To: K-list
Recieved: 2001/05/03 16:16
Subject: On Translating and Interpreting - (was Re: [K-list] I wondering too)
From: llewellyn
On 2001/05/03 16:16, llewellyn posted thus to the K-list:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Karin Holtkamp" <frostedsnowflakeATnospamhotmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2001 4:53 PM
> And what if the translator couldn't a 100%? Does a translator have to be
a
> saint?
Hi, (warning this is long and probably boring and should be skipped by
most - IMHO)
One of my sayings: that makes sense to me, and also somewhat grounds
me, is "All of life is an interpretation of an interpretation". We
interpret and translate everything. It is difficult even for two people
from within the same culture and using the same language to always
understand the intent behind the other's words. When you are there person
to person, you can read the body language and pick up on the non-verbal
clues. Over the net we learn to read between the lines - and we add
emotives, etc., to clarify our intent. But what does a translator have to
work on when trying to rediscover the intentionality of, for example, the Rg
Veda? It is more than just finding the equivalent word in a foreign
language - it is interpreting the context that made those words have
meaning to the original thinker.
Thus, the issue of how one recovers the intentionality structure of
those who originally voiced some of what eventually became written word in
certain 'sacred' texts, is critical and important. This is one part of the
Indian philosophy courses that I took in college that really stuck with me.
I was lucky to have a Professor who had spent many years in India studying
Sanskrit, and looking at the issue of not just translating the texts but
struggling with what was behind the words. His time in India was a culture
shock for him where he was forced to rediscover his own underpinnings.
This experience provided him a framework to evaluate the texts from the
standpoint of an outsider who was undergoing such a shock to his accepted
frame of reference that he had no choice but to shift and to reexamine
overall reality. He has his own translations of portions of the Rg Veda and
the Gita that I use - but I especially like the approach he brings to
evaluating these texts and using the texts to formulate the issue of how to
recover not only the basis behind those texts, but philosophically forming
a basis for your own life.
So in this sense, since I do not have the time or inclination to redo
that experience for myself - I borrow from his experience and learn from
what he learned and tried to express in lectures and in books. I have
somewhat internalized certain aspects of his lessons and have found myself
going back and rereading and rediscovering aspects that i could not
appreciate the first time around. Basically, what I am trying to convey is
that if we limit our knowledge to only what we personally experience we
would throw away generations of input. However, I do not accept his
translation as the only interpretation. But, it is one where I understand,
somewhat, the underlying framework that produced the translation. I can, at
this time, imagine other constructs that would lead to a different way of
interpreting and translating what was intended. Certainly if we use
Sitchen's hypothesis as a premise we would result in a different meaning.
Translations of the Tao de Ching provide a good example of how the
translator flavors the text. - There are links out there on the web which
provide a few translations - each has a different flavor. I will not go
into translations of the Bible since I believe that most of these start at
such a corrupted point that little can be done. The Dead Sea Scrolls offer
a chance to discover some text that has undergone less corruption.
But what we are really trying to realize is that the words that have
been commonly passed down and fallen into standard acceptance are often the
result of profound manipulation to suit those who had the power over the
evolution of the text. This produces a conundrum - we want to learn from
the past and not repeat everything but we know everything that is written is
corrupted by the filter of imperfect writing and imperfect reception. So
where does this lead?
As kundalites we say well we have access to other realms. Thus, some
people recover past life memories and therefore place heavy reliance on this
method to discern the original intent of some of these ancient texts. They
will say this part is true because this is what I remember of my life at
xyz. Or I was there at ______ and this is what was going down. My own
personal view is that I believe these people believe what they say. - But
from another perspective, as kundalites where we can tap into thought-forms
and other realities, these realities might be just floating remnants
left-over from some one else. In this holodeck reality, what is written and
by whom? What are we tuning into when we view past lives or get flooded
with thought-forms?
The same with channeled material, we recognize that some is hogwash -
meant to deceive and manipulate. How do we discern what we want to accept
and what we discard? WE turn inward: we ask our higher selves, we feel a
certain resonance with certain ideas. How do we figure out what is prefaced
by, 'Simon says .........'.
Personal experience is also not foolproof. - There are many
experiences that I have had, that in retrospect and with the filters that
age and other experiences provide, that I now interpret in a different
manner.
"All of life is an interpretation of an interpretation".
______________________
One issue that is paramount, is that certain texts, such as the Rg Veda
and even the Bhagavad-Gita, were originally chanted and passed down orally.
Thus, the very meter used was important to the meaning. But in the case of
the Rg Veda - how do you recapture the original intent, if such a thing is
even possible when nothing (or very little) is known about the culture -
what is known is what you are trying to translate.
Everyone that translates these texts, renders the translation from some
context that is completely foreign to that in which it was framed. In some
cases, translators have a fair amount of knowledge about the culture and can
use that as a guide, but not always. - Translators that are Hindu and from
India might have an advantage, however they are biased by their own culture
and education.
What happens in all cases is that the original concept and words become
adulterated with time. What begins as pure spirit ends up as rote dogma.
It might be difficult for a believer in the Christian Bible, to take a
critical look at the foundations and the underpinnings of their own faith.
This is true for all believers - if we question their basic belief
structure - we are met with - 'you must have faith' - or don't question - I
AM -
A translator does not need to be a saint - but needs to be honest to the
reader and to himself about the biases and basis functions that is being
used in the translation. NO translation is going to be 100% there are
problems with just finding words to express a thought and a pattern that is
very well understood.
And there is no doubt that all 'sacred' texts have been adulterated and
manipulated to suit the purpose of those in power. Enough is there, enough
is profound to pass as the original.
A translator therefore should not be a saint - but recognize their own
brand of humanity.
__________
hmmm - always ask does this makes sense,
this part doesn't, I don't know about that -
is that right?
Who wrote the holodeck program???? and why???? Knowing the program does
not always make the intent clear - know the intent and pieces fall into
place.
Peace and balance,
Llewellyn
http://www.kundalini-gateway.org
DISCLAIMER!
Home | Archive Index | Search the archives | Subscribe
K. List FAQ | Kundalini FAQs | Signs and Symptoms | Awakening Experiences | K. list Polls | Member Essays | Meditations | List Topics | Art Gallery | Cybrary | Sitemap | Email the moderators.
symbol.