The art of translation—pros and cons.

Anavasesa

Nirvana was a term already used before Buddha in indian dharma´s system.
I think, hence we can trace back the more precise picture of what nibbana is.

And one important note: Nibbana is free not from existence, it si free from "Bhava" - becoming. Only deluted people regard bhava as existence.
The existence is sat.
Nibbana is state of citta. Existing citta(overconsciousness) in nibbana is free from bhava and abhava(vibhava).

5aggregate constitute not subjective experience. Experience is always subjective. But they consitute subjective experience of individuality.
But nibbna is uncoditioned, it is state above duality and opposites, so also subject is transcedented, therefore, finally nibbany is subjective as well objective experience of "existence".
Existence means what always IS.

Jason

Anavasesa,

I find it interesting that you state only deluded people regard bhava as existence; that existence is sat. In his translation of the Samyutta Nikaya, Bhikkhu Bodhi explains:

Bhava, in MLDB, was translated as "being." In seeking an alternative, I had first experimented with "becoming," but when the shortcomings in this choice were pointed out to me I decided to return to "existence," used in my earlier translations. Bhava, however, is not "existence" in the sense of the most universal ontological category, that which is shared by everything from the dishes in the kitchen sink to the numbers in mathmatical equation. Existence to the latter sense is covered by the verb atthi and the abstract noun atthita. Bhava is concrete sentient existence in one of the three realms posited by Buddhist cosmology, a span of life beginning with conception and ending in death. In the formula of dependent origination it is understood to mean both (i) the active side of life that produces rebirth into a particular mode of sentient existence, in other words rebirth-producing kamma; and (ii) the mode of sentient existence that results from such activity. (53)

I think that perhaps you have simply misunderstood the translator's usage of the word "existence," and I hope that this quote will help to clear up any misunderstandings.

Sincerely,

Jason

Anavasesa

Elohim wrote:

Anavasesa,

I find it interesting that you state only deluded people regard bhava as existence; that existence is sat. In his translation of the Samyutta Nikaya, Bhikkhu Bodhi explains:



I think that perhaps you have simply misunderstood the translator's usage of the word "existence," and I hope that this quote will help to clear up any misunderstandings.

Sincerely,

Jason

Hi Jason.

Does anybody will know the special usage of the term "existence" from some translator, when anybody happen to read his translation?

Could it not lead to false idea, that buddhism is nihilism?

I think, translator must take in account the general meaning of words, as well as the deeper, even metaphysical meanig, which the term "existence" bear.

I just think this type of translation is unskilful.

One more reason that buddhism - dharma teach us the to look at thing as their are, and accordance with to use the pertinant language.
So what we call being or existence is not existence at all. It is process. And what people thing is emptiness is full of existence.
When we think in proper way we think in concord with samma sankapa.

Jason

Anavasesa,

Does anybody will know the special usage of the term "existence" from some translator, when anybody happen to read his translation?

Yes, if they take the time to read what the translator has written before criticizing them they will. Most take the time to include notes with their translations.

Could it not lead to false idea, that buddhism is nihilism?

No, not if people actually take the time to study the suttas, the language that they are originally in, as well as the various notes included by the translator.

I think, translator must take in account the general meaning of words, as well as the deeper, even metaphysical meanig, which the term "existence" bear.

They do take into account all those things and more. That is why they are translators. Professional translators such as Bhikkhu Bodhi are quite meticulous.

I just think this type of translation is unskilful.

I'm sorry to hear that. My personal opinion is that Bhikkhu Bodhi is one of the foremost translators today, and that you'd be hard-pressed to find one better.

Sincerely,

Jason

Jason

Anavasesa,

I think that this sums it up well:

Problems of Translation. Never forget that languages are not completely isomorphic. Even the best translation is not completely true to the original, it cannot be. Even if you go to the effort of learning some Pali, you can't escape the problem entirely (although it helps.) It is however important not to become overly reliant on the bare English words which often translate Pali words inexactly. This is not sloppy translation; it is an insoluble problem because some words in Pali have no exact English equivalent. Pali has a very precise technical language for mental states and spiritual phenomena, something which English lacks. To give the most obvious example, dukkha is not the same as suffering. One of the best ways to get around this limitation, at least in part, is to acquire a working vocabulary of technical terms in Pali and refer back to them when in doubt. A very good resource here is the Buddhist Dictionary by Nyanatiloka. (source)

Translating is a lot of hard work.

Jason

Anavasesa

Elohim wrote:

Anavasesa,

I think that this sums it up well:



Translating is a lot of hard work.

Jason

Yes,
i dont want discuss this point. It is surely true.It is also responsible. I have tried already translate some work from english, and i also have started to check sutra against pali original.
Despite some natural problem with some terms, i found very serious mistakes which does not respect the sense of text, wording etc, now i think of translation of Nyanatiloka into our language as well as one another translator.

