would say that if we do not possess the sound knowledge of Pali of which Stephen has command then we should be humble enough to say that we are not operating from a sufficiently informed base as to be justified in rejecting what he insists is an accurate translation and should defer to his better judgement. Best wishes to Sacca and Stephen, as always. From Tony. TonyMPNS 10:22, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Well said, Tony!&mdash;Nat Krause(Talk!) 17:19, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Nat. Kind of you! Yours, Tony. TonyMPNS 20:06, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks to Tony for his kind accolade -- it's always nice to see one's modest efforts are appreciated by some.--Stephen Hodge 23:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes thanks all of you for your comments. I would still prefer the use of would, will, and also might (as was kindly offered by Tony). I would certainly not favour Tony's other suggestion of "Oh, what are you going to become in the future?", I think that's just something Tony picked in order to make some kind of point maybe, but it does not represent my opinion at all. It's not really fair to suggest that I support this translation, but anyway thank you very much for contributing. I actually support his use of 'might', as it also gives an indication of uncertainty to the question, which the use of 'are' does not. I know some people who are well versed in Buddhism and Pali grammer and who do not consider the use of 'are' as the best translation.


 * The problem here is when you use one of the accepted english translations, and then consequently use this translation to support some claim without considering the range of other accepted translations, which, taken together, give a better overview of the actual meaning of the Pali words:


 * "I might certainly not be a god or human!" (Tony's version) has a very different feeling to it as "I certainly am not a god or human being!". This last translation is a nice and hard translation, but does not convey at all the use of future tense in which the question was put, and which might have some consequences for any subsequent filosophical views arising based on the use of 'are'. Or does anybody disagree here, and thinks we should use the 'are' translation and then base some further philosophical views on this present tense English translation? This is my main concern, and the reason why I think 'are' is not a suitable translation. To me it is very clear that some meaning is lost to us when we use this english present tense translation, and scrutiny is called for when using this narrow English translation for any further claims. So yes, that's why I prefer the use of 'might', 'will' or 'would', to better convey the original 'uncertain ambiguity' in meaning of Buddha's statement. 'Might' and 'would' might be the better alternatives here. If Stephen calls that sectarianism, I am truly sorry, but I will start to distrust Stephens motivations right there. Given that Stephen actually did do just that in the previous edits he made to this article, I am personally not sure of his objectivity. He throws the sectarianism label a bit too easily.


 * So in practical terms for this Wikipedia project, I believe not only the use of the 'are' translation should be in the article, there's reason enough for that. Either two versions ('are' and one of the others), or just the 'might', 'would' or 'will' variety. Remember the extended note Venerable Thanissaro put under his translation, he did't mention the use of future tense for nothing, and personally I'm very happy he did so, as otherwise I would have needed to use some of my other channels to Pali grammar to get the whole story on this sutta - as it is I didn't need to bother them too much. People who do serious study of the Suttas without knowing the details of Pali language would either need the note to the sutta by Ven. Thanissaro, or access to some other channel through which to access this knowledge. Otherwise one would end up either disbelieving the present Sutta, or disbelieve all the rest of the other suttas in which Buddha is presented as just a normal perfected human being - a Buddha that is.


 * And Stephen, I am happy I know the background to this one translation, but my interest does not take me to detailed pali studies. I would do this if I was interested in all the atthakathas (Pali commentaries), which have often not been translated, or would need to do some other orignal research myself. However, just the Bipitaka is enough for me, together with access to good and experienced, knowledgeable (not just Pali or suttas) teachers, and books in which the results of new research is presented. So I just use (multi-language) translations, and when I have some issue I can use my kaḷyaṇaṃiṭṭa (just kidding Stephen) in the various groups I do have access to, to help solve any issues (including Pali issues) I might encounter. And I think that's good enough.


