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://atikosha.org
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

" The one who teaches the benefits of peace,
he is said to be a ṛṣī; the others are the opposite of him."

-- Uttaratantra
Malcolm
 
Posts: 10165
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་མ་ཧཱ་ཤུནྱ་ཏཱ་ཛྙཱ་ན་བཛྲ་སྭཱ་བྷཱ་བ་ཨཱཏྨ་ཀོ་྅ཧཾ༔

The thousands of lines of the Prajnaparamita can be summed up in the following two sentences:
1) One should become a Bodhisattva (or, Buddha-to-be), i.e. one who is content with nothing less than all-knowledge attained through the perfection of wisdom for the sake of all beings.
2) There is no such thing as a Bodhisattva, or as all-knowledge, or as a ‘being’, or as the perfection of wisdom, or as an attainment.
To accept both these contradictory facts is to be perfect.
- Conze
User avatar
dzogchungpa
 
Posts: 1446
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: 421
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2010 7:35 pm

Previous

Return to Dzogchen

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests

>