What Does Jim Valby Mean by "Pure Perfect Presence"

Leaves of Light
Posts: 56
Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2022 3:45 am

What Does Jim Valby Mean by "Pure Perfect Presence"

Post by Leaves of Light »

In his translations. It's not clear what term that "translates". Sometimes he only used the single word "Presence" - with a capital P. What Tibetan term does "Presence" translate and what does the capital P stand for? Elsewhere in translations by scholars associated with him, like Adriano Clemente, "pure presence" seems to be the English words offered in place (as opposed to a translation) of "rigpa", and in his books, Jim Valby seems to leave "rigpa" untranslated. So it can't be that. It seems like it could be English words offered in place (as opposed to translation) of "bodhicitta" which would to some degree work for "pure and perfect" (byang chub) but what about "Presence" which has nothing to do with "sems"/"citta". And again the capital P is a mystery.
florin
Posts: 1340
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2010 12:05 pm

Re: What Does Jim Valby Mean by "Pure Perfect Presence"

Post by florin »

Leaves of Light wrote: Sun Jul 03, 2022 3:55 am In his translations. It's not clear what term that "translates". Sometimes he only used the single word "Presence" - with a capital P. What Tibetan term does "Presence" translate and what does the capital P stand for? Elsewhere in translations by scholars associated with him, like Adriano Clemente, "pure presence" seems to be the English words offered in place (as opposed to a translation) of "rigpa", and in his books, Jim Valby seems to leave "rigpa" untranslated. So it can't be that. It seems like it could be English words offered in place (as opposed to translation) of "bodhicitta" which would to some degree work for "pure and perfect" (byang chub) but what about "Presence" which has nothing to do with "sems"/"citta". And again the capital P is a mystery.
Presence=sems
Boddhicitta= Byang Chub Kyi Sems= Pure Perfect Presence
“Presence “ with capital “P” refers to Pure Perfect Presence as opposed to “presence” which may refer to the type of mindful presence that we build inside time.
Leaves of Light
Posts: 56
Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2022 3:45 am

Re: What Does Jim Valby Mean by "Pure Perfect Presence"

Post by Leaves of Light »

That's what I thought but it's baffling because between the entire extensive explanations and definitions of "sems" on Tibet House Translation Tool, including the section devoted to the work of "JV" (Jim Valby) himself, and all meanings of the English word "presence" found in all dictionaries, there is no overlap in conceptual meaning at all.

Compounding the matter further, isn't it the case that Adriano Clemente used the term "pure presence" to translate "rigpa"?
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: What Does Jim Valby Mean by "Pure Perfect Presence"

Post by Malcolm »

Leaves of Light wrote: Mon Jul 04, 2022 3:11 am
Compounding the matter further, isn't it the case that Adriano Clemente used the term "pure presence" to translate "rigpa"?
He uses the term “instant presence” when the term rigpa is referring to a moment of unfabricated consciousness, and rigpa when term is referring to one’s knowledge of the basis.
Leaves of Light
Posts: 56
Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2022 3:45 am

Re: What Does Jim Valby Mean by "Pure Perfect Presence"

Post by Leaves of Light »

Malcolm wrote: Mon Jul 04, 2022 4:03 am
Leaves of Light wrote: Mon Jul 04, 2022 3:11 am
Compounding the matter further, isn't it the case that Adriano Clemente used the term "pure presence" to translate "rigpa"?
He uses the term “instant presence” when the term rigpa is referring to a moment of unfabricated consciousness, and rigpa when term is referring to one’s knowledge of the basis.
Then could it be that Jim Valby has seized on this use of the word "presence" in a general Dzogchen context and shoehorned it onto "byang chub sems"? Which Adriano Clemente I think translated as "pure and total consciousness". It makes it seem like for a certain interpretation of things, "sems" and "rigpa" are assumed to more or less refer to the same thing, which can't be true, even in terms of ultimate "byang chub sems". Or is the implication from this translation convention where both have ended up by being translated as "presence", that "sems" and "rigpa" are in Dzogchen to be thought of as the same thing?
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: What Does Jim Valby Mean by "Pure Perfect Presence"

Post by Malcolm »

