No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
}} | }} | ||
When the first edition of The Way of the Bodhisattva was published in 1997, | When the first edition of ''The Way of the Bodhisattva'' was published in 1997, | ||
it was stated that the commentary of the Nyingma master Khenpo Kunzang Pelden (1872-1943) had been consulted for the elucidation of difficult | it was stated that the commentary of the Nyingma master Khenpo Kunzang Pelden (1872-1943) had been consulted for the elucidation of difficult | ||
passages. At the time, a translation into English of that long and important | passages. At the time, a translation into English of that long and important | ||
work was no more than a pious dream. Now, after a wait of almost ten years | work was no more than a pious dream. Now, after a wait of almost ten years | ||
and many intervening projects, this task has been completed; and the careful reading and study of the text that it involved prompted us to revisit and | and many intervening projects, this task has been completed; and the careful reading and study of the text that it involved prompted us to revisit and | ||
overhaul our original version of The Way of the Bodhisattva, correcting | overhaul our original version of ''The Way of the Bodhisattva'', correcting | ||
errors and, where possible, making it a tauter, more literal, reflection of the | errors and, where possible, making it a tauter, more literal, reflection of the | ||
Tibetan original. We hope that we have been able to rectify the perhaps | Tibetan original. We hope that we have been able to rectify the perhaps | ||
| Line 27: | Line 27: | ||
Since 1997, several other translations of the ''Bodhicharyāvatāra'' have | Since 1997, several other translations of the ''Bodhicharyāvatāra'' have | ||
appeared in English. The first, published just as The Way of the Bodhisattva | appeared in English. The first, published just as ''The Way of the Bodhisattva'' | ||
was going to press, was made by Kate Crosby and Andrew Skilton directly | was going to press, was made by Kate Crosby and Andrew Skilton directly | ||
from the surviving Sanskrit text. This was followed shortly afterward by | from the surviving Sanskrit text. This was followed shortly afterward by | ||
| Line 49: | Line 49: | ||
texts, archaeological evidence, and so on, to arrive at a scientifically objective understanding of a religious culture. This is viewed, from outside, as | texts, archaeological evidence, and so on, to arrive at a scientifically objective understanding of a religious culture. This is viewed, from outside, as | ||
an essentially anthropological phenomenon, the beliefs and practices of | an essentially anthropological phenomenon, the beliefs and practices of | ||
which are described and classified within a discipline that consciously distances itself from religious allegiance and practice. | which are described and classified within a discipline that consciously distances itself from religious allegiance and practice.<ref>Consider the remark of Paul Griffiths: "The Buddhologist qua Buddhologist cannot be a religious enthusiast, proselytiser, or even, one might go so far as to say, Buddhist." See "Buddhist Hybrid English," pp. 17-33. The same sentiments are expressed by Crosby and Skilton: "We hope the reader will appreciate that all of this material is offered by way of explanation for the general reader, rather than as the exegesis of scripture for the purposes of religious practice." See ''The Bodhicaryāvatāra'', p. xxvii.</ref> Buddhists, on the other hand, study the sacred texts as part of a spiritual discipline, intending or at least aspiring to implement the teachings they contain. And to | ||
other hand, study the sacred texts as part of a spiritual discipline, intending or at least aspiring to implement the teachings they contain. And to | that end, they attach an equal importance not only to the origins and authorship of the texts, but also to the living tradition of explanation and practice that has preserved them into the present age. These two approaches obviously overlap, in the sense that textual accuracy and correct interpretation are of prime importance for both. Nevertheless, they diverge in important respects; and it is important to recognize the difference between independent, academic scholarship, with its essentially humanistic interest in texts, as compared with the allegiance to a tradition of spiritual training: detached erudition on the one hand, committed involvement on the other. | ||
that end, they attach an equal importance not only to the origins and | |||
authorship of the texts, but also to the living tradition of explanation | |||
and practice that has preserved them into the present age. These two | |||
approaches obviously overlap, in the sense that textual accuracy and correct interpretation are of prime importance for both. Nevertheless, they | |||
diverge in important respects; and it is important to recognize the difference between independent, academic scholarship, with its essentially humanistic interest in texts, as compared with the allegiance to a tradition of spiritual training: detached erudition on the one hand, committed involvement on the other. | |||
There is no doubt that the findings of Western scholarship in the | There is no doubt that the findings of Western scholarship in the | ||
