Translation error in MN 10

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
SarathW
Posts: 17194
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:49 am

Translation error in MN 10

Post by SarathW »

Major translation error in MN 10.

I have noticed the following translation in MN10:
=======
And again, monks, a monk, when he is walking, comprehends, ‘I am walking’; or when he is standing still, comprehends, ‘I am standing still’; or when he is sitting down, comprehends, ‘I am sitting down’; or when he is lying down, comprehends, ‘I am lying down.’ So that however his body is disposed he comprehends that it is like that.

https://suttacentral.net/mn10/en/horner
I find this in all translations of Ven Sujato and Ven Thanissaro's translations as well.

=======
When I checked the Sinhalese translations I can't see this was translate as "i am"
“As the lamp consumes oil, the path realises Nibbana”
paul
Posts: 1512
Joined: Tue May 31, 2011 11:27 pm
Location: Cambodia

Re: Translation error in MN 10

Post by paul »

Are personal pronouns like 'I', 'me', 'my' not used in Sinhala, showing respect to anatta ?
User avatar
DNS
Site Admin
Posts: 14351
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 4:15 am
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada, Estados Unidos de América
Contact:

Re: Translation error in MN 10

Post by DNS »

SarathW wrote: Sat Feb 02, 2019 9:45 pm When I checked the Sinhalese translations I can't see this was translate as "i am"
What does it say? (Sinhalese to English)
SarathW
Posts: 17194
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:49 am

Re: Translation error in MN 10

Post by SarathW »

DNS wrote: Sat Feb 02, 2019 10:12 pm
SarathW wrote: Sat Feb 02, 2019 9:45 pm When I checked the Sinhalese translations I can't see this was translate as "i am"
What does it say? (Sinhalese to English)
It has written without "I am"
I think Pali also does not contain "I am"
It is quite hilarious to translate like this when Satipathana repeatedly asking us to not take things as I, me and myself.
If this was translated in another Sutaa as I, me and myself I could accept it.
“As the lamp consumes oil, the path realises Nibbana”
paul
Posts: 1512
Joined: Tue May 31, 2011 11:27 pm
Location: Cambodia

Re: Translation error in MN 10

Post by paul »

This quote shows how the Buddha used terminology from conventional reality when discussing anatta without misapprehending it:

“these are the world's designations, the world's expressions, the world's ways of speaking, the world's descriptions, with which the Tathagata expresses himself but without grasping to them.”—-D 9
SarathW
Posts: 17194
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:49 am

Re: Translation error in MN 10

Post by SarathW »

paul wrote: Sat Feb 02, 2019 11:09 pm This quote shows how the Buddha used terminology from conventional reality when discussing anatta without misapprehending it:

“these are the world's designations, the world's expressions, the world's ways of speaking, the world's descriptions, with which the Tathagata expresses himself but without grasping to them.”—-D 9
Agree.
What I am saying is that is not how it is in Pali Sutta.
“As the lamp consumes oil, the path realises Nibbana”
User avatar
Dhammanando
Posts: 6375
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:44 pm
Location: Mae Wang Huai Rin, Li District, Lamphun

Re: Translation error in MN 10

Post by Dhammanando »

It's not an error.

Just as the '-s' in 'jumps' tells you that it must be 'he' or 'she' or 'it' who is doing the jumping, so the -mi in gacchāmi tells you that it's 'I' who is going.

In a predominantly fusional language like Pali it's often not necessary to use a pronoun, but it is necessary when translating into a predominantly analytic language like English.
Rūpehi bhikkhave arūpā santatarā.
Arūpehi nirodho santataro ti.


“Bhikkhus, the formless is more peaceful than the form realms.
Cessation is more peaceful than the formless realms.”
(Santatarasutta, Iti 73)
SarathW
Posts: 17194
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:49 am

Re: Translation error in MN 10

Post by SarathW »

Thank you, Bhante.
I am not a linguistic specialist.
I know your skills far more superior to mine.
However, I still feel you can still translate this without "I am"
“As the lamp consumes oil, the path realises Nibbana”
User avatar
Dhammanando
Posts: 6375
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:44 pm
Location: Mae Wang Huai Rin, Li District, Lamphun

Re: Translation error in MN 10

Post by Dhammanando »

SarathW wrote: Sat Feb 02, 2019 11:35 pm However, I still feel you can still translate this without "I am"
You could omit the pronoun if your aim was to translate it into pidgin English. But if it's standard English you're aiming at, then to omit the pronoun would be to overstep normal usage – something the Buddha advised against in the Araṇavibhaṅgasutta.

It isn't essential, however, to use the present continuous — the simple present, "I go", will do just as well.
Rūpehi bhikkhave arūpā santatarā.
Arūpehi nirodho santataro ti.


“Bhikkhus, the formless is more peaceful than the form realms.
Cessation is more peaceful than the formless realms.”
(Santatarasutta, Iti 73)
User avatar
Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta
Posts: 1937
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2019 5:06 pm

Re: Translation error in MN 10

Post by Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta »

Strange:

Same here in Myanmar language tipitaka translation, "no I."

