Keith Dowman's translations (continued)
-
- Posts: 1
- Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2022 1:02 am
Keith Dowman's translations (continued)
Mod note: This post has been split from an old thread of 2013: https://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.p ... 40#p183340 due to our anti necro rule.
Wow, I just read through this thread and was struck by several *odd* ideas.
One is that the *meaning* is in the *word*. Words are only approximations, generalizations -- they are like color -- it looks slightly different to every individual. The word is not the meaning it is a symbol for the meaning.
I personally do not like to read a lot of translated poetry, for example, because in poetry, as in songs, the actual word is the art and the collections of words are the art and meaning of the poem. But in other types of writing this is not particularly true.
Let's say there is no "exact translation" of the Tibetan to English. How is that any different than translating any other language to English? There will always be some slip and slide because, for example, the French do not think like Americans or English. The French words are not exact translations of English words.
Words are lies and heartbreakers. If you rely on them they will betray you. When it comes to "teaching" texts the only thing to do is read widely, but teaching texts which teach *action* should be acted upon widely and deeply. Reading about tennis is never going to be playing tennis no matter how many languages one reads about it in or how close one comes to finding the very first words ever written about tennis.
This board is a disappointment. Keith Dowman does need an editor, I agree, but at least he is speaking from a sincere, personal expressive place. My take is that he writes what he feels and if people feel it too, great. He's not trying to write a pop song here.
Everyone's a critic.
May all beings be free.
Wow, I just read through this thread and was struck by several *odd* ideas.
One is that the *meaning* is in the *word*. Words are only approximations, generalizations -- they are like color -- it looks slightly different to every individual. The word is not the meaning it is a symbol for the meaning.
I personally do not like to read a lot of translated poetry, for example, because in poetry, as in songs, the actual word is the art and the collections of words are the art and meaning of the poem. But in other types of writing this is not particularly true.
Let's say there is no "exact translation" of the Tibetan to English. How is that any different than translating any other language to English? There will always be some slip and slide because, for example, the French do not think like Americans or English. The French words are not exact translations of English words.
Words are lies and heartbreakers. If you rely on them they will betray you. When it comes to "teaching" texts the only thing to do is read widely, but teaching texts which teach *action* should be acted upon widely and deeply. Reading about tennis is never going to be playing tennis no matter how many languages one reads about it in or how close one comes to finding the very first words ever written about tennis.
This board is a disappointment. Keith Dowman does need an editor, I agree, but at least he is speaking from a sincere, personal expressive place. My take is that he writes what he feels and if people feel it too, great. He's not trying to write a pop song here.
Everyone's a critic.
May all beings be free.
Re: Keith Dowman's translations (continued)
It seems to me that Dowman translates in a word-by-word calque just as many other Dzogchen translators do. He just uses his own terminological set. I do not see any sincerity or creative reach in trying to express the meaning.
Aside from translation, some of his comments on Dzogchen in general seem to show that he is stuck in a rather limited view. One of his books has a long passage on how Dzogchen is a football match, or enjoying a round in a pub with one's mates, etc. I don't have the passage at hand, but if you've read his works you will probably recognize it.
He is someone who has been around a long time, and to a certain degree he is entitled to his opinions, but IMO people who are just starting out should not be "captured" by the point of view his books reveal.
Aside from translation, some of his comments on Dzogchen in general seem to show that he is stuck in a rather limited view. One of his books has a long passage on how Dzogchen is a football match, or enjoying a round in a pub with one's mates, etc. I don't have the passage at hand, but if you've read his works you will probably recognize it.
He is someone who has been around a long time, and to a certain degree he is entitled to his opinions, but IMO people who are just starting out should not be "captured" by the point of view his books reveal.
Re: Keith Dowman's translations (continued)
I like Keith's books a lot. So I just keep reading them. They are a gift to the world and a treasure for many.