Jason, i tried to show to someting which seems to me a little problem in your text.
For it is just happen, people fall into thinking buddhism si nihilism or nibbana is nothingess, with no ontological status.
For the term "existence" is primerly ontological category.

I dont think, that the argument: "i think b. Nanamoli is meticulous, then he must be right".

I think there are surely better translator.
For me the translator must be practitioner and have to understand the spirit of the Buddha teaching.. scholar meticulosity is not enough.


btw- there are also general issue which need some challenge - the terms like sati, vinnana, citta, jhana etc, some became stabilise in their approximate counterpart in english.
The "sati" could be as well be "alertness" or "consciousness". six-senses vinnána rather answer to the term "perception" for there is perception of object in play not consciousness in their ontological-subjective quality. This is what is causing to many people problems in thinking about them self and consciouness.

The citta should be "consciousness" because it is what is liberated in ultimate sense.
The mind should only be manas. THere is great diffrence between manas and citta in usage this term in palicanon. And dont mention the vehement issue and censorship about terms "atta".

So we i think there could only slight shift in using english equivalents and we could get completely different image of Buddha teaching!

Anavasesa

I dont want to look like i despise of bhikkhu boddhi or his work.

for example i now read this http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/bodhi/bps-essay_22.html
This is very good.

But everyone can have the opion what is in particular case skillful or unskilfull, or what is problematic or what could be better.

Jason

Anavasesa,

Jason, i tried to show to someting which seems to me a little problem in your text.
For it is just happen, people fall into thinking buddhism si nihilism or nibbana is nothingess, with no ontological status.
For the term "existence" is primerly ontological category.

And I have tried to show you that there is no problem. There is no single English word that clearly articultes the original meaning of bhava. Beyond that, people will think anything that they want to think, and people will continually misrepresent what the Buddha taught. The only way that this will be corrected is if people take the time to study, study, and study some more.

I dont think, that the argument: "i think b. Nanamoli is meticulous, then he must be right". I think there are surely better translator.
For me the translator must be practitioner and have to understand the spirit of the Buddha teaching.. scholar meticulosity is not enough.

I understand, and that was not the point; nevertheless, being meticulous is a quality that you want a translator to possess. Plus, we can always reverse that and say, "Just because you do not agree with their translations does not mean that they are wrong." Furthermore, translators such as Bhikkhu Bodhi and the Venerable Nanamoli are practitioners as well as scholars.

So we i think there could only slight shift in using english equivalents and we could get completely different image of Buddha teaching!

Of course, but that does not mean that the image would be accurate. That is why I personally choose to utilize the skills and expertise of highly respected translators and practitioners such as Bhikkhu Bodhi and the Venerable Nanamoli. Nobody's translations are perfect, but I believe that these two have done a wonderful job. But, that is only my opinion and nothing more.

Sincerely,

Jason

Bobby_Lanier

"Existence" is not the ontological fact, i.e., the tathatâ. Its more general meaning refers to worldly existence which chimes with the Buddhist term, bhava. In Arthur Anthony MacDonnell's A Practical Sanskrit Dictionary, bhava is defined as: birth, production; origin, source; existence, life; worldly existence; world; well-being, prosperity. Usually, Buddhism treats bhava as something born, hence, something existent and in the world (loka). This passage, for the most part, sums up what I am trying to convey.

This fundamental character of existence Heidegger denotes by the hyphenated expression 'being-in-the-world' (In-derWelt-sein). This being-in-the-world is a unity within which we may distinguish through analysis the self on the one hand and the world on the other, but from which we may not separate either of them. We said already that Heidegger's interest in being-in-the-world is ontological or existential. It follows, therefore, that the preposition in the expression must be understood in an existential, not a spatial, sense. To call man 'being-in-the-world' is to say something about him quite different from saying, for instance, that the Isle of Arran is in the Firth of Clyde. 'Being-in' (Insein) is an existential, a way of being. Being-in-the-world expresses the character of man that as existing he is bound up with the world, he has to do with it, he is occupied with it. The general term used by Heidegger to express this relation of Dastin to his world is concern (Besorgen). To be in the world does not mean for man merely to be located in it, as a rock is, but to be concerned with it in his existence" (John Macquarrie, An Existentialist Theology, 39).

Our engagement with the world or bhava begins as the birth of being/sattva falling/nidana into the world in which tathatâ is submerged; which we only vaguely apperceive through essences (definitional beings or ideas).

Growing up in the world or bhava we face death, or the same, radical change into other. Insofar as tathatâ is concealed from us by thirst, we are reborn again, falling into bhava. If we don't have the proper gnosis of what transcends bhava, we are doomed to samsara.


Love ya'll,

Bobby