http://lucid24.org/sted/8aam/8samadhi/vitakka/protrans/index.html
✅ ☸EBT V&Vš: vitakka & vicÄra = directed-thought & evaluation
⛔ Vism. Redefinition V&Vš: applied-thought & sustained-thought (b.nanamoli)
⛔ Vism. Redefinition V&Vš: initial-application & sustained-application (u thittila)
⛔ B.Sujato mistranslation of V&Vš: placing-the-mind & keeping-it-connected
⛔ B.AnÄlayo mistranslation of V&Vš: [directed] awareness and [sustained] contemplation
In translation, there can be legitimate difference of opinion and many legitimate ways to translate the same idea with different words.
For example: thinking, pondering, evaluating, considering, examining, etc., can all be legitimate ways to translate vicara.
But vitakka in the pÄįø·i EBT, means the same thing in first jhÄna as it does outside of jhÄna.
That is not debatable. You can do a global search for every single occurence of vitakka in the EBT and confirm for yourself by seeing what it means in context (Yes, in fact I have done that, as well as every single occurrence of first jhÄna). I've also assembled a list in a separate article of all the other professional English translators, and aside from those following ABRJ (Ajahn Brahm Re-definition of JhÄna, same as Vism. Redefinition without abhidhamma theory), it's unanimous.
Different legitimate ways to translate vitakka might include something along the lines of cerebration, intellection, mentation, cogitation, etc. But almost everyone translating from EBT perspective has thought or thinking for vitakka.
From the late Theravada perspective, where they give primacy to Abhidhamma over EBT (Early Buddhist Texts), VRJ (Vism. Re-definition of JhÄna) describes a first jhÄna and (V&Vš) vitakka & vicÄra, that is a different samÄdhi training system than EBT. They redefined (V&Vš) and jhÄna to accommodate their abhidhamma idea of radical momentariness.
The Relativity of Wrong
There are different levels of wrong.
Unintentional honest mistakes are forgivable and understandable.
"not even wrong", and "wronger than wrong", refer to exponentially more pernicious magnitudes of wrongness: they can wreak havoc with devastating consequences to oneself and humanity.
point of view
From the EBT perspective of jhÄna, B. nanamoli's applied-thought & sustained-thought is wrong.
From the VRJ (Vism. Re-definition of JhÄna) perspective, B. nanamoli's applied-thought & sustained-thought translation is excellent.
From the VRJ (Vism. Re-definition of JhÄna) perspective, U thittila's initial-application & sustained-application is wronger than wrong. (will explain later)
From the point of view of finding a (V&Vš) translation that would best fit both Abhidhamma and EBT, B. nanamoli's applied-thought & sustained-thought translation is really excellent and well thought out (no pun intended).
From the point of view of EBT, Bhikkhu AnÄlayo's [directed] awareness and [sustained] contemplation is wronger than wrong.
If Bhikkhu AnÄlayo's translation were meant for abhidhamma and VRJ (Vism. Re-definition of JhÄna), it could actually work, but would be awkward if he's using 'thinking' and 'thought' outside of jhÄna, unlike B.Nanamoli's translation.
But Bhikkhu AnÄlayo is a leading figure of EBT, and he's supposed to be translating from an EBT perspective.
So his translation is wronger than wrong. This is an objective, right and wrong situation, not a translator preference with a continuum of fine shades in meaning.
Bhikkhu Sujato's translation, is wrong even from the point of view of abhidhamma and VRJ (Vism. Re-definition of JhÄna)!
His translation is more similar to U thittila, which is wronger than wrong (even for VRJ).
Bhikkhu Sujato's translation, from the EBT perspective is not even wronger than wrong, a level of wrong so heinous it's hard to describe.
But I'll try.
No comments:
Post a Comment