Last edited by FieldBob on Sun Dec 04, 2022 12:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Keith Dowman's translations (continued)
That's the wrong conclusion. Particularly when it comes to topics like Dzogchen, there is a very important core vocabulary which any serious student needs to understand, and you can't really read a translation of a Dzogchen text without knowing how the translator has chosen to render the key terms into the target language. Once you know that, it doesn't matter so much how they render them as long as they are consistent throughout the text. It would make all our lives easier if translators as a group converged on the same set of choices for technical terms, but we're a long way away from that being possible, we're still only at the early stages of translation in this field.ckushnick2 wrote: ↑Wed Nov 16, 2022 1:18 am Let's say there is no "exact translation" of the Tibetan to English. How is that any different than translating any other language to English? There will always be some slip and slide because, for example, the French do not think like Americans or English. The French words are not exact translations of English words.
Words are lies and heartbreakers. If you rely on them they will betray you. When it comes to "teaching" texts the only thing to do is read widely, but teaching texts which teach *action* should be acted upon widely and deeply.
I don't have a particular issue with Dowman's choices of words. I read his translations, they're not always the best available because some were done some time ago and more detailed translations have superseded them, as usually happens with translations.
The objective when translating Dharma texts is not to be expressive but to be accurate, and with Dzogchen that means consistency in rendering of the core terminology. If you find that disappointing and want something more expressive, then there's plenty of bad but superficially poetic translations of Dzogchen texts out there - not Dowman's, but there is no shortage of inferior translators working in this field.This board is a disappointment. Keith Dowman does need an editor, I agree, but at least he is speaking from a sincere, personal expressive place. My take is that he writes what he feels and if people feel it too, great.
Re: Keith Dowman's translations (continued)
Another thing to consider in translation is capacity to inspire a practitioner to practice, or to insight. Some of the best translators translate verse as verse, and do it quite well—this, inhernetly, means that accuracy is going to be lossed with a few rare exceptions where grammar and vocabulary of one line can be transposed into the grammar and vocabulary of English. E.g. Erik Pema Kunsang, sometimes Paul Harrison, most of the original PTS series, 100% of verse translated into Chinese (ever?). Translation is not just to provide someone with a map of what the original says—for someone in need of that kind of accuracy, they should just learn the source language—but to guide someone to the right action that suits their temperament.PeterC wrote: ↑Mon Dec 05, 2022 7:40 am The objective when translating Dharma texts is not to be expressive but to be accurate, and with Dzogchen that means consistency in rendering of the core terminology. If you find that disappointing and want something more expressive, then there's plenty of bad but superficially poetic translations of Dzogchen texts out there - not Dowman's, but there is no shortage of inferior translators working in this field.
Re: Keith Dowman's translations (continued)
True, there are different objectives in doing a translation. You might be attempting a poetic translation to try to capture your sense of the original. But I think that depends on the genre a bit. Dzogchen texts tend to have a significant didactic/technical bias even when it sounds like nice poetic language. You see this when a lama takes what looks like a poem and explains the (at times, quite extraordinary) level of detail contained in it. Chan/Zen poetry is a little different - I think poetic translations there are ok - but then you run into a different problem, that the original language is extremely concise, so it’s hard to match meter.Zhen Li wrote: ↑Mon Dec 05, 2022 9:02 amAnother thing to consider in translation is capacity to inspire a practitioner to practice, or to insight. Some of the best translators translate verse as verse, and do it quite well—this, inhernetly, means that accuracy is going to be lossed with a few rare exceptions where grammar and vocabulary of one line can be transposed into the grammar and vocabulary of English. E.g. Erik Pema Kunsang, sometimes Paul Harrison, most of the original PTS series, 100% of verse translated into Chinese (ever?). Translation is not just to provide someone with a map of what the original says—for someone in need of that kind of accuracy, they should just learn the source language—but to guide someone to the right action that suits their temperament.PeterC wrote: ↑Mon Dec 05, 2022 7:40 am The objective when translating Dharma texts is not to be expressive but to be accurate, and with Dzogchen that means consistency in rendering of the core terminology. If you find that disappointing and want something more expressive, then there's plenty of bad but superficially poetic translations of Dzogchen texts out there - not Dowman's, but there is no shortage of inferior translators working in this field.
