Translating "Dzogchenpa"

This is a space for inquiries about various languages, translations, or anything else related to language.

Re: Dzogchen Community of Chogyal Namkhai Norbu

Postby Sönam » Sun Mar 25, 2012 11:10 am

Adamantine wrote:You know, as a man I am starting to get insecure now because "man" includes "ma", and makes me feel a little emasculated.. maybe we should have a less feminine word for a male than man? :rolleye:


Hello Adamantine ... with such a pseudo I thought you were a woman :twothumbsup:

Sönam
By understanding everything you perceive from the perspective of the view, you are freed from the constraints of philosophical beliefs.
By understanding that any and all mental activity is meditation, you are freed from arbitrary divisions between formal sessions and postmeditation activity.
- Longchen Rabjam -
User avatar
Sönam
 
Posts: 1981
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2010 2:11 pm
Location: France

Re: Dzogchen Community of Chogyal Namkhai Norbu

Postby Sally Gross » Sun Mar 25, 2012 11:48 am

Adamantine wrote:Should we start changing the English language too for you? Let's not say "human" anymore. We need "human", and "humwoman" both. Or should we change "woman" too because man is in there? Hmmmmmnnnn maybe "hugirl"? And we can change female to "fegirl" too so "male" isn't included either? What do you think, how far should we go with this?
You know, as a man I am starting to get insecure now because "man" includes "ma", and makes me feel a little emasculated.. maybe we should have a less feminine word for a male than man? :rolleye:


I certainly don't know about Tibetan, about which I am agnostic, but English would certainly benefit from gender-neutral second-person and third-person personal pronouns. The sex from gestation in the womb of people like me who are intersexed does not fit the "male"-"female" binary which many languages, cultures and systems of law pressupose, and bodies such as mine subvert the presumed binary system of he biological sexes. This results in stigmatisation, the imposition of what is in effect mutilating surgery on recalcitrant bodies, and infanticide; and the absence of gender-neutral personal pronouns bolsters this.The experience of many intersexed people shows that it is sometimes a matter of life and death, and not mere "political correctness".

Apologies for straying off-topic: I founded and run a not-for-profit organisation which seeks to educate and engage in advocacy around the issue of intersex in South Africa in order to bring about a sea-change in attitudes and culture, and it is something about which I feel passionate (in the sense of mettaa/maitrii and karu.naa rather than attachment, I hope), not least because of first-hand experience.
Dukkham eva hi, na koci dukkhito,
kaarako na, kiriyaa va vijjati,
atthi nibbuti, na nibbuto pumaa,
maggam atthi, gamako na vijjati


Suffering there certainly is, but no sufferer,
no doer, though certainly the deed is found.
peace is achieved, but no-one's appeased,
the way is walked, but no walker's to be found.

- Visuddhimagga XVI, 90
User avatar
Sally Gross
 
Posts: 209
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2012 1:33 pm
Location: Cape Town, South Africa

Re: Dzogchen Community of Chogyal Namkhai Norbu

Postby Adamantine » Sun Mar 25, 2012 12:15 pm

Sally Gross wrote:
Adamantine wrote:Should we start changing the English language too for you? Let's not say "human" anymore. We need "human", and "humwoman" both. Or should we change "woman" too because man is in there? Hmmmmmnnnn maybe "hugirl"? And we can change female to "fegirl" too so "male" isn't included either? What do you think, how far should we go with this?
You know, as a man I am starting to get insecure now because "man" includes "ma", and makes me feel a little emasculated.. maybe we should have a less feminine word for a male than man? :rolleye:


I certainly don't know about Tibetan, about which I am agnostic, but English would certainly benefit from gender-neutral second-person and third-person personal pronouns. The sex from gestation in the womb of people like me who are intersexed does not fit the "male"-"female" binary which many languages, cultures and systems of law pressupose, and bodies such as mine subvert the presumed binary system of he biological sexes. This results in stigmatisation, the imposition of what is in effect mutilating surgery on recalcitrant bodies, and infanticide; and the absence of gender-neutral personal pronouns bolsters this.The experience of many intersexed people shows that it is sometimes a matter of life and death, and not mere "political correctness".

