Kunjed Gyalpo:The Supreme Source

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 25045
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Kunjed Gyalpo:The Supreme Source

Post by Malcolm » Tue Jul 30, 2013 9:23 pm

mutsuk wrote: Jim Valby knows and understands what he translates.
Yes, I agree.

M
Atikosha
Tibetan Medicine Blog
Sudarsana Mandala, Tibetan Medicine and Herbs
Buddhahood in This Life
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔


Relax, don’t worry about all the problems of samsara. Everything is relative. But try to be present.


— Chogyal Namkhai Norbu

User avatar
Dorje Shedrub
Posts: 59
Joined: Tue Apr 07, 2009 11:23 pm
Location: Indiana, USA

Re: Kunjed Gyalpo:The Supreme Source

Post by Dorje Shedrub » Tue Jul 30, 2013 10:25 pm

Thanks everyone for the informarion. When I first read this I knew it was the best book I had ever read.
DS

User avatar
dzogchungpa
Posts: 5523
Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 10:50 pm

Re: Kunjed Gyalpo:The Supreme Source

Post by dzogchungpa » Thu Aug 01, 2013 1:50 am

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 :smile:
It takes a great being to be daring enough to cultivate a bad reputation. - Dzongsar Jamyang Khyentse Rinpoche

mutsuk
Posts: 587
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2010 7:35 pm

Re: Kunjed Gyalpo:The Supreme Source

Post by mutsuk » Thu Aug 01, 2013 7:34 am

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 ?

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Thus-gone and 39 guests