Dona Sutta - Translation of 'bhavissati'

Translation of 'bhavissati'

The Pali, Gandharan, and one of the Chinese versions (T II 467b8), report that the question of Dona was put in the future tense, in Pali this is the word bhavissati. In the other two Chinese versions the question of Dona is in the present tense, but it is acknowledged that all Chinese versions are a translation from earlier Indian verions of the Dona Sutta, which used the future tense. Thus the original Indian versions are believed to have all contained the question of Dona in the future tense, as in the Pali bhavissati.

Literally translated, bhavissati refers to the future and means "will be, will become", but, according to a well-known Pali idiomatic usage, it can also be interpreted as an expression of uncertainty, confusion or amazement relating to the present. Thus, in some translations the bhavissati is literally translated as the future tense, so that the question posed by Dona pertains to what Buddha will be/become, asking whether he will be/become a god, a gandharva, a yaksha or a human. The Buddha answers these questions literally, saying that he will not be/become (na bhavissāmi) any of these beings, implying that since he is a Buddha he will not be reborn after this life. The Chinese translation at T II 467b8 follows this reasoning, and literally reads "I will not obtain human".

The alternative translation is based on this possible idiomatic usage of the future tense in Pali, and understands the brahmin Dona to be asking the Buddha in confusion or amazement what he is -- a god (deva), a gandharva, a yaksha or human. The Buddha answers emphatically that he is not any of these (na bhavissāmi), but that he is a Buddha. This reasoning is used in the Chinese translations of T 2.717c and T 2.28a.

The idiomatic interpretation of bhavissati can also refer to some uncertainty which is present. Thus, a translation which would interpret the future tense as indicative of some uncertainty in the questioner, the question might be translated as "Whether the Buddha 'might' or 'would' be a god, a gandharva, a yaksha or a human". The answer would be put in the same way as the reply, giving the answer that "I might not be a god, gandharva, yaksha or human", or "I would not be a god, gandharva, yaksha or human", though this rendering is liable to other undesirable interpretations.

Thus there are three possible translations:

1. I will not be a god, gandharva, yaksha or human. (future tense)
2. I am not a god, gandharva, yaksha or human. (present tense, not allowing uncertainty)
3. I might (or would) not be a god, gandharva, yaksha or human. (subjunctive, allowing uncertainty)

As the early Indian versions (in Pali Canon and the Gandharan Buddhist Texts) are all formally in the future sense and only become formulated in present tense in one of the possible English translations, the first version is often used in Theravadin circles. While the Buddha in the second version states that he is a Buddha, and not a god or human, no philosophical conclusions are made explicit in this statement, while it suggests that a Buddha may belong to another category of being in nature, beyond the human and the divine, by virtue of his enlightenment and liberation. The third version may be put forward as an attempt to compromise between the first and second versions.