Negative Positive
Title: Got comparison?
Review: Readers seem to rate a text for its mere appearance/publication or its importance within the larger framework of Buddhist texts, than for the quality of its translation. Now, how many people have actually compared the original to the translation? Few, I guess. Yet most of the readers give a high rating. I find that unplausible.Even without mastering (Classical) Chinese (from which this translation is done), someone with some experience in Buddhist rhetoric will find some things to remark:* Classical Chinese lends itself to different interpretations, leaving a certain arbitrariness in translation (in syntax).* Words like 'the Law' and 'the Laws' or 'Dharma' need contextual interpretation. I don't doubt Watson is a good translator, but I wished some notes were included where ambiguity of terms exists.* Leaving passages or whole chapters out is a pity. For a complete published edition leaves the reader to choose which chapters to skip.
Is the review positive or negative? 