1 – 13 of 13
Blogger Michael Dorfman said...

Have you written somewhere about your choice of "disappointment" to translate dukkha?

Friday, September 27, 2013

Blogger Jayarava Attwood said...

Hi Michael

Yeah. Loads of places. In this essay about the world, but more so in my long essay about paṭiccasamuppāda as a theory of everything. It dates back quite a while. I used it when commenting on Dhammapada 1 & 2 back in 2008.

Friday, September 27, 2013

Blogger EricZ said...

I have enjoyed this series of articles, and I hope to see your research in a scholarly journal.

FYI - Conze's Buddhist Wisdom Books was first published in 1958, while the Heart Sutra commentary portion (including the Sanskrit edition) originally appeared in serial form in The Middle Way journal between 1955 and 1956.

Wednesday, October 02, 2013

Blogger Jayarava Attwood said...

Hi Eric

Thanks, there quite a bit more to come! But a break this week for some raving about ethics.

Thanks for reminding me that I'm citing the 2nd ed. of Buddhist Wisdom Books. I don't know if there is much difference between the two editions. I'd better dig out the Middle Way version of the commentary.

I still can't believe that I've found so many problems with his Sanskrit text. Hoping to make a thesis/book about it next year.

Thursday, October 03, 2013

Blogger Unknown said...

Thanks for all your work on this! It's very enlightening (no pun intended).

A question: in your translation, part 3 begins: "Here Śāriputra, all experiences are marked with emptiness". Why the word "here" in this sentence? I was curious about this because I am originally and predominantly familiar with the Rochester Zen Center English version of the Heart Sutra ("The bodhisattva of compassion, from the depths of prajñā wisdom ...") which certainly has some imprecision as a translation. That version renders the beginning of part 3 as "Dharmas here are empty, all are the primal void ..." (it translates śūnyatālakṣaṇā as "(are) the primal void"). I had wondered about the "here" in that passage a while ago, so I took a quick look at some Sanskrit and Chinese versions, but I didn't find anything then looked like it would correspond to "here". Thus, I was surprised to see it pop up again in your translation.

Sunday, October 06, 2013

Blogger Jayarava Attwood said...

"here" translates 'iha' - an indeclinable particle which literally means 'here'.

The Rochester Zen Center version (which I'm also very familiar with because we use it in the Triratna Buddhist Order) is translated from the Chinese version attributed to Xuanzang (T 8.251). I don't have the Chinese text to hand (I'm in the middle of moving house), but the RZC translation leaves out the name Sariputra altogether so is clearly quite loose. I hope to have my work space set up again soon, so I'll try to come back to you on how the Chinese version looks.

Monday, October 07, 2013

Blogger Jayarava Attwood said...

Further to the "here" question: Xuanzang (T 8.251) simply has:


"舍利子" Shèlìzi (Śāriputra) and no adverbial pronoun ('here'). Kumārajīva's version has his spelling of Śāriputra. The Chinese long texts follow Xuanzang.

Wednesday, October 09, 2013

Blogger Unknown said...

Interesting coincidence ... you and I are translation cousins, as it turns out. I'm still curious about the "here". At the beginning of part 3, you translate “Iha śāriputra” as “Here, Śāriputra”, but, at the beginning of part 2, you translate “Iha śāriputra” as simply “Śāriputra”. Does it mean different things based on context?

By the way, do you know anything about the provenance of the Rochester Zen Center translation? I’ve often wondered about this, but I’ve found almost no information on who actually did the translation. The English versions seem to have just always been there. A well-known part of the Zen Center founding myth is Kapleau’s conflict with Yasutani over chanting the Heart Sutra in English rather than in (Sino-)Japanese. Perhaps Kapleau himself composed the RZC English version at around that time (late 1960s). Any idea how FWBO end up using the same translation?

Friday, October 18, 2013

Blogger Jayarava Attwood said...

Hey Cuz, how about signing your contributions so I know who I'm talking to?

Dropping the 'here' was artistic license. It sounds a bit naff in English. I don't feel obligated to translate every word - I'm more into translating sentences or phrases as they are the basic unit of meaning. The word for word guys tend to produce appalling translations.

A long time ago I discussed the RZC Heart Sutra with someone and though my recollection is hazy I believe the RZC version was composed by Kapleau on the basis of the Chinese text. Sangharakshita has connections all over the Buddhist world and may have picked it up from any number of sources, I'm not sure where, but it must have been in the 1960s I think.

Friday, October 18, 2013

Blogger Greg Pandatshang said...

Hey, sorry for dropping this thread for long, but I wanted to get back around to it, since in the meantime I figured out how to sign my Google Account posts. I'm generally Greg Pandatshang as far as the internet is concerned (although I must admit I am not in fact a member of the Pandatshang family).

Thanks for your thoughts on the background of the RZC version; it's more info than I've been able to get from anybody else.

I have no objection in principle to using a touch of artistic license in your translation; I was just a bit uncertain if that's what it was in this instance.

I've tried chanting your English translation of the Heart Sutra a few times, in place of the RZC version I'm used to. There are a few places that I find a bit sticky; that's obviously unavoidable to some extent. I wonder if you have any thoughts about what makes a good chanting version of a text like this (esp. relevant to the Heart Sutra since it was perhaps originally intended to be chanted devotionally).

Thanks again for all the work you do on this blog and your other scholarship.

Monday, January 13, 2014

Blogger Jayarava Attwood said...

I've made no attempt to make my English version chant friendly. The Sanskrit is not particularly chant friendly either. I'll give some thought to a chanting version, though I would normally just use the modified RZC English version I first learned about 20 years ago.

Chanting typically requires rhythm. But interestingly the Chinese chanted version I've heard puts breaks in the wrong place on many occasion, i.e. in the middle of phrases or sentences. The text is simply made to fit the metre of the melody it is chanted to, not the other way around. And this may well be typical for sung texts that are not originally in verse. And the Heart Sutra is not in verse.

We don't know for certain why the text was created, but I doubt it was meant to be chanted devotionally - it doesn't sound devotional to me. If anything I suspect it was meant to be chanted to ward of misfortune.

Best Wishes
Jayarava

Monday, January 13, 2014

OpenID om said...

Is grammar more important than the teaching? Shouldn't we learn more from the contents? 5000 from now, will the people (if still around) have a different language structure?
A rose by another name smells just as sweet: Go beyond languages & words.

Wednesday, March 26, 2014

Blogger Jayarava Attwood said...

do words usings communicate to is being purposefully. sweet a rose by another smells name just as.

In other words, grammar is what allows you to understand the teachings in the first place. If the grammar is faulty then the teaching is incomprehensible. At some point someone must understand the teaching.

I note that you don't go beyond words and language in making your comment. Like you, when I want to communicate, I use words. Going beyond words would make my blog rather boring to read. Don't you think?

Wednesday, March 26, 2014

You can use some HTML tags, such as <b>, <i>, <a>

Comment moderation has been enabled. All comments must be approved by the blog author.

You will be asked to sign in after submitting your comment.
OpenID LiveJournal WordPress TypePad AOL
Please prove you're not a robot