A Study in Lyrical Translation (Excerpt from Diamond Sūtra)

Inspired with the recent discussions like this:

I’ve been thinking about how to make the sūtra translations a little more lyrical, and where to draw the lines. :slight_smile:

So the following is the introduction from Diamond Sūtra, to exemplify the translation choices, how to handle redundancies gracefully, how to change the conjugation for a more seamless expression.

Diamond Sūtra has many hallmarks as the EBT suttas, so the discussion here should apply for both, I hope. :slight_smile:

evaṃ mayā śrutam

ekasmin samaye bhagavān śrāvastyāṃ viharati sma jetavane’nāthapiṇḍadasyārāme mahatā bhikṣusaṃghena sārthaṃ trayodaśabhir bhikṣuśataiḥ saṃbahulaiś ca bodhisattvair mahāsattvaiḥ atha khalu bhagavān pūrvāhṇakālasamaye nivāsya pātracīvaram ādāya śrāvastīṃ mahānagarīṃ piṇḍāya prāvikṣat atha khalu bhagavān śrāvastīṃ mahānagarīṃ piṇḍāya caritvā kṛtabhaktakṛtyaḥ paścādbhaktapiṇḍapātapratikrāntaḥ pātracīvaraṃ pratiśāmya pādau prakṣālya nyaṣīdat prajñapta evāsane paryaṅkam ābhujya ṛjuṃ kāyaṃ praṇidhāya pratimukhīṃ smṛtim upasthāpya atha khalu saṃbahulā bhikṣavo yena bhagavāṃs tenopasaṃkrāman upasaṃkramya bhagavataḥ pādau śirobhir abhivandya bhagavantaṃ triḥ pradakṣiṇīkṛtya ekānte nyaṣīdan upasaṃkramya bhagavataḥ pādau śirobhir abhivandya bhagavantaṃ triḥ pradakṣiṇīkṛtya ekānte nyaṣīdan

So I’ve heard.

Once upon a time, the Blessed One was dwelling in Śrāvastī —in the Jeta Grove in Anāthapiṇḍada’s park— together with a great assembly of 1,300 monks, including many great Awakening Ones.

It was then in the morning that the Blessed One wrapped himself in robes and walked through the great city of Śrāvastī, to seek alms with his bowl in hand.

After walking through the city, finding his meal and returning from the alms round, he set aside his robe and bowl, washed his feet, and sat on his seat—folding his legs like lotus flower, straightening his body, and settling his mindfulness ahead.

Then many monks approached the Blessed One—bowing their heads to his feet, circling him three times, and sitting aside.

tena khalu punaḥ samayenāyuṣmān subhutistasyāmeva parṣadi saṃnipatito’bhūtsaṃniṣaṇṇaḥ| atha khalvāyuṣmān subhūtirutthāyāsanādekāṃsamuttarāsaṅgaṃ kṛtvā dakṣiṇaṃ jānumaṇḍalaṃ pṛthivyāṃ pratiṣṭhāpya yena bhagavāṃstenāñjaliṃ praṇamya bhagavantametadavocat- āścaryaṃ bhagavan, paramāścaryaṃ sugata, yāvadeva tathāgatenārhatā samyaksaṃbuddhena bodhisattvā mahāsattvā anuparigṛhītāḥ parameṇānugraheṇa| āścaryaṃ bhagavan yāvadeva tathāgatenārhatā samyaksaṃbuddhena bodhisattvā mahāsattvāḥ parīnditāḥ paramayā parīndanayā| tatkathaṃ bhagavan bodhisattvayānasaṃprasthitena kulaputreṇa vā kuladuhitrā vā sthātavyaṃ kathaṃ pratipattavyaṃ kathaṃ cittaṃ pragrahītavyam ?

At that time, a most venerable monk called Subhūti was there among the gathered assembly, seated in their midst. Rising from his seat, he draped his robe over one shoulder; then, kneeling with his right knee on the ground and his palms joined before the Blessed One, he bowed and began to speak:

Oh Blessed One!

It’s wonderful how the great Awakening Ones are graced with the highest grace by the Thus-Gone—the Worthful, the Perfectly Awakened One!

Blessed One! How wonderful that the great Awakening Ones are guided with such perfect guidance by the Thus-Gone—the Worthful, the Perfectly Awakened One!

Pray tell, then, Blessed One; for a son or daughter of good family who has set out on the path of the Awakening Ones—

How should they stand?
How should they proceed?
How should they train their minds?”

Now, a few notes:

I tried to translate everything to English, to account for a first-time reader, who has no idea what any of the Indic words mean.

