The Pāḷi translators' unhealthy obsession with one word translations

 

Example1 : upekkha -> equanimity

That's how most English translators render that word.

It works in the majority of occurrences in the suttas, in that the translated word 'equanimity' is coherent and makes sense in the translated English passage, but in a few extremely important contexts, 'equanimity' just leaves you completely confounded and lost.

The 7 factors of awakening only leads to awakening if the 7th factor, 'upekkha' ( supposedly "equanimity"), makes the final insight and leap from samsara into nirvana. 

How exactly does that work? How does 3rd and 4th jhāna's 'equanimity', equivalent to 7th awakening factor upekkha, make the penetrating insight that leads to nirvana from equanimity? Look up 'equanimity' in the English dictionary.  At best, 'equanimity' is just a passenger in the ride

Diving into the etymology of upekkha, we find it means 'upa + ikkhati'. 

ikkhati = looking, seeing. 

upa = upon

upekkha = looking upon

Remind you of any other important words? 

Diṭṭhi (right view), 

anu-passana (continuous-seeing from satipaṭṭhāna), 

vi-passana (clear-seeing), 

ñāna dassana (knowledge and vision)

So the reason upekkha is the 7th awakening factor, the primary quality of 4th jhāna, is because it's doing 'equanimous-observation' with penetrating knowledge.  

It's not just passively dwelling in an 'equanimous' attitude. 

'Equanimity' doesn't lead to awakening, nirvana. 

'Equanimous-observation' does. 

This problem could be avoided if translators didn't have that unhealthy obsession with one word translations.

Example 1b: 'equanimity' out of context is like 'patience is a virtue'

There is an old proverb, "patience is a virtue".

Even as a little kid, that proverb struck me as really stupid and half baked.

Patience not imbued with wisdom could just be procrastination as one possibility, which is not a virtue.

Worse, "patience" could be just stupidity stubbornly (but patiently) chasing a desired outcome that never arrives and never will arrive if only one had the intelligence and wisdom to see that. 

Upekkha as someone just being equanimous without insightful observation driving that behavior, is similarly half baked and useless (as a long term, permanent solution to end dukkha). 

Example 2: hunter

Suppose our job is translate the English word 'hunter' into language x.

Suppose further our 'hunter' is someone who hunts animals, kills them and eats them as their prime source of food. 

Suppose the culture of language x was such that they were a peaceful agrarian society that didn't hunt or exploit animals, and they had no equivalent single word for 'hunter', an alien concept to them.

The closest one word matches they have in language X are:

1. tracker: a person who tracks animals, or herbs and edible plants

2. killer: a person who kills living beings

3. eater: a person who eats.

In case you haven't noticed, what we encapsulate with the single word 'hunter', actually has several distinct tasks, in fact all 3 above.

Now the pāḷi translators I've been complaining about, if it were up to them, they would translate 'hunter' into language X by choosing one and only one  of the 3 meanings above, because they have some unhealthy obsession with an aesthetic that says they must find one single word to translate into another single word.

Do you see the problem? 

A hunter is not just a 'tracker', they're not just a 'killer', they have to be successful at all three of those traits to be considered our 'hunter'. So if you choose for example, just 'killer', it would probably work in the majority of the contexts you translate, but it would be wrong. It would be incomplete.

So their solution, would be to translate 'hunter' as 'killer' most of the time, and in other contexts use 'tracker' or 'eater' if it's more fitting and coherent. And the result? The consumer of the translated target language would not be able to connect some dots and see that the tracker and killer and eater were all the same person doing different aspects of their livelihood. 

What would I do as a translator? 

I would translate hunter as: tracker-killer-eater (oh the horror! how undignified and klutzy to not use a single word to translate!) But guess what? The reader would pick up and understand important compounded multiple meanings they wouldn't otherwise.

So what is your job as a translator exactly? Preserve meaning, or impress your translator friends and sophisticated readers in high society with elegant and sleek single word translations? What's more important, preserving meaning, or indulging in arbitrary aesthetic fetishes that not only don't serve a useful purpose, but hurt it gravely?  

Example 3: viveka

Fuller analysis of viveka here:

Pali and Sanskrit definition of Viveka

The short nutshell summary, 

The sanskrit dictionary defines viveka as 'discernment, discrimination'.

