Translating Classical Buddhism to Modern English

The Medium Discourses

Chapter 2: Related to Deeds

（一三） 中阿含 業相應品 度經 第三 (初一日誦) 13. Crossings
我聞如是： 一時，佛遊舍衛國，在勝林、給孤獨園。 1. Thus I have heard:1 One time, the Buddha traveled to the country of Śrāvastī and stayed at Anāthapiṇḍada’s Park in Jeta’s Grove.
爾時，世尊告諸比丘： 「有三度處，異姓、異名、異宗、異說。 謂有慧者善受，極持，而為他說，然不獲利。 云何為三？ 2. It was then that the Bhagavān addressed the monks, “There are three fording places of different clans, different names, different traditions, and different teachings. That is to say, they are well accepted, firmly held, and taught to others by wise people, but they aren’t profitable. What are the three?
「或有沙門、梵志如是見、如是說：謂人所為一切，皆因宿命造。 復，有沙門、梵志如是見、如是說：謂人所為一切，皆因尊祐造。 復，有沙門、梵志如是見、如是說：謂人所為一切，皆無因無緣。 3. “Some ascetics and priests have a view and a teaching that says the cause of everything a person does is created by their previous lives.2 Again, some ascetics and priests have a view and a teaching that says the cause of everything a person does is created by the Lord God.3 Again, some ascetics and priests have a view and a teaching that says that there is no cause or condition for anything a person does.
「於中，若有沙門、梵志如是見、如是說：謂人所為一切，皆因宿命造者，我便往彼。 到已，即問： 『諸賢，實如是見、如是說：謂人所為一切，皆因宿命造耶？』 4. “Now, if some ascetic or priest had a view and a teaching that said the cause of everything a person does is created by their previous lives, I would visit them. Upon arriving, I would then ask, ‘Venerables, is it true that you have a view and a teaching that says the cause of everything a person does is created by their previous lives?’
「彼答言： 『爾。』 “They would answer, ‘That’s right.’
「我復語彼： 『若如是者，諸賢等皆是殺生。 所以者何？ 以其一切，皆因宿命造故。 如是，諸賢皆是不與取⋯邪婬⋯妄言⋯乃至⋯邪見。 所以者何？ 以其一切，皆因宿命造故。 5. “I would again say to them, ‘If that’s so, then you Venerables are all killers of living things. Why is that? Because the cause of all that is created by your previous lives. Thus, you Venerables take what’s not given … engage in wrong sex … speak falsely … up to … have wrong views. Why is that? Because the cause of all that is created by your previous lives.
「『諸賢，若一切皆因宿命造見如真者，於內因內，作以不作。 都無欲、無方便。 諸賢，若於作以不作，不知如真者，便失正念、無正智。 則無可以教，』 如沙門法如是說者，乃可以理伏彼沙門、梵志。 6. “‘Venerables, if someone truly has the view that the cause of all this is created by previous lives, that would be an internal cause for them to do what shouldn’t be done. None of them would have any desire or make any effort.4 Venerables, if they do what they shouldn’t, and they don’t truly know it, then they’d lose their right mindfulness and have no right knowledge. Then, they’d be impossible to instruct.’ When an ascetic’s teaching makes such a claim, that ascetic or priest can be defeated with reason.
「於中，若有沙門、梵志如是見、如是說，謂人所為一切皆因尊祐造者，我便往彼。 到已，即問： 『諸賢，實如是見、如是說，謂人所為一切皆因尊祐造耶？』 7. “Now, if some ascetic or priest had a view and a teaching that said the cause of everything a person does is created by the Lord God, I would visit them. Upon arriving, I would then ask, ‘Venerables, is it true that you have a view and a teaching that says the cause of everything a person does is created by the Lord God?’
「彼答言：『爾。』 “They would answer, ‘That’s right.’
