Dharma Wheel

A Buddhist discussion forum on Mahayana and Vajrayana Buddhism
It is currently Tue Dec 23, 2014 12:38 am

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Forum rules


Please click here to view the forum rules



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 27 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Dec 09, 2013 9:56 pm 
Offline
Former staff member
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2010 5:29 pm
Posts: 4612
Location: Baltimore, MD
From Hacket, "A Tibetan Verb Lexicon": བྱིས་པ་འགའ་ཡང་བཤེས་མིན་ཞེས། །དེ་བཞིན་གཤེགས་པ་རྣམས་ཀྱིས་གསུངས།: All the Tathagatas have said "Do not befriend the foolish".

Why does Hacket insert "have" to change གསུངས། to the perfect past? Is there actually a perfect past in Tibetan as opposed to just a past tense (perfect past being things that are actually completed and often a while ago)?

How does this get parsed out: བྱིས་པ་འགའ་ཡང་བཤེས་མིན་ཞེས།:

བྱིས་པ: foolish beings
འགའ་ཡང: at all, whatsoever
བཤེས: friend
མིན: not
ཞེས།: particle indicating quote

"Do not become friends at all with foolish beings" - ? Is བཤེས actually a verb? Otherwise what is the logic behind this construction?

Also how is བྱིས་པ pronounced? be pa (bay pa) ?

Thanks!

Kirt

_________________
Kirt's Tibetan Translation Notes

"Only you can make your mind beautiful."
HH Chetsang Rinpoche


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 09, 2013 10:23 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am
Posts: 12736
གསུངས་is both the imperative as well as the past. Tibetan does not have a "perfect past" It has only three conjugations of verbs, past/future; present/infinitive and imperative. Often the imperative is morphologically the same as the past tense.

So this line could the read both ways i.e. as a command or as past tense.

Generally, for bshes pa to be a verb, it usually requires the auxillary "byed pa". Here the auxiliary [bya/byed] is elided, but implied.

It could also be translated completely nominally: "Do not be a friend to immature [person] at all", etc.

Depending on dialect, བྱིས་པ is pronounced something like "ji/chi pa"; but in Amdo, it would be "Yay pa"




kirtu wrote:
From Hacket, "A Tibetan Verb Lexicon": བྱིས་པ་འགའ་ཡང་བཤེས་མིན་ཞེས། །དེ་བཞིན་གཤེགས་པ་རྣམས་ཀྱིས་གསུངས།: All the Tathagatas have said "Do not befriend the foolish".

Why does Hacket insert "have" to change གསུངས། to the perfect past? Is there actually a perfect past in Tibetan as opposed to just a past tense (perfect past being things that are actually completed and often a while ago)?

How does this get parsed out: བྱིས་པ་འགའ་ཡང་བཤེས་མིན་ཞེས།:

བྱིས་པ: foolish beings
འགའ་ཡང: at all, whatsoever
བཤེས: friend
མིན: not
ཞེས།: particle indicating quote

"Do not become friends at all with foolish beings" - ? Is བཤེས actually a verb? Otherwise what is the logic behind this construction?

Also how is བྱིས་པ pronounced? be pa (bay pa) ?

Thanks!

Kirt

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

How can you not practice the highest Dharma
at this time of obtaining a perfect human body?

-- Jetsun Dragpa Gyaltsen


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 09, 2013 10:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 10:50 pm
Posts: 2295
Definitely good advice, however you translate it.

_________________
ཨོཾ་ཏཱ་རེ་ཏུཏྟ་རེ་ཏུ་རེ་སྭཱཧཱ༔


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 09, 2013 10:54 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2012 4:26 pm
Posts: 501
what is the context of this... could it also be talking about our own foolish parts? are we above it... and, what about family. Perhaps it is saying do not subscribe to foolishness in others.

old zen master talking to himself:
master, master... are you awake?
yes! yes!
don't be fooled by others


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 09, 2013 11:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am
Posts: 12736
Lindama wrote:
what is the context of this... could it also be talking about our own foolish parts? are we above it... and, what about family. Perhaps it is saying do not subscribe to foolishness in others.

old zen master talking to himself:
master, master... are you awake?
yes! yes!
don't be fooled by others



It is from the Bodhicarya-avatara. It means do not be familiar with immature people.

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

How can you not practice the highest Dharma
at this time of obtaining a perfect human body?

-- Jetsun Dragpa Gyaltsen


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 09, 2013 11:40 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 14, 2013 7:29 am
Posts: 761
Location: Oregon
Immature emotionally or spiritually?

