Dharma Wheel

ALL THESE POSTS ON TIBETAN TEXTS AND YOU'RE SUGGESTED CHOICE FOR LEARNING TIBETAN HAS INSPIRED
ME TO PURCHASE "MANUAL OF STANDARD TIBETAN" THANK YOU MALCOLM

amanitamusc wrote:ALL THESE POSTS ON TIBETAN TEXTS AND YOU'RE SUGGESTED CHOICE FOR LEARNING TIBETAN HAS INSPIRED
ME TO PURCHASE "MANUAL OF STANDARD TIBETAN" THANK YOU MALCOLM

We serious students of Dzogchen need to learn classical Tibetan, especially the technical vocabulary of Dzogchen. It's an unpopular statement, but it's true--something as serious as the practice that will take us to enlightenment cannot be gotten second hand through the mind of a translator.

Woo-hoo. Yudron!
Second hand Dzogchen, is no Dzoghcgen.

Yudron wrote:

amanitamusc wrote:ALL THESE POSTS ON TIBETAN TEXTS AND YOU'RE SUGGESTED CHOICE FOR LEARNING TIBETAN HAS INSPIRED
ME TO PURCHASE "MANUAL OF STANDARD TIBETAN" THANK YOU MALCOLM

We serious students of Dzogchen need to learn classical Tibetan, especially the technical vocabulary of Dzogchen. It's an unpopular statement, but it's true--something as serious as the practice that will take us to enlightenment cannot be gotten second hand through the mind of a translator.

While I certainly think it's good to learn classical Tibetan if you can, I don't think it's necessary at all. Tibetans didn't learn Sanskrit and it didn't seem to bother them from achieving enlightenment.

Pero wrote:

Yudron wrote:

amanitamusc wrote:ALL THESE POSTS ON TIBETAN TEXTS AND YOU'RE SUGGESTED CHOICE FOR LEARNING TIBETAN HAS INSPIRED
ME TO PURCHASE "MANUAL OF STANDARD TIBETAN" THANK YOU MALCOLM

We serious students of Dzogchen need to learn classical Tibetan, especially the technical vocabulary of Dzogchen. It's an unpopular statement, but it's true--something as serious as the practice that will take us to enlightenment cannot be gotten second hand through the mind of a translator.

While I certainly think it's good to learn classical Tibetan if you can, I don't think it's necessary at all. Tibetans didn't learn Sanskrit and it didn't seem to bother them from achieving enlightenment.

Agree ... and the most urgent is maybe for Tibetan to learn English (or French, or else) ...

Sönam

Actually Malcolm himself once remarked that based on everything currently available in English, one can theoretically attain rainbow body already. We can read more Dzogchen texts if we know English compared to an illiterate cowherd.

Pero wrote:

Yudron wrote:

amanitamusc wrote:ALL THESE POSTS ON TIBETAN TEXTS AND YOU'RE SUGGESTED CHOICE FOR LEARNING TIBETAN HAS INSPIRED
ME TO PURCHASE "MANUAL OF STANDARD TIBETAN" THANK YOU MALCOLM

We serious students of Dzogchen need to learn classical Tibetan, especially the technical vocabulary of Dzogchen. It's an unpopular statement, but it's true--something as serious as the practice that will take us to enlightenment cannot be gotten second hand through the mind of a translator.

While I certainly think it's good to learn classical Tibetan if you can, I don't think it's necessary at all. Tibetans didn't learn Sanskrit and it didn't seem to bother them from achieving enlightenment.

Thanks to government sponsorship, an amazing team of the most excellent practitioner translators were hired to translate the Indian texts into Tibetan, and standardize the terminology to do so. That is completely different from the situation in which we find ourselves now. There is no agreement on how to translate Dzogchen vocabulary into English, so the English-speaking reader has no way to compare one text to another -- or even two translations of the same text.