Translation is really about making choices, ultimately you can’t keep everyone happy (though it is entirely possible to get it totally wrong). So you have to choose based on what you consider the most important function of the original text is. I prefer translations that prioritize explaining the instructional content of a text, and that leads you down one particular path.
Re: Keith Dowman's translations (continued)
And a third problem arises when translators don’t explain their translations and why they chose this term over that term using some semblance of evidence-based reasoning.PeterC wrote: ↑Mon Dec 05, 2022 11:19 amTrue, there are different objectives in doing a translation. You might be attempting a poetic translation to try to capture your sense of the original. But I think that depends on the genre a bit. Dzogchen texts tend to have a significant didactic/technical bias even when it sounds like nice poetic language. You see this when a lama takes what looks like a poem and explains the (at times, quite extraordinary) level of detail contained in it. Chan/Zen poetry is a little different - I think poetic translations there are ok - but then you run into a different problem, that the original language is extremely concise, so it’s hard to match meter.Zhen Li wrote: ↑Mon Dec 05, 2022 9:02 amAnother thing to consider in translation is capacity to inspire a practitioner to practice, or to insight. Some of the best translators translate verse as verse, and do it quite well—this, inhernetly, means that accuracy is going to be lossed with a few rare exceptions where grammar and vocabulary of one line can be transposed into the grammar and vocabulary of English. E.g. Erik Pema Kunsang, sometimes Paul Harrison, most of the original PTS series, 100% of verse translated into Chinese (ever?). Translation is not just to provide someone with a map of what the original says—for someone in need of that kind of accuracy, they should just learn the source language—but to guide someone to the right action that suits their temperament.PeterC wrote: ↑Mon Dec 05, 2022 7:40 am The objective when translating Dharma texts is not to be expressive but to be accurate, and with Dzogchen that means consistency in rendering of the core terminology. If you find that disappointing and want something more expressive, then there's plenty of bad but superficially poetic translations of Dzogchen texts out there - not Dowman's, but there is no shortage of inferior translators working in this field.
Translation is really about making choices, ultimately you can’t keep everyone happy (though it is entirely possible to get it totally wrong). So you have to choose based on what you consider the most important function of the original text is. I prefer translations that prioritize explaining the instructional content of a text, and that leads you down one particular path.
Re: Keith Dowman's translations (continued)
Not to be too particular, but the passage you are referring to is from his intro to the Yeshe Lama, I believe, and he seems to just be pointing out that for a dzogchenpa the practice of recognizing rigpa occurs in all situations, whether while doing formal dharma practice or at a football match or a bar, etc., which is true.tingdzin wrote: ↑Thu Nov 17, 2022 4:12 pm Aside from translation, some of his comments on Dzogchen in general seem to show that he is stuck in a rather limited view. One of his books has a long passage on how Dzogchen is a football match, or enjoying a round in a pub with one's mates, etc. I don't have the passage at hand, but if you've read his works you will probably recognize it.
Re: Keith Dowman's translations (continued)
It's so easy to fall into the attitudethat "everything I do is Dzogchen". Most people who think this way are deluding themselves.
Re: Keith Dowman's translations (continued)
Re: Keith Dowman's translations (continued)
Of course people are deluding themselves if they are walking around with that attitude. But if they have confidence in what their guru pointed out then, actually, it is completely possible that recognition can occur in all situations.
Re: Keith Dowman's translations (continued)
If one is still under the power of the three afflictions, and when one is under their power, not everything one does is Dzogchen.
Re: Keith Dowman's translations (continued)
Definitely, though since situations that strongly bring up the three afflictions are a great test of stability or lack thereof, they are obviously extremely valuable.
Re: Keith Dowman's translations (continued)
Of course. I just dont see the point in implying that someone has this "attitude" because of saying in some book intro that you have try to recognize rigpa in any situation which is a most common instruction.
I dont care for keiths translation or him as a teacher but that was a straw argument