_________________
Mind and mental events are concepts, mere postulations within the three realms of samsara Longchenpa .... A link to my Garden, Art and Foodie blog Scratch Living


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 09, 2013 11:54 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 8:39 pm
Posts: 1270
Location: Gone Bush
reddust wrote:
Immature emotionally or spiritually?

Both. I think the two are inseparable.

Although I don't think it necessarily involves avoiding children in this case.

_________________
May all beings be happy


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Dec 10, 2013 12:01 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 14, 2013 7:29 am
Posts: 761
Location: Oregon
dharmagoat wrote:
reddust wrote:
Immature emotionally or spiritually?

Both. I think the two are inseparable.

Although I don't think it necessarily involves avoiding children in this case.


I was thinking that, as well as young adults, or people who have been through trauma. I was thinking more like the fools that enjoy and manifest behavior that causes suffering for themselves and others :namaste:

Edit I have never enjoyed it when my behavior hurts me or others. I think most folk are like that, heck I feel bad when I win at cards or if I lose... :thinking:

_________________
Mind and mental events are concepts, mere postulations within the three realms of samsara Longchenpa .... A link to my Garden, Art and Foodie blog Scratch Living


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Dec 10, 2013 12:05 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 8:39 pm
Posts: 1270
Location: Gone Bush
I think it really means "Don't waste your time hanging around with twits."

_________________
May all beings be happy


Last edited by dharmagoat on Tue Dec 10, 2013 12:06 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Dec 10, 2013 12:06 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 14, 2013 7:29 am
Posts: 761
Location: Oregon
dharmagoat wrote:
I think it really means "Don't waste your time hanging out with twits".
But I am a twit hahaha :twothumbsup: you are so funny. My best friends brother used to call me a twit. I looked up the meaning: To taunt, ridicule, or tease, especially for embarrassing mistakes or faults. See Synonyms at ridicule.
n.
1. The act or an instance of twitting.
2. A reproach, gibe, or taunt.
3. Slang A foolishly annoying person

I guess I can be a twit sometimes, there are a lot of twits online.

_________________
Mind and mental events are concepts, mere postulations within the three realms of samsara Longchenpa .... A link to my Garden, Art and Foodie blog Scratch Living


Last edited by reddust on Tue Dec 10, 2013 12:10 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Dec 10, 2013 12:09 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 8:39 pm
Posts: 1270
Location: Gone Bush
reddust wrote:
dharmagoat wrote:
I think it really means "Don't waste your time hanging out with twits".
But I am a twit hahaha :twothumbsup: you are so funny

We are all twits here to some degree.

We are conversing on an internet forum, after all. :tongue:

_________________
May all beings be happy


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Dec 10, 2013 12:12 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 14, 2013 7:29 am
Posts: 761
Location: Oregon
dharmagoat wrote:
reddust wrote:
dharmagoat wrote:
I think it really means "Don't waste your time hanging out with twits".
But I am a twit hahaha :twothumbsup: you are so funny

We are all twits here to some degree.

We are conversing on an internet forum, after all. :tongue:


I know, I just added a definition for twit to my last post. So many words are vague, many times I look them up even if I think I know what they mean. I seriously think we all can fall into this many times during the day.

_________________
Mind and mental events are concepts, mere postulations within the three realms of samsara Longchenpa .... A link to my Garden, Art and Foodie blog Scratch Living


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Dec 10, 2013 11:42 am 
Offline
Former staff member
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2010 5:29 pm
Posts: 4612
Location: Baltimore, MD
Malcolm wrote:
Generally, for bshes pa to be a verb, it usually requires the auxillary "byed pa". Here the auxiliary [bya/byed] is elided, but implied.


How is it implied?

Quote:
It could also be translated completely nominally: "Do not be a friend to immature [person] at all", etc.


How do you determine whether to translate it nominally or translate it with བྱིས་པ་ as a verb?


Quote:
Depending on dialect, བྱིས་པ is pronounced something like "ji/chi pa"; but in Amdo, it would be "Yay pa"


But in the context of the sentence would it be "chi wa"?

So the whole sentence would be pronounced: བྱིས་པ་འགའ་ཡང་བཤེས་མིན་ཞེས། །དེ་བཞིན་གཤེགས་པ་རྣམས་ཀྱིས་གསུངས chi wa ga yang she min shi de zhin sheg pa nam gyi?

