A new translation of Nagarjuna's Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way by Gudo Nishijima Roshi is being "trashed on Amazon," according to Nishijima Roshi's dharma heir Brad Warner. I had mentioned this translation earlier and had expressed some concern that "shunyata" had been rendered into "balanced state" by the Roshi. However, I also said that "Perhaps in the context of the Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way it works, or at least makes more immediate sense."
My understanding of Nagarjuna is pretty much freshman level, and I have not read Nishijima Roshi's translation. So I have absolutely no business offering an opinion of this translation, except to note that Nishijima's translation (with Chodo Cross) of Dogen's Shobogenzo is very highly regarded within Soto Zen.
Instead, I want to say a little more about the whole issue of translation. It's my understanding that ancient Asian languages defy literal translation into English. Often words from ancient languages have no precise modern English counterpart, for example, and any choice the translator makes is going to be off.
In some cases, rendering the ancient text into English syntax requires patching clauses together with material that is not in the original text at all, but just sort of assumed. And in the case of Buddhist texts, what might be assumed by someone with little understanding of Buddhism can be very different from what is assumed by someone with deeper insight into the Buddha dharma.
It must not be forgotten that often the original is pointing to something that is genuinely ineffable, and this is certainly the case with Nagarjuna. I suspect even many of Nagarjuna's Sanskrit-speaking contemporaries were baffled by whatever the old guy was going on about.
For this reason, translations of Buddhist texts from ancient into modern languages probably ought to be read as a presentation of the translator's understanding of the text, as much as a presentation of the text itself. So, we're talking here about Nishijima Roshi's presentation of Nagarjuna, which is not something a wise person would dismiss out of hand.
That said, another of Nishijima's dharma heirs, Jundo Cohen, has expressed misgivings about his teacher's grasp of both Sanskrit and English, and suggests the new book should be read as a "reflection" or "personal statement" on the Middle Way text, not as a translation. If so, it would still be a valuable work, even if it's a wobbly translation.
The one academic review I could find, which is favorable, explains that the Roshi has taken a very different approach from earlier translations. Nishijima provides a word-by-word unpacking of the original Sanskrit, and this is followed by commentaries on the text by Nishijima and Warner.
The Amazon reader reviews don't all trash the book; a couple gave it five stars. Those that gave it one star complained that the Nishijima translation has the same title as another translation of the same work, suggesting Nishijima stole the title or is trying to fraudulently pass off his translation as the other one.
Example: "Be careful about this book-- IT IS NOT THE ACCLAIMED TRANSLATION of Nagarjuna's MMK of the same title done by Jay Garfield The Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way: Nagarjuna's Mulamadhyamakakarika. The 'translators' have lifted the title from Garfield's work."
The Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way is Nagarjuna's title, in English. It's what Nagarjuna's Mulamadhyamakakarika is most often called, in English. This is a bit like complaining that a new translation of Beowulf is titled Beowulf, just like the last one.
These same reviewers complain that Nishijima's translation is different from Garfield's. Jay Garfield's translation is Tibetan-to-English, not Sanskrit-to-English, so one would expect them to differ.
I think what often happens is that people become attached to the first translation they encounter, or the one that was favored by their Religious Studies 101 professor. Then all other translations are judged against that one.
But in the case of Buddhism, I'd say on the whole the translations get better and better. I cannot comment on the respective qualities of Garfield vs. Nishijima, but some of the early translations of the Pali and Mahayana sutras into English are clunky and need to be retired. It's only been relatively recently that translators have come forward who were highly skilled in both the original and "target" languages and who had deep insight into dharma.
One other quibble -- My experience with multiple translations of the same texts has taught me that the translations that make the most sense to modern readers often are really bad translations. That is, if the translation presents something that is easily graspable by a 21st-century western reader, the translator often has injected a 21st-century western interpretation into the text that is way off what the original said. So beware of that.
No comments:
Post a Comment