To: K-list
Recieved: 2001/05/04 21:45
Subject: Re: On Translating and Interpreting - (was Re: [K-list] I wondering too)
From: Pepper J. Baxter
On 2001/05/04 21:45, Pepper J. Baxter posted thus to the K-list:
Hi llewellyn, What if you sent your essence into the creator of the RgVeda by
going into an altered state and merging with that one,...feel and therefore
understand first hand? Would that be considered valid? Or even into the original
manuscripts maybe. Is that a dumb question. Would you comment anyhow. I would
like to really know this. Pepper
llewellyn wrote:
> ----- 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.