Apologies for straying off-topic: I founded and run a not-for-profit organisation which seeks to educate and engage in advocacy around the issue of intersex in South Africa in order to bring about a sea-change in attitudes and culture, and it is something about which I feel passionate (in the sense of mettaa/maitrii and karu.naa rather than attachment, I hope), not least because of first-hand experience.


Well the point I was trying to make was many of these words in English and other languages are not as
binary as they seem to be, and our issues with them extend only so far as our own mind's limitations. The problem with ignorance and lack of acceptance of intersexed people I don't think is rooted in language, but in a lack of education and understanding... often based on people's own sexual insecurities and/or didactic religious dogmas.
Contentment is the ultimate wealth;
Detachment is the final happiness. ~Sri Saraha
User avatar
Adamantine
Former staff member
 
Posts: 2970
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2011 7:09 am
Location: Space is the Place

Re: Dzogchen Community of Chogyal Namkhai Norbu

Postby Malcolm » Sun Mar 25, 2012 2:54 pm

Dronma wrote:So, for clearing up my query, can we say - for example - that Ayu Khandro was a Dzopgchenma?
Is it correct from the point of Tibetan language? ?[/color]


No, it is not correct as there is no word in tibetan རྫོགས་ཆེན་མ.

As Adamantine says, Tibetans reflect gender assignations in Sanskrit with pa and ma, but these do not necessarily appy to Tibetans terms themselves.

If you want to read about the gender of Tibetan words there is a book by Steven Beyer, The Classical Tibetan Language, that explains this very well i.e. when pa and ma are gender signs, and when they are not.

N
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: 12148
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Dzogchen Community of Chogyal Namkhai Norbu

Postby Dronma » Sun Mar 25, 2012 9:35 pm

Adamantine wrote:I thought this was explained already, that this was only because the term "yogini" was used in Sanskrit, whereas mantrini was not.. You see, the Tibetans honored the conventions of Sanskrit since they respected it as the Dharma source-code from which they downloaded great treasuries of knowledge..

I think they must have figured if yogini was good enough of a gender-specific term for all the great adepts of India, why try to mess around and invent a bunch of new conventions? But us english-speakers are so arrogant it's not even enough for us to add new gender-specific dharma words in English to accommodate our desire for specificity- we want to start changing the Tibetan language itself, --at the same time the Chinese are trying their best to eradicate it altogether. . . Why can't we just respect it as is and try to preserve it?

It was already stated that the "pa" suffix doesn't necessarily indicate gender, so what's the problem with it?

Should we start changing the English language too for you? Let's not say "human" anymore. We need "human", and "humwoman" both. Or should we change "woman" too because man is in there? Hmmmmmnnnn maybe "hugirl"? And we can change female to "fegirl" too so "male" isn't included either? What do you think, how far should we go with this?
You know, as a man I am starting to get insecure now because "man" includes "ma", and makes me feel a little emasculated.. maybe we should have a less feminine word for a male than man? :rolleye:


You are going too far with it, Adamantine! :rolling:
I do not want to mess up Tibetan language, and moreover I do not have the intention to fire up men insecurity!
If you like to talk generally about languages, then ask me how English have grasped and modified arbitrarily Greek language.... But this is another issue! ;)

So, about Tibetan, sorry but I am not completely satisfied from the replies I got until now.
Nobody explained -for example- anything about Naljorpa and Naljorma. In those two words is obvious that -pa and -ma indicate the genders.
So, probably none has accurate knowledge of what I am asking....
Then I shared my thought, even if there is not the term Dzogchenma/mo in old texts, why should not be used as a good sign of tribute towards the Great Dzogchen Dakinis of the 3 times?
Why not? It seems that a few people have already presented this term on the web.
When we read the biographies of those women, we see that it was much more difficult for them to follow the inner path towards Enlightenment, only because they were females.
Then the 14th tantric samaya of the Fourteen root downfalls is about: "Not denigrating women: Within Vajrayana women are considered to be the embodiment of wisdom. Regarding women as inferior or abusing them as witnessed in certain cultures, contributes to the breaking of the samaya".
Because of that samaya, I arrive at the conclusion that denigrating women was very common attitude in Tibet, that's why they added this samaya in the root downfalls!
I am not pushing anybody to adopt this word against his/her will. I am only sharing a few thoughts.... :smile:

