Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
I have no problem understanding it. It's pretty clear cut to me. I'm not talking about a single translation. I'm talking how teachings translated into dozens of languages being translated early on by verbal language alone turns into a game of telephone. Sometimes we have to read between the lines. An attachment to or passion for enlightenment is no better than anything else. A desire for ANY outcome is a problem.
0
JeroenLuminous beings are we, not this crude matterNetherlandsVeteran
edited December 2016
Sure, but most of this game of telephone is not in English. Ultimately there was a fairly recent translator who translated the text into English, and one would hope he understood both the text he was translating and the English language. So one should be able to rely on some linguistic accuracy, and not have to read too much between the lines, although of course you need to take into account the provenance of the text.
I did ask a Tibetan Buddhist monk of my acquaintance for an explanation about the desire for enlightenment and the desire for the dharma, and he said this is a question of choosing the right time. Ultimately the desire has to be dropped, but for a long time during the process of learning the dharma the desire towards learning is an important factor to be retained, as is the desire towards awakening bodhicitta.
One of the teachers I have been on retreats with said that translation is a HUGE problem. That even within one topic, there are dozens of translations and one might be drastically plain wrong. He is quite not a fan of how prolific the books are from anyone and everyone regarding Buddhist Sutras. Even well meaning and highly regarded teachers. He is a professional translator and has worked his entire life doing so.
There is a difference, I think, in the desire for a process and the desire for an endpoint, or result. Desire for a process means allowing that process to take place, being open to moving this way and that way as you go along. Not just aimed at the result and forging straight ahead with only the end goal in mind only to become disenchanted as it seems to get further away. The journey versus the destination.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
I've also found that every teaching is an elaboration on the 4NTs and 8FP.
I would also agree that interpretation and translation are issues that can be resolved through investigating what makes the most sense in light of the 4NTs and 8FP.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
@Kerome: sutta reference to 'ignorance' as requested.
Foolish, or fool in these instances, refer to those whose ignorance is not based on a mere lack of knowledge, but a reluctance to accept knowledge or a refusal to absorb the lesson. Read all entries for illustrative purposes....
@David said:
Ethical guidelines seems like it should be common sense. I mean that literally as in empathy.
If one lacks morality, they need to learn empathy, not religious dogma.
Seems right!
I would suggest that ignoring an emphasis on humanism, God says do it, karma escapism requires, the law insists, the Buddha may have been heard saying, a holy/ethical/moral person recommends etc is ignorable ... Until we empathise and adopt common sense discernment.
Then we find ethics is personally really quite obvious. Being kind, well intentioned, generous, forgiving, helpful etc.
1
JeroenLuminous beings are we, not this crude matterNetherlandsVeteran
@federica said: @Kerome: sutta reference to 'ignorance' as requested.
Foolish, or fool in these instances, refer to those whose ignorance is not based on a mere lack of knowledge, but a reluctance to accept knowledge or a refusal to absorb the lesson. Read all entries for illustrative purposes....
I read it, and quite a bit of the rest of those Sutta's, but the text you quoted doesn't seem to appear on the page you linked or the surrounding pages. Neither did a google search reveal anything. But never mind.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
I think we're back to the pedantic use of certain words and terms (and I don't suggest 'pedantic' in a pejorative sense. I'm pretty pedantic when it comes to spelling and grammar! ) ...
I didn't actually quote any specific text, either. Had I done so, I would have provided reference at the time. (I'm a bit hot on that myself!) You asked me if I had a sutta to illustrate that. I provided that, as illustration, as requested.
0
JeroenLuminous beings are we, not this crude matterNetherlandsVeteran
@karasti said:
One of the teachers I have been on retreats with said that translation is a HUGE problem. That even within one topic, there are dozens of translations and one might be drastically plain wrong. He is quite not a fan of how prolific the books are from anyone and everyone regarding Buddhist Sutras. Even well meaning and highly regarded teachers. He is a professional translator and has worked his entire life doing so.
It's interesting. I think it's symptomatic of the Buddhist world, which is fractured into many movements without a single authority, that there wouldn't be a single authoritative translation. But it's sad to hear that other than slightly differing viewpoints, some translators understanding is so poor that they produce incorrect texts.