Leaves of Light wrote: Mon Jul 04, 2022 6:11 am
Malcolm wrote: Mon Jul 04, 2022 4:03 am
Leaves of Light wrote: Mon Jul 04, 2022 3:11 am
Compounding the matter further, isn't it the case that Adriano Clemente used the term "pure presence" to translate "rigpa"?
He uses the term “instant presence” when the term rigpa is referring to a moment of unfabricated consciousness, and rigpa when term is referring to one’s knowledge of the basis.
Then could it be that Jim Valby has seized on this use of the word "presence" in a general Dzogchen context and shoehorned it onto "byang chub sems"? Which Adriano Clemente I think translated as "pure and total consciousness". It makes it seem like for a certain interpretation of things, "sems" and "rigpa" are assumed to more or less refer to the same thing, which can't be true, even in terms of ultimate "byang chub sems". Or is the implication from this translation convention where both have ended up by being translated as "presence", that "sems" and "rigpa" are in Dzogchen to be thought of as the same thing?
Not exactly, but you need to have been a student of ChNN to really understand the difference: the first term refers to the basis. The second, one’s knowledge of the former.
Miorita
Posts: 1069
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2022 11:37 pm
Location: US

Re: What Does Jim Valby Mean by "Pure Perfect Presence"

Post by Miorita »

Sems is your mind.
Instant Presence is something other than sems.
If it wasn't, it would be simply refered to as sems.

You reflect on what sems is and what instant Presence that you found is.
Rigpa is the next level after you found instant Presence. Your reflection, the teachings, and a stability in meditation so that you have a comparison ground, allow your mind, sems, to define rigpa.

Or as the other teacher of mine, Garchen R. said, the mind is in a continuous process of cleansing itself of obscurations. The lotus above the mud, the end product ought to be rigpa.
Arnoud
Posts: 1004
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2010 7:19 pm
Location: Benelux, then USA, now Southern Europe.

Re: What Does Jim Valby Mean by "Pure Perfect Presence"

Post by Arnoud »

Miorita wrote: Mon Jul 04, 2022 8:14 pm Sems is your mind.
Instant Presence is something other than sems.
If it wasn't, it would be simply refered to as sems.

You reflect on what sems is and what instant Presence that you found is.
Rigpa is the next level after you found instant Presence. Your reflection, the teachings, and a stability in meditation so that you have a comparison ground, allow your mind, sems, to define rigpa.

Or as the other teacher of mine, Garchen R. said, the mind is in a continuous process of cleansing itself of obscurations. The lotus above the mud, the end product ought to be rigpa.
This is not how CNN explained Instant Presence, as far as I know.
Miorita
Posts: 1069
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2022 11:37 pm
Location: US

Re: What Does Jim Valby Mean by "Pure Perfect Presence"

Post by Miorita »

Arnoud wrote: Mon Jul 04, 2022 10:35 pm
Miorita wrote: Mon Jul 04, 2022 8:14 pm Sems is your mind.
Instant Presence is something other than sems.
If it wasn't, it would be simply refered to as sems.

You reflect on what sems is and what instant Presence that you found is.
Rigpa is the next level after you found instant Presence. Your reflection, the teachings, and a stability in meditation so that you have a comparison ground, allow your mind, sems, to define rigpa.

Or as the other teacher of mine, Garchen R. said, the mind is in a continuous process of cleansing itself of obscurations. The lotus above the mud, the end product ought to be rigpa.
This is not how CNN explained Instant Presence, as far as I know.
I don't read minds.
Take only the part that ChNN has said!

Leave the rest here as it is!
As conditions slowly improved, Munsel began to give Dzogchen instructions to those imprisoned with him, including a number of high lamas. It was there that Garchen Rinpoche became his student, as well as the 8th Adeu Rinpoche (1931–2007), a Drukpa Kagyu lineage holder.
Treasury of Lives: Khenpo Munsel

You're welcome!
Arnoud
Posts: 1004
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2010 7:19 pm
Location: Benelux, then USA, now Southern Europe.

Re: What Does Jim Valby Mean by "Pure Perfect Presence"

Post by Arnoud »

Miorita wrote: Mon Jul 04, 2022 11:55 pm
Arnoud wrote: Mon Jul 04, 2022 10:35 pm
Miorita wrote: Mon Jul 04, 2022 8:14 pm Sems is your mind.
Instant Presence is something other than sems.
If it wasn't, it would be simply refered to as sems.

