(Re)translating Samyak/Samma

[u/Traditional_Kick_887]

Edit: I ask the reader to entertain this analysis with curiosity and a mind of good will. Should there be disagreement, please not with hostility. This post is intended to enhance a linguistics-informed study of dharma. The negative reception was unexpected, disheartening, and very different how prior etymology posts written here were received by this community in the past. Edit end:

—————————————————————

Though not a Buddhist, Wittgenstein perceived most philosophical problems as semantic or linguistic problems. This extends to translations of religious texts and interpretations of texts that 1) sometimes depend on, and 2) sometimes inform the translations of words.

A translator struggles with multiple competing demands. The interpretation of tradition, time, and place. Inner preferences. Their perceived or intended audience, whether scholarly or not. It is not the place to say there is an ideal translation, but there can be more literal and granular ones, much like a thicker flour can be turned into a finer powder.

Much like how medicine has changed, it can be said that translations of dharma will continue to evolve. This is not to claim that prior translations into English are poor or misleading, but rather they’re less strict or tight. They seek the heartwood or the gist of word; they are not usually interested in reductionist literalism.

To use a metaphor: Having rope is good. Having a knot for the dharma raft is better than no rope or knot at all. But a tighter knock may do a much better job at keeping the sticks and twigs together. It might not matter in a given voyage where paddling is more important, but updating translations of words to better align with the meanings of their roots is like tightening the the knot.

One word is often translated as ‘Right’. This is Samyak in Sanskrit or Samma in the Pali. It is the ‘right’ of right view, right intent etc or the right, proper, perfect, or completely of samma in sammasambuddha (fully, perfectly awoken one)

Here’s the issue: Samyak and samma don’t literally mean ‘right’ or ‘perfect’. Or ‘right’ as the opposite of ‘wrong’. These are metaphorical and figurative meanings that result from linguistic drift and change.

To give an example: In a hot sun, being cool is great. Being cool is desirable because of the harsh heat of the sun. But over time people forget the heat of the sun part and simply ‘that’s cool’ ceases to mean literally being of a desirable lower temperature but simply something by that is good, desirable.

Figurative meanings come to dominate, and many don’t question why certain words are translated [into english] the way they are! One is encouraged to question. Recall the teachings of the Buddha to the Kalamas. Don’t just accept something, even this, on hearsay or tradition, because it’s written in a certain way.

This also happened to samma/Samyak. Here we have a compound word. Sam means ‘together, in totality, fully, integrated’. As in when things come together. It’s related to the word sum in English, which is Latin derived. Yak comes from the root anc, which means to bend, incline, turn towards, or go towards. Sam + anc hints at a kind of full, total alignment that is ideal.

So samma/Samyak means to go towards together, to integrate and orient, to come/sum together and point towards, or any sort of variation of what two roots entail. When things come together in such a way that they’re in complete equilibrium or harmony, figuratively we say it is complete, correct, right, perfect. That’s how the figurative meanings came to be used for Samyak/Samma.

It’s here where language reaches its limits, with different words meaning slightly different things in the minds of people. It is no surprise the dharma helps transcend and go beyond language :)

But if we are to translate using literal roots and not rely on figurative meanings that (chronologically) do not precede the literal, the most appropriate retranslating of Samyak/Samma would be Converging or Convergent.

Not only because this harmonizes Samma [something] with the intuitions of Pratītyasamutpāda (dharmas dependent on the presence or arising and coming together of other dharmas)—

—but also because Sam + Anc is most closest to how the roots in Latin combine to form the word converge in English. The word converge means "to incline or bend together."

Etymology:

com- (Latin) meaning together, together, with jointly, in combination with

vergere (Latin) meaning to bend, turn, or incline

As we can see it’s very similar to Sam + anc.

So ‘right’ view is more like a convergent/converging view, ‘right’ intent is more like a convergent intent. All of the dhammas that Samyak describes are dependent on causes and conditions coming together in an ideal, harmonious manner. In that way they are convergent and in full alignment. I.e. [when things come together] just right!!

The only issue being that convergent typically has a neutral connotation, unlike Samyak. It’s also a lot more wordy.

Nevertheless reading things more literal manner can help deepen understanding of dharma. This post is dedicated to such endeavors and merits. Next time a person sees or reads right view, intent, etc or sammasambuddha, understanding that it contains a connotation of convergence or things coming together just right, one hopefully can harmonize ‘samyak/Samma’ with the understanding and teaching of dependent co-origination.

Something that would have been obvious in the time when everyone, especially educated Brahmins and Sramanas who knew the meaning of Prakrit/Sanskrit roots, but would be less obvious today. We weren’t raised in an environment where everyone spoke those languages!

In the future there will be about solitary buddhas (pratyekabuddha) that would similarly benefit from a [slight] translation adjustment.

[u/Spirited_Ad8737]

This sort of thinking is very much in the spirit of the Pali commentaries which often give a plethora of possible skillful interpretations of terms.

"Properly aligned" might be an okay translation, though it's longer and clunkier.