Kirt

_________________
Kirt's Tibetan Translation Notes

"Only you can make your mind beautiful."
HH Chetsang Rinpoche


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Dec 10, 2013 1:30 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2010 6:28 am
Posts: 806
Malcolm wrote:
Depending on dialect, བྱིས་པ is pronounced something like "ji/chi pa"; but in Amdo, it would be "Yay pa"

In Kham it would be shi pa.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Dec 10, 2013 10:11 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 8:39 pm
Posts: 1270
Location: Gone Bush
Sherab wrote:
Malcolm wrote:
Depending on dialect, བྱིས་པ is pronounced something like "ji/chi pa"; but in Amdo, it would be "Yay pa"

In Kham it would be shi pa.

According to the audio tape that comes with Translating Buddhism from Tibetan, བྱིས་པ is pronounced (in the Lhasa dialect) as [cʰìwa] on three occasions, and as [cʰìpa] (the expected pronunciation) on two.

_________________
May all beings be happy


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 15, 2013 12:03 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 8:39 pm
Posts: 1270
Location: Gone Bush
dharmagoat wrote:
Sherab wrote:
Malcolm wrote:
Depending on dialect, བྱིས་པ is pronounced something like "ji/chi pa"; but in Amdo, it would be "Yay pa"

In Kham it would be shi pa.

According to the audio tape that comes with Translating Buddhism from Tibetan, བྱིས་པ is pronounced (in the Lhasa dialect) as [cʰìwa] on three occasions, and as [cʰìpa] (the expected pronunciation) on two.

For the record, the pronunciations I have given should actually be [ʨʰìwa] and [ʨʰìpa]. An important distinction.

_________________
May all beings be happy


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 15, 2013 1:19 pm 
Offline
Former staff member
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2010 5:29 pm
Posts: 4612
Location: Baltimore, MD
dharmagoat wrote:
For the record, the pronunciations I have given should actually be [ʨʰìwa] and [ʨʰìpa]. An important distinction.


The question then becomes how do we get from IPA notation to sounds coming out of our lips?

Kirt

_________________
Kirt's Tibetan Translation Notes

"Only you can make your mind beautiful."
HH Chetsang Rinpoche


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 15, 2013 1:42 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Aug 31, 2010 8:54 pm
Posts: 1850
dharmagoat wrote:
Sherab wrote:
Malcolm wrote:
Depending on dialect, བྱིས་པ is pronounced something like "ji/chi pa"; but in Amdo, it would be "Yay pa"

In Kham it would be shi pa.

According to the audio tape that comes with Translating Buddhism from Tibetan, བྱིས་པ is pronounced (in the Lhasa dialect) as [cʰìwa] on three occasions, and as [cʰìpa] (the expected pronunciation) on two.

There's an audio tape? Did you have to order it separately or was it supposed to come with the book?

_________________
Although many individuals in this age appear to be merely indulging their worldly desires, one does not have the capacity to judge them, so it is best to train in pure vision.
- Shabkar


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 15, 2013 2:11 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 8:39 pm
Posts: 1270
Location: Gone Bush
Pero wrote:
dharmagoat wrote:
According to the audio tape that comes with Translating Buddhism from Tibetan, བྱིས་པ is pronounced (in the Lhasa dialect) as [cʰìwa] on three occasions, and as [cʰìpa] (the expected pronunciation) on two.

There's an audio tape? Did you have to order it separately or was it supposed to come with the book?

It can be bought separately: http://www.tibetanlanguage.org/bookstor ... gbooks.htm

_________________
May all beings be happy


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Dec 31, 2013 12:25 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2012 12:06 am
Posts: 106
One problem is the dictionary we use to translate words.
Different dictionaries will have different words for a tibetan word.
Maybe a word that defines the meaning was not chosen properly.
We translate meaning, not words!

So what happens when a translator attempts to translate tantra when he doesn't have the realization (meaning) of what he's translating?
How is he or she supposed to translate the meaning?

Regardless of whether or not the passage is tantra or not, using the word 'friend' in the translation might not be a good word.
Maybe 'associate' is better.

"Do not associate with foolish beings."

The reason I say this is because the definition of the word 'friend' implies mutual trust between two or more people. Trust is built over a period of time.
But the words 'at all, whatsoever' are used to translate this passage.
This tells me 'associate' is a better word than friend. The definition of 'associate' is a better fit.

I'm not saying I have the correct translation, I'm trying to prove the point that we are translating the meaning, not the words.
The use of different words can have a totally different meaning. This goes all the way back to translations of the Bible!

We could be following teachings with the wrong meaning. So this is a big problem we have today, especially when it comes to tantra translations.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 27 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group