Buddhological field are important and interesting. The brief but valuable | Buddhological field are important and interesting. The brief but valuable | ||
introductory material to the translation by Crosby and Skilton describes | introductory material to the translation by Crosby and Skilton describes | ||
the groundbreaking work of Akira Saito on the textual history of the ''Bodhicharyāvatāra'', made possible by the discovery, in the caves of | the groundbreaking work of Akira Saito on the textual history of the ''Bodhicharyāvatāra'', made possible by the discovery, in the caves of Dun-huang at the beginning of the twentieth century, of three manuscripts of | ||
a hitherto unknown Tibetan translation—a rendering that differs notably | a hitherto unknown Tibetan translation—a rendering that differs notably | ||
from the much longer version revised by Ngok Loden Sherab and | from the much longer version revised by Ngok Loden Sherab and | ||
Sumatikīrti and preserved in the Tengyur. To be sure, tradition records the | |||
existence of several versions of the ''Bodhicharyāvatāra'', attributing this fact | existence of several versions of the ''Bodhicharyāvatāra'', attributing this fact | ||
to the peculiar circumstances in which the poem was first publicized. | to the peculiar circumstances in which the poem was first publicized. | ||
Shāntideva's biography specifies that a text of one thousand shlokas in ten | |||
chapters was produced by the | chapters was produced by the paṇḍitas of Magadha, while their confreres | ||
of Kashmir recorded only seven hundred shlokas in nine chapters. Given | of Kashmir recorded only seven hundred shlokas in nine chapters. Given | ||
that the colophon to the Tibetan text we now possess tells us that Kawa | that the colophon to the Tibetan text we now possess tells us that Kawa | ||
Peltsek made the first translation of the ''Bodhicharyāvatāra'' using a | Peltsek made the first translation of the ''Bodhicharyāvatāra'' using a manuscript from Kashmir (perhaps descended from the work of the very paṇḍitas mentioned by tradition) and given that the translation contained | ||
in the Dun-huang manuscripts is indeed a text of nine chapters, the evidence, though not conclusive, tantalizingly suggests that the recension found at Dun-huang is in fact the long-lost translation of Kawa Peltsek.<ref>2</ref> | |||
in the Dun-huang manuscripts is indeed a text of nine chapters, the | |||
found at Dun-huang is in fact the long-lost translation of Kawa Peltsek.2 | |||
When this text is fully edited and published, a comparison of it with the | When this text is fully edited and published, a comparison of it with the | ||
canonical version will allow us to appreciate how much of Kawa | canonical version will allow us to appreciate how much of Kawa Peltsek's | ||
original work (assuming that the Dun-huang translation is his) has | original work (assuming that the Dun-huang translation is his) has survived in the later revisions. But for our understanding of the translation of the ''Bodhicharyāvatāra'' into Tibetan and of the history of its various | ||
recensions, it is improbable that the discoveries at Dun-huang will simplify the picture. If anything, they are likely to reveal a scenario more complicated than tradition records. On the face of it, and despite the | |||
of the ''Bodhicharyāvatāra'' into Tibetan and of the history of its various | |||
recensions, it is improbable that the discoveries at Dun-huang will | |||
inconvenient fact that the length of the extant Sanskrit and Tibetan texts | inconvenient fact that the length of the extant Sanskrit and Tibetan texts | ||
of the ''Bodhicharyāvatāra'' corresponds not at all with the figures quoted in | of the ''Bodhicharyāvatāra'' corresponds not at all with the figures quoted in | ||
the traditional records, it seems plausible nonetheless that the Sanskrit | the traditional records, it seems plausible nonetheless that the Sanskrit | ||
text and Loden | text and Loden Sherab's revised translation correspond, by and large, to | ||
the version authenticated by Shāntideva when he was consulted by the disgraced scholars of Nālandā. But according to Western scholarship, this | the version authenticated by Shāntideva when he was consulted by the disgraced scholars of Nālandā. But according to Western scholarship, this is far from certain. There are reasons for thinking that, compared with the canonical text, the Dun-huang recension embodies a streamlined and | ||
is far from certain. There are reasons for thinking that, compared with the | more coherent version of the ''Bodhicharyāvatāra'' that could, for that reason, lay claim to being a more faithful reflection of Shāntideva's original work. Conversely, so the argument continues, the problems of the canonical version (its asymmetrical layout, its occasional repetitiousness, the difficulty and obscurity of some of its arguments, and so on) are reasons for thinking that the text we now have is in fact a restructured version of the original work, enlarged in the centuries following Shāntideva’s death by the interpolation of material taken from the commentarial tradition. | ||
canonical text, the Dun-huang recension embodies a streamlined and | |||
