Proposed translations of Buddhist terms (occasionally updated)
anātman (Sk.) / anattā (Pali): "no-self"
The decreasingly frequent but still popular translation "no-soul" is highly misleading. Whatever meaning "soul" may have in this or that philosophical or theological system, most ordinary English speakers don't attach any sophisticated metaphysical notions to the term. For most people, "soul" simply means an incorporeal part of a person that (at least in some religious systems) can survive bodily death. If that's what "soul" means, then most Buddhist sects don't deny the existence of a soul. Theravada orthodoxy, reflected (for instance) in the Milindapañha, asserts that reincarnation doesn't involve the transmigration of anything, incorporeal or otherwise, from one body to another. However, we get a different picture from another early Buddhist sect, called Sarvastivada. In their heyday, the Sarvastivadins were far more numerous within India than the Theravadins, and the Sarvastivadins' philosophical theories, rather than those of the Theravadins, serve as the foundation for several major school of Mahayana philosophy, including, for example, Yogacara. In Sarvastivada as much as in Theravada, the self is a mental construct and, from the perspective of ultimate reality, there is no substantial or real self. Nonetheless, the Sarvastivadins hold that a person's consciousness, produced in various parts of the body by contact between the senses and their objects, composes a kind of subtle body. Like every other part of a person, this body is constantly changing, for the bits of consciousness that compose it are constantly appearing, vanishing, and being replaced by new bits. Hence, the subtle body is not a true self and isn't even strictly the same object from moment to moment. Yet the Sarvastivadins hold that the subtle body, at the moment of the gross body's death, can detach itself from the gross body and migrate to a new gross body. (In The Selfless Mind, Peter Harvey argues that this is also the view of the early Pali suttas.)
dharma (Sk.) / dhamma (Pali): "principle"
Dharma has at least three different meanings:
The one English word that seems to cover all three meanings is "principle." When people are righteous, dutiful, or moral, we say that they "have principles." (Also, consider the expression "a man of principle.") Likewise, if a theory or faith is based on certain teachings or doctrines, then we might call those teachings or doctrines "the principles" of the theory or faith. Finally, the basic building blocks of reality can also be called "principles" inasmuch as principium means "source" and the basic building blocks of reality, whatever they may be, are the source of the phenomena we see around us. Moreover, some of the dharmas, the basic building blocks, recognized in abhidharma philosophy are more like forces or laws of nature than like atoms or particles. Hence, "principle" ends up being even more appropriate, since it's quite natural to call the basic forces or laws of nature "the principles" of nature.
saṃskāra (Sk.) / saṅkhāra (Pali): "construct"
I've seen this term translated in all manner of ways: "formation," "mental formation," "confection" (Rhys Davids), and "co-efficient" (William McGovern), to name just a few. Each translation has something to recommend it. The word saṃskāra literally means something formed or put together, so "formation" is a good literal translation. "Mental formation" is, therefore, reasonable enough when the formations in question are mental (as they are when saṃskāra is discussed as one of the five skandhas). "Confection" reflects the exact etymology of saṃskāra: co- and saṃ- both mean "with" or "together" and fectio and skāra both mean "making." "Co-efficient" has the same etymological qualifications (co-, "together"; efficiens, "causing," "making") without the culinary connotations. Although all of these translations have virtues, I prefer "construct." As a translation of saṃskāra, "something formed or put together," "construct" almost as etymologically appropriate as "confection" and "co-efficient," for co(n)- means "together" and struere means "to heap" or "to pile." Moreover, "construct" is especially appropriate when saṃskāra is being used to mean one of the five skandhas: whatever else it may be, a saṃskāra skandha (for example, a choice) is something constructed by the mind.
vedanā (Sk./Pali): "sensation"
This term is traditionally translated as either "sensation" or "feeling." Some scholars, such as William Montgomery McGovern (A Manual of Buddhist Philosophy: Cosmology [Routledge, 2007], 85), prefer "feeling" because "sensation" can mean consciousness in general and vedanā refers not to consciousness in general or even the whole experience of sensing an object but only to the hedonic tone (pleasant, painful, or neutral) of such an experience. In fact, McGovern seems to think that, because "the hedonic side of vedanā is emphasized" (85), vedanā is essentially emotional in nature (for example, he translates vedanā as "emotion" in several places in his Manual). The problem is that several prominent and recent scholars of Buddhism, including Mark Siderits in Buddhism as Philosophy and the famed scholar-monk Bhikkhu Bodhi, insist that vedanā doesn't mean emotion. In addition, although Buddhist texts assert that pleasure and pain can be mental rather than physical, thus deserving the names "joy" and "sorrow," the fact that vedanā always results from contact between a sense-organ and its object (even if the sense-organ is the mind) inclines me to emphasize vedanā's possible connections with the senses rather than its possible connections to emotion. For these reasons, I think "sensation" is preferable to "feeling."
