I just got the Cleary Avataṃsaka Sūtra , ($125!), of which in my simple English translation of the 10 Grounds Sutra by Bhikshu Dharmamitra says that "Thomas Cleary, [translated from ] supposedly, (but not really) from Śikşānanda's edition" of the same text.
I became more interested the more I thought about it with the welfare of Bhikshu Dharmamitra, who has done so much. And Rulu. How are they doing?
A report from 3 or 4 years ago said he did [wrapped up?] an Avataṃsaka Sūtra as well.
'Time is a river in which all fish eventually sleep.'
Be well, all.
Leo
Cleary Avataṃsaka Sūtra roadbump
- Leo Rivers
- Posts: 498
- Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2011 4:52 am
- Contact:
Re: Cleary Avataṃsaka Sūtra roadbump
An old update he posted apparently said that his plan was to do the Gandavyuha after the Nāgārjuna's commentary, which he completed two years ago. I do not know of an announcement that he completed the whole Avataṃsaka. I would think not yet.Leo Rivers wrote: ↑Sun Apr 10, 2022 9:46 pm I just got the Cleary Avataṃsaka Sūtra , ($125!), of which in my simple English translation of the 10 Grounds Sutra by Bhikshu Dharmamitra says that "Thomas Cleary, [translated from ] supposedly, (but not really) from Śikşānanda's edition" of the same text.
I became more interested the more I thought about it with the welfare of Bhikshu Dharmamitra, who has done so much. And Rulu. How are they doing?
A report from 3 or 4 years ago said he did [wrapped up?] an Avataṃsaka Sūtra as well.
'Time is a river in which all fish eventually sleep.'
Be well, all.
Leo
There are a lot of translators who are doing more than formerly or more than formerly. There are a lot of reasons why this happens, but a monks' life can be busier than a lay person's life at times.
- Leo Rivers
- Posts: 498
- Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2011 4:52 am
- Contact:
Re: Cleary Avataṃsaka Sūtra roadbump
I just wish them well.
Re: Cleary Avataṃsaka Sūtra roadbump
Dharmamitra generally does not have high esteem of Thomas Cleary's chinese translations. Unlike his brother, it is not the field he is trained in and apparently it shows. Maybe his Japanese is better (though I've seen poor appraisals of some of that too). Generally, he often engages in license to guesstimate meaning which can often go quite a bit off track. His saving grace is that he has a pretty solid grasp of Buddhadharma, so even though the original meaning can be quite off, the net result will still be something approximating correct Dharma. I remember back on e-sangha, Dharmamitra did some sample analysis from the avatamsaka which illustrated the point quite well. I imagine if you compare the two dashabhumika sutra translations you will find many points of divergence.
I think it is a pretty safe bet that Dharmamitra's is plain better. Besides a stronger grasp of classical chinese, he has a much deeper grasp of both Indian and Chinese Buddhism, a lot more personal practise under his belt under a great master and confers with the commentaries for his translation a lot more as well. We should all hope for him to have a long life to finish his projects.
I think it is a pretty safe bet that Dharmamitra's is plain better. Besides a stronger grasp of classical chinese, he has a much deeper grasp of both Indian and Chinese Buddhism, a lot more personal practise under his belt under a great master and confers with the commentaries for his translation a lot more as well. We should all hope for him to have a long life to finish his projects.
"Even if my body should be burnt to death in the fires of hell
I would endure it for myriad lifetimes
As your companion in practice"
--- Gandavyuha Sutra
I would endure it for myriad lifetimes
As your companion in practice"
--- Gandavyuha Sutra
Re: Cleary Avataṃsaka Sūtra roadbump
My feeling was that Thomas Cleary loved translation and loved religion. He had a good grasp of what the Mahayana was about, but he might have fit into the "spiritual but not religious" category that emerged in the 60s.
The advantage of his work is that he gave us readable working first translations of so many texts.
This, in my eyes, is like the first round of translators in China, who were able to give the Chinese a good idea of what Buddhism was about, but whose works were later retranslated and corrected.
I made a chart of sutras available in English just from the Taishō. The amount is still minuscule. Part of the issue is that so many qualified translators want to do critical editions and heavily annotated translations.
I think it is good to take time and make sure you understand a passage before translating it, so I am not an advocate of rushing through and guessing (which Cleary may have done at times). However, annotation and scholarly apparatuses turn what can take a few months to translate into a years-long project.
Erik Pema Kunsang has a long-form interview on YouTube where he points out a few points about Tibetan texts, but which I think hold true for most Buddhist texts. From what I recall, some salient points are:
1) Notes or prefaces are always minimal, and if they exist they are at the end of the text as postfaces. In Chinese, this is not true, but they are still very minimal.
