Keith Dowman's argument for his "interpretive free" translation style

User avatar
dzogchungpa
Posts: 6333
Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 10:50 pm

Re: Keith Dowman's argument for his "interpretive free" translation style

Post by dzogchungpa » Wed Jun 15, 2016 7:06 pm

weenid wrote:If inner realization can come from reading books, most of us would be enlightened by now.
Indeed. As my man Kanha apparently said:
The path is blocked by vowels and consonants.
There is not only nothingness because there is always, and always can manifest. - Thinley Norbu Rinpoche

User avatar
Tongnyid Dorje
Posts: 100
Joined: Thu Aug 29, 2013 9:16 pm

Re: Keith Dowman's argument for his "interpretive free" translation style

Post by Tongnyid Dorje » Wed Jun 15, 2016 7:26 pm

I like to read Dowmans translation, like life of Yeshe Tsogyal, but when it comes to some serious texts, i dont like it at all. Once I was translating his Flight Of Garuda by Shabkar to my language. After some time I came across terms, like "state of gnostic freedom", which I have no idea how to translate to my language. So I was trying to contact him by email. He never responded, so I stopped translation.

So thats why I like for exmpl John Reynolds translations, cos he always states original term in tibetan, or sanskrit. Just imagine that you are reading in sadhana about "seminal nucleus". Any hint for the meaning? For me not. Only after I looked in to the tibetan and find out its thigle. The same will be if I read "pixel".

I dont see any meaning in translating texts like this, even more if it is sadhana for practitioners. They usually understand things like thigle, kadak, and so on. We dont really need to find new words in our launguages for this. The practitioners should learn the meaning, they need also explanation from lama, so no point for me to make it like that.

User avatar
Quay
Posts: 289
Joined: Mon May 16, 2016 6:07 pm

Re: Keith Dowman's argument for his "interpretive free" translation style

Post by Quay » Wed Jun 15, 2016 8:08 pm

If the quote in the OP is accurate then Dowman is saying about his own method that it is "the interpretive free method that seeks to invoke a cloudburst of invocative meaning in poetic english prose" in "hopes to stir a congruous impression that stimulates equal sentiments."

I have no idea what all those flowery physical metaphors mean and I suspect that neither does Mr. Dowman.
"Knowledge is as infinite as the stars in the sky;
There is no end to all the subjects one could study.
It is better to grasp straight away their very essence--
The unchanging fortress of the Dharmakaya."

– Longchenpa.

User avatar
Grigoris
Global Moderator
Posts: 17393
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: Keith Dowman's argument for his "interpretive free" translation style

Post by Grigoris » Wed Jun 15, 2016 9:25 pm

Quay wrote:I have no idea what all those flowery physical metaphors mean and I suspect that neither does Mr. Dowman.
Oh, I am sure he does...
"My religion is not deceiving myself."
Jetsun Milarepa 1052-1135 CE

"Butchers, prostitutes, those guilty of the five most heinous crimes, outcasts, the underprivileged: all are utterly the substance of existence and nothing other than total bliss."
The Supreme Source - The Kunjed Gyalpo
The Fundamental Tantra of Dzogchen Semde

User avatar
WuMing
Posts: 250
Joined: Fri Oct 08, 2010 6:13 pm

Re: Keith Dowman's argument for his "interpretive free" translation style

Post by WuMing » Wed Jun 15, 2016 10:15 pm

this might be :offtopic: (sorry) but here are some interesting thoughts on translation by Ken McLeod What difference does translation make?

I highly recommend to read his other posts following that one!

:focus:
Last edited by WuMing on Wed Jun 15, 2016 10:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
今以佛眼觀之佛與眾生同住解脫之床。無此無彼無二平等。
Now, observing with the eye of the Buddha, both the Buddha and ordinary beings are in the same liberated state. There is neither this nor that: there is only non-duality and identity.
- 空海 Kūkai in Unjigi 吽字義 The Meaning of the Letter Hūṃ
- Kūkai on the Philosophy of Language by Takagi Shingen and Dreitlein Eijō
_______
Śrī Singha said to Padmasambhava:
Since buddhas and sentient beings are inseparable and the same, it is necessary to respect all sentient beings as being on the same level with the buddhas. Can you?
- translated by Malcolm N. Smith

User avatar
treehuggingoctopus
Posts: 1563
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 6:26 pm
Location: Mudhole? Slimy? My home, this is.