Once upon a time: This is something I’m interested to hear feedback about. It does add a bit of mythological flair to it, which is something I’m all for, but I understand if it might be off putting, especially for Pāli Suttas.

For a stand-alone sūtra like Diamond Sūtra, especially one from late tradition, I think it would be interesting. Personally, I get bored reading “One time,” over and over.

Great Awakening Ones: bodhisattvair mahāsattvaiḥ is a stock phrase in Mahāyāna sūtras. A literal translation of “Boddhisattvas, Great Beings” sounds stilted in English. Better to just say “great Awakening Ones”?

Folding his legs like lotus flower: I think it sounds nicer than saying “Folding his legs into the lotus position”.

Settling his mindfulness ahead: I’ve seen such fantastic translations of this stock phrase, from Pāli to Sanskrit. “Establishing mindfulness in the front” doesn’t really make sense to me as an English sentence. Is my translation so far off the mark?

I would’ve liked to say “Settling his attention ahead” but that might be pushing it a bit too much.

Sitting aside: In English I often see “Sitting to one side” which is again, faithful to Indic, but feels stilted in English? How does “Sitting aside” feel? Perhaps a more idiomatic way to say it would be “Taking a seat”.

A most venerable monk called Subhūti: Again, the text kind of assumed the reader knows Subhūti. Instead of saying “Then, monk Subhūti rose from his seat”, a little elaboration helps paint a better picture for the reader, I think.

Oh Blessed One: Like in Pāli Suttas, Diamond Sūtra has a lot of verbatim copy-paste sections with little changes. These things can be off putting to a lot of newcomers to suttas. So, I’ve tried to follow a more natural speaking cadence, with minor alterations between the praises Subhūti offers to the Buddha.

I’m wondering if this kind of an attitude is acceptable to bring to sutta translations.

Worthful: Trying to find a good English translation for Arahat. Yes, it sounds out of place - but still, a little archaic, a little larger-than-life, still English, and it gives a sense of what’s actually going on in the text, rather than bombarding the reader with Indic words left and right.

Pray tell, then: Doesn’t exist in the Sanskrit. We must be mindful of the choices that make musical sense in Sanskrit, things that are implied and omitted, things that are left out unsaid. Carrying on straight “How then-” right after the praises sounds kind of out-of-place in English.

Ideal: Not yet seen in this translation, I’m thinking of using Ideal to translate Dharma as. DPD has no matches for “Ideal”. I think the word captures the nuances of the word nicely: “I’m teaching you Ideals as a raft - not something to hold on to, but to reach to the other shore” kind of vibes.

—: Works great for the embedded sentence structure. No machines were harmed during the production of these em dashes. :face_in_clouds:

All kinds of criticism and ideas are welcome. Thanks. :slight_smile:

3 Likes

Dogen, great project! On the awkward stuff:

There’s no good alternative in English that I’m aware of – nothing to convey the sense of “a long, long time ago…” as in the classic song Bye Bye Miss American Pie.

If I were writing a book I might say “There was a time when people would go to visit the Buddha…” Soon after you would switch to the past tense for the specifics: "On one particular day, while the Bhudda was meditating under a tree, a young monk approached him.

That seems to water down the full scale of the awesomeness.

Agree, with the assumption that first-time readers know what a lotus position is. There’s a lot of people I know who would have no idea what that is.

From everything I’ve studied about the pāli for this part of the instruction, we may not want to assume it means anything other than that.

If I read that as a first-timer, I wouldn’t understand what “ahead” means. With “in front” I can at least visualize it as, directionally, in front of me physically.

That conveys a physical relationship between the person sitting and the person they are sitting next to. I don’t think “sitting aside” does that. “Taking a seat” removes the conveyance of one person sitting next to another, likely as a form of deference.

So long as the reader understands what is the difference between a monk who is just a monk vs. one who is most venerable.

So long as the newcomer understands the profundity of the veneration, which many Westerners wouldn’t realize as a matter of culture unless they kept seeing it repeated.

This conveys the respect and humility with the question. “How then” doesn’t (I think you were more or less saying that).

That feels rather Platonic? I still go for “principles” for Dharma

:grinning_cat:

1 Like

Hi Beth! :smiley:

That sounds like a nice middle ground.

It does. It would be fine in the introduction to say:

including many Awakening Ones—such great beings.

Not saying “such” makes it a bit awkward, I think. But then:

It’s wonderful how the Awakening Ones, these great beings are graced with (…)

Hm. It might work?

Yes but having read probably the same essays by Bhante on parimukha - what does that even mean (“mindfulness in the front”), and why doesn’t “establishing/settling mindfulness ahead” carry that meaning? :joy:

Aight, interesting observations.