vijñāna (Sk.) / viññāṇa (Pali): "consciousness"
Here I side with convention by translating this term as "consciousness." "Awareness" might be slightly less misleading, at least when viññāṇa is used with the meaning that it came to acquire in Theravadin abhidhamma, namely pure awareness of an object. However, etymological considerations lead me to prefer "consciousness." The prefix vi- means "diverse," and jñāna means knowledge. Whatever the actual history of the word vijñāna may be, its etymology suggests a bringing together of diverse pieces of knowledge. (Of course, this isn't what meaning vijñāna came to have in abhidhamma.) Likewise, the Latin prefix con- means "together" or "combined" and the Latin word scientia means "knowledge." Etymologically speaking, therefore, the word "conscience," like vijñāna, suggests a bringing together of diverse pieces of knowledge. "Conscience," however, has lost all connection with that etymological meaning, so "consciousness" is a good compromise.
dharma (Sk.) / dhamma (Pali): "principle"
Dharma has at least three different meanings:
- righteousness, duty, or morality (e.g., the caste-based dharmas of Hinduism)
- teaching or doctrine (e.g., Buddhism as "the Dharma")
- basic unit of reality (e.g., in abhidharma philosophy)
The one English word that seems to cover all three meanings is "principle." When people are righteous, dutiful, or moral, we say that they "have principles." (Also, consider the expression "a man of principle.") Likewise, if a theory or faith is based on certain teachings or doctrines, then we might call those teachings or doctrines "the principles" of the theory or faith. Finally, the basic building blocks of reality can also be called "principles" inasmuch as principium means "source" and the basic building blocks of reality, whatever they may be, are the source of the phenomena we see around us. Moreover, some of the dharmas, the basic building blocks, recognized in abhidharma philosophy are more like forces or laws of nature than like atoms or particles. Hence, "principle" ends up being even more appropriate, since it's quite natural to call the basic forces or laws of nature "the principles" of nature.
saṃskāra (Sk.) / saṅkhāra (Pali): "construct"
I've seen this term translated in all manner of ways: "formation," "mental formation," "confection" (Rhys Davids), and "co-efficient" (William McGovern), to name just a few. Each translation has something to recommend it. The word saṃskāra literally means something formed or put together, so "formation" is a good literal translation. "Mental formation" is, therefore, reasonable enough when the formations in question are mental (as they are when saṃskāra is discussed as one of the five skandhas). "Confection" reflects the exact etymology of saṃskāra: co- and saṃ- both mean "with" or "together" and fectio and skāra both mean "making." "Co-efficient" has the same etymological qualifications (co-, "together"; efficiens, "causing," "making") without the culinary connotations. Although all of these translations have virtues, I prefer "construct." As a translation of saṃskāra, "something formed or put together," "construct" almost as etymologically appropriate as "confection" and "co-efficient," for co(n)- means "together" and struere means "to heap" or "to pile." Moreover, "construct" is especially appropriate when saṃskāra is being used to mean one of the five skandhas: whatever else it may be, a saṃskāra skandha (for example, a choice) is something constructed by the mind.
vedanā (Sk./Pali): "sensation"
This term is traditionally translated as either "sensation" or "feeling." Some scholars, such as William Montgomery McGovern (A Manual of Buddhist Philosophy: Cosmology [Routledge, 2007], 85), prefer "feeling" because "sensation" can mean consciousness in general and vedanā refers not to consciousness in general or even the whole experience of sensing an object but only to the hedonic tone (pleasant, painful, or neutral) of such an experience. In fact, McGovern seems to think that, because "the hedonic side of vedanā is emphasized" (85), vedanā is essentially emotional in nature (for example, he translates vedanā as "emotion" in several places in his Manual). The problem is that several prominent and recent scholars of Buddhism, including Mark Siderits in Buddhism as Philosophy and the famed scholar-monk Bhikkhu Bodhi, insist that vedanā doesn't mean emotion. In addition, although Buddhist texts assert that pleasure and pain can be mental rather than physical, thus deserving the names "joy" and "sorrow," the fact that vedanā always results from contact between a sense-organ and its object (even if the sense-organ is the mind) inclines me to emphasize vedanā's possible connections with the senses rather than its possible connections to emotion. For these reasons, I think "sensation" is preferable to "feeling."
vijñāna (Sk.) / viññāṇa (Pali): "consciousness"
Here I side with convention by translating this term as "consciousness." "Awareness" might be slightly less misleading, at least when viññāṇa is used with the meaning that it came to acquire in Theravadin abhidhamma, namely pure awareness of an object. However, etymological considerations lead me to prefer "consciousness." The prefix vi- means "diverse," and jñāna means knowledge. Whatever the actual history of the word vijñāna may be, its etymology suggests a bringing together of diverse pieces of knowledge. (Of course, this isn't what meaning vijñāna came to have in abhidhamma.) Likewise, the Latin prefix con- means "together" or "combined" and the Latin word scientia means "knowledge." Etymologically speaking, therefore, the word "conscience," like vijñāna, suggests a bringing together of diverse pieces of knowledge. "Conscience," however, has lost all connection with that etymological meaning, so "consciousness" is a good compromise.
Comments
Post a Comment