Eventually, Ι'd like to finish this query with a little excerpt from "The Re-Emergence of the Sacred Feminine" by Lama Tsultrim Allione:


"Because the feminine has been dominated, controlled and repressed for so long we don’t really know her. To really know her we must explore her, she must live in us, not only in women, but in men as well. We must make a commitment to let her live, because if we don’t, we won’t be living much longer either.
Of course ultimately, as Parani says, there is no male or female in the nature of mind. Yet we must remember she was living in a place where she was empowered enough to have a voice, to be a lineage holder, to make that statement. To go to the absolute level without taking care of the relative is dangerous rhetoric. It’s like the slave owners telling the slaves who want freedom and equality, “Now don’t be dualistic, you know that there is neither slave owner nor slave in the nature of mind.”
In the West we think we don’t wear the veil, but we do. We wear invisible ones. Until we are truly out from under the veil we need to be aware of our oppression and unconscious need for patriarchal approval and inclusion. Until we come back to the primordial ground of being there will always be suffering, but if we don’t pay attention to the need for balance, we may not live in a world where the conditions necessary for realization of the primordial are present. This happened in Afghanistan and in Tibet, and it could happen here.
We need to move toward balance. The lack of balance is a problem for men and women and something that affects us all deeply".
"My view is as vast as the sky, but my actions are finer than flour"
~ Padmasambhava ~
User avatar
Dronma
 
Posts: 715
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2012 7:29 pm
Location: Athens - GR

Re: Dzogchen Community of Chogyal Namkhai Norbu

Postby Dronma » Sun Mar 25, 2012 9:41 pm

Namdrol wrote:
Dronma wrote:So, for clearing up my query, can we say - for example - that Ayu Khandro was a Dzopgchenma?
Is it correct from the point of Tibetan language? ?[/color]


No, it is not correct as there is no word in tibetan རྫོགས་ཆེན་མ.

As Adamantine says, Tibetans reflect gender assignations in Sanskrit with pa and ma, but these do not necessarily appy to Tibetans terms themselves.

If you want to read about the gender of Tibetan words there is a book by Steven Beyer, The Classical Tibetan Language, that explains this very well i.e. when pa and ma are gender signs, and when they are not.

N


Thank you for suggesting me this book, Namdrol. I'll try to find it and read it.
Sorry, but I cannot read some of the words you write, probably because it is written in Tibetan.
So, what happens with Naljorpa and Naljorma? Do they also reflect assignations in Sanskrit?
"My view is as vast as the sky, but my actions are finer than flour"
~ Padmasambhava ~
User avatar
Dronma
 
Posts: 715
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2012 7:29 pm
Location: Athens - GR

Re: Dzogchen Community of Chogyal Namkhai Norbu

Postby Dronma » Sun Mar 25, 2012 9:54 pm

Sally Gross wrote:I certainly don't know about Tibetan, about which I am agnostic, but English would certainly benefit from gender-neutral second-person and third-person personal pronouns.


You put the issue accurately, Sally Gross! :thumbsup:
You see, in my language which is Greek, we have 3 genders: female - male - neutral.
This is the reason I thought that probably Tibetan language (since it originates from Sanskrit) has at least the 2 genders.
In my language the suffix -pa indicates male gender, and the suffix -ma the female... Coincidence? ;)
Last edited by Dronma on Sun Mar 25, 2012 9:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"My view is as vast as the sky, but my actions are finer than flour"
~ Padmasambhava ~
User avatar
Dronma
 
Posts: 715
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2012 7:29 pm
Location: Athens - GR

Re: Dzogchen Community of Chogyal Namkhai Norbu

Postby Malcolm » Sun Mar 25, 2012 9:55 pm

Dronma wrote:So, what happens with Naljorpa and Naljorma? Do they also reflect assignations in Sanskrit? [/color]


Yes.
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: 12148
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Dzogchen Community of Chogyal Namkhai Norbu

Postby Adamantine » Mon Mar 26, 2012 12:06 am

Dronma wrote:Thank you for suggesting me this book, Namdrol. I'll try to find it and read it.
Sorry, but I cannot read some of the words you write, probably because it is written in Tibetan.
So, what happens with Naljorpa and Naljorma? Do they also reflect assignations in Sanskrit?