Re: Keith Dowman's argument for his "interpretive free" translation style

Post by treehuggingoctopus » Wed Jun 15, 2016 10:23 pm

dzogchungpa wrote:
weenid wrote:If inner realization can come from reading books, most of us would be enlightened by now.
Indeed. As my man Kanha apparently said:
The path is blocked by vowels and consonants.
So glides are OK?
. . . there they saw a rock! But it wasn't a rock . . .

User avatar
dzogchungpa
Posts: 6333
Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 10:50 pm

Re: Keith Dowman's argument for his "interpretive free" translation style

Post by dzogchungpa » Wed Jun 15, 2016 10:38 pm

treehuggingoctopus wrote:So glides are OK?
Apparently, me ole fruit. :smile:
There is not only nothingness because there is always, and always can manifest. - Thinley Norbu Rinpoche

User avatar
Grigoris
Global Moderator
Posts: 17393
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: Keith Dowman's argument for his "interpretive free" translation style

Post by Grigoris » Wed Jun 15, 2016 11:39 pm

dzogchungpa wrote:
treehuggingoctopus wrote:So glides are OK?
Apparently, me ole fruit. :smile:
What about dipthongs?
"My religion is not deceiving myself."
Jetsun Milarepa 1052-1135 CE

"Butchers, prostitutes, those guilty of the five most heinous crimes, outcasts, the underprivileged: all are utterly the substance of existence and nothing other than total bliss."
The Supreme Source - The Kunjed Gyalpo
The Fundamental Tantra of Dzogchen Semde

User avatar
dzogchungpa
Posts: 6333
Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 10:50 pm

Re: Keith Dowman's argument for his "interpretive free" translation style

Post by dzogchungpa » Wed Jun 15, 2016 11:56 pm

Sherab Dorje wrote:What about dipthongs?
Now you're being ridiculous.
There is not only nothingness because there is always, and always can manifest. - Thinley Norbu Rinpoche

DGA
Former staff member
Posts: 9259
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Keith Dowman's argument for his "interpretive free" translation style

Post by DGA » Wed Jun 15, 2016 11:59 pm

Quay wrote:If the quote in the OP is accurate then Dowman is saying about his own method that it is "the interpretive free method that seeks to invoke a cloudburst of invocative meaning in poetic english prose" in "hopes to stir a congruous impression that stimulates equal sentiments."

I have no idea what all those flowery physical metaphors mean and I suspect that neither does Mr. Dowman.
It reads like Romantic argle-bargle. I mean Romantic in the Wordsworth-Coleridge-Shelley-Keats sense.

User avatar
Grigoris
Global Moderator
Posts: 17393
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: Keith Dowman's argument for his "interpretive free" translation style

Post by Grigoris » Thu Jun 16, 2016 12:02 am

dzogchungpa wrote:
Sherab Dorje wrote:What about dipthongs?
Now you're being ridiculous.
Luckily for you "ridiculous" is just a collection of vowels and consonants, otherwise I'd have to cause you a nose-bleed! :tongue:
"My religion is not deceiving myself."
Jetsun Milarepa 1052-1135 CE

"Butchers, prostitutes, those guilty of the five most heinous crimes, outcasts, the underprivileged: all are utterly the substance of existence and nothing other than total bliss."
The Supreme Source - The Kunjed Gyalpo
The Fundamental Tantra of Dzogchen Semde

User avatar
dzogchungpa
Posts: 6333
Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 10:50 pm

Re: Keith Dowman's argument for his "interpretive free" translation style

Post by dzogchungpa » Thu Jun 16, 2016 2:01 am

Sherab Dorje wrote:
dzogchungpa wrote:Now you're being ridiculous.
Luckily for you "ridiculous" is just a collection of vowels and consonants, otherwise I'd have to cause you a nose-bleed! :tongue:
I don't know whether to interpret your response in a mechanistic literal way or in an interpretive free way. :(
There is not only nothingness because there is always, and always can manifest. - Thinley Norbu Rinpoche

User avatar
treehuggingoctopus
Posts: 1563
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 6:26 pm
Location: Mudhole? Slimy? My home, this is.