You reflect on what sems is and what instant Presence that you found is.
Rigpa is the next level after you found instant Presence. Your reflection, the teachings, and a stability in meditation so that you have a comparison ground, allow your mind, sems, to define rigpa.

Or as the other teacher of mine, Garchen R. said, the mind is in a continuous process of cleansing itself of obscurations. The lotus above the mud, the end product ought to be rigpa.
This is not how CNN explained Instant Presence, as far as I know.
I don't read minds.
Take only the part that ChNN has said!

Leave the rest here as it is!
As conditions slowly improved, Munsel began to give Dzogchen instructions to those imprisoned with him, including a number of high lamas. It was there that Garchen Rinpoche became his student, as well as the 8th Adeu Rinpoche (1931–2007), a Drukpa Kagyu lineage holder.
Treasury of Lives: Khenpo Munsel

You're welcome!
I don’t understand what you are saying. The question was about a term used by CNN’s students. Your explanation wasn’t correct. In this context, it doesn’t matter what Garchen Rinpoche said about the topic.
Leaves of Light
Posts: 56
Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2022 3:45 am

Re: What Does Jim Valby Mean by "Pure Perfect Presence"

Post by Leaves of Light »

Malcolm wrote: Mon Jul 04, 2022 1:54 pm
Leaves of Light wrote: Mon Jul 04, 2022 6:11 am
Malcolm wrote: Mon Jul 04, 2022 4:03 am

He uses the term “instant presence” when the term rigpa is referring to a moment of unfabricated consciousness, and rigpa when term is referring to one’s knowledge of the basis.
Then could it be that Jim Valby has seized on this use of the word "presence" in a general Dzogchen context and shoehorned it onto "byang chub sems"? Which Adriano Clemente I think translated as "pure and total consciousness". It makes it seem like for a certain interpretation of things, "sems" and "rigpa" are assumed to more or less refer to the same thing, which can't be true, even in terms of ultimate "byang chub sems". Or is the implication from this translation convention where both have ended up by being translated as "presence", that "sems" and "rigpa" are in Dzogchen to be thought of as the same thing?
Not exactly, but you need to have been a student of ChNN to really understand the difference: the first term refers to the basis. The second, one’s knowledge of the former.
Could it be that the translator Jim Valby picked up on "presence" from Clemente (who presumably translated it in turn from an Italian word) as being a useful term for Dzogchen in general and then applied it to sems, even though Clemente had used it for something quite different? Of course there is no rule against doing that but it is a bit confusing. Especially since a subtle difference or dichotomy is usually drawn between ye shes and rigpa rather than sems and the latter. If your description is correct, that sems in this particular special Dzogchen esoteric instruction class context is the so-called basis or kun gzhi (?) while rigpa is one's knowledge of the former then that is reminiscent of one of the metaphors for buddha-nature, namely that of the man with a store of gold buried under his house that he doesn't know about, so that the buried gold would be sems, the basis, while not knowing of its existence, and being aware of it would be respectively ma rigpa and rigpa; in that case, we wouldn't use the same word - let's say for argument's sake, "presence", or, more literally, "the gold" - to describe both the gold and one's knowledge of it; but that seems to be what has happened with Jim Valby using "presence" to translate sems after Clemente used it to translate rigpa (or the Italian translation of ripga since I think Adriano Clemente translated into English, works translated from Tibetan to Italian). This is why it reads better when Clemente/Norbu have translated byang chub sems as "pure and total consciousness" and rigpa as some variation of "presence". So I am curious as to whether Jim Valby intentionally changed this around and started using "presence" for sems instead of rigpa. Another curious thing about his translation is that he leaves dang, rolpa and rtsal untranslated without providing clear glosses as to their meaning. It's one thing to leave a ubiquitous and notoriously untranslatable term like rigpa untranslated, but then to introduce less common and well known concepts like dang, rolpa and rtsal and leave them untranslated is a bit more problematic. If you are going to untranslate somewhat more obscure terms like those, particularly without a glossary, then it begs the question why translate any of the words of the text at all?
florin
Posts: 1340
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2010 12:05 pm

Re: What Does Jim Valby Mean by "Pure Perfect Presence"

