Is the PTS a reliable dictionary?

Explore the ancient language of the Tipitaka and Theravāda commentaries
User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 8150
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:55 pm
Location: Whitby, Canada

Re: Is the PTS a reliable dictionary?

Post by Coëmgenu »

ToVincent wrote: Tue Jan 25, 2022 7:11 pmIn your late sutta's instance, it means walking up and down, like the gods.
That sutta is not "late." Please don't make up nonsense like this and present it as the truth. Just as in English we can say "stroll" and "promenade," there is more then one Pali term for walking.
Furthermore, when a mendicant is walking they know: ‘I am walking.’ When standing they know: ‘I am standing.’ When sitting they know: ‘I am sitting.’ And when lying down they know: ‘I am lying down.’
Puna caparaṁ, bhikkhave, bhikkhu gacchanto vā ‘gacchāmī’ti pajānāti, ṭhito vā ‘ṭhitomhī’ti pajānāti, nisinno vā ‘nisinnomhī’ti pajānāti, sayāno vā ‘sayānomhī’ti pajānāti.
Here's another way of referring to walking.

Hmm....

It's not "viharati."
What is the Uncreated?
Sublime & free, what is that obscured Eternity?
It is the Undying, the Bright, the Isle.
It is an Ocean, a Secret: Reality.
Both life and oblivion, it is Nirvāṇa.
ToVincent
Posts: 1839
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 6:02 pm

Re: Is the PTS a reliable dictionary?

Post by ToVincent »

Coëmgenu wrote: Tue Jan 25, 2022 7:39 pm ...
Gacchati (root gam) has the pre-Buddhist meaning of to move, not to walk.

Plunging deeper into preposterousness.
.
.
Last edited by ToVincent on Tue Jan 25, 2022 8:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.
In this world, there are many people acting and yearning for the Mara's world; some for the Brahma's world; and very few for the Unborn.
ToVincent
Posts: 1839
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 6:02 pm

Re: Is the PTS a reliable dictionary?

Post by ToVincent »

In this world, there are many people acting and yearning for the Mara's world; some for the Brahma's world; and very few for the Unborn.
User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 8150
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:55 pm
Location: Whitby, Canada

Re: Is the PTS a reliable dictionary?

Post by Coëmgenu »

ToVincent wrote: Tue Jan 25, 2022 8:05 pmGacchati (root gam) has the pre-Buddhist meaning of to move, not to walk.
A "pre-Buddhist" meaning for gacchati here is of curious utility. One might call it "preposterous" to suggest that one should use "pre-Buddhist meanings" to understand Buddhist words. Rather than the "pre-Buddhist meanings," I would suggest that users of the forum use "Buddhist meanings."

Here is yet another term for walk.
“If you’ve discovered the path
“Sace maggaṁ anubuddhaṁ,
that’s safe, and leads to the deathless,
khemaṁ amatagāminaṁ;
go and walk that path alone—
Apehi gaccha tvameveko,
why teach it to anyone else?”
kimaññamanusāsasī”ti.
It's also derived from a "gacchati" like form. It's not "viharati."
What is the Uncreated?
Sublime & free, what is that obscured Eternity?
It is the Undying, the Bright, the Isle.
It is an Ocean, a Secret: Reality.
Both life and oblivion, it is Nirvāṇa.
ToVincent
Posts: 1839
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 6:02 pm

Re: Is the PTS a reliable dictionary?

Post by ToVincent »

Coëmgenu wrote: Tue Jan 25, 2022 8:15 pm Here is yet another term for walk.
“If you’ve discovered the path
“Sace maggaṁ anubuddhaṁ,
that’s safe, and leads to the deathless,
khemaṁ amatagāminaṁ;
go and walk that path alone—
Apehi gaccha tvameveko,
why teach it to anyone else?”
kimaññamanusāsasī”ti.
Apehi gaccha tvameveko
Depart and move on that path alone.
As said before, gacchati (root gam) has the pre-Buddhist meaning of to move, not to walk.
And one of the pre-Buddhist meaning of vihr (viharati) is to "walk" - not to "dwell".
That's a fact.

