Another Amaro translation question

Exploring the Dhamma, as understood from the perspective of the ancient Pali commentaries.
Post Reply
User avatar
fivebells
Posts: 416
Joined: Thu Mar 12, 2009 12:52 am

Another Amaro translation question

Post by fivebells »

On p. 84 of Small Boat, Great Mountain, Amaro translates SN 858 as
“The wise do not take
anything in the world as belonging to them, nor do they take
anything in the world as not belonging to them either.”"
I assume this is the same line Thanissaro translated as
[One said to be at peace is one] For whom
nothing in the world
is his own,
who doesn't grieve
over what is not,
who doesn't enter into
doctrines
phenomena:[9]

[9]: "Doctrines, phenomena" — two meanings of the Pali word, dhamma.
Is that correct? If so, one or both of these translations must be very free, or the original must be very ambiguous. Anyone looked into this?
User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6646
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: Another Amaro translation question

Post by Cittasanto »

Hi Fivebells,
Ajahn Amaro isnt a translator like Thanissaro is, and freely admits to this in publications. as this book you are reading is a transcription of talks you may find that these are more interpretive than Thanissaro.
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19932
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: Another Amaro translation question

Post by mikenz66 »

Here is another modern translation:
The Aṭṭhakavagga – Pali, with English Translation
Paññobhāsa Bhikkhu
http://pathpress.wordpress.com/2012/06/ ... anslation/
He for whom there is nothing his own in the world,
And who does not sorrow over what is not there,
And who does not go by philosophies—
He truly is said to be “at peace.”
:anjali:
Mike
User avatar
piotr
Posts: 412
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 4:33 pm
Location: Khettadesa

Re: Another Amaro translation question

Post by piotr »

And Norman's translation:
  • 861. For whom there is nothing (called) his own in the world, and who does not grieve because of what does not exist, and does not go (astray) among mental phenomena, he truly is called “calmed”.
Last edited by piotr on Thu May 23, 2013 9:35 am, edited 1 time in total.
Bhagavaṃmūlakā no, bhante, dhammā...
User avatar
piotr
Posts: 412
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 4:33 pm
Location: Khettadesa

Re: Another Amaro translation question

Post by piotr »

On second thought, I think it's more likely that Ajahn Amaro is refering to verse which is translated by Norman as:
  • 858. For him there are no sons or cattle, field(s), (or) property. For him there is nothing taken up or laid down.
or by Thanissaro Bhikkhu as:
  • He has no children
    cattle,
    fields,
    land.
    In him you can't pin down
    what's embraced
    or rejected.[7]
Bhagavaṃmūlakā no, bhante, dhammā...
User avatar
fivebells
Posts: 416
Joined: Thu Mar 12, 2009 12:52 am

Re: Another Amaro translation question

Post by fivebells »

Thanks, Piotr, that's a big help.

Cittasanto: Who cares? I still need to judge whether what he's saying is correct or not and what his agenda is beyond teaching dhamma. Perhaps if he's not a translator he shouldn't be doing his own translating.
User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6646
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: Another Amaro translation question

Post by Cittasanto »

fivebells wrote:
Cittasanto: Who cares? I still need to judge whether what he's saying is correct or not and what his agenda is beyond teaching dhamma. Perhaps if he's not a translator he shouldn't be doing his own translating.
it is something to bare in mind. and if you don't care what is with so many questions about it? he isn't a translator the book based on talks at a vajrayana retreat he was a co-teacher at has more than enough context to decide whether or not it is inline or not with the Dhamma.
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill
User avatar
fivebells
Posts: 416
Joined: Thu Mar 12, 2009 12:52 am

Re: Another Amaro translation question

Post by fivebells »

Obviously, I care about the accuracy of what he's saying. I don't really care about the excuses for any inaccuracies. I'm not doing this to show him up, I want to know what the bases for his arguments are.
User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6646
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: Another Amaro translation question

Post by Cittasanto »

fivebells wrote:Obviously, I care about the accuracy of what he's saying. I don't really care about the excuses for any inaccuracies. I'm not doing this to show him up, I want to know what the bases for his arguments are.
read the book, look at what he is saying in the context there first, he may be using the short passage as it can have a subtle meaning in and of itself.
But don't mistake pointing something out as an excuse. there is allot of leeway in translating, and what makes sense and is accurate for one is not always true for another for a wide variety of reasons, just look at translations of Dukkha, or the current thread on the Dhammachakkhapavattenasutta.
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill
Post Reply