5. Commentary on Translation and Interpretation of Dhamma & Vinaya
Commentary on
Translation and Interpretation of Dhamma & Vinaya
By Pittaya
Wong (M.A. in Translation)
5 May 2016
www.meditation101.org
Buddhist scholars have
argued for a lengthy period of time on many doctrinal issues such as the
selfhood (atta) and non-selfhood (anatta) of the Nirvana. Scriptural evidences have been quoted to convince
each other; however, it seems that the unrest criticism on selfhood and non-selfhood
of the Nirvana can be linguistically misleading due to the improper and
persuasive ‘translation’ and/or ‘interpretation’ of the Pali cannon in order to
support the translators’ ideas.
With translation science,
we can gain better in-depth understanding about problems from translation and
interpretation of Pali statement as supporting evidences to any doctrinal
assumption.
To the heart of
translation theory, translators and interpreters have to do their best in
keeping the three core values which comprise of (1) accuracy, (2) naturalness,
and (3) understanding, without altering the original intent of the source
text’s communicator. It is, therefore, both
an art and science in translation to keep the right balance of these three core
values when a message is rendered from the source language to the target
language. There are also several
principles and techniques which translators should observe and apply in order
to produce the best translation work possible.
As in the Lord Buddha’s
teachings (Dhamma & Vinaya), it is clear that the scriptures have been
translated and revised from time to time over the period of more than two
thousand years. It is unfortunate that
translation science has not been available dated back long enough to assist the
Buddhist scholars to make good judgment when they translated scriptures. Thus, the ‘freestyle’ translations which were
made without proper principles can bring about incompletion and deviation from
the source language, more or less, in term of accuracy, naturalness, understanding,
and the communicator’s original intent.
Referring to the academic
argument on the selfhood and non-selfhood of the Nirvana, it is highly
recommended that Buddhist scholars should study the translation science in
order to prevent the misleading and/or misinterpretation of their translation
on the Dhamma & Vinaya due to the complication of language and their own
influential ideas.
For example, the quote “Sabbhe
Dhamma Anatta…” should be presented in such a way that the whole discourse
is well understood as the term ‘Dhamma’ alone can reflect different meanings in
different contents or statements. It is
extremely necessary to understand what ‘Dhamma’ refers to in the first place per
the Lord Buddha’s objective. Otherwise,
it will be too naïve to develop such a strong assumption based on a single multifaceted
term or statement.
Comparison of the same
doctrine in different languages is also a must as we should take into account
of the issue of ‘deviation’ when a scripture is translated. In addition, translators should be aware of
the more or less possible mistakes or human errors in Pali or non-Pali
scriptures.
Most of all, when we have
to make the best judgment out of the translation and/or interpretation,
remember that the whole content of Dhamma and Vinaya must have integrity. This means that the translation and/or
interpretation of Dhamma & Vinaya should not be made in such a way that
they contradict to each other even though they were conveyed by the Lord Buddha
in different approaches to different audiences on different occasions.
For example, if an academician
is to interpret “Sabbhe Dhamma Anatta” as the non-selfhood of Nirvana,
s(he) must be able to interpret and explain “Nibbanam Paramam Sukham” in
such a way that it is true as well. It
is recommended that a concept is compared and contrasted at all levels, e.g.
term, statement, paragraph, and discourse.
Please invest extra effort on ‘back translation’ and ‘equation of facts’
which is a mathematical approach to prove your translation and/or
interpretation. For example, if “Sabbhe
Dhamma Anatta” is translated as “All Dhammic phenomena is non-self,” does
it mean that the ‘Anatta,’ as a Dhamma, is also ‘non-self’ or not?
Lastly, it is highly
recommended that Buddhist scholars and academicians should study the
translation science for the benefit of translating/interpreting the Dhamma
& Vinaya. Notwithstanding, they
should bear in mind that the translation and interpretation of Dhamma &
Vinaya as well as commentaries are always the ‘secondary’ sources which are not
as important as the Pali cannon; although, they can be meaningful and
insightful. Readers should be advised to
trace back to the original Pali scriptures as a reference in order to further
their own study and judgment, if necessary.