 * Garavamettaya, Sacca (Greetings, Sacca 14:17, 12 August 2006 (UTC))


 * Overall, we seem to have come in a full circle when Sacca says "I believe not only the use of the 'are' translation should be in the article, there's reason enough for that. Either two versions ('are' and one of the others) ..."  That's exactly what we had at the beginning of this long discussion !   But at last, Sacca spells out the motivation for his objections to an idiomatic translation: "and then base some further philosophical views on this present tense English translation?  This is my main concern, and the reason why I think 'are' is not a suitable translation."  So there is supposed set of philosophical views that Sacca thinks might be drawn from the translation that I prefer, even though no such views have been expressed.  By objecting to these unnamed philosophical views, Sacca must be contrasting them to another, differing set of philosophical views or presuppositions which he favours.   Isn't this what one calls sectarianism ?   The article needs to state that there is one translation (my favoured version), perfectly feasible grammatically and idiomatically, which is corroborated by three independent Chinese versions, and then there is another understanding of the text which is preferred by some Theravadins to avoid what they perceive as possible undesired philosophical consequences.   The reader of the article then has eough information to draw their own conclusions.--Stephen Hodge 17:47, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Nat, for wrongly attributing it to you. But please do not change any other things I have written down. I understand that for all three (Tony, Nat, Stephen) of you the 'are' translation might be a nice one, because it concords with some Mahayana filosofies. Again, Stephen, you confuse concern based on a disregard of basic things like tense in translation with sectarianism. I notice you won't go into it, so never mind, we'll find a solution in the article itself. Again, you call me a Theravadin when I am not, only in your dreams maybe. I suspect you are guided by your Mahayana ideology in condemning even concern with the meaning of a translation. You sound just like the Pope to me, and not like the Dalai Lama.Greetings, Sacca 03:02, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Also remember the verse with which the sutta is closed:

"The fermentations by which I would go to a deva-state, or become a gandhabba in the sky, or go to a yakkha-state & human-state:	Those have been destroyed by me,	ruined, their stems removed. Like a blue lotus, rising up, unsmeared by water, unsmeared am I by the world, and so, brahman, I'm awake."

Why would he speak here in future tense, when he would speak the narrowest of present tenses before? It seems Tony's suggestion of "Oh, what are you going to become in the future?" has some validity after all, in the verse uttered by Buddha immediately after the passage we were discussing here... But maybe Stephen would claim that this does not matter at all since it does not occur in the same paragraph? Or maybe you have a valid reason, some variant reading of the chinese versions, or a note on Pali grammar or any other thing? Greetings, Sacca 03:28, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * By the way, Stephen, a good edit was it, that you made. I made some additions, also putting in the might/would variety. I don't understand why you were so 'disagreeing' with the 'might/would' variety before, and now put it like this in the article. Is this the objectiveness you use in the articles but not in your private opinions expressed in talk-pages? I thought you would have taken it out or tried to put it down. My compliments. Please have a good look at my additions. I still plan to put in some reference to the verse with which the sutta ends, and am curious how this verse is in the Chinese versionss. greetings, Sacca 04:02, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * This posting got caught in an Edit Conflict and was written before the posting immediately above from Sacca.


 * Your suggestion that I am advocating the "are" translation because "it concords with some Mahayana filosofies" is quite outrageous.  You are COMPLETELY wrong if you "suspect [I am] guided by Mahayana ideology".   I do not have a Mahayana ideology and nor do I express one.   Look at my Wiki contributions:  very few of them even concern Mahayana.   I advocate the ''is" version simply because it is, in my view, correct grammatically and is corroborated by the Chinese versions.   I really resent your insinuations that I am not being objective.   Granted it won't matter much to you, but as Tony kindly mentioned above, I am a professional translator:  I get paid for producing accurate work for reputable publishers, not for twisting things to my ends.  I pride my self in producing accurate and reliable work.


 * I have given my reasons for advocating the "is" version in great detail and have explained them again and again for you, to no avail it seems.  Let me remind you that it is you who has stated ideological reasons for preferring the "will be" versions: " ... and then base some further philosophical views on this present tense English translation?  This is my main concern, and the reason why I think 'are' is not a suitable translation."  Where have I ever indicated that I had implicit or explicit ideological reasons for the "is" version ?


 * You may not formally be a Theravadin, but your espousal of the "will be" version coincides with the orthodox Theravada view. Moreover, we might be forgiven for assuming that you are a Theravadin, because of your complaint earlier on the Theravada Talk Page: "Don't they have anything better to do but commenting on Theravada Buddhist practice on the Theravada page?"


 * I also think you final ad hominem remarks are quite out of order: perhaps an apology might be forthcoming.