「我復語彼： 『若如是者，諸賢等皆是殺生。 所以者何？ 以其一切，皆因尊祐造故。 如是，諸賢，皆是不與取⋯邪婬⋯妄言⋯乃至⋯邪見。 所以者何？ 以其一切，皆因尊祐造故。 8. “Again, I would say to them, ‘If that’s so, Venerables, all of you are killers of living things. Why is that? Because the cause of all that is created by God. Thus, Venerables, you take what’s not given … engage in wrong sex … speak falsely … up to … have wrong views. Why is that? Because the cause of all that is created by God.
「『諸賢，若一切皆因尊祐造見如真者，於內因內，作以不作。 都無欲、無方便。 諸賢，若於作以不作，不知如真者，便失正念、無正智。 則無可以教。』 如沙門法如是說者，乃可以理伏彼沙門、梵志。 9. “‘Venerables, if someone truly has the view that the cause of all this is created by God, that would be an internal cause for them to do what shouldn’t be done. None of them would have any desire or make any effort. Venerables, if they do what they shouldn’t, and they don’t truly know it, then they’d lose their right mindfulness and have no right knowledge. Then, they’d be impossible to instruct.’ When an ascetic’s teaching makes such a claim, that ascetic or priest can be defeated with reason.
「於中，若有沙門、梵志如是見、如是說：謂人所為一切，皆無因無緣者，我便往彼。 到已，即問： 『諸賢，實如是見、如是說：謂人所為一切，皆無因無緣耶？』 10. “Now, if some ascetic or priest had a view and a teaching that said there is no cause or condition for anything a person does, I would visit them. Upon arriving, I would then ask, ‘Venerables, is it true that you have a view and a teaching that says there is no cause or condition for anything a person does?’
「彼答言： 『爾。』 “They would answer, ‘That’s right.’
「我復語彼： 『若如是者，諸賢等皆是殺生。 所以者何？ 以其一切，皆無因無緣故。 如是，諸賢，皆是不與取⋯邪婬⋯妄言⋯乃至⋯邪見。 所以者何？ 以其一切，皆無因無緣故。 11. “Again, I would say to them, ‘If that’s so, Venerables, all of you are killers of living beings. Why is that? Because there’s no cause or condition for any of that. Thus, Venerables, you take what’s not given … engage in wrong sex … speak falsely … up to … have wrong views. Why is that? Because there’s no cause or condition for any of that.
「『諸賢，若一切皆無因無緣，見如真者，於內因內，作以不作。 都無欲、無方便。 諸賢，若於作以不作，不知如真者，便失正念、無正智。 則無可以教。』 如沙門法如是說者，乃可以理伏彼沙門、梵志。 12. “‘Venerables, if someone truly has the view that there’s no cause or condition for any of this, that would be an internal cause for them to do what shouldn’t be done. None of them would have any desire or make any effort. Venerables, if they do what they shouldn’t, and they don’t truly know it, then they’d lose their right mindfulness and have no right knowledge. Then, they’d be impossible to instruct.’ When an ascetic’s teaching makes such a claim, that ascetic or priest can be defeated with reason.
「我所自知、自覺法為汝說者，若沙門、梵志，若天、魔、梵，及餘世間，皆無能伏，皆無能穢，皆無能制。 云何我所自知、自覺法為汝說，非為沙門、梵志，若天、魔、梵，及餘世間所能伏、所能穢、所能制？ 謂『有六處』法我所自知、自覺為汝說，非為沙門、梵志，若天、魔、梵，及餘世間所能伏、所能穢、所能制。 復，『有六界』法我所自知、自覺為汝說，非為沙門、梵志，若天、魔、梵及餘世間所能伏、所能穢、所能制。 13. “No ascetic, priest, god like Māra or Brahmā, or any other worldly person can defeat, defile, or overcome this Dharma that I’ve known and realized myself and teach for you.5 How is it that no ascetic, priest, god like Māra or Brahmā, or any other worldly person can defeat, defile, or overcome this Dharma that I’ve known and realized myself and teach for you? ‘There are six senses’ is a principle that I’ve known and realized myself and teach for you, which no ascetic, priest, god like Māra or Brahmā, or any other worldly person can defeat, defile, or overcome. Again, ‘there are six elements’6 is a principle that I’ve known and realized myself and teach for you, which no ascetic, priest, god like Māra or Brahmā, or any other worldly person can defeat, defile, or overcome.