All you've come up to now, are unsubstantiated nonsenses - as well as derogatory unsuported comments.
What you are doing here, is mere trolling, with appeals to the stone fallacies. Don't pair them with your contemptible remarks.
When what shows to be a blunder on your part, is paired with your comment "what ToVincent says is farcical' - I think the farce is on you. Isn't it?
Wait at least for my answer to have such comments.

The fact is that the PTS uses very often post-Buddhist meanings drawn from the MW.

Once more, I advise the readers of this thread to go back to the first two pages, and make up their mind.
It's a short read.
.
.
Last edited by ToVincent on Wed Jan 26, 2022 7:40 am, edited 1 time in total.
In this world, there are many people acting and yearning for the Mara's world; some for the Brahma's world; and very few for the Unborn.
User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 8150
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:55 pm
Location: Whitby, Canada

Re: Is the PTS a reliable dictionary?

Post by Coëmgenu »

"All I've come up with now" are numerous well-substantiated translations from qualified translators, in this case Vens Sujāto and Bodhi, which testify to the real meanings of these words and that you are not qualified to dispute with your nonsense definition of "to fetch" and "to walk" for "viharati."
What is the Uncreated?
Sublime & free, what is that obscured Eternity?
It is the Undying, the Bright, the Isle.
It is an Ocean, a Secret: Reality.
Both life and oblivion, it is Nirvāṇa.
ToVincent
Posts: 1839
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 6:02 pm

Re: Is the PTS a reliable dictionary?

Post by ToVincent »

Coëmgenu wrote: Wed Jan 26, 2022 7:39 am "All I've come up with now" are well-substantiated translations from qualified translators, in this case Vens Sujāto and Bodhi, that you are not qualified to dispute with your nonsense definition of "to fetch" and "to walk" for "viharati."
No you haven't!
And Bodhi uses the PTS — wrongly (sometimes).
And I wonder where Sujato got his "choice" meaning for sankhara. Speak about interpretation.

-------

Once more, I advise the readers of this thread to go back to the first two pages, and make up their mind.
It's a short read.
.
.
In this world, there are many people acting and yearning for the Mara's world; some for the Brahma's world; and very few for the Unborn.
User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 8150
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:55 pm
Location: Whitby, Canada

Re: Is the PTS a reliable dictionary?

Post by Coëmgenu »

He got it from the Pāli commentarial literature and Abhidhamma, as well as those suttas which link the sankharas to intention.

Ven Bodhi has translated correctly when he has been quoted. You are not qualified or able to unseat him as your superior in Pāli translation. Similarly, all of Ven Sujāto's translations used here are uncontroversial. I did not quote him translating the term "vitakkavicāra" for instance.
What is the Uncreated?
Sublime & free, what is that obscured Eternity?
It is the Undying, the Bright, the Isle.
It is an Ocean, a Secret: Reality.
Both life and oblivion, it is Nirvāṇa.
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Is the PTS a reliable dictionary?

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings,
ToVincent wrote: Wed Jan 26, 2022 7:43 am And I wonder where Sujato got his "choice" meaning for sankhara. Speak about interpretation.
Conversation of dictionaries aside, I certainly wouldn't be relying on Sujato's interpretive renderings as "definitions" either. By his own admission, he prioritised unambiguous readability over precision. I feel much has been lost, or even twisted, as a result.

Metta,
Paul. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 8150
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:55 pm
Location: Whitby, Canada

Re: Is the PTS a reliable dictionary?

Post by Coëmgenu »

That is utterly irrelevant to the examples posted here. It is further irrelevant to the OP. Ven Sujāto is not translating a doctrinal term like vitakkavicāta or sankhara. He is translating accurately in all of the examples posted. ToVincent's objection to the translations of Ven Sujāto that I have posted here as examples in this thread is utterly groundless. It's a pity you've jumped on a groundless off-topic piece of obscuration that only furthers ToVincent's incorrect naysaying to every translation save his own very-wrong translations as presented in this thread as if they were viable alternatives to the truth.

