[Buddha-l] Pudgalavada #3b

[Stephen Hodge]

Dear Dan et al,

Here is my rendering of the next part of the text.  I hope some of my 
suggestions will be useful.

Best wishes,
Stephen Hodge

* * * * *
(Longer version, pt. 2)

DL: [To speak of] "past, future and present" is to practice the heuristics 
for metaphorical device. This is the heuristics for metaphorical device by 
naming. [i.e., past, present and future are only nominally real.] This is 
the association of the three times (past, present and future).   Such as: 
"In the past, I was King Ku'sa".  "In the future I will have the name 
Ajita." "At present I work at mastering an understanding (by means of 
mantric arts) of what's important [roles I] have not yet assumed or have 
already assumed, [such as] merchant (in the three times)."
SH: *Upaaya-prajñapti names past, future and present sa.mskaaras.   Naming 
by this *upaaya-prajñapti concerns the connection / continuity of the three 
times,  as [when the Buddha said], "In the past, I was King Kuoa", "In the 
future, [you] shall be named Ajita", "In the present, [he] is a successful 
erchant (vai'sya)" and so forth.  The various sa.mskaaras have already been 
appropriated [in the past] or have not yet been appropriated [in the 
future], but are designated for the sake of convention.
NOTES:  This section is textually a mess !  * I suggest deleting the twice 
duplicated "fangbian jiaoshou".  * The text for the third quote is 
particularly garbled in my opinion.   I think Thien Chau has got it wrong 
and Dan's version is quite creative.  * First, "gongshi" is an attested form 
for "vai'sya" and a annotation about this was inserted, but displaced --  
thereby interupting the next sentence.  * Additionally, the "mantric arts" 
is a complete red-herring which should be deleted.  Somebody saw the "gong 
shi da" and separated off the "shi da" and assumed it was a transcription 
for "siddha".  That my reconstruction is roughly correct can be seen by 
looking at the same set of quotes given in T1649 (p466b 27).  * Finally, 
Dan's "what's important" here and elsewhere is a misunderstanding of "wei 
shou" -- this is merely an attested translation of "-aadi", literally 
"headed by / beginning with", but usually meaning "et cetera". * I have 
re-punctuated "sushu gu jiaoshou" since that comment logically goes with the 
statement concerning the sa.mskaaras.  Moreover, I suggest amending "shu" to 
"yi", to yield an equivalent to "vyavahaara" or "sa.mv.rti"

DL: Such conventional roles are numerous, hence they are heuristically 
adopted [by assuming their] annihilation and permanence. If Ku'sa has 
ceased, in what sense am I he? If he has not ceased, in what sense can one 
say he is I? It is by means of conventionalisms (vyavahara) that one says 
so; it is a heuristic metaphorical device.
SH:  Because of this annihilation and permanence, [one might ask], "If that 
Ku'sa has perished, then how am I he ?  If he has not perished, how can one 
say that he is me ?"   One speaks about [this] on the sa.mv.rti level of 
meaning.  This is *upaaya-praj~napti.