[Buddha-l] query about a term in Japanese zen, translated as "soul" in one text.

[Jo]

Looks to me like the term tamashi is equivalent to the Indian term jiiva.
They seem to have thoroughly changed the aatman idea. In India that idea--of
the selfish ego-- if I recall rightly, is represented by ahamkaara.

In "western" discourse, the term soul seems to me to be so influenced by
western religious traditions that its utility in Buddhism is questionable
(that is, unless some Buddhist tradition uses the term the same way we use
it. They do it vernacularly in Burma with the "butterfly spirit", which is
the entity that transmigrates). Westerners tend to think of soul as a
something, an entity, so IMO it can't be used to represent the idea of
aatman. I'd hope that "soul" would be discarded in favor of retaining the
Indian term in English discourse. "Spirit" would suffice as a translation of
jiiva.
Yes indeed, translation tends to become, as the founder of the Calcutta
Writers Workshop, P. Lal preferred to call it, "transcreation."

Joanna



-----Original Message-----
From: buddha-l-bounces at mailman.swcp.com
[mailto:buddha-l-bounces at mailman.swcp.com] On Behalf Of Sally McAra
Sent: Monday, January 16, 2012 12:56 AM
To: Buddhist discussion forum
Subject: Re: [Buddha-l] query about a term in Japanese zen, translated as
"soul" in one text.

Thanks Stan, and others who responded, clearing up my query about the actual
terms and their translations.

I had another reply off-list that also mentioned tamashii - it mentioned
that "the Japanese differentiate the atman (ga) from tamashi, with the
former implying the selfish egotistical self rather than the person's
essence."

The person replying off list also said, "Japanese Buddhism is strongly
influenced by tathagata-garbha doctrines." Unfortunately I'm not that well
informed about tathagata-garbha doctrines as I've not studied philosophy,
Buddhist or otherwise. (I'd welcome views and explanations of
tathagata-garbha, or recommendations of a book/article that gives some
insight into the doctrine and the debates around it.) As Jo noted, my
question is as much about the issue of translation as it is about the
different philosophical theories of soul, self etc.
It's something that comes up a lot, whenever I read anything that's a
translation, Buddhist or otherwise.
cheers
Ssally

On 16/01/2012, sjziobro at cs.com <sjziobro at cs.com> wrote:
>
> Joanna,
>
> I am not responding to your informative post, but responding to the
> original inquiry, presuming that it has yet to be answered.  The term
> translated as "soul" was most likely "tamashii" (魂).  This term
> refers to the animating principle of a living being.  It can also connote
the psyche or the spirit.
> Since the advent of Christianity to Japan in the mid-sixteenth century
A.D.
> a Sino-Japanese composite has also been used, "reikon" (霊魂).  This
> term connotes what 霊魂 connotes, and it can be used to translate "jiva."
"Rei"
> (霊) by itself can connote numen, spirit (pneuma).  I'll check some of
> my specifically Japanese Buddhist dictionaries for these terms.
>
> Regards,
>
> Stan Ziobro
>
_______________________________________________
buddha-l mailing list
buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com
http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l