more coherent version of the ''Bodhicharyāvatāra'' that could, for that | |||
work. Conversely, so the argument continues, the problems of the | |||
difficulty and obscurity of some of its arguments, and so on) are reasons | |||
for thinking that the text we now have is in fact a restructured version of | |||
the original work, enlarged in the centuries following | |||
by the interpolation of material taken from the commentarial tradition. | |||
And in the spirit of such Formkritik, academic erudition will no doubt | And in the spirit of such Formkritik, academic erudition will no doubt | ||
conclude that the story of | conclude that the story of Shāntideva's disembodied voice, the limited | ||
capacity of recall displayed by the scholars of Kashmir compared with the | capacity of recall displayed by the scholars of Kashmir compared with the | ||
naturally superior performance of the | naturally superior performance of the paṇḍitas of the "central land" of | ||
Magadha (with their suspiciously round figure of ten chapters and one | Magadha (with their suspiciously round figure of ten chapters and one | ||
thousand shlokas), and the subsequent ratification by the author—is no | thousand shlokas), and the subsequent ratification by the author—is no | ||
| Line 115: | Line 93: | ||
recension made in the eleventh century) diverges, in some places quite | recension made in the eleventh century) diverges, in some places quite | ||
considerably, from its Sanskrit counterpart. Are we to conclude from this | considerably, from its Sanskrit counterpart. Are we to conclude from this | ||
that the Tibetan translators were working with a lost Sanskrit version | that the Tibetan translators were working with a lost Sanskrit version different from the one that still survives? Or are the differences between the Sanskrit and Tibetan versions the result of oral explanations given by the | ||
Indian paṇḍitas to the Tibetan translators with whom they worked, which | |||
Sanskrit and Tibetan versions the result of oral explanations given by the | |||
Indian | |||
made necessary an interpretative rather than a strictly literal rendering of | made necessary an interpretative rather than a strictly literal rendering of | ||
the Sanskrit original? | the Sanskrit original? | ||
Once again, these are questions that Western scholarship, with its | Once again, these are questions that Western scholarship, with its resources in archaeology, paleography, and penetrating textual criticism, is best equipped to answer; and the results of such research will be primarily | ||
best equipped to answer; and the results of such research will be primarily | |||
of interest, as we have said, to students of religious and cultural history. By | of interest, as we have said, to students of religious and cultural history. By | ||
contrast, the needs and expectations of practicing Buddhists, who approach the ''Bodhicharyāvatāra'' primarily as a manual for living, are of a | contrast, the needs and expectations of practicing Buddhists, who approach the ''Bodhicharyāvatāra'' primarily as a manual for living, are of a | ||
| Line 131: | Line 105: | ||
The findings of academic study with regard to the textual history of | The findings of academic study with regard to the textual history of | ||
the ''Bodhicharyāvatāra'', and the question whether the Tibetan text we | the ''Bodhicharyāvatāra'', and the question whether the Tibetan text we | ||
now have corresponds in all respects to | now have corresponds in all respects to Shāntideva’s autographed copy | ||
are obviously of considerable interest. But for the Buddhist practitioner | are obviously of considerable interest. But for the Buddhist practitioner | ||
they are of secondary importance. From a traditional point of view, the | they are of secondary importance. From a traditional point of view, the | ||
| Line 137: | Line 111: | ||
identity of its author, but also, and perhaps even more importantly, on | identity of its author, but also, and perhaps even more importantly, on | ||
the generations of practitioners who, by their experience and realization | the generations of practitioners who, by their experience and realization | ||
have attested to the truth and effectiveness of | have attested to the truth and effectiveness of Shāntideva's teaching. For | ||
the Buddhist, the contribution to a tradition made by the lineage of its | the Buddhist, the contribution to a tradition made by the lineage of its | ||
accomplished practitioners is just as crucial as that of its source. It is | accomplished practitioners is just as crucial as that of its source. It is generally thought that the text of the ''Bodhicharyāvatāra'' is accompanied by | ||
an oral transmission that began with its author<ref>3</ref> and has been passed | |||
an oral transmission that began with its | |||
down for nearly fifteen centuries. It was bequeathed by the Indian | down for nearly fifteen centuries. It was bequeathed by the Indian | ||
paṇḍitas to the Tibetan translators, and they in turn transmitted it to | |||
successive generations of meditators and scholars. The Sanskrit | successive generations of meditators and scholars. The Sanskrit transmission of the ''Bodhicharyāvatāra'', presumably existing between Shāntideva's time and that of Sumatikīrti, who collaborated with Ngok Loden Sherab, | ||