While you may share personal opinions about twisting meanings, etc., you are not qualified to make a sweeping call judging the merits of the entire translation based on your disagreements about a word or two. You are not fit to be dismissing the entirety of his translations as "interpretive renderings." Your place is not a position from which you ought to be eroding trust in experts for the simple reason that you are not one of them. This oughtn't be the place for incompetent "peanut gallery" style takedowns of superiors in qualification and knowledge.
What is the Uncreated?
Sublime & free, what is that obscured Eternity?
It is the Undying, the Bright, the Isle.
It is an Ocean, a Secret: Reality.
Both life and oblivion, it is Nirvāṇa.
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19941
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: Is the PTS a reliable dictionary?

Post by mikenz66 »

retrofuturist wrote: Wed Jan 26, 2022 8:20 am
ToVincent wrote: Wed Jan 26, 2022 7:43 am And I wonder where Sujato got his "choice" meaning for sankhara. Speak about interpretation.
Conversation of dictionaries aside, I certainly wouldn't be relying on Sujato's interpretive renderings as "definitions" either. By his own admission, he prioritised unambiguous readability over precision. I feel much has been lost, or even twisted, as a result.
To me "choices" has the same meaning as the perennial "volitional formations" (which isn't even comprehensible English, and needs a footnote to explain it). I don't always like Bhikkhu Sujato's translation choices, but in many cases they shed light by ditching the stilted style of the earlier translations.
Avijjāgato yaṁ, bhikkhave, purisapuggalo puññañce saṅkhāraṁ abhisaṅkharoti, puññūpagaṁ hoti viññāṇaṁ.
... if a person immersed in ignorance generates a meritorious volitional formation, consciousness fares on to the meritorious; [Bodhi]
...If an ignorant individual makes a good choice, their consciousness enters a good realm. [Sujato]
https://suttacentral.net/sn12.51/
No difference in meaning that I can see.

In any case, translation is much more than dictionary lookup. It must take full account of the idioms of the source and target language.

:heart:
Mike
ssasny
Posts: 379
Joined: Thu Jan 23, 2020 10:03 pm

Re: Is the PTS a reliable dictionary?

Post by ssasny »

For me, in this comparison of the two translations, what is more striking is the rendering of puññaṃ. It seems 'meritorious' seems to capture the spirit of the idea better than 'good', which is often a rendering of kusala or kalyāṇa, and seems weak in this context.

PED gives 'favourable, good' for puññaṃ.
DOP gives 'morally good, pure, bringing reward (in this life or the next), meritorious'

As for 'volitional formations', I think it's an attempt to capture the rich sense of the word saṅkhāra. Whether or not it is successful is a good question, i.e. whether it veers too much into 'Buddhist-hybrid-English.'

'generates' instead of 'makes' for abhisaṅkharoti is similar, but I see less difference here.

DOP gives, 'plans, prepares, creates, constructs, concocts, accumulates, produces a motive force (as a result of action)
for abhisaṅkharoti .

'Choices' seems very clean and clear, at least at first, but it might give up too much for that cause.
It seems the rendering 'choices' jettisons the 'formations', 'constructions', 'fabrications', sense of the word.

'determinations' is another pretty good choice in this vein.

In the end, translation is always a compromise. PED and DOP are both fine resources, good translation is ultimately an art form.
ToVincent
Posts: 1839
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 6:02 pm

Re: Is the PTS a reliable dictionary?

Post by ToVincent »

retrofuturist wrote: Wed Jan 26, 2022 8:20 am ...
There is no interesting reason to call saṅkhārā "choices".
There might be a tiddly bit of "choice" in manosañcetanā; but I think the latter is much much more than that - an not what I would call, an "option".

Pali saṅkhārā
Sanskrit saṅkhara/saṃkara (act. saṃkṝ).

Pre-Buddhist Sanskrit meanings:
- Saṃ—kara: What does, what makes, what causes, what produces, what promotes — with, together.
(The post-Buddhist meaning didn't deviate much:
- mixing together , commingling - as far as what makes together - but is not all encompassing with the pre-Buddhist meanings).

