Kunjed Gyalpo:The Supreme Source

Moderator: Tibetan Buddhism moderators

Re: Kunjed Gyalpo:The Supreme Source

Postby Malcolm » Tue Jul 30, 2013 9:23 pm

mutsuk wrote: Jim Valby knows and understands what he translates.


Yes, I agree.

M
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://www.bhaisajya.guru
http://atikosha.org
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

Though there are infinite liberating gateways of Dharma,
there are none not included in the dimension of the knowledge of the Great Perfection.

-- Buddha Samantabhadri
User avatar
Malcolm
 
Posts: 12568
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Kunjed Gyalpo:The Supreme Source

Postby Dorje Shedrub » Tue Jul 30, 2013 10:25 pm

Thanks everyone for the informarion. When I first read this I knew it was the best book I had ever read.
DS
User avatar
Dorje Shedrub
 
Posts: 45
Joined: Tue Apr 07, 2009 11:23 pm
Location: Indiana, USA

Re: Kunjed Gyalpo:The Supreme Source

Postby dzogchungpa » Thu Aug 01, 2013 1:50 am

mutsuk wrote:I mean, her book displays nearly as many translation mistakes as Ann Klein's Unbounded Wholeness...

Tell us what you really think, mutsuk :smile:
ཨོཾ་ཏཱ་རེ་ཏུཏྟ་རེ་ཏུ་རེ་སྭཱཧཱ༔
User avatar
dzogchungpa
 
Posts: 2273
Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 10:50 pm

Re: Kunjed Gyalpo:The Supreme Source

Postby mutsuk » Thu Aug 01, 2013 7:34 am

What I really think is that Jim Valby's work on the Kun-byed eclipses other translations published so far of the same root-text. It is clear Dargyay did not understand what she "translated". Her explanation about feminizing the King (rgyal po in Kun byed rgyal po) into a Queen is simply ridiculous. It is just as stupid as Janet Gyatso explaining that the natural state is beyond gender but is nevertheless feminine... Who lacks a brain ?
mutsuk
 
Posts: 456
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2010 7:35 pm

Previous

Return to Dzogchen

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 10 guests

>