Post by florin »

Leaves of Light wrote: Tue Jul 05, 2022 4:29 ami]. Another curious thing about his translation is that he leaves dang, rolpa and rtsal untranslated without providing clear glosses as to their meaning. It's one thing to leave a ubiquitous and notoriously untranslatable term like rigpa untranslated, but then to introduce less common and well known concepts like dang, rolpa and rtsal and leave them untranslated is a bit more problematic. If you are going to untranslate somewhat more obscure terms like those, particularly without a glossary, then it begs the question why translate any of the words of the text at all?
A note in the first volume explains what they are so from there onwards whenever you encounter those terms you will know what they mean.
“Sems” in the context of these teachings means something specific:” Pure Perfect Presence (byang chub sems) is byang (pure beyond stains to remove), chub (naturally self-perfected beyond effort), and sems (Presence beyond pursuit and achievement)
Leaves of Light
Posts: 56
Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2022 3:45 am

Re: What Does Jim Valby Mean by "Pure Perfect Presence"

Post by Leaves of Light »

florin wrote: Tue Jul 05, 2022 6:19 am
Leaves of Light wrote: Tue Jul 05, 2022 4:29 ami]. Another curious thing about his translation is that he leaves dang, rolpa and rtsal untranslated without providing clear glosses as to their meaning. It's one thing to leave a ubiquitous and notoriously untranslatable term like rigpa untranslated, but then to introduce less common and well known concepts like dang, rolpa and rtsal and leave them untranslated is a bit more problematic. If you are going to untranslate somewhat more obscure terms like those, particularly without a glossary, then it begs the question why translate any of the words of the text at all?
A note in the first volume explains what they are so from there onwards whenever you encounter those terms you will know what they mean.
Oh, I didn't know that. I only picked up the volume "The Six Spaces of Samantabhadra", being more interested in it, and from reading that was none the wiser. That's helpful to know.
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: What Does Jim Valby Mean by "Pure Perfect Presence"

Post by Malcolm »

Leaves of Light wrote: Tue Jul 05, 2022 4:29 ambut then to introduce less common and well known concepts like dang, rolpa and rtsal and leave them untranslated is a bit more problematic. If you are going to untranslate somewhat more obscure terms like those, particularly without a glossary, then it begs the question why translate any of the words of the text at all?
I know Jim well, and Adriano a bit less well. However, your speculations are purely unfounded.

If you were a student of ChNN, you would have no confusion at all about these three terms, as ChNN explained how he uses them unambiguously many times.

This is an example of where you need the oral instruction of the lineage. Don’t expect anyone on the internet to explain this to you. Also, you have too many concepts. Find a qualified guru.
Leaves of Light
Posts: 56
Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2022 3:45 am

Re: What Does Jim Valby Mean by "Pure Perfect Presence"

Post by Leaves of Light »

Malcolm wrote: Tue Jul 05, 2022 3:57 pm
Leaves of Light wrote: Tue Jul 05, 2022 4:29 ambut then to introduce less common and well known concepts like dang, rolpa and rtsal and leave them untranslated is a bit more problematic. If you are going to untranslate somewhat more obscure terms like those, particularly without a glossary, then it begs the question why translate any of the words of the text at all?
I know Jim well, and Adriano a bit less well. However, your speculations are purely unfounded.

If you were a student of ChNN, you would have no confusion at all about these three terms, as ChNN explained how he uses them unambiguously many times.

This is an example of where you need the oral instruction of the lineage. Don’t expect anyone on the internet to explain this to you. Also, you have too many concepts. Find a qualified guru.
I'm still curious about which words would get translated and which not. What about dang, rolpa, etc. would qualify them as words to not be translated as opposed to the very next word? Wouldn't it possibly create fewer concepts if one were to define and establish the terms in English by means of translation? Leaving them untranslated in the text is arguably less unambiguous than translating them. For example, if Chogyal Namkhai Norbu defined such terms unambiguously as you say, then why not record that in the translation?
Last edited by Leaves of Light on Tue Jul 05, 2022 9:43 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Norwegian
Posts: 2632
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2011 7:36 pm

Re: What Does Jim Valby Mean by "Pure Perfect Presence"

Post by Norwegian »

Leaves of Light wrote: Tue Jul 05, 2022 9:07 pm
Malcolm wrote: Tue Jul 05, 2022 3:57 pm
Leaves of Light wrote: Tue Jul 05, 2022 4:29 ambut then to introduce less common and well known concepts like dang, rolpa and rtsal and leave them untranslated is a bit more problematic. If you are going to untranslate somewhat more obscure terms like those, particularly without a glossary, then it begs the question why translate any of the words of the text at all?
I know Jim well, and Adriano a bit less well. However, your speculations are purely unfounded.