time and that of Sumatikīrti, who collaborated with Ngok Loden Sherab, | |||
was interrupted and lost in the calamities that engulfed Indian Buddhism | was interrupted and lost in the calamities that engulfed Indian Buddhism | ||
in the twelfth century. By consequence, the oral transmission and | in the twelfth century. By consequence, the oral transmission and explanatory lineage of Shāntideva's teaching exist only in Tibetan and for obvious reasons cannot be resurrected from the Sanskrit relics. | ||
obvious reasons cannot be resurrected from the Sanskrit relics. | |||
The difference in meaning between a translation made from the Sanskrit and a translation made from the Tibetan may not, in point of fact, be | The difference in meaning between a translation made from the Sanskrit and a translation made from the Tibetan may not, in point of fact, be | ||
| Line 163: | Line 132: | ||
It has been said that when translating Buddhist texts, it is essential to aim | It has been said that when translating Buddhist texts, it is essential to aim | ||
for literalness as a guarantee of accuracy, and that it is unnecessary to be | for literalness as a guarantee of accuracy, and that it is unnecessary to be | ||
overly concerned for elegance of expression.4 Whether literal, as distinct | overly concerned for elegance of expression.<ref>4</ref> Whether literal, as distinct | ||
from interpretative, rendering is a gauge of fidelity in | from interpretative, rendering is a gauge of fidelity in translation—whether indeed a truly literal rendering between two languages is even possible—is a large question, one that has preoccupied translators and translation theorists for generations.<ref>5</ref> As a general principle, however, we | ||
would certainly agree that it is right to prefer the literal to the elegant rendering if by "elegance" is meant a contrived, self-conscious style that uses the original text as a stage on which to display itself. As Dr. Johnson | |||
possible—is a large question, one that has preoccupied translators and | observed, "A translator is to be like his author; it is not his business to excel him." Accurate inelegance, in other words, is preferable to elegant invention. The point is well made, and yet there is something unsatisfactory in | ||
translation theorists for generations.5 As a general principle, however, we | |||
would certainly agree that it is right to prefer the literal to the elegant | |||
the original text as a stage on which to display itself. As Dr. Johnson | |||
observed, | |||
him. | |||
setting literal accuracy against elegance of style in such uncompromising | setting literal accuracy against elegance of style in such uncompromising | ||
opposition. For it is obvious that the character and effectiveness of any | opposition. For it is obvious that the character and effectiveness of any | ||
| Line 187: | Line 150: | ||
word-for-word cribs—classroom tools devised to help students puzzle | word-for-word cribs—classroom tools devised to help students puzzle | ||
their way through the original. The goal, surely, is to produce versions that | their way through the original. The goal, surely, is to produce versions that | ||
are completely viable in their own right for those who will never be in a | are completely viable in their own right for those who will never be in a position to read the literature in the source language and who must depend on translations as if they were the texts themselves. In such a case, closeness | ||
on translations as | |||
and fidelity to the original are of vital importance, and by the same token, | and fidelity to the original are of vital importance, and by the same token, | ||
the obscuring effect of a contrived and artificial | the obscuring effect of a contrived and artificial "elegance" is something to | ||
be avoided at all costs. And yet one would have thought that an accurate | be avoided at all costs. And yet one would have thought that an accurate | ||
rendering, expressive not only of the content but also of the style of the | rendering, expressive not only of the content but also of the style of the | ||
original, which consists of plain, clear, well-balanced sentences that are | original, which consists of plain, clear, well-balanced sentences that are | ||
pleasing both to eye and ear, and can be understood in a single | pleasing both to eye and ear, and can be understood in a single reading all this is elegant and effective translation. Alas, this kind of writing is a comparative rarity nowadays in Buddhist literature in English. How often | ||
all this is elegant and effective translation. Alas, this kind of writing is a comparative rarity nowadays in Buddhist literature in English. How often | |||
it happens that correct renderings are ruined by stylistic ineptitude. | it happens that correct renderings are ruined by stylistic ineptitude. | ||
To say, as some have done, that the translation of Tibetan texts need | To say, as some have done, that the translation of Tibetan texts need | ||
not be elegant because the originals are not elegant begs an important | not be elegant because the originals are not elegant begs an important | ||