Re: Keith Dowman's argument for his "interpretive free" translation style

Post by treehuggingoctopus » Thu Jun 16, 2016 7:55 am

dzogchungpa wrote:
Sherab Dorje wrote:What about dipthongs?
Now you're being ridiculous.
I would not dare to even remotely consider asking about pseudo-triphthongs...
. . . there they saw a rock! But it wasn't a rock . . .

User avatar
Grigoris
Global Moderator
Posts: 17393
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: Keith Dowman's argument for his "interpretive free" translation style

Post by Grigoris » Thu Jun 16, 2016 8:52 am

treehuggingoctopus wrote:I would not dare to even remotely consider asking about pseudo-triphthongs...
Oooooooohhh... pseudo-tripthong, nasty! I had one of those once. Took a month of applying two different types of cream on it to make it go away.
"My religion is not deceiving myself."
Jetsun Milarepa 1052-1135 CE

"Butchers, prostitutes, those guilty of the five most heinous crimes, outcasts, the underprivileged: all are utterly the substance of existence and nothing other than total bliss."
The Supreme Source - The Kunjed Gyalpo
The Fundamental Tantra of Dzogchen Semde

User avatar
treehuggingoctopus
Posts: 1563
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 6:26 pm
Location: Mudhole? Slimy? My home, this is.

Re: Keith Dowman's argument for his "interpretive free" translation style

Post by treehuggingoctopus » Thu Jun 16, 2016 1:02 pm

Buggers always come back, though. In the end one just has to learn to live with them...
. . . there they saw a rock! But it wasn't a rock . . .

User avatar
dzogchungpa
Posts: 6333
Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 10:50 pm

Re: Keith Dowman's argument for his "interpretive free" translation style

Post by dzogchungpa » Thu Jun 16, 2016 3:55 pm

treehuggingoctopus wrote:...pseudo-triphthongs...
Mind is blown.
There is not only nothingness because there is always, and always can manifest. - Thinley Norbu Rinpoche

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 28084
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Keith Dowman's argument for his "interpretive free" translation style

Post by Malcolm » Thu Jun 16, 2016 4:04 pm

krodha wrote: How does everyone feel about this idea of "two quite distinct ways of translation"? I personally do not see the point of an "interpretive free method", as in the case of Dowman's efforts, this allegedly intentional "loose style" often seems to lose the meaning the original text intends to convey. Curious to hear what others think.
I can't speak to what other translators do or don't do. And of course more than one scholar has taken issue with Dowman's translations, the same applies to Tony Duff, etc. But that is not very important. Why? We would be very foolish to think that after translating Dharma texts into English for a generation that we are in any position to stake out definite positions about how things could or should be translated into English.

For example, someone brought up the example of "stong pa nyid" as a translation for śūnyatā. Śūnyatā was originally translated into Tibetan as "ye 'byams." Very few people are aware of this, and so we run into rather strange translations of the term, not realizing it translated śūnyatā. So what to do? Do we translate it as "having always been without limitations?," "having always overflowed?," two quite literal translations of the term? Or do we use the very loose approximation "timeless infinity," as one translator suggests? Or do we translate it as emptiness, as we generally translate stong pa nyid?

Someone else mentioned committee translations. In my opinion, the quality of a translations depends on the committee, who did the original, who edited it, and so on. The failure of translation committees is the desire to create a brand, like different models of cars. Different translations from the same committee exhibit different levels of accuracy and quality depending on the composition of the actual team. Even among Tibetans, those who are educated in Shedras may not actually have the knowledge of Dzogchen for example, to accurately give information when questioned about the usage of term such as la zla ba.

The quality of a translation also depends very much on the ability of a person to express themselves well in their native tongue. Poor writers make poor translations. There are other factors: are you a native English speaker? Even the best of the non-native translators, not just Guenther, quite often make choices which are quite frankly nonidiomatic English and are strange in our language. Do you speak British, American, Canadian, Australian or Indian English? One's choice of words, one's compositional style, and so on, will all very much be influenced by the country and education one has.