- Saṃkṝ (sam-kṝ) : to pour out (together).
(The post-Buddhist meaning remains the same: mix or pour together , commingle).

--------

What can we simply conclude from that - sticking to the pre-Buddhist definitions?
Maybe that these are just "co-actions" that produce something - at whatever level it happens.
In the saṅkhārā nidāna we have the body, verbal and mental co-actions (assāsa + passāsā, etc.). And they co-act (pour out) together to produce consciousness.
These body, verbal and mental co-actions can happen anywhere in the links of paṭiccasamuppāda. For instance the co-actions of the khandhas.
It can also be manosañcetanā.
Etc.

----------
mikenz66 wrote: Wed Jan 26, 2022 8:15 pm In any case, translation is much more than dictionary lookup. It must take full account of the idioms of the source and target language.

Mainly taking into account the historical meanings of the source language AND of their underlying root meanings. So one can infer the meaning from the phrasal idiom.

----------
ssasny wrote: Wed Jan 26, 2022 9:05 pm .....
Goes well with one of the pre-Buddhist definition of puṇya in the MW:
Puṇya = auspicious , propitious , fair , pleasant , good , right , virtuous , meritorious , pure , holy , sacred.
-------
The pre-Buddhist roots' meanings are either:
√ pū
- to make clean or clear or pure or bright , cleanse , purify , purge , clarify , " to enlighten the understanding ".
- to cleanse from chaff.
- to pass so as to purify ; to purify in passing.
- to sift , discriminate , discern.
or
√ puṇ
- to act piously or virtuously.

--------

"Meritorious" as one who has cleansed oneself by discernment - one that has enlightened his understanding through discrimination.
That would be the underlying meaning of "meritorious", I suppose.

___________

See saṅkhārā above.
.
.
In this world, there are many people acting and yearning for the Mara's world; some for the Brahma's world; and very few for the Unborn.
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Is the PTS a reliable dictionary?

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings ToVincent,
ToVincent wrote: Thu Jan 27, 2022 8:35 am There is no interesting reason to call saṅkhārā "choices.
There might be a tiddly bit of "choice" in manosañcetanā
I'm inclined to agree with this, and your understanding of sam- as constituting with/together.

Metta,
Paul. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
ToVincent
Posts: 1839
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 6:02 pm

Re: Is the PTS a reliable dictionary?

Post by ToVincent »

retrofuturist wrote: Thu Jan 27, 2022 9:06 am Greetings ToVincent,
ToVincent wrote: Thu Jan 27, 2022 8:35 am There is no interesting reason to call saṅkhārā "choices.
There might be a tiddly bit of "choice" in manosañcetanā
I'm inclined to agree with this, and your understanding of sam- as constituting with/together.
Metta,
Paul. :)
Indeed, the Sanskrit root √ kṛ means among other meanings, in the pre-Buddhist literature:
- to make , render.
- to proceed , act , put in practice.
- to do , perform , accomplish , cause , effect , prepare , undertake.

With saṅ/saṃ meaning "together, with".

Therefore, as seen in the pre-Buddhist meaning of saṃ-kara, the meaning of the Pali saṅkhāra should be extended to: "what co-undertakes", " what co-produces", and "what co-accomplishes/promotes". Not just "what co-acts/makes" (as in commingle).

In the particular case of manosañcetanā, the co-action and co-undertaking of the mano and the ceto, leads to the co-production and co-accomplishment of the maintenance of consciousness (viññāṇa ṭhitiyā).
This is not a "choice". It's a process per se. It is the entire process of a co-action between mano and cetanā, that leads to the co-accomplishment/promotion of the maintenance of consciousness.
This is what I suppose, a saṅkhārā is all about — a process that starts with a commingling, and ends with an accomplishment.
My modest take from the meanings, and the underlying root meanings in the pre-Buddhist literature.
.
.
In this world, there are many people acting and yearning for the Mara's world; some for the Brahma's world; and very few for the Unborn.
Post Reply