Look, for example, what Jyoti was trying to read in English--two translations of part of the Kunjyed Gyalpo, one of which has been discredited, and one of which is a translation from Italian to English of a Tibetan to Italian translation. No wonder she thought English is a poor language for Dzogchen!

Yudron wrote:

Pero wrote:

Yudron wrote: We serious students of Dzogchen need to learn classical Tibetan, especially the technical vocabulary of Dzogchen. It's an unpopular statement, but it's true--something as serious as the practice that will take us to enlightenment cannot be gotten second hand through the mind of a translator.

While I certainly think it's good to learn classical Tibetan if you can, I don't think it's necessary at all. Tibetans didn't learn Sanskrit and it didn't seem to bother them from achieving enlightenment.

Thanks to government sponsorship, an amazing team of the most excellent practitioner translators were hired to translate the Indian texts into Tibetan, and standardize the terminology to do so. That is completely different from the situation in which we find ourselves now. There is no agreement on how to translate Dzogchen vocabulary into English, so the English-speaking reader has no way to compare one text to another -- or even two translations of the same text.

Good point. However, if you put up such lofty standards what would be the point for ordinary people like myself to try to learn Tibetan? And there is no guarantee than we'll actually learn Tibetan better or at least at the same level than the current translators, I'd bet that the majority of us would be worse. Unless we take dedicate a whole lot of time for that. And most of us won't/can't.

Pero, translation and reading a foreign language are two very different things. I will never be a translator, but even at my very low (and slow) level of reading Tibetan, I get much much more out out reading Longchenpa's Cho Ying Dzod in Tibetan than even in Barron's amazing translation.

Say, for example, you have really learned what yeshe means. After so many years, in your gut, you really know what yeshe means without having to detour though "wisdom" or "primordial wisdom" or "timeless awareness." Then, you really know that yeshe is none of those things, exactly. Then, reading English translations of Dzogchen texts starts to feel as a vague and somewhat confusing approximation of actual Dzogchen.

These books aren't supposed to be read like modern fiction, wolfed down like a pizza. Reading even one line of the Cho Ying Dzod is a profound pointing out instruction. Thanks to Padma Publishing, we have a version with the Tibetan on one page and the English on the facing page. Even if we just learn the Tibetan alphabet and look up the words in the Rangjyung Yeshe dictionary, one by one, over a week--I would argue it would bring our practice forward immensely. It's timeless subjectless, objectless wisdom geared to communicate the absolute meaning to real practitioners. We can look about how Barron renders a word, we can compare it to Eric Pema Kunsang or Jim Valby. How different the flavor would be, translated by each! Then, we can look in the footnotes to Cascading Waterfall of Nectar to see how Thinley Norbu Rinpoche -- an actual contemporary fully realized Buddha -- preferred to render it.

Pero, it's amazing! You can have Longchenpa in your pocket everywhere you go. Yes, lots of people drop out of school saying such and such a millionaire dropped out of school and he still gained riches. Sure, some illiterate shepherds characterized by both great faith in their lama and great diligence in practice have attained the ultimate fruition... but is that really how we think we are likely to do it? We westerners have endless questions we need to be answered, then we feel confident enough to decide to be diligent.

I'm not lecturing you, I'm really lecturing myself... hoping that I won't let my Tibetan slide now that I am outside of retreat setting.

Yudron wrote:it's amazing! You can have Longchenpa in your pocket everywhere you go. Yes, lots of people drop out of school saying such and such a millionaire dropped out of school and he still gained riches. Sure, some illiterate shepherds characterized by both great faith in their lama and great diligence in practice have attained the ultimate fruition... but is that really how we think we are likely to do it? We westerners have endless questions we need to be answered, then we feel confident enough to decide to be diligent.

I'm not lecturing you, I'm really lecturing myself... hoping that I won't let my Tibetan slide now that I am outside of retreat setting.

