Re: Vivicca

Dear bhante,

Of course, I agree. But that also applies to ādāya and ṭhapetvā. We can use both,more littleral, or less literal. I am not an English native speaker, but I am aware that many translations that are too literal, e.g. translating absolutives as "having + infinitive" sound odd in the ears of native speakers. It is the eternal problem of translators! :)

Mettā,

Aleix

2018-04-04 17:33 GMT+05:30 Kumara Bhikkhu kumara.bhikkhu@... [palistudy] <palistudy@yahoogroups.com>:

Thanks, Aleix.

In the case of your examples, it's only
reasonable to be idiomatically English. I get that.

However, in the case of translating "vivicca",
there's no issue of idiomatic expression.

FYI, for "vivicca", PED provides "separating
oneself from (Instr.), aloof from", which may be
a closer meaning in a figurative sense for the jhanas.

Anyway, when translated backwards, "withdrawn"
and "secluded" should be "vivitta", not "vivicca".

with metta,
Kumara Bhikkhu, ven. (I'll be offline till 30 Apr.)

> Posted by: "Aleix Ruiz FalquÃ©s" ruydaleixo@...
> Date: Mon Apr 2, 2018 9:46 pm ((PDT))
>
>Dear Bhante Kumara,
>
>I think the reason is purely stylistic. For the same reason that adaya is
>also an absolutive but we translate it as "with", or thapetva is an
>absolutive and we translate it as "except". I think the idea is to make the
>translation more idiomatic. But of course we can translate vivicca as you
>suggest, or adaya as "having taken" or thapetva as "having left aside".
>
>Best wishes,
>Aleix