Dear everyone,

Just some thoughts from someone involved in translation. I think that
the sutta referred to is the best answer to this discussion. The
discussion has concerned mostly the definition of the concept atta -
anatta, so my thoughts are more of a side-topic really.
Of course a translation should always convey /meaning/ from one language
to another, and in that sense as a translator one should always search
for a word, whose meaning in the target language is most similar to that
of the source language. But then there is the danger of this word in the
target language having too many or too strong denotations that are
contradictive with the meaning in the source language (perhaps an
example would be using words like 'angel', 'gospel' in Buddhist
translations).
So when it comes down to transferring a new meaning into another
language we always have to presume that the reader anyhow will have to
understand the meaning not merely by looking at this one word, but
rather by reading a whole text or a bulk of texts that explains it. It
is not reasonable to think that you can express all meanings in all
languages - a language always exists in semantical and pragmatical
dependency of a cultural tradition, and meaning has to be conveyed in
context. Words themselves are arbitrary labels and individuals can
easily connect slightly different meanings to the same words. So I don't
think one should get stuck on whether this or that word conveys this or
that /interpretation/ of some meaning to 100 % - that is not realistic.
In the case of Buddhist thought one does have to assume that the reader
will be making an effort himself to understand what this or that term
would mean (and with the guiding of a teacher). So of course you should
make an effort to find the best translation, but be realistic.
Another aspect is that when translating to English the audience will
probably be just as culturally homogeneous as "the population of
Eurasia", i.e. to a very small extent.
Language meaning in human language is basically the same as language
behaviour, and something that is /defined and altered/ by the speakers.
A terminology on the other hand, as e.g. Buddhist terminology, cannot be
allowed to be defined and altered by common language use, so there is a
fundamental difference between meaning of "common" words and e.g.
"Buddhist" words - the latter have a meaning that is defined not by
language use but by Buddha through the Tipitaka and commentaries, i.e.
something basically extra-linguistic.
I guess that the most important thing is that the Buddhist translator
have the right education and perhaps some kind of "realization"...
Though not being able to qualify as a Buddhist translator in that sense,
I personally feel perfectly alright with 'selfless', and by the way also
with /dukkha /being translated as 'suffering'. But that would be a new
topic, I guess.

Anton Bjerke




Nina van Gorkom skrev:

>
> Dear DC,
> Thank you for your contribution. The sutta is in the beginning of
> the Mahaavagga. It is a perfect explanation of anattaa.
> Nina.
> Op 16-apr-2010, om 20:20 heeft dcwijeratna het volgende geschreven:
>
> > The definition of anatta is given in the anattalakkhanasutta, the
> > second discourse of the Buddha. See Vinaya Mahavagga, I. B. Horner.
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>