Than there are other factors: people who have never translated anything other than Dharma texts tend to have a very brittle and dry style, because Dharma texts from the traditions of Madhyamaka and so on are exactly that, dry and brittle taxonomies which give very little indication of or possibility for process.

For myself personally, studying Tibetan Medicine opened up a whole new way of looking at Tibetan to which I previously had been blind. Biographies too demand a somewhat more personable style. In general, one modern fault of we Tibetan translators is a lack of diversity in our reading. I know of professors, much hailed for their translation of philosophical texts, who cannot handle that most simplistic of formats, the sadhana, with any skill at all. I have watched famous translators badly botch explanations given by Lamas because the translator had no knowledge of Tibetan Medicine and was therefore unable to accurately translate some concepts from a Dzogchen text, and amazingly just make up some bullshit on the spot, apparently to cover up their own ignorance. That said, I also have sympathy for oral translators, it is no easy job. Oral translators usually are not such good text translators, and the reverse is also true. There are very few translators who excel at both. As an oral translator, for example, I suck.

Then there is the issue of "helping" the text. It is the habit of some translators to embed their understanding in their translations by fleshing them out, sometimes by as much as 40 percent, with extraneous material either derived from commentaries or from information provided in the course of hearing a text being taught. Other translations are leaner, more austere, tending to stick more closely to the text, depending on the reader's familiarity with the subject. Is this good, bad? How can we say it is either, when Tibetan translators themselves have often embellished?

If anything, translators of texts should find themselves humbled by the process. There is little glory in it. The translation process is driven by a passion for discovering the unknown, the unread. Principally, Dharma translation should be driven by the motivation to deepen one's own practice, and to aid others. It can be especially disheartening in the beginning because you are mostly wrong all the time; but of course in the end, when one can share texts that have never been seen in English, it is deeply rewarding because of the joy it brings to oneself through deeper understanding and the joy it brings to others because it is like giving the blind eyes to see, however imperfect those eyes may be and still in need of correction.

While I certainly admit to having my preferences in both translation terms as well as translators, in general we should try to be supportive of the efforts of translators and not give them too hard a time. This does not mean that people cannot discuss this or that term and its suitability. Most people do not realize that a majority of texts translated from Sanskrit to Tibetan, especially the more important texts, underwent multiple revisions, a process that began in the mid-8th century and ended only in the 14th century. There exist dictionaries of archaic terms and their modern (i.e. post-Ralpacan) equivalents. Translators themselves should do their own research and not depend so heavily on translations made two, three, four, and five decades ago. Translators must question why for example we are translating ye shes as "primordial wisdom," rig pa as awareness, etc. We must not fall into formulaic translations, because in the end we will wind up with the very clumsy, basically unreadable translations done by Tibetans after the 14th century.

I would only caution those translators who are much given to criticizing the work of others that such criticism merely opens the door for rebuttal and criticism in turn, and this helps no one in the end. People may wish to ignore this fact, but translation is a crowd-sourced process. The more eyes there are on our translations, the more accurate they can in time become.

I am sharing these thoughts with you because the question arose and because I have spent the last 24 years of my life obeying my guru, Ngakpa Yeshe Dorje's command that I become a translator. In that time I have translated many texts, made even more mistakes, and have had my own pride and arrogance knocked down again and again (as hard as it may seem for some of you to believe) by the process of translation.

I will share with you one of my guiding principles in translating Dzogchen texts into English, since that is really what this thread is about. Rongzom states that while the words of the Great Perfection are simple, their meaning is vast and deep like space. On the other hand, the words of the lower vehicles are are very precise and detailed in their complexity, but their meaning is rough, just like a pile of dust. Therefore, as much as possible, when translating the texts of the Great Perfection, I try to keep my English as simple and plain as I can.

However there are some other principles that I also observe summarized here: http://www3.dbu.edu/mitchell/poundtra.htm, and based on the work of Ezra Pound.

1) A true translation must reject "Wardour-Street English," the pseudo-archaic language of Victorian translators associated with William Morris and F. W. Newman. Pound was willing to experiment with a variety of poetic style and diction. He made free-verse translations of classical works acceptable.

2) Each translation is a kind of criticism of the original. It stresses the strengths of the original, but it also shows what its limits may have been.