If you look at for example the Tao Te Ching, that is one of the most frequently translated books on the planet and you can within a few minutes googling find a few different versions to put next to eachother and compare. Some translations are spare, others are more wordy, and the emphasis shifts as well. My point is, different people will connect better with different translations based on personal preference and how used they are to reading between the lines.
For me personally, I like the text read to be explicit rather than sparse, using the minimum number of words necessary to convey a clear and unambiguous meaning.
Comments
I have no problem understanding it. It's pretty clear cut to me. I'm not talking about a single translation. I'm talking how teachings translated into dozens of languages being translated early on by verbal language alone turns into a game of telephone. Sometimes we have to read between the lines. An attachment to or passion for enlightenment is no better than anything else. A desire for ANY outcome is a problem.
Sure, but most of this game of telephone is not in English. Ultimately there was a fairly recent translator who translated the text into English, and one would hope he understood both the text he was translating and the English language. So one should be able to rely on some linguistic accuracy, and not have to read too much between the lines, although of course you need to take into account the provenance of the text.
I did ask a Tibetan Buddhist monk of my acquaintance for an explanation about the desire for enlightenment and the desire for the dharma, and he said this is a question of choosing the right time. Ultimately the desire has to be dropped, but for a long time during the process of learning the dharma the desire towards learning is an important factor to be retained, as is the desire towards awakening bodhicitta.
One of the teachers I have been on retreats with said that translation is a HUGE problem. That even within one topic, there are dozens of translations and one might be drastically plain wrong. He is quite not a fan of how prolific the books are from anyone and everyone regarding Buddhist Sutras. Even well meaning and highly regarded teachers. He is a professional translator and has worked his entire life doing so.
There is a difference, I think, in the desire for a process and the desire for an endpoint, or result. Desire for a process means allowing that process to take place, being open to moving this way and that way as you go along. Not just aimed at the result and forging straight ahead with only the end goal in mind only to become disenchanted as it seems to get further away. The journey versus the destination.
I've also found that every teaching is an elaboration on the 4NTs and 8FP.
I would also agree that interpretation and translation are issues that can be resolved through investigating what makes the most sense in light of the 4NTs and 8FP.
@Kerome: sutta reference to 'ignorance' as requested.
Foolish, or fool in these instances, refer to those whose ignorance is not based on a mere lack of knowledge, but a reluctance to accept knowledge or a refusal to absorb the lesson. Read all entries for illustrative purposes....
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/dhp/dhp.05.budd.html
Seems right!
I would suggest that ignoring an emphasis on humanism, God says do it, karma escapism requires, the law insists, the Buddha may have been heard saying, a holy/ethical/moral person recommends etc is ignorable ... Until we empathise and adopt common sense discernment.
Then we find ethics is personally really quite obvious. Being kind, well intentioned, generous, forgiving, helpful etc.
I read it, and quite a bit of the rest of those Sutta's, but the text you quoted doesn't seem to appear on the page you linked or the surrounding pages. Neither did a google search reveal anything. But never mind.
I think we're back to the pedantic use of certain words and terms (and I don't suggest 'pedantic' in a pejorative sense. I'm pretty pedantic when it comes to spelling and grammar!
) ...
I didn't actually quote any specific text, either. Had I done so, I would have provided reference at the time. (I'm a bit hot on that myself!) You asked me if I had a sutta to illustrate that. I provided that, as illustration, as requested.
It's interesting. I think it's symptomatic of the Buddhist world, which is fractured into many movements without a single authority, that there wouldn't be a single authoritative translation. But it's sad to hear that other than slightly differing viewpoints, some translators understanding is so poor that they produce incorrect texts.
If you look at for example the Tao Te Ching, that is one of the most frequently translated books on the planet and you can within a few minutes googling find a few different versions to put next to eachother and compare. Some translations are spare, others are more wordy, and the emphasis shifts as well. My point is, different people will connect better with different translations based on personal preference and how used they are to reading between the lines.
For me personally, I like the text read to be explicit rather than sparse, using the minimum number of words necessary to convey a clear and unambiguous meaning.