If you were a student of ChNN, you would have no confusion at all about these three terms, as ChNN explained how he uses them unambiguously many times.

This is an example of where you need the oral instruction of the lineage. Don’t expect anyone on the internet to explain this to you. Also, you have too many concepts. Find a qualified guru.
I'm still curious about which words would get translated and which not. What about dang, rolpa, etc. would qualify them as words to not be translated as opposed to the very next word? Wouldn't it possibly create fewer concepts if one were to define and establish the terms in English by means of translation? Leaving them untranslated in the text is arguably less unambiguous than translating them. For example, if Chogyal Namkhai Norbu defined such terms unambiguously as you say, then why not record that in the translation?
There's no need to translate all terms in Buddhadharma. Lots of terms are left untranslated in Buddhist texts, such as karma, mala, siddhi, samsara, bodhisattva, buddha, dakini, yoga, yogini, mantra, sutra, tantra, etc. These are all part of a specific Buddhist lexicon. In a Dzogchen context, dang, rolpa, and tsal are such terms. If you don't know what dang, rolpa, and tsal means, it is an indication that you have likely not received teachings on Dzogchen and you should probably not be reading a Dzogchen tantra.
Leaves of Light
Posts: 56
Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2022 3:45 am

Re: What Does Jim Valby Mean by "Pure Perfect Presence"

Post by Leaves of Light »

Norwegian wrote: Tue Jul 05, 2022 10:17 pm There's no need to translate all terms in Buddhadharma. Lots of terms are left untranslated in Buddhist texts, such as karma, mala, siddhi, samsara, bodhisattva, buddha, dakini, yoga, yogini, mantra, sutra, tantra, etc. These are all part of a specific Buddhist lexicon. In a Dzogchen context, dang, rolpa, and tsal are such terms. If you don't know what dang, rolpa, and tsal means, it is an indication that you have likely not received teachings on Dzogchen and you should probably not be reading a Dzogchen tantra.
I agree that words like nirvana, samsara, Buddha, bodhisattva, rigpa, bodhicitta, mandala, brahmin, pandita, lotsawa, and so on are scarcely required to be translated into English today, even though they were not so long ago. For example in Thomas Byrom's translation of the Dhammapada, he even translated the Pali word Buddha into "The Man Who Is Awake", which caused some confusion, as I hear; readers didn't even realise this was referring to the Buddha; and in Thomas Cleary's Avatamsaka Sutra Flower Ornament Scripture, he routinely translated "bodhisattva" as "enlightening being" which he later come to regret. But where is the line between terms which have made their way into the English language like those, and more obscure ones like dang and rolpa-energies? There's not really a similarity between a highly techincal Dzogchen term and an everyday one like karma, which even non-Buddhists understand the vague or general meaning of. So the phrase "the dang-energies" is not the same as "giving rise to bodhicitta" or "drawing the mandala" or "he entered nirvana that night" or "he created negative karma". It's much more obscure than that. And if the teachers have defined these terms unambiguously already, as stated, then why not translate them accordingly? What is the qualification for a Tibetan term that gets translated, such as a common word like byang chub sems or bodhicitta becoming "Pure Perfect Presence" and another such as "dang-energies" that doesn't? In a way, it seems more logical to not translate a common term like bodhicitta, as you pointed out, and to translate more difficult ones like dang-energies. By your logic, a person who needs byang chub sems to be translated certainly shouldn't be reading such literature, or even a Mahayana sutra for that matter, so why is it translated in a Dzogchen Esoteric Instruction tantra but dang-energies, not?
Norwegian
Posts: 2632
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2011 7:36 pm

Re: What Does Jim Valby Mean by "Pure Perfect Presence"

Post by Norwegian »