Hi Dronma, maybe re-read the whole thread from the beginning-- your questions, including the one above, have been answered multiple times. Naljorpa and Naljorma are Tibetan versions of Yogi and Yogini. They only reflect gender because the sanskrit did. As Namdrol pointed out, "pa" and "ma" only refer to gender in certain contexts.. and not in others.. so your concerns it seems are simply ones of someone who has made no effort to study the language and who seems to care little for it. The fact that you would want to invent new words in a language you don't even speak in the first place just reeks of arrogance. There's a point of dogmatism in every enterprise, -even revisionist feminism-, and it is good to be careful that your own cultural bias and political filters don't contaminate fields and see problems in contexts where there are none. Perhaps there has been patriarchal bias in the history of Tibetan culture that seeped into the way even realized female practitioners were related to, but to try to change the language as a non-Tibetan speaker who doesn't even understand the proper context of Tibetan grammer is just a wacko enterprise. The way women will be more and more represented in the context of Dharma, (as opposed to Tibetan culture), is for more and more women to achieve levels of realization (as opposed to political rhetoric), and to then embrace teaching roles..A so-called feminized word won't do this.. it may even cause further binary divisions that were not there before. It seems that many women, great yoginis of the past, chose to stay in the background -- in the same way that many male yogis chose to stay in retreat in their caves.. this is not necessarily a problematic thing.. We only have historic records of the practitioners who became publicly renowned.. not all the great ones chose to do this. --Just as Ani Tenzin Palmo may have stayed in retreat for the rest of her life if the Indian government hadn't kicked her out of the country. . . And using her for another example- as intense as she is in the effort to revitalize female lineage in Tibetan Buddhism, I've never heard of her trying to change the Tibetan language..
Contentment is the ultimate wealth;
Detachment is the final happiness. ~Sri Saraha
User avatar
Adamantine
Former staff member
 
Posts: 2970
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2011 7:09 am
Location: Space is the Place

Re: Dzogchen Community of Chogyal Namkhai Norbu

Postby Dronma » Mon Mar 26, 2012 3:02 am

Adamantine wrote:
Dronma wrote:Thank you for suggesting me this book, Namdrol. I'll try to find it and read it.
Sorry, but I cannot read some of the words you write, probably because it is written in Tibetan.
So, what happens with Naljorpa and Naljorma? Do they also reflect assignations in Sanskrit?


Hi Dronma, maybe re-read the whole thread from the beginning-- your questions, including the one above, have been answered multiple times. Naljorpa and Naljorma are Tibetan versions of Yogi and Yogini. They only reflect gender because the sanskrit did. As Namdrol pointed out, "pa" and "ma" only refer to gender in certain contexts.. and not in others.. so your concerns it seems are simply ones of someone who has made no effort to study the language and who seems to care little for it. The fact that you would want to invent new words in a language you don't even speak in the first place just reeks of arrogance. There's a point of dogmatism in every enterprise, -even revisionist feminism-, and it is good to be careful that your own cultural bias and political filters don't contaminate fields and see problems in contexts where there are none. Perhaps there has been patriarchal bias in the history of Tibetan culture that seeped into the way even realized female practitioners were related to, but to try to change the language as a non-Tibetan speaker who doesn't even understand the proper context of Tibetan grammer is just a wacko enterprise. The way women will be more and more represented in the context of Dharma, (as opposed to Tibetan culture), is for more and more women to achieve levels of realization (as opposed to political rhetoric), and to then embrace teaching roles..A so-called feminized word won't do this.. it may even cause further binary divisions that were not there before. It seems that many women, great yoginis of the past, chose to stay in the background -- in the same way that many male yogis chose to stay in retreat in their caves.. this is not necessarily a problematic thing.. We only have historic records of the practitioners who became publicly renowned.. not all the great ones chose to do this. --Just as Ani Tenzin Palmo may have stayed in retreat for the rest of her life if the Indian government hadn't kicked her out of the country. . . And using her for another example- as intense as she is in the effort to revitalize female lineage in Tibetan Buddhism, I've never heard of her trying to change the Tibetan language..