Whereas the pāḷi dictionary defines viveka as 'seclusion', and does not preserve the sanskrit meaning at all. 

Yet what I found in the linked article above, is you can see there are contexts, probably many more than I found, where 'discrimination/discernment' works much better than 'seclusion'.

Example 4: 'khanti' is not 'patience'

Re: The Pāḷi translators' unhealthy obsession with one word translations

Post by frank k » Mon Mar 14, 2022 8:15 am

Sam Vara wrote: ↑Mon Mar 14, 2022 5:36 am...
I think the contextual point which settles this is the old question of what we think is happening in jhāna. If it is a state of being separated or secluded from the world of the senses, then it's the former. If, however, we are of the opinion that vitakka and vicāra ("vi" again) mean the active processes of deciding between alternatives, then the latter.

frankk:

My main point, with the example of 'hunter' and 'upekkha', is that finding a single word translation in the target language, which may not include compound multiple meanings in that language, leads to a wrong translation and interpretation.

My hypothesis is viveka of first jhana includes both meanings, not choosing one or the other as you propose.

There's precedent for this. The Buddha borrowed words like 'dukkha', 'arahant', 'brahman', and added more meanings on top of their existing ones.

Another example, 'khanti', commonly translated as 'patience', sometimes 'forbearance', sometimes 'resilience', sometimes 'forgiveness'.
There is overlap there, it wouldn't be right to assume those are 4 mutually exclusive qualities.

The famous Dhammapada quote, 'Khanti paramam tapo titikkha nibbanam paramam vadanti buddha'.
khanti is the foremost austerity.
Which meaning(s) of 'khanti' are included in this passage? I'd hate to only choose one and be wrong, which is what most translators do.

So my translation of 'patient-endurance', is more versatile and fits into most contexts.
Khanti as 'patience' (unqualified), as I pointed out, is quite dubious. And it wouldn't make sense as the foremost austerity, in the samma samadhi context.
See MN 125 where 'khamo' is described as the imperturbable 4th jhana war elephant resilient (or patiently enduring - khanti) to arrows, weapons, the chaos of battle. 'Patience' alone, unqualified, is not useful in that context.

My hypothesis, is that first jhāna's 'viveka' is 'discriminative-seclusion'

My guess, is that the Buddha expanded on the original meaning of viveka as 'discernment', by stipulating that once one uses right view to discern skillful from unskillful ('viveka' as 'discernment'), one's natural tendency is to abandon and 'seclude' oneself from the unskillful.

And why do the Theravada commentaries not mention the 'discernment' aspect of 'viveka' in their glosses? Because the readers ('listeners' in an oral tradition) would have already know the original meaning of 'viveka' as 'discernment', and the commentators wanted to emphasize that the Buddha as adding an additional meaning to viveka, that not only does one 'discern' right view from wrong view, right action from wrong action etc., the disciple of the noble ones is then expected to abandon and 'seclude' one self from said wrong views and wrong actions, and take up right views and right actions. 

Just is in my example 2 of the 'hunter', that guy isn't just 'tracking', he's not considered a hunter until he also 'kills' and 'eats' what he 'tracks'. 

So my hypothesis is the Buddha doesn't consider 'viveka' as 'discernment' unless one also follows up on that action by 'secluding' oneself from the unskillful.

If my hypothesis is correct, then it would wrong to translate viveka as 'seclusion' OR 'discernment', it would have to involve both, such as 'discriminative-seclusion', or some other compound word to express the fact that one achieves seclusion by means of wisdom.

One didn't arrive at the seclusion by accident, or blind faith, or convenience, or a temporary boredom from sensual pleasures.

One arrived at seclusion by following up from right view and seeing the dukkha in sensual pleasures.


Remember noble eightfold path? Right view is #1, right samādhi is #8.

Read the first few suttas in SN 45 (the chapter dedicated to noble eightfold path). One of them shows the noble eightfold path as a causal sequence (we normally think of 8 independently operating factors).

If first jhāna viveka as only 'seclusion' (without discernment), then there would be a causal discontinuity. That is, the seclusion (of viveka) just arises in first jhana without right view driving the underlying motivation for the seclusion.




Just as 'upekkha' as only 'equanimty' leads to a causal discontinuity where you can't see how the seventh factor of upekkha of the seven awakening factors, how does that actually leads to nirvana.