Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

translating or not (was: Dukkha)

Expand Messages
  • Flavio Costa
    Perhaps several words in English (or other modern language) can be used when just the perfect equivalence can t be found. It depends on the context. Of
    Message 1 of 3 , Apr 1 7:04 PM
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      "Perhaps several words in English (or other modern language) can be used
      when
      just the perfect equivalence can't be found. It depends on the context.
      Of course, the same phrase cannot be used for dukkha all the time. But I
      suppose that's what inevitably happens when going from one language to
      another"

      Hello Rene,

      of course, it's a mistake trying to do a one-by-one word translation, simply
      because words across the languages do not have such correspondence. Texts
      translated according to a strict method like this sound too artificial,
      while it's desiderable that the reader feels as if the text was originally
      written in his own language. Usually we should concentrate our efforts most
      on translating the ideas, not the words (except when words play an important
      role, eg. in poetry).

      For instance, I still had not found even one good translation of
      "householder" to portuguese, so I replace the word for "lay man/woman" or
      "family leader", whichever is better on a given context although,
      unfortunatelly, none of them is the precise meaning. Dukkha is another word
      that must be considered depending on the situation.

      On another hand, I am contrary to the idea of translating "deva" and
      "Brahma". If you say "demi-god", "god", you will be changing pali words with
      a clear meaning for others carried with a Western perspective, alien to the
      Buddhist view. If one is going to actually understand them, it won't happen
      through such poor renderings. However, I do not see why some people choose
      to left "bhikkhu" untranslated. If I use this word, nobody would understand
      it here in Brazil, but if I say "buddhist monk" anyone get it
      straight-forwardly. Any difference between a monk and a bhikkhu seems to be
      quite more subtle than what you find between "deva" and "demi-god" or, even
      worse, "yakkha" and "spirit"!

      Mettaa,

      Flavio Costa

      ps. as there were no replies on the distinction of "sanditthiko" and
      "akaliko", I'll be taking both just as complementary words, and not
      providing them with separated, specific explanations. I didn't find any
      author who has given them convincing different meanings.
    • abhidhammika
      Dear Flavio Costa How are you? You wrote: as there were no replies on the distinction of sanditthiko and akaliko , I ll be taking both just as
      Message 2 of 3 , Apr 2 5:25 AM
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        Dear Flavio Costa

        How are you?

        You wrote:

        " as there were no replies on the distinction of "sanditthiko" and
        "akaliko", I'll be taking both just as complementary words, and not
        providing them with separated, specific explanations. I didn't find
        any author who has given them convincing different meanings."

        I have thoroughly presented the Six Attributes of Dhamma from the
        perspective of science.

        Please check the following article.

        Dhammo As Defined By The Buddha

        The article appeared in the 2001 edition of The Science And Academic
        Journal Of Bodhiology. Please go to Science Articles link in the
        Content 2001 on the bodhiology website.

        If you are also interested in the traditional Pali grammar, you can
        also find, in the journal, a translation of Treatment On Terminology
        and Treatment On Vowel Sandhi from "Padarupasiddhi" of Âcariya
        Buddhappiya.

        With kind regards,

        Suan Lu Zaw

        http://www.bodhiology.org




        --- In Pali@yahoogroups.com, "Flavio Costa" <listas@n...> wrote:

        "Perhaps several words in English (or other modern language) can be
        used
        when
        just the perfect equivalence can't be found. It depends on the
        context.
        Of course, the same phrase cannot be used for dukkha all the time.
        But I
        suppose that's what inevitably happens when going from one language to
        another"

        Hello Rene,

        of course, it's a mistake trying to do a one-by-one word translation,
        simply
        because words across the languages do not have such correspondence.
        Texts
        translated according to a strict method like this sound too
        artificial,
        while it's desiderable that the reader feels as if the text was
        originally
        written in his own language. Usually we should concentrate our
        efforts most
        on translating the ideas, not the words (except when words play an
        important
        role, eg. in poetry).

        For instance, I still had not found even one good translation of
        "householder" to portuguese, so I replace the word for "lay
        man/woman" or
        "family leader", whichever is better on a given context although,
        unfortunatelly, none of them is the precise meaning. Dukkha is
        another word
        that must be considered depending on the situation.

        On another hand, I am contrary to the idea of translating "deva" and
        "Brahma". If you say "demi-god", "god", you will be changing pali
        words with
        a clear meaning for others carried with a Western perspective, alien
        to the
        Buddhist view. If one is going to actually understand them, it won't
        happen
        through such poor renderings. However, I do not see why some people
        choose
        to left "bhikkhu" untranslated. If I use this word, nobody would
        understand
        it here in Brazil, but if I say "buddhist monk" anyone get it
        straight-forwardly. Any difference between a monk and a bhikkhu seems
        to be
        quite more subtle than what you find between "deva" and "demi-god"
        or, even
        worse, "yakkha" and "spirit"!

        Mettaa,

        Flavio Costa

        ps. as there were no replies on the distinction of "sanditthiko" and
        "akaliko", I'll be taking both just as complementary words, and not
        providing them with separated, specific explanations. I didn't find
        any
        author who has given them convincing different meanings.
      • nina van gorkom
        Hi Flavio, ... Nina: See Visuddhimagga, Ch VII, 76: sanditthiko: visible here and now. and akaliko: without delay, because the lokuttara magga-citta is
        Message 3 of 3 , Apr 2 8:50 PM
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          Hi Flavio,
          op 02-04-2003 05:04 schreef Flavio Costa op listas@...:

          >
          > ps. as there were no replies on the distinction of "sanditthiko" and
          > "akaliko", I'll be taking both just as complementary words, and not
          > providing them with separated, specific explanations. I didn't find any
          > author who has given them convincing different meanings.
          Nina: See Visuddhimagga, Ch VII, 76: sanditthiko: visible here and now. and
          akaliko: without delay, because the lokuttara magga-citta is succeeded
          immediately by its result, the phala-citta. In other cases the vipaakacitta
          does not follow immediately upon the kamma which produces it.
          Nina.
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.