3) No translation has to reproduce all aspects of the original. It can choose to concentrate on only some aspects. It can leave part of the original out. It may even add to it or rearrange it in order to accomplish the translator's purpose.

4) Modern topical allusions may be used to bring across the emotions associated with the original's allusions.

5) Translations should be new poems in their own right. They should be artistically well-done. (while this refers to poems, it applies to everything)

6) History is a product of the present. All knowledge of the past is experienced in our current reception and reading of it. In this sense, all translation is both a continuity and a re-reading of past texts and authors.

One may find much food for thought on this Wiki page too:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Translation

Finally, another point that many people don't understand. Poetry and Prosody (Kavya) are distinct from the style of Karika literature of Indo-Tibetan religio-philosophical texts. Texts from the Samcayagathas to the Precious Treasury of the Dharmadhātu are not poetry, nor are they intended as poetry. The so called "verse" portions of the tantras emulate the gathas of sūtra, and so too are not poetry, but are in metered verses to aid memorization. While such compositions can be "poetic," it must be firmly understood they are not poems in our sense of the word. True poetry in the Indo-Tibetan traditions is a very specific, very highly stylized form which is generally confined to the so called "verses of praise" and the dedications found in the beginning and end of texts, ranging from short texts to multivolume treatises, and whose complexity and depth depends very much on the education of the author. Real poetry in Tibetan can be pretty boring reading, depending on deep familiarity with the synonyms which may be found in the compendium Amarakośa and its commentary. For example, a common synonym for the sun is "The one who is drawn by seven horses."

So, in the end, it is better to be light-handed in our criticisms of translators and their translations unless they are engaged in gross fabrications or outright plagiarism.
Buddhahood in This Life
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔


[A]nything at all that is well spoken is the word of the Buddha.

-- Ārya-adhyāśaya-sañcodana-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra

The different sūtras in accord with the emptiness
taught by the Sugata are definitive in meaning;
One can understand that all of those Dharmas in
which a sentient being, individual, or person are taught are provisional in meaning.

-- Samadhirāja Sūtra

Crazywisdom
Posts: 1534
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 5:48 pm

Re: Keith Dowman's argument for his "interpretive free" translation style

Post by Crazywisdom » Thu Jun 16, 2016 4:13 pm

I'm about to say something unpopular. Unless, a text is produced by a lama who transmits it, it is useful only for occasional cross reference.
Vajra Killah Killallaya

The criticisms of others are like wrathful mantras. Fast purification. Welcome it. -can’t remember who

User avatar
dzogchungpa
Posts: 6333
Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 10:50 pm

Re: Keith Dowman's argument for his "interpretive free" translation style

Post by dzogchungpa » Thu Jun 16, 2016 4:16 pm

Malcolm wrote:For example, someone brought up the example of "stong pa nyid" as a translation for śūnyatā. Śūnyatā was originally translated into Tibetan as "ye 'byams." Very few people are aware of this, and so we run into rather strange translations of the term, not realizing it translated śūnyatā. So what to do? Do we translate it as "having always been without limitations?," "having always overflowed?," two quite literal translations of the term? Or do we use the very loose approximation "timeless infinity," as one translator suggests? Or do we translate it as emptiness, as we generally translate stong pa nyid?
This is interesting. How would you translate it?

Also, could you say more about the rationale for the original translation and subsequent revision?
There is not only nothingness because there is always, and always can manifest. - Thinley Norbu Rinpoche

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 28084
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Keith Dowman's argument for his "interpretive free" translation style

Post by Malcolm » Thu Jun 16, 2016 4:22 pm

Crazywisdom wrote:I'm about to say something unpopular. Unless, a text is produced by a lama who transmits it, it is useful only for occasional cross reference.
There wont be many translations then.
Buddhahood in This Life
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔


[A]nything at all that is well spoken is the word of the Buddha.

-- Ārya-adhyāśaya-sañcodana-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra

The different sūtras in accord with the emptiness
taught by the Sugata are definitive in meaning;
One can understand that all of those Dharmas in
which a sentient being, individual, or person are taught are provisional in meaning.

-- Samadhirāja Sūtra

Post Reply

Return to “Dzogchen”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Jangchup Donden, Josef and 27 guests