tomamundsen wrote:The first thing I think of on this topic is Reeves' translation of the Lotus Sura. He uses a lot of new translations for words. I rather liked his version. But I still find it very important to know what the Sanskrit is. If you know the Sanskrit, then understanding parallels between different authors become transparent. I do not think we've reached a point where Dharma has permeated our culture enough to try to create an American Buddhism, be it via translating all terms into English or removing cultural rituals from practice.
Huseng wrote:So how many Indic terms transliterated into roman script do you want in an English language translation of a Buddhist text?
Huseng wrote:How much modern western jargon from psychology and philosophy do we adopt (terms like qualia, ego and ontology)?
Yudron wrote:I can't tell whether you are proposing all Mahayana and Vajrayana schools bring the Sanskrit terms into English usage -- as has happened Mandala, Karma and so forth -- versus trying to standardize translations of key terms.
One or the other has to happen over time. Most of the translators of the Tibetan works -- like Tibetans--don't read Sanskrit, and the Tibetan equivalent has it's own shading. I'm sure the same is true for Chinese, Korean, and other Dharma languages.
Jnana wrote:Huseng wrote:How much modern western jargon from psychology and philosophy do we adopt (terms like qualia, ego and ontology)?
As little as possible.
Huseng wrote:Jnana wrote:Huseng wrote:How much modern western jargon from psychology and philosophy do we adopt (terms like qualia, ego and ontology)?
As little as possible.
In any case it seems to already have currency, even in works by Buddhist authors for Buddhists. Using such distinctions like ontology and epistemology, or even the mind-matter dichotomy of western philosophy, when interpreting Buddhadharma can be problematic and in the context of commentaries simply anachronistic.
I guess it will just take several generations to really hammer out. The Chinese had the same problem when they used functional equivalents from their own philosophy lexicon when translating Buddhism into Chinese. It took some time for a more accurate lexicon to develop and be standardized.
Yudron wrote:I don't think most English speakers know what ontology and epistomology mean. I don't know what qualia means, and I have three university degrees. IMHO If you are targeting regular practitioners as the audience, not graduate students, it's pointless to translate a term into another term that they have to look up in a dictionary.