where do you get "the Great Reasons of truth"?
I'm not sure why I wrote that.
where do you get "the Great Reasons of truth"?
How are these different? Unless you mean that it is the transliteration you sought?Caraka wrote:For this post I was commited only to the translation, not the faith we might put in the words
Why don't you think there are no difference?How are these different? Unless you mean that it is the transliteration you sought?
Surāmeraya is still two words not one and the conjoined words like this still retain their meaning in pali.Caraka wrote:The majjapamādaṭṭhānā part is neither this or that, and can not be easily translated, eg. Pamada and Mada can not be two different words. It is either Pamada or Mada, if it is Mada, it is again Majjapa not Majja. The only exception must be if a Pali word like Pamada can be extracted to more than one Pali word. E.g. Pamada and Mada (I'm not talking about extracting a Pali word to more than one meaning here). If so, I would like to know why?
Surāmeraya can be translated straight out, at last it seems so now.
it can be easily translated.
Saṅkhitta Aṭṭhaṅguposatha Sutta - The Observance Day Endowed with Eight Factors - AN8.41 wrote: ‘"'All of their lives the worthy ones have given up recreational intoxicants that lead to carelessness, abstain from that which intoxicates, and causes of carelessness.
"All of you, for this day and night, should declare to give up recreational intoxicants that lead to carelessness, abstain from that which intoxicates, and causes of carelessness.
So for all of this period, imitating the worthy ones in this regard, the Observance Day will have been fully observed by you.”
This is the fifth factor the observance day is endowed with.
Well, your phrase "faith we might put in the words" is less than clear, so let's back up to that for a moment; what did you mean?Caraka wrote:Why don't you think there are no difference?How are these different? Unless you mean that it is the transliteration you sought?
Agree, but I do think not doing both is wrong (at least state a word is impossible to translate and why), cause having a meaning about something does not necessarily makes it true. Thats why I do not like anyone saying it is like this or that. I prefer reproof, or at least reflections that leads towards a reproof. Thats why I think it should be a clear difference between translation, faith, and whats actual true (not talking about what oneself might think is true intellectually, which is faith).translation requires context so a perfect translation of a word may be completely wrong in a particular context.
the task of a translator is to extract what is meant, not a litteral word for word meaning which is not always possible!
You must excuse me if I'm not clear. For this particular phrase I could have written 'faith we put in the Buddhas words', but I'm not sure it really is his, or just a good intention aiming towards high moral and ethics, and the sound of high moral and ethics shines through most of what I have read so far, including your great links of readings Cittasanto.Well, your phrase "faith we might put in the words" is less than clear, so let's back up to that for a moment; what did you mean?
I never said it is impossible, just other means are sometimes needed to be utilised.Caraka wrote:Agree, but I do think not doing both is wrong (at least state a word is impossible to translate and why), cause having a meaning about something does not necessarily makes it true. Thats why I do not like anyone saying it is like this or that. I prefer reproof, or at least reflections that leads towards a reproof. Thats why I think it should be a clear difference between translation, faith, and whats actual true (not talking about what oneself might think is true intellectually, which is faith).translation requires context so a perfect translation of a word may be completely wrong in a particular context.
the task of a translator is to extract what is meant, not a litteral word for word meaning which is not always possible!
I am afraid you are not being clear here, and don't seam to be addressing anything said to you.Caraka wrote:If anyone want to believe the 5. Precepts, or other translations to be the exact Buddhas words, or meaning. One must also believe only Arhats translated the Pali Canon, and only Arhats was responsible for the oral delivery from generation to generation before the Pali Canon was written, one can, for sure. I don't. Nor do I say or assume you do. And when I say I don't, it is not the same as I claim everyone doing so for being idiots or wrongdoing, or have no insight at all. I only say it is for oneself to find out, and there is more colors than just black and white.
I agree with you, keeping word to word translation also show respect to the teacher/tradition and the scientific attitudeCaraka wrote:I agree with Wiki, its text is about refrain from alcohol or carelessness from alcohol. This translation seems also to be supported by other different Buddhist traditions. E.g. the Chinese Mahayana texts just say 'Do not drink alcohol'. And I think the 5 Precept should not be generalised for the good intentions of translator, it should be left to the reader to investigate what the Precepts means for the individual.
Thanks for helping me out in this, all of you.