- Posts: 27231
- Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am
mutsuk wrote: Jim Valby knows and understands what he translates.
Yes, I agree.
Buddhahood in This Life
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔
[A]nything at all that is well spoken is the word of the Buddha.
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
- Posts: 88
- Joined: Tue Apr 07, 2009 11:23 pm
- Location: Indiana, USA
Thanks everyone for the informarion. When I first read this I knew it was the best book I had ever read.
- Posts: 6015
- Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 10:50 pm
mutsuk wrote:I mean, her book displays nearly as many translation mistakes as Ann Klein's Unbounded Wholeness...
Tell us what you really think, mutsuk
Everything is divided
Nothing is complete
Everything looks impressive
Do not be deceived - David Byrne
- Posts: 589
- Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2010 7:35 pm
What I really think is that Jim Valby's work on the Kun-byed eclipses other translations published so far of the same root-text. It is clear Dargyay did not understand what she "translated". Her explanation about feminizing the King (rgyal po in Kun byed rgyal po) into a Queen is simply ridiculous. It is just as stupid as Janet Gyatso explaining that the natural state is beyond gender but is nevertheless feminine... Who lacks a brain ?
- Posts: 1022
- Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2013 7:19 am
mutsuk wrote: ↑
Thu Aug 01, 2013 7:34 am
It is just as stupid as Janet Gyatso explaining that the natural state is beyond gender but is nevertheless feminine...
Did she really do this? Care to tell us where, exactly? Her Apparitions
is one of the most useful books on Vajrayana interpretation I have read, possibly because she included so much stuff from teachers like Khyentse and Chatral Rinpoches.