Перевод "eva"

[Ассаджи]

Доброго времени, друзья!

Досточтимый Бхиккху Бодхи написал в своей статье:

I Teach Only Suffering and the End of Suffering

One statement popularly ascribed to the Buddha is quoted so often that it has become virtually an axiom of modern Buddhism. The statement appears in several formulations, the broadest of which runs: "I teach only suffering and the cessation of suffering." A variant reads: "I teach only two things: suffering and the end of suffering." And another variant makes the point even more sharply: "I teach one thing and one thing only: suffering and the end of suffering."

Surprise, surprise! Nowhere in the Pali canon does the Buddha himself actually say this. The statement ascribed to him is not altogether without a basis in the canon, but the way the original is commonly expressed represents a translation error rooted in a grammatical misunderstanding. The sentence we do find reads in Pali: pubbe c'aham bhikkhave etarahi ca dukkhan c'eva pannapemi, dukkhassa ca nirodham. Before I get to the grammatical error, I should point out that, contrary to what we might expect, the sentence in no way serves as a hallmark of the Buddha's teaching in its entirety. An online search through the thousands of pages of Buddhist scriptures turns up the sentence only twice. And the two places in which it occurs make it plain that the Buddha did not mean to say he teaches only suffering and its cessation and nothing else. Rather, he was saying something quite different, which on each occasion is determined by the context.

To see how the error arose requires a short excursion into the field of Pali syntax. To construct a conjunction in Pali, the word ca, meaning "and," normally follows each noun or phrase that it links. This, of course, is different from English, where "and" occurs between the terms being joined. Thus while in English we would say "The cat and the dog are playing on the mat," in Pali one would say, "The cat and the dog and on the mat are playing."

Often, though not always, the first ca in a conjunction is followed by the emphatic particle eva. By the Pali rules of liaison (sandhi), whereby sounds in close proximity affect each other, ca eva turns into c'eva. In some contexts, eva has an exclusionary sense, meaning "only, solely." Taking eva in this sense seems to explain how the famous dictum of the Buddha came to be interpreted to mean that he teaches only suffering and its cessation. In conjunctions, however, eva does not have this exclusionary sense. It simply adds a slight emphasis to the initial ca of the conjunction. Thus, going back to our English example, the construction in Pali syntax would be as follows: "The cat and indeed the dog and on the mat are playing."

With a proper understanding of the c'eva . . . ca construction, the sentence about the Buddha's teaching is more correctly translated: "In the past, monks, and also now, I teach suffering and the cessation of suffering." There is no "only" in the sentence, and thus the purport of the words is not categorically exclusive. In each of the passages in which the statement is made, it occurs in a specific context that brings out the intended meaning. In Majjhima Nikaya 22 it is a rejoinder to the charge, raised by hostile ascetics and brahmins, that the Buddha teaches the annihilation of a truly existent being. In Samyutta Nikaya 22.86 it explains the Buddha's refusal to take a stand in the debates concerning the fate of an enlightened person after death. In both instances, the sentence shifts attention away from speculative hypotheses toward a practical project, but in neither case does it tie the teaching down to an exclusive area of concern.

In thousands of suttas the Buddha teaches other things besides "suffering and its cessation." For instance, in a series of dialogues in the Samyutta Nikaya monks ask him how one can be reborn as a naga, a garuda, or a gan-dhabba—that is, as a celestial dragon, a celestial eagle, or a fragrance deity—and the Buddha doesn't wave the questions aside because they aren't concerned with suffering and its cessation; rather, he gives straightforward answers based on the law of karma. The Anguttara Nikaya is particularly rich in suttas touching on a wide range of practical topics, from types of marriages to planning the household budget. When the Buddha speaks, it is said, he always intends his words to lead to the welfare and happiness of the hearers. But his words are not always tied to the theme of "suffering and its cessation." To insist on confining them to this topic is to drastically narrow the range of the dharma.

I have to confess that I am one of the perpetrators of this literary faux pas, for in several of my own past writings I authoritatively cited the wrongly rendered version of the statement as proof that the Buddha's entire teaching was only about suffering and the end of suffering. But I've since learned otherwise. This experience has enabled me to see how linguistic misreadings of Buddhist texts can give rise to wrong doctrinal interpretations and even promulgate modern myths about the meaning of Buddhism. Our contemporary environment of thought, which relishes reducing complex systems of ideas to simple catchphrases and slogans, has also contributed to the distortion.