Adamantine, I never said that I have sufficient knowledge of Tibetan language! That was the reason I asked about this term. For learning.... :namaste:
Then, I already said that I do not want to mess up Tibetan language, either. I respect every language as much as I respect my mother-tongue!
Maybe, English spoken people cannot understand the importance of genders, which are inherent in other languages.
As I said before in my language every noun, pronoun, adjective has necessarily a gender: female, male, neutral.
It is inconceivable for Greek words to be without gender!
Probably you haven't heard before, but Sanskrit and Greek have common archaic linguistic roots. So, I have my own reasons for searching this subject.
You said: "Naljorpa and Naljorma are Tibetan versions of Yogi and Yogini. They only reflect gender because the sanskrit did. As Namdrol pointed out, "pa" and "ma" only refer to gender in certain contexts.. and not in others.. "
So, Naljorpa and Naljorma exist in Tibetan language, and it is not something I invented myself.
Then, from my Tibetan teachers I know that Tibetan language and alphabet were based upon Sanskrit. So, what is the conflict here?
Maybe the patriarchical bias...??? :stirthepot: :bow:
By the way, patriarchia = greek word which means the paternal authority.... ;)

Then you all said in this forum that -pa and -ma refer to gender in certain contexts... and not in others... You did not say that they never refer to gender!
Moreover, I discovered in Wikipedia - in the section "Modern Standard Tibetan grammar" the following:
In human or animate nouns, gender may be indicated through suffixes. These suffixes are generally <pa> or <po> "male", and <ma> or <mo> "female."
<khams-pa> "man from Kham," → <khams-mo> "woman from Kham"
<mdzo> "yak-cow hybrid," → <mdzo-mo> "female dzo"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_Standard_Tibetan_grammar
So, Namdrol was wrong when he said: "For example, all women from Eastern Tibet are Khampas, there is no term "Khamma" for eastern Tibetan women".
Because there is the term Kham mo for women from Kham, like pensum said.

About female yoginis and the oppression they had undergone from their patriarchal environment, sorry but it is you who have not studied the subject in depth! They did not choose to stay in the background -as you say! In the contrary, they were beaten to death from fathers and husbands, they had been raped, they had been punished to leave their homeland, their children, and possessions behind... And even their mothers and surrounding women did not support their decision to practise the Dharma!!!

This is a man's world, Adamantine....


And like Lama Tsultrim Allione says: "In the West we think we don’t wear the veil, but we do. We wear invisible ones".

PS. In any case, I just downloaded the book "The Classical Tibetan Language" by Stephan V. Beyer.
When I study this in depth, I shall come back.... :guns: :tongue:
"My view is as vast as the sky, but my actions are finer than flour"
~ Padmasambhava ~
User avatar
Dronma
 
Posts: 715
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2012 7:29 pm
Location: Athens - GR

Re: Dzogchen Community of Chogyal Namkhai Norbu

Postby Malcolm » Mon Mar 26, 2012 5:23 am

Dronma wrote:So, Namdrol was wrong when he said: "For example, all women from Eastern Tibet are Khampas, there is no term "Khamma" for eastern Tibetan women".


Well no, not really. While one can construct such a term, there is no word "khams mo" in any Tibetan dictionary.

There is a word "khams pa" which is defined as "khams kyi yul mi" i.e. a person of the region of Khams -- this term covers all persons from Khams.

But anyway, I am not going to waste my time arguing with you about a language I read fluently.
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: 12148
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Translating "Dzogchenpa"

Postby Stewart » Mon Mar 26, 2012 8:57 am

Dronma,

With all respect, you are quick to jump on people when you disagree with their views (and it comes across as quite aggressive sometimes), yet play the victim when others disagree with yours.

Do you want to use 'Dzogchenma' for yourself? is this what this is really about?