「云何六處法，我所自知、自覺為汝說？ 謂眼處，耳⋯鼻⋯舌⋯身⋯意處。 是謂六處法，我所自知、自覺為汝說也。 云何六界法，我所自知、自覺為汝說？ 謂地界，水⋯火⋯風⋯空⋯識界。 是謂六界法，我所自知、自覺為汝說也。 14. “What is the principle of the six senses7 that I’ve known and realized myself and teach for you? They are the sense of the eye … ear … nose … tongue … body … sense of the mind. This is the principle of the six senses that I’ve known and realized myself and teach for you. What is the principle of the six elements that I’ve known and realized myself and teach for you? They are the element of earth … water … fire … air … space, and element of awareness. This is the principle of six elements that I’ve known and realized myself and teach for you.
「以六界合故，便生母胎。 因六界便有六處。 因六處便有更樂。 因更樂便有覺。 比丘，若有覺者便知苦如真，知苦習⋯知苦滅⋯知苦滅道如真。 15. “One is born in a mother’s womb because these six elements come together. As a result of these six elements, the six senses exist.8 As a result of these six senses, there is contact. As a result of contact, there is feeling. Monks, if someone has feeling, then they will truly know suffering … the formation of suffering … the cessation of suffering, and truly know the path to suffering’s cessation.”9
「云何知苦如真？ 謂生苦、老苦、病苦、死苦、怨憎會苦、愛別離苦、所求不得苦。 略五盛陰苦。 是謂知苦如真。 16. “How do they truly know suffering? It’s the suffering of birth, suffering of old age, suffering of illness, suffering of death, suffering of associating with what’s disliked, suffering of being separated from what’s loved, and suffering of not getting what’s sought. In brief, it’s the suffering of the five proliferating aggregates. This is truly knowing suffering.
「云何知苦習如真？ 謂『此愛受當來有，樂欲共俱，求彼彼有。』 是謂知苦習如真。 17. “How do they truly know the formation of suffering? ‘This craving will get a future existence, bring me together with delight and desires, and seek this or that existence.’ This is truly knowing the formation of suffering.10
「云何知苦滅如真？ 謂『此愛受當來有，樂欲共俱，求彼彼有』： 斷無餘、捨、吐、盡、無欲。 滅、止、沒。 是謂知苦滅如真。 18. “How do they truly know the cessation of suffering? ‘This craving will get a future existence, bring me together with delight and desires, and seek this or that existence’: They eliminate this [craving] without remainder and abandon, reject, exhaust, and have no desire for it. It ceases, stops, and disappears. This is truly knowing the cessation of suffering.11
「云何知苦滅道如真？ 謂八支聖道：正見⋯乃至⋯正定，是為八。 是謂知苦滅道如真。 19. “How is the path to suffering’s cessation truly known? It’s the eightfold noble path: Right view … up to … right samādhi are the eight. This is truly knowing the path to suffering’s cessation.
「比丘，當知苦如真，當斷苦習，當苦滅作證，當修苦滅道。 若比丘知苦如真，斷苦習，苦滅作證，修苦滅道者，是謂比丘一切漏盡。 諸結已解，能以正智，而得苦際。」 20. “Monks, you should truly know suffering, should eliminate the formation of suffering, should realize the cessation of suffering, and should cultivate the path to suffering’s cessation. If a monk truly knows suffering, eliminates the formation of suffering, realizes the cessation of suffering, and cultivates the path to suffering’s cessation, this is a monk who has ended all the contaminants. Once he is freed from the bonds, he can reach the end of suffering with right knowledge.”
佛說如是。 彼諸比丘聞佛所說歡喜，奉行。 21. This is what the Buddha said. Those monks who heard what the Buddha taught rejoiced and approved.

