The Power of Translation

BhikkhuJayasara

The deeper I get into my practice and also into reading the Pali suttas, the more I come into contact with the issue of translation. Much of the ancient texts were first translated 100+ years ago by Christian missionaries and the like, which is why you see western words like "good", "evil", "lord" buddha, etc. Many of these translations and definitions are still propagated today, but thankfully we have people like Bhikkhu Bodi and lay scholars like John Peacock who challenge the translations and actually call for the use of the original words for terms like Dukkha, which really can't be translated into one word like "suffering".

I'm happy that I've been able to listen to a variety of dhamma teachers and scholars and gather a variety of translations for the various terms, this allows us to get better grasp of the original meaning/intention of the word and better understand what the Buddha was trying to say.

Some of the translations I've found that have changed the way I view things is Metta being called loving or boundless friendliness, I always felt this made more sense then "loving-kindness".

I also like John Peacock's translation of the "4 noble truths" to the " ennobling truths".

Ajahn Brahm things that "concentration" is a bad translation of samadhi, and prefers "stillness"

There are probably many examples..

What are some common translations for Pali/Sanskrit words you avoid or go out of your way to use? How important is the specific translation to you?

Sabre

@Jayantha

A good topic. I love reading suttas, but think it is important to know the limitations of translations. Perhaps more words are better off untranslated so they are free from prior ideas, such as "nirvana" or "jhana".

One thing to note is, if you translate something differently, you gain a certain perspective, but you often also lose a certain perspective. If concentrating samadhi as "stillness" (which I do think is better) you lose the fact that it is actually single pointed, which is sort of inherent in concentration. So how to translate things is often a matter of what you want to emphasize. Therefore translations are always a choice of a translator and often are neither right nor wrong. What can be wrong, though, is our interpretations of them.

Also, there is the thing of context. The meaning of quite a lot of words depend on the context they are used in. For example a "light load" and a "light shines". Of course such words exist in the Pali and Sanskrit languages also. And because the Buddha had to make up words for things not yet spoken about, and for things hard to speak about, that happens a lot. Some translators attempt to find one English word for each single Pali word, but it doesn't always work that well.

A very interesting thing is the Buddha often used words that people can understand, but using them to also point towards deeper things. Using a concrete word to point to something more abstract is something quite common. You may enjoy reading this blog post by Ven. Sujato (a good scholar) who gives a good example of this:

In English, we have two different words for ‘earth’ (as in the ground, not the planet) and for ‘solidity’. This is such a natural part of our language that we don’t think that it’s anything special. In Pali, by contrast, the same word, pathavi, is used for both ‘earth’ and ‘solidity’.
http://sujato.wordpress.com/2012/12/06/why-vitakka-doesnt-mean-thinking-in-jhana/

Also, certain translations that are perhaps incorrect don't have to be a problem as long as you know that they represent a word that may mean something different in the original language.

All of that having said, to know some alternate translations makes reading the suttas more insightful and inspiring. So to answer your question:

- As said before, one translation I particularly don't like is "concentration".
- "Right intention" I think is better as "right thought" which many use.
- "Becoming" as "existence" as I think Ven. Bodhi does.
- "Feeling" came up in a thread today. I don't know a better translation, but it is not good.
- "Body" in certain contexts as "collection" or "group". Just like "body of water". This is in dictionaries but often ignored.
- "Sensuality", "Sensual desires" in certain contexts as "sensual objects". So the five senses, not the desires for them.
- "Thought and evaluation" in context of samadhi, as also explained by Sujato.
- "Frame of reference" or "focus of mindfulness" when speaking about satipatthana. I'd say "foundation of mindfulness", as in: it builds mindfulness.

- "Suffering" I think is actually about the best translation for dukkha, because translations such as "unsatisfactory" and "stressful" don't really portray the full meaning.


There are probably more, but this is what popped up now. That probably means that these are the main ones for me.