In 3 separate places I've found 3 different deities being referenced to as the black wrathful goddess in the "Black Wrathful Goddess Tantra"...

In the OP I copied the run-down of the 17 Tantras from a website which listed the Black Wrathful Goddess Tantra (nag mo khros ma); as referring to a black form of Vajrayogini (khros ma nag mo).

In another more in depth run-down I found done by Khenpo Ngakchung it lists this tantra as the Tantra of The Wrathful Black Guardian Shri Ekajati, which resembles a sharp razor, describes how to protect the practitioner against harms inflicted by others. Obviously referencing Ekajati.

And then on Vajranatha's website he has this as referencing Simhamukha: The secret sadhana (gsang sgrub) is for the exceedingly wrathful black Krodha Kali Simhamukha (khros-ma nga-mo), "the wrathful black goddess", who appears to annihilate the delusion of ego, symbolized by the insatiable demon king Rudra, much like Durga cutting the head off the demon king Mahisha. The secret sadhana is also connected with the practice of Chod (gcod), the severing or cutting off of the ego. For this reason, this form of Simhamukha is also called Vajra Nairatma (rDo-rje bdag-med-ma), “she who destroys the notion of an ego.”

Which deity is actually being discussed in this tantra?

asunthatneversets wrote:In 3 separate places I've found 3 different deities being referenced to as the black wrathful goddess in the "Black Wrathful Goddess Tantra"...

In the OP I copied the run-down of the 17 Tantras from a website which listed the Black Wrathful Goddess Tantra (nag mo khros ma); as referring to a black form of Vajrayogini (khros ma nag mo).

In another more in depth run-down I found done by Khenpo Ngakchung it lists this tantra as the Tantra of The Wrathful Black Guardian Shri Ekajati, which resembles a sharp razor, describes how to protect the practitioner against harms inflicted by others. Obviously referencing Ekajati.

And then on Vajranatha's website he has this as referencing Simhamukha: The secret sadhana (gsang sgrub) is for the exceedingly wrathful black Krodha Kali Simhamukha (khros-ma nga-mo), "the wrathful black goddess", who appears to annihilate the delusion of ego, symbolized by the insatiable demon king Rudra, much like Durga cutting the head off the demon king Mahisha. The secret sadhana is also connected with the practice of Chod (gcod), the severing or cutting off of the ego. For this reason, this form of Simhamukha is also called Vajra Nairatma (rDo-rje bdag-med-ma), “she who destroys the notion of an ego.”

Which deity is actually being discussed in this tantra?

Never heard anything else than Ekajati.

/magnus

asunthatneversets wrote:In 3 separate places I've found 3 different deities being referenced to as the black wrathful goddess in the "Black Wrathful Goddess Tantra"...

In the OP I copied the run-down of the 17 Tantras from a website which listed the Black Wrathful Goddess Tantra (nag mo khros ma); as referring to a black form of Vajrayogini (khros ma nag mo).

In another more in depth run-down I found done by Khenpo Ngakchung it lists this tantra as the Tantra of The Wrathful Black Guardian Shri Ekajati, which resembles a sharp razor, describes how to protect the practitioner against harms inflicted by others. Obviously referencing Ekajati.

And then on Vajranatha's website he has this as referencing Simhamukha: The secret sadhana (gsang sgrub) is for the exceedingly wrathful black Krodha Kali Simhamukha (khros-ma nga-mo), "the wrathful black goddess", who appears to annihilate the delusion of ego, symbolized by the insatiable demon king Rudra, much like Durga cutting the head off the demon king Mahisha. The secret sadhana is also connected with the practice of Chod (gcod), the severing or cutting off of the ego. For this reason, this form of Simhamukha is also called Vajra Nairatma (rDo-rje bdag-med-ma), “she who destroys the notion of an ego.”

Which deity is actually being discussed in this tantra?

Mamo Ekajati. The confusion comes from the fact that the tantra is called "khros ma nag mo", which is also the name of several other cycles of unrelated devas.

