To: K-list
Recieved: 2001/05/06 15:54
Subject: [K-list] Re: On Translating and Interpreting - (Llewellyn)
From: Karin Holtkamp
On 2001/05/06 15:54, Karin Holtkamp posted thus to the K-list:
You wrote:
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.
=======================
That's right. This is also the tricky part of translation. It's probably
not always easy to recover the original meaning of the whole text and it
doesn't help that we can't ask the author anymore what he meant when he
wrote ddown certain passages because the author may be long dead. But in
the other hand I am glad that someone bothered to translate some of the old
texts and saving them from obscurity by making them accessible to a larger
audience.
You wrote:
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.
=============================
This would also apply to myself. Because I often find myself drawn to texts
and scriptures originally written in a language that's foreign to me, I
also have to rely on translations. Sometimes I even end up with several
translations of the same text because I am curious about how other
translators have treated the same text.
You wrote:
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.
=======================
That's what I like so much about some of the old texts (e.g. Upanishads,
Gita, Yogasutras): I can read them again and again and every time I read
them they are like a new text to me. There are aspects I simply didn't get
the last time I read them and other aspects I totally forgot about.
You wrote:
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.
===============================
I am with you there.
You wrote:
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?
========================
Anything written can of course be misused and often scriptures are freely
quoted by some to suit their own purpose and to brainwash others. It's up to
evey one of us to do our own thinking and maybe take anything that's been
written with a grain of salt. Texts are nice and fun to read but they are
not the ultimate thing. They are just trying to bring that ultimate thing a
little closer to us. The processing of the info is up to us.
You wrote:
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.
=============================
Tell me about it... I think there's not much that's foolprof anyways and
certainly it's not "Karin's experience".
Love,
Karin
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.