Which translation do you prefer: V Thanissaro or V Bodhi's ?

[DAWN]

There is some difference between translations of these two Venerables Bhikkhus.

So I would like to ask you, which translations of Ven. Thanissaro Bhikkhu or Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi you prefer, and why?

[tiltbillings]

I edited your English to make this a bit clearer, but let me ask you, in order to clarify what you are asking:

Is this your question: Whose translation do you prefer, Ven Thanisarro's or Ven Bodhi's? Is this the question you are asking?

[DAWN]

I edited your English to make this a bit clearer, but let me ask you, in order to clarify what you are asking:

Is this your question: Whose translation do you prefer, Ven Thanisarro's or Ven Bodhi's? Is this the question you are asking?

Thanks you for edition.

I would like ask why some one prefere traduction of one or another, why there is difference between traductions etc.

If this topic is sensible, or create division in sangha, please delete it.

With regards

[tiltbillings]

I edited your English to make this a bit clearer, but let me ask you, in order to clarify what you are asking:

Is this your question: Whose translation do you prefer, Ven Thanisarro's or Ven Bodhi's? Is this the question you are asking?

Thanks you for edition.

I would like ask why some one prefere traduction of one or another, why there is difference between traductions etc.

If this topic is sensible, or create division in sangha, please delete it.

With regards

It is a reasonable question to ask and it should get a good conversation going. traduction seems to be French. Translation is the English.

[DAWN]

It is a reasonable question to ask and it should get a good conversation going. traduction seems to be French. Translation is the English.

Yes i'ts more french than english, i'am sorry

To start a discution, i my opinion, traduction of Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi is more litteraly than those of Ven. Thanissaro Bhikkhu who can sometimes make some personal interprtation, or give his opinion on one or other sutta.

IMHO

[LonesomeYogurt]

I've always felt like Thanissaro gets to the heart of the scholarly meaning, but sometime he does so at the expense of flow and readability. I prefer Bodhi for a nice balance of scholarly rigor and clear, precise language.

[Buckwheat]

I've always felt like Thanissaro gets to the heart of the scholarly meaning, but sometime he does so at the expense of flow and readability.

I think that's a fair statement. There were some lines in the Dhammapada that did not make any sense to me until I read Thanissaro Bhikkhu's translations of them. But then I went back to reading the first version because they had a more poetic ring to them.

[DAWN]

that did not make any sense to me until I read Thanissaro Bhikkhu's translations

Me too, and i dont know if this misunderstanding is something subjective, or more general. Sometimes, when i read a paper vertion of SN by Ven Bodhi and when i would like to quote some sutta or words of the Buddha, every time, the words that chose Ven Thanissaro, are very differents, and it's chage a lot the comprehention, so i have to write the translation of Ven Bodhi near those of Ven Thanissaro.

But anyway, i dont think that is somethink bad, because it's usefull to have a differents points of wiev on the same onject, word, of concept.

[Hanzze]

I guess there is a good point inside. The longer and usuallier a word is used, the stronger the perception coming with it will be. One can abserve that well in Buddhist countries, where many pali words are addopted into the language and used in daily life.
Using such words to loosen perceptions is nearly impossible. As used ordinary (not very aware) they are not proper understood but just phrase of personal expressions. Generally deperception does not mean, that there is no perception needed to walk on on the path, but it is needed to have the proper perception for the precent counciousness.

Understanding the meaning of words means to discover their meanings, one for one self and one as it is meant by the teller.

From my impression, Ven. Bodhi feeds easierly people with common perceptions, or let me say a broader level of common intelectuallity, while Ven. Thanissaro seems to try to break through a common understanding of words (which is already established in Buddhist community).

[ground]

Both are equally good because together they show that the meaning of the suttas is not predetermined.

[Hanzze]

"Objectivly" maybe yes, "Subjectivly" how could there be any equal condition?

not predetermined

In regard of perseption (here word) yes. In regard of the meaning, this statement would be strange or an link to doubt (which is a appearence of personallity).

[ground]

"Objectivly" maybe yes, "Subjectivly" how could there be any equal condition?

It is when words and meanings arising from these do not make a difference after having seen that consciousness arises from sankhara and ignorance.

[Hanzze]

*smile* ...and still there is doubt

[ground]

*smile* ...and still there is doubt

If it is great doubt that refers to the aggregates of which consciousness is one then this may be conducive for seeing.

