Translation Review - The University of Texas at Dallas

life but rather as the continuation of death. Being
born again is not something Buddhists aspire to, for
it is a continuance of the suffering inherent in life.
The Buddhist goal, Nibbana, is to end this chain of
birth and death, giving up the attachment to physical
manifestations of the spirit.
In Müller’s translation, “long is life to the foolish,”
the concept of samsara is lost. The Westerner
unfamiliar with Eastern religion would surely interpret
“long is life” as a good thing. Easwaran and
Radhakrishnan both translate samsara with this in
mind. What is interesting is that Carter and
Palihawadana (and Thero as well) choose not to
translate the term samsara at all, maintaining the
Pali term in the text. This brings up a fascinating
question: When to translate terms that have complex
connotations, and when to leave them as they are.
The answer to this question is a function of the supporting
material in the book. Both Thero’s and
Pelikan’s books include explanatory notes in which
an explanation of samsara is given. The use of the
nontranslated term in the text provides a sort of tabula
rasa on which both the reader and translator are
free from English terms whose connotations may
confound rather than clarify meaning. This is one
advantage to including extensive notes and explanations.
Conversely, using the nontranslated terms and
relying on supplementary material leaves the text
somehow incomplete and insufficient as an entity in
and of itself. This dichotomy accounts for the larger
deviations between the translations I have dealt with.
Thero’s and Pelikan’s versions include the most supporting
material, and looking back through the
translations presented in this essay, it is these two
versions that are most literal and demonstrate a closer
adherence to the rhythm of the Pali text. Müller’s
and Easwaran’s translations include far less supporting
material, and therefore, they take greater liberties
with their translations. I would suggest that this
greater liberty accounts for the self-sufficiency and
overall clarity of meaning found in these texts.
Radhakrishnan’s translation is something of an enigma
among the five, for it seems that he has straddled
the line between the two approaches. For this
reason, it demonstrates neither the purity and literalness
of Thero’s and Pelikan’s nor the clarity and self-
sufficiency of Müller’s and Easwaran’s.
In examining these five translations, I have
found that it is at the point in which the texts
diverge from one another that one can truly immerse
oneself into the meaning of the Dhammapada. It
breathes through plurality, and it is this plurality that
has kept readers coming back to it over the centuries.
The delight one feels upon encountering a
new way of understanding an old text is no less
intense than the event of one’s initial encounter with
that text. In this way, the work escapes obsolescence
and remains relevant between civilizations and
through time.
Works Cited
Easwaran, Eknath, trans. The Dhammapada
Tomales. California: Nilgiri Press, 985
McCarthy, Justin, et al, ed. Sacred Books of the
East #1881. F. Max Muller, trans. New York:
P.F. Collier & Son, 1900.
Pelikan, Jaroslav, ed. Sacred Writings, Buddhism:
The Dhammapada. John Ross Carter,
Mahinda Palihawadana, trans. New York:
Oxford University Press, 1987.
Radhakrishnan, S. ed., trans. The Dhammapada.
Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1950.
Thero, Weragoda Sarada Maha, ed. Treasury of
Truth: Illustrated Dhammapada Taipei: The
Corporate Body of the Buddha Educatioinal
Foundation, 1993.
Translation Review 57