Subhūti is certainly a most venerable monk, by his popularity; but yeah, I was trying to be flowery. Probably any named monk would be considered “most venerable”. Perhaps being a little humble, to remove “most” could work too…

I’m all for repeating the praises! Just editing it slightly so that it looks less like a copy-paste. For example, the part here:

It’s wonderful how the great Awakening Ones are graced with the highest grace by the Thus-Gone—the Worthful, the Perfectly Awakened One!

Blessed One! How wonderful that the great Awakening Ones are guided with such perfect guidance by the Thus-Gone—the Worthful, the Perfectly Awakened One!

Would probably look something like this, staying faithful to Sanskrit:

Bhagavan, it is amazing! Sugata, utterly amazing! How the great Awakening Ones are graced with the highest grace by the Thus-Gone—the Worthful, the Perfectly Awakened One!*

Bhagavan, it is amazing! How the great Awakening Ones are instruction with the highest instruction by the Thus-Gone—the Worthful, the Perfectly Awakened One!*

So, just trying to make it less like a strict copy-paste, and trying to make it sound like something that could actually happen in spoken language hopefully.

Right, exactly.

I love principles! I go back and forth on this. Prajna literature does make sense to bring out the Platonic meaning of the word, to counteract Idealist worldview, so I thought in this particular case, it might work.

I’ll have to get back to this when I’m actually translating those passages. :slight_smile:

Thanks for the ideas and encouragement, Beth! :smiley:

1 Like

Nothing to add translation wise. Just want to say I’m enjoying this discussion so far. Do you plan on translating the rest of the sutra? If not, can you recommend a good English translation of the Diamond Sutra?

1 Like

Thank you. :slight_smile: I haven’t found any other translation of Sanskrit-English other than Conze, and I’m not really a big fan of his work. For Chinese-English based on Kumarajiva’s edition (there’s quite a few different Chinese versions), Charles Patton’s translation should be the go to.

He is quite faithful to Chinese sources, but I do notice some differences between Sanskrit and Chinese in the first place, which is why I’m interested in tackling this text to begin with, so hopefully I’ll translate the whole thing. I’m still getting used to navigating the Sanskrit grammar so it might take a while though. :sweat_smile:

I don’t think I’ll unearth something truly different, but Diamond Sūtra is one of those texts where nuances of phrasings are rather interesting, so I think it makes for a great study, Dharmically & linguistically. :slight_smile:

1 Like

The Sanskrit quoted above is missing punctuations between and within sentences and some words have wrong spellings. In some sentences the style of expression is odd with superfluous words and misinterpreted expressions (all this in the original itself).

There is a spelling mistake in the Sanskrit - sārtham has a different meaning, the word that means (together with) should be sārdham.

Once upon a time (for ekasmin samaye) is fine and more idiomatic than “at one time”.

Bodhisattva is (as it appears to me) a bit of a nonsense term used in Mahāyāna literature, the words dont compound like this naturally. The compound would originally have referred to (Sanskrit) Bodhiśakta i.e. one who had the ability (śakta) to achieve Bodhi (awakening) but who hadnt achieved it yet (i.e. wasn’t a Buddha yet). But due to the subsequent Prakritization, it became Bodhisata (Gandhari) or Bodhisatta (Pali) and when it was restored back to Sanskrit in the Mahāyāna literature later, satta was wrongly restored as sattva (which means “being”) rather than śakta which it evidently was originally.

These incorrect re-sanskritizations are called hyper-sanskritisms, which point to the fact that those who were using the Prakrit/Pali did not actually understand it properly and were misinterpreting words, and the resanskritization was an exercise meant to minimise such misreadings. Paradoxically however, the resanskritizers themselves misinterpreted some (but not all) of those misinterpreted words and these remaining phonemic misinterpretations got preserved in Sanskrit for posterity in the form of words that give other meanings rather than the original meaning.

Mahāsattva is a term introduced in the Mahāyāna literature to distinguish these “great” beings them from ordinary sattvas (beings) and to bolster the reinterpretation of bodhisatta as bodhisattva.

pūrvāhṇakālasamaye is normally be written as pūrvāhne (in the morning, literally “in the first half of the day”). Kāla and Samaya mean the same thing (time) and are both superfluous, the sense being adequately conveyed by the locative of pūrvāhna.

nivāsya is an incorrect spelling instead of nivasya. Nivasya means clothed themselves, nivāsya as a causative form would mean clothed someone/something else.

Paryaṅkam can be expressed as cross-legged position, not necessarily the lotus posture. If it meant lotus posture, the further description of ṛjum kāyaṃ praṇidhāya i.e. keeping his (upper)body upright would have been superfluous as that would be covered as a part of the lotus position.