 * You will note that I have completely rewritten and enlarged the Dona Sutta article in a manner which I hope is fair to all views and NPOV. If you still object, I am inclined to put it to the vote or ask for formal mediation.--Stephen Hodge 04:19, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Sacca, when you write "Is this the objectiveness you use in the articles but not in your private opinions expressed in talk-pages?", the problem is yours -- everything of factual import I wrote is objective. You indulge too much in unfounded projections about people's motives.  I have never had any major disagreements with the "might/would" version, except that it sounds clumsy and is unidiomatic in English (I am a native speaker of English so please take my word for it -- others may corroborate this).  I like translations that are both accurate and sound pleasing.  Also, you still don't seem to understand that this usage of "would" is conditional and "might" is subjuctive: there is no indication of tense, future or otherwise -- look in any decent English dictionary.


 * It is very late here now as I had to rewrite my previous comment because the Edit Conflict, so I'll comment on the final verse tomorow, but I can advise you in advance that I do not believe this substantiates your position. And yes, the Chinese versions are interesting.   I have slightly altered the positioning of your additions in the article because it is actually a sub-category of the "is" version.--Stephen Hodge 04:41, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * One final thought. As this section has got rather long and will probably get longer, would there be any merit in writing a summary here and then creating a new Dona-sutta entry for Wiki ?--Stephen Hodge 04:47, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello Stephen, for me 'might' and 'would' go together because they can both express the uncertainty aspect without adopting the future tense. For me these are better since the 'is' variant has not even the uncertainty aspect. But you probably got this message already.

I also do apologize for any unwholesome or bad thing I might have caused you, both intentional and non-intentional. But as far as I remember I did never want the whole 'are' thing removed from the article, but was offended by your comments on some opinions as sectarian (Theravadin sectarian, for me this is the most authentic living tradition), while you now write in the article that they have a proper basis in pali grammar, and you mention above here that it is just your opinion that it sounds clumsy and unidiomatic in English. That I respect, but it's a whole different order of things, and then the issue becomes more one of meaning against nice sounding, a common issue when translating anything. I would now say your comments on Theravadin sectarianism are a reflection of your previous assumptions on how these Theravadin translators arrive at their conclusions (and remember they just keep to their own Pali Canon and commentaries - the Chinese versions have no authority within a translation of a Theravadin Sutta).

Anyway, this whole issue is too much talked about, if this would be done on the battlefield itself it would soon have transpired there was not even a basis for battle. Best wishes, Greetings, Sacca 05:12, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Hallo Sacca, Stephen, and Nat (and any others who might be reading!). It is interesting to reflect upon all the various points above. I do agree with Stephen (and implicitly Nat too). Sacca, as Stephen says, your English is very good. It is generally impressive indeed. But I also share Stephen's caution that if one is speaking a foreign language, some of the subtleties of usage can easily be missed. I speak as someone guilty of this in my own efforts in German and (horrendously) in French. So: on the substantive points regarding "I might not be a god" and "I would not be a god", etc. The fact is, as Stephen has indicated, that we would never, ever, say this in this context. If cautiously asked by someone, "Might you be a god?", the reply from the Buddha would not be "I might not be a god", as that would imply that he is not himself sure whether he is a god or not - it would mean that he might not be a god, but then again, he might be: he simply is unsure about it (impossible for a Buddha!). The natural response would be, in English: "I am (certainly) not a god". As for: "I would not be a god" (in answer to the question, "Would you perhaps be a god?" - which has a present meaning, but expresses caution in the manner of the probing/ questioning), this would not be answered by "I would not be a god". This is simply impossible in English, in this context. If it were said (which it never would be in this verbal context), it would mean, "I would not want/ choose to be a god". The natural response instead would be: "I am (certainly) not a god". So to sum up: we cannot put forward "I would not be a god" or "I might not be a god" as the Buddha's answer, as this is completely contrary to normal English usage. Hope this helps a little. Best wishes to everyone. From Tony. TonyMPNS 10:41, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Just a thought: one wonders how truly "human" the Buddha's body actually was (even according to the agama accounts). After all, he has webbed hands and feet, a huge protuberance on his head, a bristle of hairs between his eyes, an upper body shaped like that of a lion, body hair that is upstanding and inclined to the right, his penis enclosed in a sheath, golden skin colour, images of wheels and svastikas on his feet, a tongue that could stretch out and touch his ears ....! I think that if we encountered such a being, we might well ask, "Are you a human or a god?"!! Best wishes. Tony. TonyMPNS 11:43, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The Dona sutta is irrelevant to the discussion on the topic of God as a supreme being, not a minor deva, yaksha or gandharva which are minor gods.