Maybe you should take your own advice, seeing as you are so happy to give it out to others:

Dronma said:

Maybe now it is time that you learn how to relaxxx....
s.
Stewart
 
Posts: 450
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 6:40 pm

Re: Dzogchen Community of Chogyal Namkhai Norbu

Postby Dronma » Mon Mar 26, 2012 5:41 pm

Namdrol wrote:
Dronma wrote:So, Namdrol was wrong when he said: "For example, all women from Eastern Tibet are Khampas, there is no term "Khamma" for eastern Tibetan women".


Well no, not really. While one can construct such a term, there is no word "khams mo" in any Tibetan dictionary.

There is a word "khams pa" which is defined as "khams kyi yul mi" i.e. a person of the region of Khams -- this term covers all persons from Khams.

But anyway, I am not going to waste my time arguing with you about a language I read fluently.



It is not about arguments, Namdrol, it is about research. :smile:
I do not know personally anyone of you in Dharma Wheel. Maybe some of you are very educated people.
But I cannot see the reason why I have to bow down to anyone who says something without providing any reliable source.
About Khampa and Khammo (I don't think that Wikipedia writes nonsense), according to my knowledge for languages which have 2 or 3 genders, the male gender is always the predominated gender. So, when we are talking about a group of people (men and women) we always refer to them as if they were all males. Then, yes, speaking generally the people from Kham are Khampas!
"My view is as vast as the sky, but my actions are finer than flour"
~ Padmasambhava ~
User avatar
Dronma
 
Posts: 715
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2012 7:29 pm
Location: Athens - GR

Re: Dzogchen Community of Chogyal Namkhai Norbu

Postby Malcolm » Mon Mar 26, 2012 6:54 pm

Dronma wrote:But I cannot see the reason why I have to bow down to anyone who says something without providing any reliable source.


You do not. But you do need to learn a language before you start having many opinions about it.

As it so happens, I am one of the first batch of doctors who graduated from Shang Shung Institute, and I really do know Tibetan quite well.

The nature of language is that it changes, sometimes its influences are natural evolution from within; sometimes, like with so called "sngags ma", words are coined by outsiders that then become adopted.

For example, many people are not aware that mkha' 'gro really means ḍāka, the male; while mkha' 'gro ma means ḍākinī, the female. But in personal names the "ma" is general left off.

So, what I am trying to say is that while constructions like "rdzogs chen ma" might be possible, they are non-idiomatic, that is -- Tibetans never use these terms in their daily speech nor in their formal writing.

Also Tibetans are not, at this point, sensitive about politcal correctness in terms of gender use in speech. They still commonly refer to woman as "skye dman", lower rebirth.
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: 12148
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Translating "Dzogchenpa"

Postby Dronma » Mon Mar 26, 2012 7:06 pm

samdrup wrote:Dronma,

With all respect, you are quick to jump on people when you disagree with their views (and it comes across as quite aggressive sometimes), yet play the victim when others disagree with yours.


Maybe you are right in the first part, samdrup. I have a lot of fire element sometimes... :emb:
But I never play the victim! I am more the female warrior type:

Image
:D

samdrup wrote:Do you want to use 'Dzogchenma' for yourself? is this what this is really about?


I simply asked a question because I have met on the web the term Dzogchenma and I was wondering about it.
Then I was surprised to discover that some men are denying the female gender of Tibetan language, and they like to equate it with English, which has no gender in nouns and adjectives. Well, this denial of the feminine is the real issue for me now!
Specially when it comes from practitioners... ;)


samdrup wrote:Maybe you should take your own advice, seeing as you are so happy to give it out to others:

Dronma said:

Maybe now it is time that you learn how to relaxxx....