I can't help wondering how many other myths there are about Buddhism that owe their origins to flawed translations and selective quotations. No doubt quite a few favorites would turn up on the casualty list. It's become a current fashion for people to ascribe any adage they like to the Buddha without entertaining second thoughts about sources. I've already met my share of such sayings on blogs and bumper stickers, and as time goes by I expect I'll meet many more. But if the dharma is to be presented accurately, the example discussed above shows that we should be careful when quoting the Buddha's words. To ensure that the dharma is understood and transmitted correctly, we cannot escape the need for serious study of the texts, with an understanding of the classical languages in which they have been preserved.

https://tricycle.org/magazine/i-teach-only-suffering-and-end-suffering/

[Ассаджи]

Досточтимый Дхамманандо пишет:

Interestingly in their revised Tipiṭaka translation the Thai monks at Mahachulalongkorn University chose to make a revision precisely the opposite of Bhikkhu Bodhi's  in the new renderings of the Alagaddūpama and two Anurādha Suttas, by inserting the word 'only' (เท่านั้น) which was missing in the earlier versions.

ดีละ ดีละ อนุราธะ ทั้งในกาลก่อนและในบัดนี้ เราย่อมบัญญัติทุกข์และความดับทุกข์เท่านั้น ฯ

Good, good, Anurādha. Both in the past and now I set forth only dukkha and the cessation of dukkha.

Their revision does seem to be in line with the commentarial glosses:

Majjhima Atthakathā to the Alagaddūpamasutta:

Pubbe cā ti pubbe mahābodhimaṇḍamhiyeva ca. Etarahi cā ti etarahi dhammadesanāyañca. Dukkhañceva paññapemi, dukkhassa ca nirodhan ti dhammacakkaṃ appavattetvā bodhimaṇḍe viharantopi dhammacakkappavattanato paṭṭhāya dhammaṃ desentopi catusaccameva paññapemīti attho.

"Both in the past..." means "Both in the past at the great throne of Enlightenment. "And now..." means "and now during this teaching of Dhamma."

"I set forth only dukkha and the cessation of dukkha" – the meaning is: "Not having set in motion the Wheel of Dhamma while dwelling at the place of Enlightenment, from the time that I did set it in motion, when teaching the Dhamma I set forth only the four truths."

Saṃyutta Atthakathā to the Anurādhasutta:

"Dukkhañceva paññapemi, dukkhassa ca nirodhan" ti vaṭṭadukkhañceva vaṭṭadukkhassa ca nirodhaṃ nibbānaṃ paññapemi. 'Dukkhan' ti vā vacanena dukkhasaccaṃ gahitaṃ. Tasmiṃ gahite samudayasaccaṃ gahitameva hoti, tassa mūlattā. 'Nirodhan' ti vacanena nirodhasaccaṃ gahitaṃ. Tasmiṃ gahite maggasaccaṃ gahitameva hoti tassa upāyattā. Iti pubbe cāhaṃ, anurādha, etarahi ca catusaccameva paññapemīti dasseti. Evaṃ imasmiṃ sutte vaṭṭavivaṭṭameva kathitaṃ.

"I set forth only dukkha and the cessation of dukkha" means: "I set forth only the dukkha of the cycle [of saṃsāra] and the cessation of the dukkha of the cycle: nibbāna."

Alternatively: by the term 'dukkha' is meant the truth of dukkha. When taken in that sense, the truth of arising is included too, on account of its being the root cause [of dukkha]. By the term 'cessation' is meant the truth of cessation. When taken in that sense, the truth of the path is included too, on account of its being the means [for realising cessation]. So the sense: "Both in the past and now, Anurādha, I set forth only the four truths" is shown. Thus in this sutta just the cycle and ending of the cycle is spoken of.

