V&V: B. Bodhi translation vs. interpretation of vitakka & vicara

Re: manasā dhammaṃ viññāya: b.sujato's translation is grievously wrong

• Edit
• Delete post
• Report this post
• Quote

Post by frank k » Thu Aug 15, 2019 1:22 am

Here's the full context of B. Bodhi's quote from SN intro:

In MLDB I rendered vitakka and vic›ra respectively as “applied
thought” and “sustained thought.” In this translation {SN} they
become “thought” and “examination.” The latter is surely closer
to the actual meaning of vic›ra. When vitakka is translated as
“thought,” however, a word of caution is necessary. In common
usage, vitakka corresponds so closely to our “thought” that no
other rendering seems feasible; for example, in k›mavitakka, sensual thought, or its opposite, nekkhammavitakka, thought of
renunciation. When, however, vitakka and vic›ra occur as constituents of the first jh›na, they do not exercise the function of
discursive thinking characteristic of ordinary consciousness.
Here, rather, vitakka is the mental factor with the function of
applying the mind to the object, and vic›ra the factor with the
function of examining the object nondiscursively in order to
anchor the mind in the object.

So here's the important point. Even though B. Bodhi personally believes in the Commentary and Vism. interpretation of V&V, he realized as an ethical translator, that V&V needs to be TRANSLATED with the same terms that are used for V&V outside of first jhana. If the Buddha had intended first jhana to have a different meaning than outside, then it's the Buddha's job to explain it in other suttas, it's not up to a translator to impose their own bias. No other English translator supposedly following a sutta based approach does what B. Sujato did for V&V.

A survey of how professional translators render V&V.
http://lucid24.org/sted/8aam/8samadhi/v ... ndex.html