The phrase upasaṃkramya bhagavataḥ pādau śirobhir abhivandya bhagavantaṃ triḥ pradakṣiṇīkṛtya ekānte nyaṣīdan is repeated both in the original and in translation.

pratimukhīm smṛtim upasthāpya means “having brought smṛti to the forefront of his awareness/consciousness” (smṛti-upasthāna = smṛtyupasthāna in Sanskrit, satipatthāna in Pali).

3 Likes

Sure, I’m using the version here:

I suppose using a proper devanagiri version would serve me better - but I’m not versed in it yet. Gotta pick up the slacks. :slight_smile:

Do you have any critical English editions you can offer, or if there’s a good way to parse the Devanagiri in Romanized?

Okay, this makes more sense to me. I can understand what this is getting at, but I’m still having difficulty expressing it elegantly in English. “Awareness” bit is implied though here, right (rather than made explicit).

Thanks again as usual on the important itd bits! :slight_smile:

1 Like

Yes, the general sense seems ‘made smrti his priority’, translating smrti is probably the hardest part.

The bodhisattva ‘problem’ has been discussed at length before, in S Collins Grammar, et al.

I agree with pallankaŋ ābhujati "to bend (the legs) in crosswise.

Not related to flowers.

1 Like

Not sure what you mean by Critical English Editions but there are quite a few of them available from Diamond Sutra - Wikipedia from the External Links section, but I dont know if they are direct translations from the Sanskrit or if they are translations of translations.

1 Like

This

is a more recent much better translation than the one that’s spammed all over the internets (because I released it to the Universe way back in the 1990s). Someday, I’ll catch up on everything and have it in one place. Oh well! lol

Generally speaking, the Sanskrit edition is a later recension than Kumarajiva. I know, I know, it’s blasphemy to say such things, but 'tis true!

5 Likes

Perhaps, like the Heart Sutra, the Sanskrit version of this is a ‘back translation’ and it was originally composed in Chinese.
That might explain some of the oddities of the Skt.

2 Likes

I’d be interested in the sources that say any Sanskrit Mahayana sutras are back translations from Chinese, unless they are very late ones (i.e. from circa the 13th century or later back-translations). Before that I dont think it is likely that the Indian Buddhists (in their living traditions) would have been interested in any Buddhist text from outside the Indian subcontinent (unless they were in Indian languages in which case the source wouldnt have mattered), as they had substantial corpuses of indigenous texts to go by. If any text had been lost beyond recovery in India, the Buddhist traditions that once used them would also ipso facto not exist or not have used that text so it being found in Chinese translation would have not made anyone in India interested in retrieval or back translation. Besides the back translators would also have had to be Chinese monks as I have not heard of any Chinese scholars among Indian buddhists historically. Even today, Indian Buddhism is by and large blissfully ignorant of Chinese sources of Buddhism while Pali Buddhism is treated as the only available source of early Buddhism within India. For the Chinese however, translation of foreign texts was the mainstay of their Buddhism (at least in the early centuries).

The question is not if an Indian Sanskritist would have back translated a Chinese text, but rather if a Chinese Sanskritist would have done so, in order to give it a layer of ‘authenticity’.

We even see on this forum Pali being ‘back-translated’ into Sanskrit.

2 Likes

Please stay on topic. Unless it supports the OP query, a debate about back-translation theories constitutes its own topic.

2 Likes

Sorry for derailing things a bit … I don’t know that Kumarajiva is the oldest recension, just that it’s clearly a bit older than the version Conze translated, which has added verbosity. I poked around in the GRETIL archive and noticed they have a fragment of the Vajracchedika from Afghanistan, that breaks off at about the halfway point. Which is interesting, because the Vajracchedika sort of repeats itself around that point, like someone attached another version and turned it into a single text.

It’d be very cool to see someone competent at Sanskrit try translating that version!

2 Likes

Things that I shouldn’t take personally but I could! Especially if it makes people actually competent in Sanskrit debate my translation and so forcing them to clarify the text itself.

What was it that was said, quickest way to learn something on the internet is to first say something weong about it? :smiley:

Yikes, sorry about that. I wasn’t thinking about anyone in particular when I wrote that.

They tend to be a bit egotistical and motivated to criticize, so yes, that isn’t a bad strategy. The trick is not to take it personally. :sweat_smile:

Yeah. Well, that’s the fastest way to make a catalog of what others think, at least. Right and wrong is a harder thing to judge.

2 Likes

This site has several Sanskrit buddhist texts with side-by-side English translations including the Vajracchedikā Prajñāpāramitā (the so-called diamond sūtra).

1 Like