To: K-list
Recieved: 2001/05/03 18:10
Subject: Re: On Translating and Interpreting - (was Re: [K-list] I wondering too)
From: Sherman Buck
On 2001/05/03 18:10, Sherman Buck posted thus to the K-list:
for those who have done shrooms and experienced being in the oneness, and
being with good friends, they come to realize they are all the same thing,
and can understand quite well what the other is experiencing because they
are one. when people get themselves awake enough they can begin to literally
know what the other is experiencing. the idea that we cannot know, that it
is just an interpretation, is relevant for as long as someone's soul is
imprisoned by ego. the plan then, is to get enough individuals awake to this
level to shift the collective unconscious to conscious collective. it is
what theodore sturgeon wrote so eloquently about via his sci-fi book, "more
than human." i highly recommend it to those who are interested in this sort
of thing. this sort of thing happens to me every so often, and i dont even
need to do shrooms anymore. indigenous people used psychedelics as a
spiritual path. i use them the same way. pot used in small quantities and
eaten, not smoked, and then laying down alone, produce some incredible
connections with the divine for teachings and openings. we are all one. i
believe we are headed towards that point where we can no longer tune out the
suffering and pain of others, either by what we do to them or dont do for
them. at which point we will do only those things that enlightened folks
would do. hence the phrase enlightened society.
sherman
"The Wizard"
Magical Happenings Inc.,
----- Original Message -----
From: "llewellyn" <joneslATnospamredcreek.net>
To: "K-list" <K-list >
Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2001 4:16 PM
Subject: On Translating and Interpreting - (was Re: [K-list] I wondering
too)
> ----- 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.