Yudron wrote:Pero, translation and reading a foreign language are two very different things. I will never be a translator, but even at my very low (and slow) level of reading Tibetan, I get much much more out out reading Longchenpa's Cho Ying Dzod in Tibetan than even in Barron's amazing translation.

Say, for example, you have really learned what yeshe means. After so many years, in your gut, you really know what yeshe means without having to detour though "wisdom" or "primordial wisdom" or "timeless awareness." Then, you really know that yeshe is none of those things, exactly. Then, reading English translations of Dzogchen texts starts to feel as a vague and somewhat confusing approximation of actual Dzogchen.

...

Yeah, I totally understand that.

Pero, it's amazing! You can have Longchenpa in your pocket everywhere you go.

What, really?! I always thought I had to put him on the top of my shoulder. It's been a pain to convince him to turn invisible so others wouldn't look at me strangely.
(j/k)

Yes, lots of people drop out of school saying such and such a millionaire dropped out of school and he still gained riches. Sure, some illiterate shepherds characterized by both great faith in their lama and great diligence in practice have attained the ultimate fruition... but is that really how we think we are likely to do it? We westerners have endless questions we need to be answered, then we feel confident enough to decide to be diligent.

I can understand that for some people it might be like that. But for myself I'm pretty sure that no matter how well I'll learn to read Tibetan, I won't be any less lazy because of it.

Anyone know the names that are used in the TsamDrak & TingKye editions for this tantra that goings by these names?
nag mo khros ma.
khros ma nag mo.
bka’ srung nag mo’i rgyud.
bka’ srung nag mo’i snying thun gsang ba.
sngags srung gsang rgyud.

These names are not in both those editions and I need to know what title they go by in these two version of the NGB.

thanks
L

Pero wrote:I can understand that for some people it might be like that. But for myself I'm pretty sure that no matter how well I'll learn to read Tibetan, I won't be any less lazy because of it.

Me too I'm afraid. There's more than enough written by my own teacher to keep me going for a lifetime. I in fact am an illiterate cowherd. I just do the best I can - I'm immensely fortunate to have the resources that are already out there.

Karma Dondrup Tashi wrote:

Pero wrote:I can understand that for some people it might be like that. But for myself I'm pretty sure that no matter how well I'll learn to read Tibetan, I won't be any less lazy because of it.

Me too I'm afraid. There's more than enough written by my own teacher to keep me going for a lifetime. I in fact am an illiterate cowherd. I just do the best I can - I'm immensely fortunate to have the resources that are already out there.

Well, there is nothing that says the next great Dzogchen text, ala Longchenpa, won't be written in English. One never knows.

About how long would it take a Dzogchen practitioner who is between lower and medium scope at best regarding their capacity—yet who also has average or slightly-above-average intellectual-faculties—to learn Tibetan well enough in order to at least 'somewhat grasp' the sense of what is written in the 17 (+2) Dzogchen Upadesha Tantra's?

(Assuming that one has to give no more than say 30 to 45 hours a week of their total time to a job and/or non-Tibetan-related schooling)

Would be great to soon see the rest of Richard Barron's English translations of Longchen Rabjam's Seven Treasuries.

Lhug-Pa wrote:
Would be great to soon see the rest of Richard Barron's English translations of Longchen Rabjam's Seven Treasuries.

yes ... and specially the supreme Tshig don mdzod

Sönam

Bj Lhundrup wrote:Anyone know the names that are used in the TsamDrak & TingKye editions for this tantra that goings by these names?
nag mo khros ma.
khros ma nag mo.
bka’ srung nag mo’i rgyud.
bka’ srung nag mo’i snying thun gsang ba.
sngags srung gsang rgyud.

These names are not in both those editions and I need to know what title they go by in these two version of the NGB.

thanks
L

As far as I can tell it is not in the NGB in either of those collections.