Leaves of Light wrote: Tue Jul 05, 2022 10:33 pm
Norwegian wrote: Tue Jul 05, 2022 10:17 pm There's no need to translate all terms in Buddhadharma. Lots of terms are left untranslated in Buddhist texts, such as karma, mala, siddhi, samsara, bodhisattva, buddha, dakini, yoga, yogini, mantra, sutra, tantra, etc. These are all part of a specific Buddhist lexicon. In a Dzogchen context, dang, rolpa, and tsal are such terms. If you don't know what dang, rolpa, and tsal means, it is an indication that you have likely not received teachings on Dzogchen and you should probably not be reading a Dzogchen tantra.
But where is the line between terms which have made their way into the English language like those, and more obscure ones like dang and rolpa-energies? There's not really a similarity between a highly techincal Dzogchen term and an everyday one like karma, which even non-Buddhists understand the vague or general meaning of. So the phrase "the dang-energies" is not the same as "giving rise to bodhicitta" or "drawing the mandala" or "he entered nirvana that night" or "he created negative karma". It's much more obscure than that. And if the teachers have defined these terms unambiguously already, as stated, then why not translate them accordingly? What is the qualification for a Tibetan term that gets translated, such as a common word like byang chub sems or bodhicitta becoming "Pure Perfect Presence" and another such as "dang-energies" that doesn't? In a way, it seems more logical to not translate a common term like bodhicitta, as you pointed out, and to translate more difficult ones like dang-energies. By your logic, a person who needs byang chub sems to be translated certainly shouldn't be reading such literature, or even a Mahayana sutra for that matter, so why is it translated in a Dzogchen Esoteric Instruction tantra but dang-energies, not?
To someone who has received Dzogchen teachings, dang is definitely not an obscure term. It really isn't. It is on the other hand an obscure term if you have no real understanding of Dzogchen, and like I said, then you shouldn't be reading Dzogchen tantras (or Dzogchen texts by Longchenpa).

At any rate, what Malcolm replied to you above more than suffices. There's nothing more that needs to be said here.
Leaves of Light
Posts: 56
Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2022 3:45 am

Re: What Does Jim Valby Mean by "Pure Perfect Presence"

Post by Leaves of Light »

Norwegian wrote: Tue Jul 05, 2022 10:43 pm To someone who has received Dzogchen teachings, dang is definitely not an obscure term. It really isn't. It is on the other hand an obscure term if you have no real understanding of Dzogchen, and like I said, then you shouldn't be reading Dzogchen tantras (or Dzogchen texts by Longchenpa).

At any rate, what Malcolm replied to you above more than suffices. There's nothing more that needs to be said here.
Compared to an everyday term like byang chub sems, bodhicitta, which was creatively translated or paraphrased by the author as "Pure Perfect Presence", - in defiance of colleagues previously translating an entirely different term, rigpa, in very similar or identical terms - then terms like dang- and rolpa-energies certainly are obscure so the question arises, why is the former translated and the latter not? Your own logic suggests that if anything it ought to be the other way around. I am only curious about the hermeneutic principle being employed by the translator, if there is consistency or not.
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: What Does Jim Valby Mean by "Pure Perfect Presence"

Post by Malcolm »

Leaves of Light wrote: Tue Jul 05, 2022 10:50 pm
Norwegian wrote: Tue Jul 05, 2022 10:43 pm To someone who has received Dzogchen teachings, dang is definitely not an obscure term. It really isn't. It is on the other hand an obscure term if you have no real understanding of Dzogchen, and like I said, then you shouldn't be reading Dzogchen tantras (or Dzogchen texts by Longchenpa).

At any rate, what Malcolm replied to you above more than suffices. There's nothing more that needs to be said here.
Compared to an everyday term like byang chub sems, bodhicitta, which was creatively translated or paraphrased by the author as "Pure Perfect Presence", - in defiance of colleagues previously translating an entirely different term, rigpa, in very similar or identical terms - then terms like dang- and rolpa-energies certainly are obscure so the question arises, why is the former translated and the latter not? Your own logic suggests that if anything it ought to be the other way around. I am only curious about the hermeneutic principle being employed by the translator, if there is consistency or not.
You should ask them directly.
Locked

Return to “Dzogchen”