2) There are no in-text notes or footnotes (hardly).
3) There are no square brackets.
4) Terms are understandable in the target language without the need for a specialised Buddhist dictionary.
5) Verse is rendered verse, so in English, it should at least be in blank verse.
Well, I am not sure I agree with all these points, but I think the general spirit makes sense. Some scholars think they are doing a better job with the text than the "popular" translator, but they are actually making it inaccessible. Also, I have found that good introductions are very helpful, particularly if they break down themes and key ideas. But scholarly historical background should be minimal and saved for the journals. With the other points, I agree, but err on the side of occasional exceptions—sometimes one set of square brackets can save an entire chapter as long as you are sure you're right. Also, verse should be in verse, but the meaning must be preserved—this means that popular forms of English verse with rhyme become largely impractical and occasionally words have to be added or removed.
Cleary's introduction and postfactorial material, actually, are fantastic. The book, moreover, is extremely accessible (except for the price). I think it could do with some more care with regard to consistency in terminology and sticking to the source characters rather than glossing a sentence with a paraphrase (some people see this as translation, but I don't accept it for sūtras), also, for long sections, chapter subdivisions (although not present in the Chinese) would be lovely along with Taishō page numbers (at least for the folios).
So, if someone is putting in the effort to redo the whole thing, I think they need to really justify that by showing that Cleary missed out on something that creates a massive misunderstanding about the entire sūtra. I say this because, as I noted above, we have a minuscule amount of the Chinese canon in English and so much of it is worth translating. At the moment in English-language Buddhism we do not need, unless necessary, is a rehashing of stuff that has been done time and time again. The last thing we need is more Heart Sutra translations.
On that note, I am working on a Mahāsaṃnipāta translation and have one other person working with me. If anyone has a good deal of experience translating Buddhist Chinese please feel free to reach out. The more people on the team the sooner it can be published.
The advantage of his work is that he gave us readable working first translations of so many texts.
This, in my eyes, is like the first round of translators in China, who were able to give the Chinese a good idea of what Buddhism was about, but whose works were later retranslated and corrected.
I made a chart of sutras available in English just from the Taishō. The amount is still minuscule. Part of the issue is that so many qualified translators want to do critical editions and heavily annotated translations.
I think it is good to take time and make sure you understand a passage before translating it, so I am not an advocate of rushing through and guessing (which Cleary may have done at times). However, annotation and scholarly apparatuses turn what can take a few months to translate into a years-long project.
Erik Pema Kunsang has a long-form interview on YouTube where he points out a few points about Tibetan texts, but which I think hold true for most Buddhist texts. From what I recall, some salient points are:
1) Notes or prefaces are always minimal, and if they exist they are at the end of the text as postfaces. In Chinese, this is not true, but they are still very minimal.
2) There are no in-text notes or footnotes (hardly).
3) There are no square brackets.
4) Terms are understandable in the target language without the need for a specialised Buddhist dictionary.
5) Verse is rendered verse, so in English, it should at least be in blank verse.
Well, I am not sure I agree with all these points, but I think the general spirit makes sense. Some scholars think they are doing a better job with the text than the "popular" translator, but they are actually making it inaccessible. Also, I have found that good introductions are very helpful, particularly if they break down themes and key ideas. But scholarly historical background should be minimal and saved for the journals. With the other points, I agree, but err on the side of occasional exceptions—sometimes one set of square brackets can save an entire chapter as long as you are sure you're right. Also, verse should be in verse, but the meaning must be preserved—this means that popular forms of English verse with rhyme become largely impractical and occasionally words have to be added or removed.
Cleary's introduction and postfactorial material, actually, are fantastic. The book, moreover, is extremely accessible (except for the price). I think it could do with some more care with regard to consistency in terminology and sticking to the source characters rather than glossing a sentence with a paraphrase (some people see this as translation, but I don't accept it for sūtras), also, for long sections, chapter subdivisions (although not present in the Chinese) would be lovely along with Taishō page numbers (at least for the folios).
So, if someone is putting in the effort to redo the whole thing, I think they need to really justify that by showing that Cleary missed out on something that creates a massive misunderstanding about the entire sūtra. I say this because, as I noted above, we have a minuscule amount of the Chinese canon in English and so much of it is worth translating. At the moment in English-language Buddhism we do not need, unless necessary, is a rehashing of stuff that has been done time and time again. The last thing we need is more Heart Sutra translations.
On that note, I am working on a Mahāsaṃnipāta translation and have one other person working with me. If anyone has a good deal of experience translating Buddhist Chinese please feel free to reach out. The more people on the team the sooner it can be published.