 * In response to the above comment by the anonymous contributor: I think the point is more whether the Buddha denied that he was a human being in the Dona Sutta (rather than denying that he was a deva). Best. Tony. TonyMPNS 14:09, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * You're right Tony, that's it - it's not so much about the god-thing as about the human-thing. Wouldn't John Cleese in Faulty Towers say things like: "I would certainly not be ...?" Or "I might certainly not be ..." ?. I can really imagine him doing that :-). Yes, it's true, if all these sign were so visible one might truly wonder wht kind of being is that... Difficult to say now how these feautures really took shape. Paintings of Buddha usually depict a very human body. Even in paintings which are claimed to be based on a past-life memory (or vision) of Buddha's body, his body is very ordinarily human (compared to these traditional characteristics). Greetings, Sacca 14:40, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Now we have cleared up some personal misunderstandings, there are still some points worth discussing regarding this text. The more one looks at the various versions, the more intriguing it becomes.

There are four versions of the text, which arranged in likely chronological order are: (1) T2.717c (Mahasanghika), (2) Pali and  (3) T2.467a (affiliation unknown) slightly later and finally (4) T2.28a (Sarvastivadin).

(1) is the simplest and oldest version. The name of the brahmin is not given; he merely sees the footprints without any mention of the wheel marks; he asks the Buddha who or what he is; the Buddha never says explicitly that he is a Buddha, but just says that he has overcome suffering through knowledge of desire; he urges the brahmin to apply himself to attaining this knowledge; the brahmin does this and also gains liberation. The short verse here is completely different to those in the other versions.

(2) (3) (4) are basically identical as, unlike (1) they would have been derived from the Vibhajjavadin edition. They all mention the wheel mark on the footprints, but 3 and 4 have a different name for the brahmin (Dhuma). The main formal differences betwen them is the a) the options -- god ? gandharva ? etc -- are lengthened somewhat and the verse portion at the end is gradually expanded.

Regarding the vexed tense issue, we should consider the matter of the footprints -- as Tony has mentioned above -- the reader, through the medium of the brahmin, is informed that the footprints have the wheel marks on them. In other words, they are there as a fait accompli. To have those marks means that one is already a very special being in Indian lore, although they might be found on several differen types of beings. They are also rare -- how often have you seen such marks ? This is why the brahmin is astonished -- he asks the Buddha, using a recognized Pali idiom, something like "What on earth might you be / what on earth ARE you -- a god etc ?". That the text is concerned with what the Buddha is and not what he will be is corroborated by later statements of the Buddha: he has eliminated the asravas -- completion; the lotus example also indicates completion -- it arises from the mud and blossoms: a completed state of affairs.

The verse gives no specific indication either that the Buddha is saing that he will not be reborn again because he has become a Buddha -- though that is an implicit conclusion one would make in general. The verse in Pali reads: “Yena devūpapatty assa, gandhabbo vā vihaṅgamo | yakkhattaṃ yena gaccheyyaṃ, manussattañca abbaje (= aṇḍaje) ||   Here the Buddha is talking about the asravas. There are two verbs used here: assa and gaccheyyam. Assa is 3rd Sing Optative of the verb "[there] is"and gaccheyyam is 1st Sing Optative of the verb gacchati. The verb gacchati has a literal meaning of "go" but it also widely used in the sense of "be" or "become" according to the context. The curious situation here is that one verb is 3rd Sing and the other is 1st Sing. It is feasible that the gaccheyyam should also be gaccheyya, making it a 3rd Sing too. With the assa 3rd Sing, the Buddha is talking about a general hypothetical situation, with no indication of the tense: "That by which there might be / might have been birth as a god, as a gandharva". One might expect the gaccheyya to refer to a general state of affairs too: "by which one might be / might have been / might become a yaksa or a human being in nature" or else "that by which I might be / might have been / might become a yaksa or a human being in nature". So grammatically speaking there is no indication here that the Buddha is talking about what he will not become -- it all hypothetical. The lotus example gives no help in this direction either: it merely gives an example for a completed state of affairs.--Stephen Hodge 17:34, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

affirmation
Some pali scholar told me that because the Buddha's words (na kho aha.m braahma.na manusso bhavissaami) are an affirmation, they should not be read in the hypothetical sense. Any comments on this?