Notes

  1. For the source text, cf. T26.1.435a24-6a11. It’s parallel with AN 3.61.
    The title of this sūtra was translated as 度 (“go beyond, liberate, freedom”), but 度 is often read as a simpler form of 渡 (“to ford a river”). This is confirmed when we observe that the Theravāda parallel is titled P. titthāyatana. Here, tittha is reasonably read in this context as meaning the tenets or doctrines of a religious sect, but the literal meaning is a “fording place” on a river. This is because Indian liberation religions used the metaphor of crossing a river or flood for the attainment of their ultimate goal. Thus, the truths or tenets that they claimed would achieve that goal were idiomatically called “fording places.” Given all of this, we can safely assume that 度 translates a cognate of P. tittha (cf. G. tiṭ́ha > S. tīrtha). I’ve maintained the literal reading to represent the C. translator’s intent.
    In general, this sūtra is a close parallel to AN 3.61. There are, however, some significant differences in wording, and the AN version has an added section on eighteen mental preoccupations. Otherwise, the two texts are the same in their basic outline and content. [back]
  2. everything a person does. C. 人所為一切, P. yaṁ kiñcāyaṁ purisapuggalo paṭisaṁvedeti sukhaṁ vā dukkhaṁ vā adukkhamasukhaṁ vā sabbaṁ. There is a divergence here with AN 3.61. The C. translation speaks of “everything done by a person” (人所為一切) while the P. speaks of “everything that a person experiences …” (purisapuggalo paṭisaṁvedeti … sabbaṁ). The passage reads the same aside from this alternation between 所為 and paṭisaṁvedeti sukhaṁ vā dukkhaṁ vā adukkhamasukhaṁ. The C. version seems to fit the larger context better given that the Buddha tells the holders of these views that they must break the cardinal precepts (presumably because they don’t take responsibility for their actions). Still, the Theravāda version makes sense in a more indirect way: A person might not take holding precepts seriously if they don’t think they are the cause of what they will experience. Essentially, the argument is one of free will vs. determinism or random fate. [back]
  3. created by the Lord God. C. 尊祐造, P. issara nimmāna, S. īśvara nirmāṇa. 尊祐 lit. means “honored” or “excellent blessing.” This term also occurs in MĀ 18, 19, 28, 104, and 174. In MĀ 19, we find the term used in the similar context of discussing Jain beliefs. The other passages all involve a recitation of three heavenly figures, the sun, moon, and 尊祐, making it clear that it was the name or title of a god.
    Outside of MĀ, this particular term only occurs in two other C. texts: An older translation of a prajñāpāramitā sūtra (cf. T221.8.68a17) and twice in a samādhi sūtra (cf. T636.15.514a10 & 516c2). All three of these cases appear to translate S. bhagavān in reference to the Buddha. In MĀ, however, S. bhagavān was translated as 眾祐 (“many blessings”) when it occurs in the context of the ten epithets.
    The difficulty is that S. īśvara itself was often a superlative title for gods with similar interpretations as bhagavān, so C. translations of the two terms were somewhat interchangeable. A clearer C. trans. of īśvara was 尊豪, which lit. means “honored and great,” or perhaps “supreme lord.” While 尊祐 bears some resemblance to translations of S. bhagavān (世尊 and 衆祐), it’s reasonable enough to assume the original passage here read the same as AN 3.61 and MN 101 (issara nimmāna). It’s possible that it was bhagavān rendered differently to disambiguate it as a title of a god instead of the Buddha. I’ve translated the passage assuming that 尊祐 translated S. īśvara, but the translator’s intention isn’t entirely clear to me. [back]
  4. Venerables, if someone truly has the view that the cause of all this is created by previous lives, that would be an internal cause for them to do what shouldn’t be done. None of them would have any desire or make any effort.. C. 諸賢，若一切皆因宿命造，見如真者，於內因內，作以不作，都無欲、無方便, P. pubbekataṁ kho pana, bhikkhave, sārato paccāgacchataṁ na hoti chando vā vāyāmo vā idaṁ vā karaṇīyaṁ idaṁ vā akaraṇīyanti.
    作以不作 would appear to correspond with idaṁ vā karaṇīyaṁ idaṁ vā akaraṇīyanti, and 都無欲、無方便 corresponds with to na hoti chando vā vāyāmo, but 於內因內 doesn’t have a parallel in AN 3.61 that I can see. Its intended meaning is unclear.
    A theory was proposed by the BDK translators that 因內 is a literary abbrev. of 因明 and 内明. This might be plausible if we were reading native exegetical prose, but not so much in this context. It’s not uncommon for the translator of MĀ to render passages in overly literal ways that were nearly impenetrable in Chinese. In these situations, we have to guard against the impulse to assume a convenient meaning and then fashion a rationalization for it. Instead, we need to pay attention to what the original translator was likely to be rendering.