But I am relaxed! Being relaxed does not mean that I have to be passive..... :namaste:
"My view is as vast as the sky, but my actions are finer than flour"
~ Padmasambhava ~
User avatar
Dronma
 
Posts: 715
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2012 7:29 pm
Location: Athens - GR

Re: Translating "Dzogchenpa"

Postby Pero » Mon Mar 26, 2012 7:24 pm

Dronma wrote:I simply asked a question because I have met on the web the term Dzogchenma and I was wondering about it.
Then I was surprised to discover that some men are denying the female gender of Tibetan language, and they like to equate it with English, which has no gender in nouns and adjectives. Well, this denial of the feminine is the real issue for me now!
Specially when it comes from practitioners... ;)


Yes I am very surprised too, considering nobody actually did that here.

samdrup wrote:Maybe you should take your own advice, seeing as you are so happy to give it out to others:

Dronma said:

Maybe now it is time that you learn how to relaxxx....


But I am relaxed! Being relaxed does not mean that I have to be passive..... :namaste:

I think it's a Greek thing because she reminds me of Greg a bit. :D
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
Pero
 
Posts: 1841
Joined: Tue Aug 31, 2010 8:54 pm

Re: Dzogchen Community of Chogyal Namkhai Norbu

Postby Bhusuku » Mon Mar 26, 2012 7:25 pm

Dronma wrote:But I cannot see the reason why I have to bow down to anyone who says something without providing any reliable source.


Here you have a tibetan translation tool - type in "rdzogs chen pa" and take a look at the result, then try the same with "rdzogs chen ma"... While Ives Waldo's and the Rangjung Yeshe dictionary know the word "khams mo", none of these dictionaries know the word "rdzogs chen ma".


PS: If you think that neither this dictionary nor Namdrol is a reliable source, try to contact these people.
Bhusuku
 
Posts: 139
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2012 3:18 pm

Re: Translating "Dzogchenpa"

Postby Malcolm » Mon Mar 26, 2012 7:27 pm

Dronma wrote:Then I was surprised to discover that some men are denying the female gender of Tibetan language, and they like to equate it with English, which has no gender in nouns and adjectives.


No one did that. However, some people, who lack expertise in Tibetan, like making up "Tibetan" words.

N
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: 12148
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Dzogchen Community of Chogyal Namkhai Norbu

Postby Dronma » Mon Mar 26, 2012 7:31 pm

Namdrol wrote:You do not. But you do need to learn a language before you start having many opinions about it.

As it so happens, I am one of the first batch of doctors who graduated from Shang Shung Institute, and I really do know Tibetan quite well.

The nature of language is that it changes, sometimes its influences are natural evolution from within; sometimes, like with so called "sngags ma", words are coined by outsiders that then become adopted.


This is normal and it happens in all languages! Nothing remains the same for ever! Because a language in an alive entity, not a mummy in the showcase of a museum. And my question was about the perspectives today.

Namdrol wrote:For example, many people are not aware that mkha' 'gro really means ḍāka, the male; while mkha' 'gro ma means ḍākinī, the female. But in personal names the "ma" is general left off.

So, what I am trying to say is that while constructions like "rdzogs chen ma" might be possible, they are non-idiomatic, that is -- Tibetans never use these terms in their daily speech nor in their formal writing.


Of course, common people do not use these terms in daily life. Probably such notions they do not even exist for them!

Namdrol wrote:Also Tibetans are not, at this point, sensitive about politcal correctness in terms of gender use in speech. They still commonly refer to woman as "skye dman", lower rebirth.


Yes, unfortunately I know about this! And that was the main reason that I continued this debate... :jedi:
Thank you, Namdrol. This is enough explanation for me, since it puts everything under the right perspective.
:thumbsup:
"My view is as vast as the sky, but my actions are finer than flour"
~ Padmasambhava ~
User avatar
Dronma
 
Posts: 715
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2012 7:29 pm
Location: Athens - GR

Re: Translating "Dzogchenpa"

Postby Dronma » Mon Mar 26, 2012 7:37 pm

Pero wrote:I think it's a Greek thing because she reminds me of Greg a bit. :D


You know, when some Western people come to our place and see us discussing they think that we are fighting!!!! :rolling:
But we only discuss and exchange knowledge and opinions.... :tongue:
"My view is as vast as the sky, but my actions are finer than flour"
~ Padmasambhava ~
User avatar
Dronma
 
Posts: 715
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2012 7:29 pm
Location: Athens - GR

PreviousNext

Return to Language

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests

>