On a sidenote, check http://www.suttacentral.net. They started uploading Bhikkhu Bodhi's translations, which I personally think are some of the best out there.

With metta,
Sabre

footiam

Jayantha said:

The deeper I get into my practice and also into reading the Pali suttas, the more I come into contact with the issue of translation. Much of the ancient texts were first translated 100+ years ago by Christian missionaries and the like, which is why you see western words like "good", "evil", "lord" buddha, etc. Many of these translations and definitions are still propagated today, but thankfully we have people like Bhikkhu Bodi and lay scholars like John Peacock who challenge the translations and actually call for the use of the original words for terms like Dukkha, which really can't be translated into one word like "suffering".

I'm happy that I've been able to listen to a variety of dhamma teachers and scholars and gather a variety of translations for the various terms, this allows us to get better grasp of the original meaning/intention of the word and better understand what the Buddha was trying to say.

Some of the translations I've found that have changed the way I view things is Metta being called loving or boundless friendliness, I always felt this made more sense then "loving-kindness".

I also like John Peacock's translation of the "4 noble truths" to the " ennobling truths".

Ajahn Brahm things that "concentration" is a bad translation of samadhi, and prefers "stillness"

There are probably many examples..

What are some common translations for Pali/Sanskrit words you avoid or go out of your way to use? How important is the specific translation to you?

That reminds me of English novels with Asian or non-Western themes. Sometimes, these novels have their non-Western characters with names like Clay Basket, Gold Leaf etc which are actually literal translations and which actually sound ridiculous. I don't know if a name like Bob Hope, gets you to think of something bopping up and down with hope.

lobster

I rarely read sutra directly for the reason of context and lack of modern updating. Much is being done.
I find the Mahayana sutra, which some consider bogus, are more applicable but equally dated and developed for a different mind set.

Important words are being affirmed in a different way. For example metta is becoming a more intense love, instead of a 'knowing smile at ignorance and suffering' in its rather stilted former form.
Begging is not considered 'right livelihood' but the last resort of the voluntary or involuntary enfeebled.

Dharma comes West. No ducking the dukkha. You lucky people.
:clap:

Hamsaka

I am SO grateful to anyone who has the sensitivity to translate. I often need the English translation re-translated for me. I never could make heads or tails of Shakespeare or Jane Austen, and sometimes reading the canon(s) has been unpleasant and baffling. Great, huge amounts of gratitude and thanks to those here who 'put it in their own words', and have the kind of brains that can parse and weigh the context.

Stephen Batchelor and John Peacock made all the difference for me, I could HEAR it due to their translations. They are on the secular end of the continuum, but the heart of Buddhism came out crystal clear, to me.

Share everything you two come up with, there may be hope yet

Gassho
LG

lobster

I recall being puzzled why the term "smriti", which means the act of remembering, was translated as "mindfulness", which doesn't mean much of anything, except as the opposite of mindlessness. So I asked a bhikkhu. His reply was that in a Buddhist context "smriti" means remembering dependent origination and the precepts. He said that the purpose of contemplative exercise is to work up to living a life in which one never forgets, even for a moment, to be generous and kind and responsive to the afflictions of sentient beings.

What the Bhikkhu (Bhante Punnaji) said made so much sense to me that I have come to see smriti as something that simply cannot be taken out of the Buddhist context. Insofar as Mindfulness is a made a kind of generic exercise in concentration―often for essentially self-centered purposes such as being more healthy, a shrewder investor, and a better lover―it ain't smriti.

Buddhist smriti seems akin to what Catholics call discernment and what Quakers call being tender. There are, of course, such things as secular discernment and tenderness, but they are a far cry from what those terms mean as technical terms in their respective religious contexts.

Prof. Richard Hayes

:clap:
Wait a minute so mindfulness is not just 'being in the present', it is more akin to Sufi 'Remembrance'. So this explains why an 'empty mind' is fit only for zombies. We are emptying the 'mind crap' and filling with good dharma shit?