    內 most likely translated the equiv. of P. ajjhatta and 因 would be P. hetu or a word synomynous with it. When Buddhists speak of “internal” and “external” they usu. mean “self” vs. “other” or “oneself” vs. “the outside environment.” Using the term “internal” might serve to point out the irony that a view about external causes for bad behavior (i.e., past karma or a creator god) is actually an internal cause for that behavior. The Buddha’s point may be that these views would cause one to not take responsibility for their actions in the present. The same argument is repeated for the next two beliefs that effectively shift responsibility from the person doing these deeds. Thus, my best guess is that 於內因內 meant something like “an internal cause for oneself …” But here the Buddha is speaking theoretically of other people, so I translate the second 內 as “them.” [back]
  5. no ascetic, priest, god like Māra or Brahmā, or any other worldly person can defeat, defile, or overcome this Dharma that I’ve known and realized myself and teach for you.. C. 我所自知、自覺法，為汝說者，若沙門、梵志，若天、魔、梵及餘世間皆無能伏，皆無能穢，皆無能制, P. ayaṁ kho pana, bhikkhave, mayā dhammo desito aniggahito asaṅkiliṭṭho anupavajjo appaṭikuṭṭho samaṇehi brāhmaṇehi viññūhi.
    While these two statements in C. and P. are essentially the same, there are notable differences in wording. AN 3.61 only mentions ascetics and priests, while this version expands that part of the statement to be all inclusive of gods and any other person.
    Also, the first two verbs in this version correspond well enough to those in AN 3.61: 無能伏 (“none can defeat”) ≈ aniggahito (“irrefutable”) and 無能穢 (“none can defile”) ≈ asaṅkiliṭṭho (“undefiled, uncorrupted”). However, 無能制 (“none can overcome”) doesn’t match either anupavajjo (“blameless, beyond reproach”) or appaṭikuṭṭho (“not scorned, not disapproved”).
    It would seem that both versions have added content in different but harmless ways. [back]
  6. six senses … six elements.. AN 3.61 adds eighteen mental preoccupations (aṭṭhārasa manopavicārā) and the four noble truths (cattāri ariyasaccāni) to this list of subjects to be defined. The four noble truths are brought up later in this version, but they aren’t announced as a subject to be covered in this passage. The eighteen preoccupations are the happiness, sadness, and indifference (somanassa, domanassa, and upekkhā) that result from each of the six types of sense experience (i.e., three feelings x six senses = eighteen preoccupations). [back]
  7. principle of the six senses.. C. 六處法, P. phassāyatanāni. This version diverges a bit from AN 3.61. While the underlying word that 處 trans. is no doubt a cognate of P. āyatanāni, AN 3.61 went in a different direction, qualifying the āyatanāni as “places of contact,” which are the same six senses. [back]
  8. as a result of these six elements, the six senses exist.. C. 因六界便有六處, P. okkantiyā sati nāmarūpaṁ, nāmarūpapaccayā saḷāyatanaṁ. AN 3.61 inserts name and form (nāmarūpa) as the antecedent of the six senses, whereas this version does not. We should note that the six elements could be considered equivalent to name and form since they include the four material elements and awareness. Sarvāstivādins defined name as the four formless aggregates and considered awareness to imply the other three formless aggregates (i.e., feeling, conception, and volition) as being present as well. This might explain why name and form is missing in this passage. [back]
  9. if someone has feeling, then they will truly know suffering …. C. 若有覺者便知苦如真⋯, P. vediyamānassa kho panāhaṁ, bhikkhave, idaṁ dukkhanti paññapemi …. This version reads awkwardly, as it seems to imply that anyone who is subject to feeling will come to know the four noble truths. AN 3.61 reads differently: The Buddha teaches the four noble truths for such people. The difference is in the verbs that take the noble truths as their object. The C. passage has “to truly know” (≈ S. yathābhūtaṃ prajānāti) where AN 3.61 has “to teach, declare” (P. paññapemi). Both share the same root (S. prajñā, P. pañña), so it’s conceivable that a phonetic change or conflation is responsible for the different readings.
    AN 3.61 certainly seems to make better sense here. Taken literally, this version in MĀ is reminescent of the later Buddhist idea that suffering inevitably leads to awakening as beings cycling through saṃsāra endlessly are certain to (eventually) encounter the Dharma, practice it, and escape rebirth. [back]
  10. AN 3.61 instead defines the origin of suffering as the twelve-step chain of dependent origination that begins with ignorance. [back]
  11. AN 3.61 also defines the cessation of suffering as the twelve-step chain of dependent cessation that begins with the cessation of ignorance. [back]

Translator: Charles Patton

Last Revised: 20 August 2024

Previous

Next