However, translations by several Myanmar authors of MN 10 to English use the "I".

One such example is found in Pa Auk Sayaw's book translated into English [probably by one of his students] -->
"Breathing in long, he understands: ‘I breathe in long(dīghaṃ assasāmi);’ breathing out long, he understands: ‘I breathe out long(dīghaṃ passasāmi)."
But, on instruction how to practice somewhere in the book, only "-ing" form noting is used in initial steps "without I".
Concentrate on the breath in this way, without thinking about anything else: only the breath. If your mind wanders frequently, you may help it stay with the breath by noting: when knowing the in&out-breath, note it as: ‘breathing in — breathing out’, ‘breathing in — breathing out’, etc., ‘in — out’, ‘in — out’, etc.
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B7p0U ... zdEOE1Vdnc

It may be just the way Grammar behaves across language.

Or, Sinhalese and Myanmar may be languages of anatta :)

:anjali:
Metta


================
:offtopic: :offtopic: :offtopic:
Btw, I also found in this book regarding "his perspective" on noting:
noting is verbal expression(vacī∙viññatti) produced by the two gross jhāna factors, application and sustainment.
I'm quite happy to know:
1. noting [even in basic sense/quality - or 'basic noting'] can 'legitimately' be expressed in the forms of gross jhana factors (according to one of the most influential persons regarding jhanas these days). I think, I should effectively apply those "gross jhana factors" in daily living, being an average householder.
2. the translation of vittaka-vicara into "application and sustainment" goes straight into my heart when compared to many other wordings found on googling.
:anjali:
.


🅢🅐🅑🅑🅔 🅓🅗🅐🅜🅜🅐 🅐🅝🅐🅣🅣🅐

Self ...
  • "an entirely and perfectly foolish idea" :D ~ MN22
SarathW
Posts: 17194
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:49 am

Re: Translation error in MN 10

Post by SarathW »

[quoteSinhalese and Myanmar may be languages of anatta :) ][/quote]
Yes, perhaps many Asian languages.
I think it is funny to say:
I am walking but it is not I, me or my self.
“As the lamp consumes oil, the path realises Nibbana”
BKh
Posts: 536
Joined: Mon May 30, 2011 12:43 am

Re: Translation error in MN 10

Post by BKh »

Are personal pronouns like 'I', 'me', 'my' not used in Sinhala, showing respect to anatta ?
Linguisticaly Sinhala is what's known as a super-drop language. If, through context, the meaning can be understood it is perfectly acceptable in spoken Sinhala to drop subjects, objects, etc. It's not considered pidgin at all.

Drop languages are very common. It has nothing to do with anatta.
ReadingFaithfully.org Daily Practice with the Suttas | BuddhaRupa Images of the Buddha across time and space
form
Posts: 2556
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2016 3:23 am

Re: Translation error in MN 10

Post by form »

Seems to me that it is technically possible to translate without "I", "I am" in English if that can be done in the original and Burmamese. It will make more sense that way.

As long as with "I" etc. is not craving for non-existence, but taking phenomenon as momentally formations.
User avatar
Dhammanando
Posts: 6375
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:44 pm
Location: Mae Wang Huai Rin, Li District, Lamphun

Re: Translation error in MN 10

Post by Dhammanando »

If one is really anxious to eliminate the word 'I', the easiest solution would be to translate the phrase into indirect speech. But you'll still need a pronoun, only now it will be 'he'.

Pali

Bhikkhu gacchanto vā ‘gacchāmī’ti pajānāti;
ṭhito vā ‘ṭhitomhī’ti pajānāti;
nisinno vā ‘nisinnomhī’ti pajānāti;
sayāno vā ‘sayānomhī’ti pajānāti.

Form-equivalent (i.e., 'literal') translation

A bhikkhu going is aware: 'go';
or stood is aware: 'am stood';
or seated is aware: 'am seated';
or lain is aware: 'am lain'.

Dynamic-equivalent translation in direct speech

When going a bhikkhu is aware: 'I am going';
or when standing he is aware: 'I am standing';
or when sitting he is aware: 'I am sitting';
or when lying down he is aware: 'I am lying down'.

Dynamic-equivalent translation in indirect speech

When going a bhikkhu is aware that he is going;
or when standing he is aware that he is standing;
or when sitting he is aware that he is sitting;
or when lying down he is aware that he is lying down.
Rūpehi bhikkhave arūpā santatarā.
Arūpehi nirodho santataro ti.


“Bhikkhus, the formless is more peaceful than the form realms.
Cessation is more peaceful than the formless realms.”
(Santatarasutta, Iti 73)
SarathW
Posts: 17194
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:49 am

Re: Translation error in MN 10

Post by SarathW »

it will be 'he'.
Can we say there is sitting etc?
When we do walking we don't say I am walking etc.
Instead, we aware "sitting, walking" etc.
“As the lamp consumes oil, the path realises Nibbana”
Post Reply