[Cittasanto]

I've always felt like Thanissaro gets to the heart of the scholarly meaning[.... ...]Bodhi for a nice balance of scholarly rigor and clear, precise language.

This is true, however I feel some of Tanissaros choices for word - word renderings to be better, and Bodhi sides with the commentaries more.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings,

This is true, however I feel some of Tanissaros choices for word - word renderings to be better, and Bodhi sides with the commentaries more.

Agreed.

The best feature of Bodhi's work is his fluency of language (and I think he gets away with more than he should, on account of it).

Metta,
Retro.

[mikenz66]

I prefer Bhikkhu Bodhi's scholarship, clarity about the various possibilities of interpretation, and writing style. Thanissaro Bhikkhu does give some interesting food for thought with his particular interpretations, but I sometimes find his writing style rather difficult.


Mike

[tiltbillings]

I prefer Bhikkhu Bodhi's scholarship, clarity about the various possibilities of interpretation, and writing style. Thanissaro Bhikkhu does give some interesting food for thought with his particular interpretations, but I sometimes find his writing style rather difficult.


Mike

Ven Bodhi is simply a better over all translator.

[cooran]

I prefer Bhikkhu Bodhi's scholarship, clarity about the various possibilities of interpretation, and writing style. Thanissaro Bhikkhu does give some interesting food for thought with his particular interpretations, but I sometimes find his writing style rather difficult.


Mike

Ven Bodhi is simply a better over all translator.

absolutely agree. Bhikkhu Bodhi is a better scholar and translator. I'd trust him over all.

with metta
Chris

[mikenz66]

Andrew Olendski's review of In the Buddha's Words
http://www.wisdompubs.org/Pages/display ... yValue=104
Specifically here: http://downloads.wisdompubs.org/website_downloads/ITBW%20BD%20Review.pdf

Starting with its context, we might say
that this anthology is a capstone to one
of the three English translations of the
Tipitaka, or Pali Canon, that are currently
available, each of which has its particular
strengths and limitations.

The first consists of the
Pali Text Society translations
which have been generated over the past
century by some of Buddhism’s foremost
scholars, including T. W. Rhys Davids
and his wife Caroline Rhys Davids, I. B.
Horner, F. L. Woodward, and E. M. Hare.
There is, however, much diversity in their
rendering of technical vocabulary (e.g.,
are asavas Deadly Floods, cankers, Drugs
or Poisons, intoxicants, influxes, or efflu-
ents?), and an antiquated feel to some of
the English usage (e.g., “Yea, as thou
say’st then wast thou, Bhaggava!”). There
is also some question about whether the
“academic objectivity” of a brilliant,
Christian, nonmeditating linguist is the
best mode in which to attempt to render
material of such subtle interiority as the
Buddha’s dhamma.

Thanissaro Bhikkhu is gradually work-
ing towards an alternative English transla-
tion of the Pali Canon, and each new text
he translates is published for free distribu-
tion and placed on the Internet (accessto-
insight.org) for free downloading. Because
of their preference for working in cyber-
space, the younger generation of dhamma
enthusiasts is widely using this version of
the Tipitaka. But those more familiar with
the vernacular that is current in dhamma
circles struggle with some of his idiosyn-
cratic word choices (e.g., “stress” for
dukkha, “frame of reference” for satipat-
thana, “Unbinding” for nibbana). It’s not
to say that these are not excellent choices
once one understands the reasoning, but
unless or until his canon becomes more
widely adopted, many readers will tend to
stub their toes upon some of these terms.
Thanissaro clearly knows his tradition
well, and adds to his work the important
dimension of experiential depth.

The third English translation of the Pali
Canon consists largely, but not exclusively,
of the texts put out by Wisdom Publi-
cations in the last decade or so. Walshe’s
Long Discourses, Nanamoli’s Middle
Length Discourses, and Bhikkhu Bodhi’s
Connected Discourses and Numerical
Discourses, along with some freelance
translations from the fifth Nikaya, or
collection, have come to form a coherent
and reasonably consistent body of work
of considerable usefulness to the modern
reader. The translations in this series ben-
efit from solid Pali scholarship, lucid con-
temporary English prose, and the sensitive
understanding of seasoned meditation
practitioners. In the Buddha’s Words is an
anthology drawing primarily on these first
four Nikayas, and manages quite success-
fully to both summarize them and extract
their essence.

Mike