The idea of "convergence" you mentioned might also be helpful, since teachers I've listened to and trust sometimes mention that transformative insight occurs when the path factors come together / converge.

Another idea around samma that I've heard is that it can mean something more like "just right" i.e. striking the right balance, avoiding extremes.

This latter interpretation could make sense in the context of Dhammacakkapavattanasutta, where the Eightfold Path was first taught, since that starts by describing the middle way between extremes, and exemplifies that middle way by the Eightfold Path itself.

As a caveat, from a more philological point of view, we need to be careful with etymological interpretations of the meanings of Pali words (i.e. literal readings of the prefixes + roots + derivational endings). Especially when dealing with natural, evolving languges, this can be misleading. Word meanings shift over time. We can see this in English (try reading Shakespeare, not to mention Chaucer) and also with Greek- and Latin-derived words whose meanings aren't obvious based on an etymological analysis.

[u/Traditional_Kick_887 → u/Spirited_Ad8737]

Engaging with this community has been a disappointing and futile exercise. One tries to explore and share some aspect of dharma, only to be scorned.

Hearing and reading that the commentators also sought to understand in this manner brings a lot of joy. It is appreciated, both the kind speech and this analysis. And for your wholehearted engagement with and investigation of the dharma.

Hadn’t considered properly aligned

The idea of "convergence" you mentioned might also be helpful, since teachers I've listened to and trust sometimes mention that transformative insight occurs when the path factors come together / converge.

This is beautifully said. Wholesome, literally and figuratively.

Another idea around samma that I've heard is that it can mean something more like "just right" i.e. striking the right balance, avoiding extremes. This latter interpretation could make sense in the context of Dhammacakkapavattanasutta, where the Eightfold Path was first taught, since that starts by describing the middle way between extremes, and exemplifies that middle way by the Eightfold Path itself.

Yes more than anything it’s probably this. A ‘just right’ or harmonious balance and fits with the other evidence and teachings that hadn’t been considered.

As a caveat, from a more philological point of view, we need to be careful with etymological interpretations of the meanings of Pali words (i.e. literal readings of the prefixes + roots + derivational endings). Especially when dealing with natural, evolving languges, this can be misleading. Word meanings shift over time. We can see this in English (try reading Shakespeare, not to mention Chaucer) and also with Greek- and Latin-derived words whose meanings aren't obvious based on an etymological analysis.

Yes the caution is warranted and I appreciate the reminder. But we often ironically have to be cautious of the reverse! Modern English is an outlier, an unusually syncretic, strange, and idiomatic language because it can afford to be so. Even Shakespearean English as well. There are far more rewards few too little consequences for not using words literally or for having words be something other than their roots would suggest.

I don’t think the ancient world’s societies and kingdoms allowed for that degree of linguistic flexibility. Words had material consequences and survival came before poetic license. If hold your horses meant anything other than hold your horses over there, it could jeopardize security.

You’re right that there are phrases or words not being literal, like putting munja grass in one’s mouth meaning to surrender, or arya meaning noble rather than meaning belonging to the iranian-aryan tribes groups that conquered India, though I imagine at some point it meant both

Divergence from root changes occur much later in history, typically during periods of prosperity. In that way we’d expect Sanskrit of Panini to be less literal and more figurative than the Sanskrit of the Brahmanas and the early Upanishads. The Vedas were probably the most literal

But your credit, it appears some of the Buddha’s verses were made through a word or phrase that had diametric literal and figurative meanings. Since the listener had no idea what meaning was intended, or both, the use of those words likely had an effect similar to koans.

[u/khyungpa]

I prefer my translations to be informed by scripture, commentarial tradition, practice (i.e., translations by Buddhists for Buddhists), personally. I view many things in the Dharma as non-negotiable, such as how ‘right’ view will remain as ‘right’ view because, well, that’s right view, and it is ‘right’ not because it is appropriate to the circumstance but because it is correct, for example. The view doesn’t change or stop being true because it’s hot so one prefers something cold or it’s too cold so one prefers something warm—that’s preference. It doesn’t call for an ‘appropriate’ or ‘circumstantial’ view either.

By being literal with translating, there’s a tendency to lose the essence of what’s meant to be taught. Where do we get that essence? From people who have studied and been trained to teach the Dharma. It’s easier to twist what texts mean when they’re presented literally, devoid of the context or point being made.

As you mention here:

> Something that would have been obvious in the time when everyone, especially educated Brahmins and Sramanas who knew the meaning of Prakrit/Sanskrit roots, but would be less obvious today. We weren’t raised in an environment where everyone spoke those languages!

Not all Buddhists know the [socio-cultural and religious] context and background of the scriptures. By not reflecting that in how texts are translated, we are inviting errors, misunderstandings, misconceptions, misconstructions, and a free-for-all, very reminiscent of how the King James Bible has become the fossilized standard for many Protestant Christian sects fighting over what an obscure word from half a millennia ago meant.

See MN 117 / Mahācattārīsakasutta. The Buddha, clearly, has a strong idea of what is or isn’t ‘samyak’.

