Negation, Ambiguity, and Word Play
The Prajñāpāramitā literature is famous for its negations, especially those made by the privative a- or an-. Generally, when this ambiguous negation is prefixed to any word, it can be understood in either of two ways: (a) non-x, not x, or no x, or (b) x-less, lacking x, or not having x. When the scriptures were translated into Chinese, these negations were systematically translated the first way, but when they were translated into Tibetan, they were translated the second way.
The difference between these two interpretations is philosophically significant—generally, with the Yogācāra preferring the former and the Madhyamaka preferring the latter. So how they are translated into English is quite important. The approach taken in this translation is to use the English negation “free of” wherever possible, because, despite leaning toward the x-less interpretation, it can be interpreted in either way.
To see how this works both ways, take this scripture’s prime example: “That mindset of awakening is free of a mindset.” Here Haribhadra, as a Mādhyamika scholar, interprets “free of a mindset” to be an absolute, nonimplicative negation (prasajyapratiṣedha; med dgag), meaning that such a mindset appears but does not ultimately exist.60 Ratnākaraśānti, however, as a Yogācāra scholar, interprets “free of a mindset” to be an excluding, implicative negation (paryudāsa; ma yin dgag), meaning that such a mindset is a “mindset” only insofar as it is aware, but it is also “free of any mindset” insofar as it is entirely free of grasping. Thus readers, whether or not they prefer either one of these two interpretations, should keep in mind that this translation aims to allow both commentators the room to interpret the scripture, each with their own intended effect. The scripture’s ambiguity in Sanskrit could be said to have led to the development of two different Mahāyāna schools that are still practiced in some form today.
In Sanskrit philosophy, there are a variety of verbs for saying that something “does not exist.” But this scripture, despite its occasional philosophical undertones, does not read like philosophy. This translation therefore tends to interpret such verbs less existentially. For example, Subhūti’s first personal statements, “I do not find (avindan, na vedmi; ma ’tshal) any thing,” and so on, suggest that he is not so much making a general philosophical assertion as illuminating for others what it is like to go about life in the transcendent state of wisdom. He uses the first person “I do not find” to express his experience at that moment. In response to Śāriputra, Subhūti then states that the thing is “not found” (na vidyate)—which can be philosophically interpreted to mean “the thing does not exist.” But in this case, to switch in the translation of the same verbal root √vid from “I do not find it” to “it does not exist” would distort the practical context, undermine the reader’s ability to see the logical flow, and suggest that Subhūti himself had jumped from a seemingly subjective experience to a seemingly objective conclusion about reality. Certainly, in the passage, his interlocutor Śāriputra represents the hardheaded philosopher trying to tease out the philosophical upshot of Subhūti’s statements. But this comes through still with the translation “not found” and allows for the practice-oriented interpretations of this passage by both commentators. Thus, although the Tibetan often translates phrases like na vidyate as “does not exist” (med), this translation seeks to preserve the nonphilosophical tone of these passages wherever possible, unless it would make a sentence unclear. Of course, readers are welcome to interpret these English translations as having philosophical implications, as the commentators themselves often do.
The tendency to prefer the logical and scientific over the magical and religious, and to seek clear, concise statements that can be easily understood and applied, is part of the modernist bias. But the Indian traditions out of which the Eight Thousand emerged seem to have preferred scriptures that were more mystical, poetic, and open to interpretation. It was up to the commentaries to provide a systematic analysis and to clarify ambiguities. The primary aim in the translation of this scripture has been to allow the Eight Thousand’s own interpretable but playful use of language to intrigue and inspire.