Two of the above three glosses (i.e, that to the Alagaddūpamasutta and the second to the Anurādhasutta unambiguously support Bhikkhu Bodhi's earlier rendering. The other (the first gloss to the Anurādhasutta) is neutral on the question; that is, it could be translated without the word 'only'.

https://discourse.suttacentral.net/t/did-the-buddha-only-teach-dukkha-and-its-cessation/9357/4

[LXNDR]

если бы ещё дост. Бодхи привёл примеры из Канона, где, как он утверждает, eva в сочетаниях не означает "только"

[Ассаджи]

Досточимый Дхамманандо пишет:

The ... ceva ... ca construction is used very commonly, and it doesn't seem to ever have an exclusive sense. But as usual, there's probably an exception somewhere!

Indeed. When one is composing a Pali sentence of the form:

"subject + verb + only + direct object-1 and direct object-2"

using c'eva ... ca seems to be a very uncommon way of doing it, but it is occasionally instantiated in the texts. For example, the Asilakkhaṇa Jātaka has:

Bārāṇasirañño pana putto n'atthi, ekā dhītā c'eva bhāgineyyo ca ahesuṃ.

But the King of Benares had no son; he had only a daughter and a nephew.

Slightly more common is to use eva with saha:

Api c'āhaṃ, bhikkhave, sahā'va sukhena, sahā'va somanassena catunnaṃ ariyasaccānaṃ abhisamayaṃ vadāmi.

But rather, bhikkhus, I declare that the breakthrough to the four noble truths is accompanied only by happiness and only by joy.

But commonest of all seems to be eva without any coordinating conjunction:

Yā janikāmātu mātā yāva sattamā mātumātāmahayugā brāhmaṇaṃ'y'eva agamāsi, no abrāhmaṇaṃ.

Your mother's mothers back to the seventh generation of mothers of mothers went only with brahmins and never with non-brahmins.

Atha kho s'v'eva amanusso kilamathassa vighātassa bhāgī assa.

Then that non-human would be a partaker only in weariness and vexation.

I suspect c'eva ... ca is out of favour for this purpose precisely because of the ambiguity it will sometimes give rise to. However, since it is at least a grammatically possible construal of "dukkhañc'eva ... dukkhassa ca nirodhaṃ" Ven. Bodhi's self-critique of his earlier rendering seems a little overstated to me.

[Ассаджи]

Сунйо пишет:

The relevant part of the Pāli sentence is dukkhaṃ c'eva paññapemi, dukkhassa ca nirodhaṃ, "I declare only (eva) suffering and the cessation of suffering." Venerable Bodhi argues the inclusion of 'only' is a grammatical error. He explains that eva in c'eva does not have an exclusive sense but serves as a mild emphasis of ca ('and'). But while this is  the case in general, it does not seem to be a fixed rule, for there are instances where c'eva is best interpreted to mean 'only':

● DN5 says no animals were killed in a Brahmin sacrifice, concluding: "And the sacrifice was executed only with ghee, oil, butter, curds, honey, and molasses." (Sappitelanavanītadadhimadhuphāṇitena c'eva so yañño niṭṭhānamagamāsi.)
● MN76 states: "And they disparage others and declare only three liberators." (Pare ca vambhenti tayo c'eva niyyātāro paññapenti.) The order of ca and c'eva also indicates eva isn't an emphasis of ca here, because in that case c'eva always comes first.
● MN102 states: "Eat only suitable food—do not eat unsuitable food [...]—and from time to time wash the wound." (Sappāyāni c'eva bhojanāni bhuñjeyyāsi—mā te asappāyāni bhojanāni bhuñjato—[...] kālena kālañca vaṇaṁ dhoveyyāsi.)
● The Asilakkhaṇa Jātaka states: "The king of Bārāṇasi had no son; he only had a daughter and a nephew." (Bārāṇasirañño pana putto natthi; ekā dhītā c'eva bhāgineyyo ca ahesuṃ.)
● There is also the reoccurring line diṭṭhe c'eva dhamme abhisamparāyañca (DN27, AN2.11, AN4.55), where eva may not have an exclusive sense but also isn't an emphasis of ca, because the standard phrase is diṭṭh'eva dhamme, where it emphasizes diṭṭhe.

So, as so often in translation, we can't come to a blanket conclusion on what c'eva means.