Context.

. . . mind you I have never heard of 'smriti' . . . must be reading the wrong dictionaries . . .
. . . maybe I could be smitten with smriti . . .

Another word is 'Mind' it is better to include Heart, Body and experience, hence Mined-Field (cructacean translation) or 'Being'.

I also believe the female version of Bhikkhu should be translated as 'Bhikkini', partly to annoy the old guard feminists and provide a deep post-feminist tantric message and also as an illegal recruitment dharma drive . . .

This thread is now returned to serious discussion

DairyLama

Jayantha said:

I'm happy that I've been able to listen to a variety of dhamma teachers and scholars and gather a variety of translations for the various terms, this allows us to get better grasp of the original meaning/intention of the word and better understand what the Buddha was trying to say.

I think that's a good approach. I'd advise against settling on single-word translations for Pali terms, it doesn't usually work too well. Also beware of over-interpretation in the guise of "accessibility", and the tendency of some authors to "dumb down" profound truths into a sort of pop psychology.

DairyLama

Sabre said:

On a sidenote, check http://www.suttacentral.net. They started uploading Bhikkhu Bodhi's translations, which I personally think are some of the best out there.

I'd also recommend Bhikkhu Bodhi's translations and commentaries. I feel he has a very good understanding of the meaning intended in the original Pali, and he doesn't over-interpret in the way that some translators do.

Sabre

SpinyNorman said:

Jayantha said:

I'm happy that I've been able to listen to a variety of dhamma teachers and scholars and gather a variety of translations for the various terms, this allows us to get better grasp of the original meaning/intention of the word and better understand what the Buddha was trying to say.

@SpinyNorman

I think that's a good approach. I'd advise against settling on single-word translations for Pali terms, it doesn't usually work too well. Also beware of over-interpretation in the guise of "accessibility", and the tendency of some authors to "dumb down" profound truths into a sort of pop psychology.

I think this is a wise comment, and the one about Bhikkhu Bodhi also. Often we see different translations being suggested based on a certain interpretation. More often than not that translation is one that seems to make more sense, because it is more accessible. But the Buddha often said his teachings are hard to see. They aren't easily accessible. Therefore, we must be aware that when a certain translation seems to make more sense to us, they aren't necessarily reflecting the Buddha's intention any better.

Examples of this are commonly found in dependent origination, or the four noble truths, interpretations of samadhi and such. In other words, in things at an advanced stage of the path. These are not easily understood and making them easy to interpret, turning it into something everybody can relate to, I don't support at all.

If you'll look at my suggested translations in my first post, they are mainly about this. For example "right intention" people can quite easily relate to. It seems to be saying it is just about having the right attitude towards developing one's mind. But the path is also about totally transforming one's mind and one's thought patterns and therefore "right thought" is -I think- a much better translation.

DairyLama

Sabre said:

These are not easily understood and making them easy to interpret, turning it into something everybody can relate to, I don't support at all.

Me neither, but there's a lot of it going on, and it can lead to some serious misunderstandings.

genkaku

I like "Buddha" as meaning "awake" -- just awake, without the bells a whistles.

EvenThird

JANG SEM(tibetan, shortened) aka bodhichitta
Conventionally translated as Buddha-mind
but the longer tibetan means something closer to 'getting the wish(mind) to become a buddha for other people' rather than referring to our 'buddha-nature'

I thought that was interesting, and it makes me think about a lot of things I've read that regard that term very differently.

DairyLama

genkaku said:

I like "Buddha" as meaning "awake" -- just awake, without the bells a whistles.

But you could get that just by drinking lots of coffee.

BhikkhuJayasara

heh not necessarily.

John Peacock also makes a good point about the term "enlightenment" and its western roots and states how he prefers the term "awake" or "to awaken", which makes sense considering the translation of Buddha.