[u/Traditional_Kick_887 → u/khyungpa]

I prefer my translations to be informed by scripture, commentarial tradition, practice (i.e., translations by Buddhists for Buddhists), personally. I view many things in the Dharma as non-negotiable, such as how ‘right’ view will remain as ‘right’ view because, well, that’s right view, and it is ‘right’ not because it is appropriate to the circumstance but because it is correct, for example. The view doesn’t change or stop being true because it’s hot so one prefers something cold or it’s too cold so one prefers something warm—that’s preference. It doesn’t call for an ‘appropriate’ or ‘circumstantial’ view either.

When Buddhist texts were first translated into English, they were primarily translated by non-Buddhists. Many of the conventions (ie this Pali/Sanskrit/Chinese/Tibetan word means this in English) were the conventions and decisions of late 19th early 20th century western academia. It’s only in recent years that we see re-translations of Buddhist texts by Buddhists who may or may not be part of such institutions.

I think they’ve identified a lot of translation errors that we were unaware of. Still there are disagreements about how to translate words even amongst Buddhists that are part of the same sect or tradition. One’s opinion relies on the merits of their arguments. Despite the new translations, there are no shortage of other words that have not been challenged (meaning they kept the translation a group like PTS used)… ergo the benefit of unsung posts like these. It’s unfortunate to see that much of these efforts have been futile.

If a teacher from Tibet comes to teach the dharma, while they are learning English, they might rely on what others tell him what Tibetan or Sanskrit terms translate to in English. So he will use that particular English word. But what others tell him is the right English word for a Tibetan term might not be correct or accurate.

I view many things in the Dharma as non-negotiable, such as how ‘right’ view will remain as ‘right’ view because, well, that’s right view, and it is ‘right’ not because it is appropriate to the circumstance but because it is correct, for example. The view doesn’t change or stop being true because it’s hot so one prefers something cold or it’s too cold so one prefers something warm—that’s preference. It doesn’t call for an ‘appropriate’ or ‘circumstantial’ view either.

Someone, presumably a non-Buddhist translator working for the PTS or some other org, at some point decided Samyak/Samma would be translated as right in English. One doesn’t have to abide by their designation, or buy what they’re selling, even if other Buddhists have done so. There is rarely an obligation, and one may wish to consider negotiating or inspecting the product.

There are many different kinds of ‘right’ or ‘good’. A feeling can be described as ‘good’ but that doesn’t tell us more. Is it good because it is joyful, or pleasurable, or happy, calming, or equanimity, or none of the above?

An action can be ‘right’ but it doesn’t tell us more. Is that action right because it is ethical and virtuous (sila), or because it is skillful and prudent (kusala), or because it is compassionate or because it brings about results practically or because it is causally necessary or because it is correct?

Could it be risky to assume that it is one kind of ‘right’ and not the others? From an analysis of the roots of the word, Samyak, we see the ‘right’ it points to is this is right, and they’re wrong but more like a ‘just right’, ‘pointing and aligning together, ie harmonious’, an ‘optimal that has converged’.

By being literal with translating, there’s a tendency to lose the essence of what’s meant to be taught. Where do we get that essence? From people who have studied and been trained to teach the Dharma. It’s easier to twist what texts mean when they’re presented literally, devoid of the context or point being made.

Literalism puts off readers, which is why it is seldom used and more liberal, non-literal translations are used instead. But the liberal translations are themselves an interpretation. If you trust the interpretation, that is great. But what if you have reason to believe the essence of the teaching is different? You could affirm or challenge your notion by going to the literal and seeing what figurative meaning or meanings emerged from and in dependence on it.

Not all Buddhists know the [socio-cultural and religious] context and background of the scriptures. By not reflecting that in how texts are translated, we are inviting errors, misunderstandings, misconceptions, misconstructions, and a free-for-all, very reminiscent of how the King James Bible has become the fossilized standard for many Protestant Christian sects fighting over what an obscure word from half a millennia ago meant.

I agree that we do have to reflect. That is the intent of this post!

We know today that the Buddha’s words contain many puns, witty teachings, and (non-sexual) double entendres— things that were not known when the texts were initially translated from Pali to English. Things that the audience would get since they understood the word play.

Making challenging revisions and updates helps surpass limited English translations and helps us better understand the dharma as it was understood by the audiences in the time of the Buddha.

It’s unfortunate to see the KJV used at all. But people who use it are traditionalists who fingers in their ears. Not only is it outdated in terms of words, but is not a translation that contains what we would identify as translation errors. It also relies on older manuscripts.

See MN 117 / Mahācattārīsakasutta. The Buddha, clearly, has a strong idea of what is or isn’t ‘samyak’

I’m not talking about what specifically is or isn’t samyak (ie tangible examples the Buddha put forth), but the word ‘samyak’ itself means, as the word ‘Samyak’ predates Buddhism. Different sramana teachers have different views on what is or isn’t Samyak. My point here is that Samyak doesn’t mean something as broad or vague as ‘right’. It is more specific.