question.6 Aesthetic standards vary from culture to culture and from | question.<ref>6</ref> Aesthetic standards vary from culture to culture and from language to language, and it is far from clear that we are in a position to judge | ||
what the speakers of the source language find, or found, pleasing. We ourselves have heard a Tibetan teacher enthusiastically praising the grace of Patsap's translation of the ''Madhyamakāvatāra''; and it is recorded that | |||
what the speakers of the source language find, or found, pleasing. We ourselves have heard a Tibetan teacher enthusiastically praising the grace of | |||
Tsongkhapa was moved to tears by the beauty of the ''Pramāṇavārttika''. | Tsongkhapa was moved to tears by the beauty of the ''Pramāṇavārttika''. | ||
This represents a considerable challenge for the translator, for it is surely | This represents a considerable challenge for the translator, for it is surely | ||
insufficient to render texts that, however difficult they may be, are | insufficient to render texts that, however difficult they may be, are considered fine and beautiful in the original, by translations that are dull and sometimes so opaque and turgid as to be unreadable. | ||
sometimes so opaque and turgid as to be unreadable. | |||
The translation of the ''Bodhicharyāvatāra'' into verse, or rather rhythmic prose, is an attempt to come to terms with this difficulty. The result is | The translation of the ''Bodhicharyāvatāra'' into verse, or rather rhythmic prose, is an attempt to come to terms with this difficulty. The result is | ||
| Line 217: | Line 173: | ||
We have tried to follow the wise principle of King Alfred (849-899), | We have tried to follow the wise principle of King Alfred (849-899), | ||
perhaps the first of English translators ( | perhaps the first of English translators ("sometimes word for word, sometimes meaning for meaning"), by which he meant that translation should | ||
be literal where possible, free and interpretative where necessary, and at all | be literal where possible, free and interpretative where necessary, and at all | ||
times accurate. In translating the ''Bodhicharyāvatāra'', it is perhaps not | times accurate. In translating the ''Bodhicharyāvatāra'', it is perhaps not | ||
possible, or even desirable, to achieve the equivalent of | possible, or even desirable, to achieve the equivalent of Luther's declared | ||
intention in his translation of the Old Testament: | intention in his translation of the Old Testament: "to make Moses sound so German that no one would ever suspect he was a Jew." Nevertheless, it has been our aim to convey Shāntideva's meaning as clearly as we could, | ||
so German that no one would ever suspect he was a Jew. | |||
has been our aim to convey | |||
and to give him a voice that might fall on the ears of English speakers as | and to give him a voice that might fall on the ears of English speakers as | ||
pleasantly as it seems to do for Tibetans. Of course, there is no accounting | pleasantly as it seems to do for Tibetans. Of course, there is no accounting | ||
for taste, and it is hardly to be expected that our goal has been wholly, or | for taste, and it is hardly to be expected that our goal has been wholly, or | ||
even mostly, successful. But it is our hope that, by adhering to the | even mostly, successful. But it is our hope that, by adhering to the explanations of Kunzang Pelden, the translation is as faithful and close as meager talent and English idiom will allow, and that whatever is found to be "poetic" will not be thought to derogate from its accuracy as a rendering. | ||
Our hoped-for goal has been to throw a bridge across the barrier of | Our hoped-for goal has been to throw a bridge across the barrier of language so that English readers may hear Shāntideva speaking to them persuasively and in familiar accents, enabling them to discover wisdom and a | ||
way of life easily and accessibly in their own tongue. As the translators of | way of life easily and accessibly in their own tongue. As the translators of | ||
the King James Version of the Bible observed in the preface to their own | the King James Version of the Bible observed in the preface to their own | ||
unsurpassed achievement, | unsurpassed achievement, | ||
:Translation it is that openeth the window, to let in the light; that breaketh the shell, that we may eat of the kernel; that putteth aside the curtain, that we may look into the most Holy place; that removeth the cover of the well, that we may come by the water.7 | :Translation it is that openeth the window, to let in the light; that breaketh the shell, that we may eat of the kernel; that putteth aside the curtain, that we may look into the most Holy place; that removeth the cover of the well, that we may come by the water.<ref>7</ref> | ||
}} | }} | ||
Revision as of 20:35, 30 October 2023
See Padmakara The Way of the Boddhisattva p.i-xxi
This page will include a discussion on methodological issues related to the translation of the Bodhicaryāvatāra into modern languages. In this discussion, we will identify key points that are particularly relevant for translators of Indian Buddhist treatises.
The titles listed in the bibliography below are useful sources to develop this page. Even if their main focus appears to be on different subject, they have been selected because they include valuable information on the topic of this page.