I am also a still interested in these chinese versions. I understand they have been really translated from Sanskrit into Chinese, and are not just written (transcibed) from 'original' Sanskrit into a Sanskrit which uses chinese symbols. I wonder how the sanksrit version of 'na kho aha.m braahma.na manusso bhavissaami' would be tranlated into chinese. Maybe at this stage the present tense was introduced in the chinese version, while it was not present in the sanksrit, just like happens in some english translations of the pali.

Greetings, Sacca 11:49, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Hello, again, Sacca. First, your Pali scholar's statement is wrong.  The sentence has a na in it and so it cannot be an affirmation: it is a negation.  Perhaps he/she meant to say that it is a statement.  I have no problem with this -- you are the one who wants to introduce the hypothetical sense with your "would".   Quite simply, yeah Brazzers Accounts the Pali happens to use the future tense, but to translate this into idiomatic English we have to use the present tense to reflect the Pali usage.   There are many ways of expressing things in one language that cannot be translated literally into another.  This just happens to be one of them.  If there was not, for you, some theological significance, I imagine that you would not think twice about the English rendering which I maintain is the correct one -- look back at the example of the thieves.


 * As for the Chinese versions, they each have, respectively, 1) 我非是天, 2) 我非天也, 3) 我不得天也 and these are all emphatic statements meaning "I am not a god". That is how one would translate 'na kho aha.m brāhma.na devo bhavissāmi' into medieval Chinese in this context.  Generally speaking, the Chinese preferred to translate the idiomatic meaning of a text, while the Tibetans translated literally.  The Chinese didn't "introduce" the present tense into their versions --  it was already there implicitly, even though the Pali or Sanskrit formally happened to use the future tense in an idiomatic expression.


 * One final, small note: it is convenient to talk about the Sanskrit Agamas that were translated into Chinese, but it is not at all certain that they were all composed in Sanskrit -- there are signs that some of them were in some Prakrit or other.--Stephen Hodge 18:45, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello stephen, you're answer is not explained very well, also you're still quite biased against me. But it's ok. meet you later! Greetings, Sacca 10:13, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

gandharan version
The gandharan version is similar to the pali, and uses the future tense. So the two indian language versions use future tense. The translated chinese is present tense. This makes the pali and gandharan version more credible than the chinese versions, which probably translated a future tense into a present tense. This info needs to be integrated in the article. Greetings, Sacca 01:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * You never give up do you ! Of course the Gandhari version will have the future.  The base text of all the Chinese versions certainly would have had the future tense.  Yet again, you completely miss the point.  There is no question of credibility -- the original Indic languages will all have the future here.  The question is, how does one correctly translate it ?  The Chinese translators understood the idion correctly, you don't. Thus, the translation you prefer is wrong, as I have demonstrated over and over again.  I don't mean this as a put-down, but I can only conclude that English is not your native language and you therefore can't understand why your version is poor.  We even have a similar "future-as-present" idiom in English:  I might enter a room of people and, after some introductions, coming to you I might say "And you will be Sacca ?"  There is no question that you are (in the present) not Sacca and I am not suggesting that you are going to transform into this person called Sacca.--Stephen Hodge 01:43, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the info, the article needs to be updated to incorporate the facts that the base texts of all versions are in future sense, as this is not present now. Then the 'pali controversy' disappears, since all texts have this future sense. Trying to walk the middle road, hope you will do so too.Greetings, Sacca 02:51, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * No, that's the whole problem: they use the future TENSE, but not in a future SENSE !! The controversy only arises when we try to translate the texts. Also, could you provide a reference to the Gandharan version, please ?--Stephen Hodge 02:39, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Hello, the Dona Sutta in gandharan can be found in the book Ancient Buddhist Scrolls from Gandhara by R. Salomon.Greetings, Sacca 03:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't have access to this at present, but could you let us know how Salomon translates the key sentences ? --Stephen Hodge 13:34, 18 October 2006 (UTC)