--- Alexander Genaud <alexgenaud@...> skrev: >

> Many words have multiple definitions in any
> Pali-English
> dictionary. In general, Which do you feel is more
> accurate, that
> Pali contains many homonyms or simply that a
> perfectly matching
> translation or connotation may not be available in
> English?

I think both. A typical example of homonyms is vibhava
in the Second Noble Truth, which was consistently
misunderstood by the early Western translators from
Pali (a point, I think, for looking at the
commentaries from time to time).

An example of perfectly matching translations not
available in English is dukkha - or, for that matter,
bhikkhu, as bhikkhus are strictly speaking more
similar to friars than to monks.

> In the case of homonyms, in most cases, is it fairly
> easy to
> discern the intended meaning from context? For
> example, is it
> usually clear when dhamma refers to conduct,
> teaching, or truth.

Now you're getting into deep water. There's nothing
easy in the art of translation.

> Is it safe to assume that identical Pali sentences
> found in
> different sutta could accurately share translations?

I hope so, but I wouldn't bet on it.

> Among various collections (PTS, VRI, etc), is there
> a general
> consistency in the spelling of Pali words? In what
> ways do they
> these collections differ (organization, content,
> etc)?

Those who are more competent than I may answer; I can
only point out a couple of slight details in my first
experience of the CSCD.

I tried to find the Kalama Sutta. Searched for
kaalaamasutta.m - no luck. Searched for kesaputta, as
the town is named in all versions I have seen as far -
no luck. Finally searched fo kaalaamaana.m, and there
it was; the sutta being called, however,
Kesamuttisutta.m, and the town called Kesamutta.

Also in the Karaniyamettasutta (which they call only
Mettasutta.m), both in the Khuddakapatha and in the
Suttanipata, third stanza, first line, I have always
read - and heard - "na ca khudda.m samaacare kiñci",
but in the CSCD, both places, the syllable "sam-" did
not appear, thus "na ca khuddamaacare kiñci"; I looked
at the footnotes, which have alternate readings for
several words, bot not for this one.

Some weeks ago, in the Royal Library in Stockholm,
there was a public presentation of a new Siamese
edition of the Pali Tipitaka (latinized). It was said
to be based on the Chattha Sangayana version, in
collaboration with the VRI people, after several years
work of correcting errors in their version - which
seems to me to imply that the CSCD is perhaps not
quite perfect. Unfortunately, the edition presented
seems to be a De Lux one only in paper form (the
presenters didn't seem positive to making their text
available on line and/or CD).

And the Thai people presenting it weren't quite
perfect either. They repeatedly asserted that the
Sixth Council took place in 1957, probably confusing
the Siamese Buddhist chronology with the
Ceylonese-Burmese one.

Well, there is no perfection in this world. That's
dukkha.

Gunnar Gällmo







=====
gunnargallmo@...

Höstrusk och grå moln - köp en resa till solen på Yahoo! Resor på adressen http://se.docs.yahoo.com/travel/index.html