Sujato's problematic translation of 'rupa' as 'vision' (rather than 'material form' or just 'form' as other translators do)

Also, it would be good for Sujato to follow his own translation guideline of 'principle of least meaning'.

Obviously, eyes can see 'material form', and would retain the consistency with the passages where 'rupa' is explicitly defined as 'material form made up of 4 elements.'

By translating 'rupa' as 'vision' for the context of eyes seeing objects, Sujato is violating his 'principle of least meaning' and giving an exclusionary context where rupa would NOT include 'material form', only an immaterial 'vision'. 

Also, if he is going to violate his own rules, he should justify it with an essay and provide evidence to support it.

 

Re: Form or Visions

• Report
• Quote

Post by frank k » Sat Feb 19, 2022 8:12 am

If Sujato ever clarifies what he means by that, please share.
As far as I can tell, his reason for translating it that way, is the same reason Vism. ambiguates the term Rupa to justify making the 4 jhanas into a formless attainment.
But his translation of rupa as 'vision' gets into weirdness, when it's obvious 'rupa' in those contexts are referring to the affliction of having a physical body. For example, see MN 13 where rupa and kaya are both explicitly referring to decaying corpses in kayagata kayaanupassana practice.
And Snp 16 (or 17) pingiya sutta, where he's talking about the afflictions of old age breaking down his rupa physical body, sujato translates it there as 'form', rather than 'vision'. In other words, he knows 'vision' wouldn't fit there, so he has to do rupa = 'form'.

In English, if you say 'orange', it can be a visible color, or it can be a physical fruit.
But if you say, "I see orange", you wouldn't translate that as "I see visible color in the visual spectrum under 20khz". You would just say "I see orange".
Similarly with 'rupa', just becuase you can see 'material form', doesn't mean you should translate it as "vision" when it's paired up with eye and seeing faculty.

ssasny wrote: ↑Fri Feb 18, 2022 6:42 amHi,
I think you are asking why Ven. Sujāto has rendered rūpā and rūpasaññā as 'visions' and 'perceptions of visions'?

Instead of the more obvious 'material forms' and 'perceptions of forms'?

Good question!

Have you looked at the commentary? Perhaps he is following a commentarial gloss?
Could be worth posting this question directly to him on his forum at suttacentral.

www.lucid24.org/sted : ☸Lucid24.org STED definitions