Translation is the process of rendering a wok intelligibly from one cultural context into another. Readers are no doubt aware of the variations of consciousness in the English-speaking peoples the world over. That the French are different from the Germans, the Chinese from the Tibetans are to obvious to mentioned. The translator then, must skillfully convey in the idiom of the language being translated into, the import of the parent text, replete with all its nuances, without compromising necessarily the accuracy of the context. It follows then, that a would be translator must be familiar with the images of the two cultures he wishes to bridge; rather, he should be functional in both. It would therefore be more accurate to term this process as a transposition of concepts from one ethno-cultural setting into another.

If we were to take French and Germans as examples, it would be fairly easy for a westerner to grasp the problems involved in such a venture, even though the two countries share a common border. When it comes to philosophical works, their re-creation becomes even more complex. The Tibetans of the previous millennium realized this, and this is why Sanskrit works were rendered into Tibetan only conjointly with Indian scholars and saints. The Tibetans involved in this process were themselves exceptionally erudite and highly accomplished. Even then, they realized the difficulties of penetrating through the subtleties of Indian logic on their own. Simultaneously, they also accepted the style in which texts were originally expounded, so that their intended import did not get lost. This is also the reason why the unbroken continuity of the lineages of transmission, has remained a key element in the preservation of the Bauddha Dharma as a living tradition in the Snowbound Land.

Inherent with this went the notion of the blessings of the lineages through which the Dispensation of the Great Buddha continues. Those who have had the good fortune to experience this, need merely to have their contact, their communion as it were, re-affixed. This living, almost flesh and blood quality of the Dharma is often missed by westerners. Their strong pre-occupation with the written word occasionally resls in literal renderings of the teachings rather than those which would give insights into the inner meaning! Hence, oral exposition is greatly stressed in the dissemination of the Dharma, as well as the style in which the teachings are expounded.

This is precisely why Tibetan Buddhists apply the 'Three Standards' (tshad.ma.gsum.) to ascertain the validity of a given work. The first of these is 'the standard of the Buddha's words' (rgal.ba'i.bk'a.tshad.ma.). the second is 'the standard of the explanations of sublime beings – Arhats and Bodhisattvas' ('phags.pa'i.lung.tshad.ma.). the last of these is 'the standard of deductions derived from evidence' (dngos.stobs.rigs.pa'i.tshad.ma.).

Variations in individual interpretations of the Bodhicharyavatara for instance, are bound to exists. Broadly speaking, commentaries are classified under two headings, viz. Indian and Tibetan; the former, now almost entirely extant in their Tibetan renderings, are accepted unquestionably by all. The better known commentaries written by Tibetan Masters include those by Ngul-chh Thog-med, Kunkhyen Pema Karpo, P'a-wo Tsug-lag Threng-wa and Khenpo Zhan-g'a. this goes to show the richness of the Tibetan tradition in that it admits the existence of interpretations at variance with each other.

A Tibetan Khanpo or professor, would invariably seek to identify himself with his own tradition, rather than his own peculiar way. The disciplining of the individualized, hence mis-construed, eg0-identity is the sole concern of the Bauddha Dharma. The Lo-jong Dhon-dun-ma explicitly states, 'All dharmas converge to one purpose'. The ego's unruly, though subtle expressions are not coddled in the Buddhist world, as distinct from the unbounded space given them elsewhere. Thus, we might have a Sakya Khanpo going to great lengths in his exposition of the Bodhicharyavatara for instance, within the framework of his own tradition. That he would further embellish it with comparisions with the perspective of o9ther schools, woulod be a credit to his erudition. Rarely, if ever, would one hear him saying 'This is what we maintain, these are the viewpoints of others, but personally I think it should be…… .'

Is it not evident then, that a translation or a re-creation of a Tibetan work into any other language, cannot skillfully be undertaken by one who is merely a Western scholar of Tibetan Buddhism. A north Indian saying runs, 'To appreciate fully the qualities of the water flowing down through the Ganga, you must necessarily immerse yourself in it completely. It is not sufficient to sit on its banks and eulogize on its qualities.' Sterile scholarship then, is the danger we must be always aware of.

It would be useless if we were to sit back like the late lamented Arthur Koestler, who after his superficial forays into India and Japan thanked his stars that he was none other than a westerner! Such attitudes of complacency and self-righteousness unfortunately, cause more harm in the Dharmik context, than any good.

The parameter of the blessings of a lineage is an unusual concept to us who are products of scientific rationalism. It is however, a crucial factor in the transmission of the dharma. This process entails, yet again, the surrender of the individualized identity into the Dhgarmakaya awareness of one's Guru. Hence any translation undertaken blatantly or subtly ignoring the above, becomes in suspect. One gets the impression from reading some modern translations, that it is such a direct connection with lineage which is mostly missing in them.

A problem in western countries is the lack of qualified 'spiritual friends', Khanpos and Lamas. Thus, while some are very good works, one also encounters a variety of strange and exotic renderings into English. This is sad and is an indication that the Dharma there is still in a nescient state. Simply because our Dharma-brothers and sisters they are not equipped to do otherwise, they are compelled, generally speaking to accept unquestionably the verity of the literature and liturgy being provided to them. The onus on a translator is, therefore, self-evident.

It might have been ideal if Buddhists were interested in making cults of individual groups. Not only is this not so, but simultaneously, the processes of modernization are rapidly breaking down traditional barriers of isolation. Granted that the idioms will vary from person to person, what is extremely important is that the logic does not get confused. Translations will be criticized and corrected. This process, however, should not be taken amiss, rather it should be construed as being evidence of the living aspect of the Bauddha Dharma. Those who make their rendering available to the Buddhist world at large, should be ready to accept constructive criticism of their work from Lamas, other translators, as well as those practicing the Dharma. I have myself gone through some of the translations accepted as standard works, together with their commentaries, appendices and glossaries, questioning as to whether that was indeed the original intention.

'The Seven Point Mind-training' is a text I have personally spent time studying: Lc-jong Dhon-dun-ma in Tibetan. According to the teachings I have received on it, the word 'blo'. Would be understoodas 'consciousness'. 'sbyong.' refers to the process of inculcation and refinement, whilst 'don.bdun.ma'. elucidates further that the teachings are contained in their totality within the framework of seven components. This is why the title could perhaps be better rendered more accurately as 'The Seven Components of the Training and Purification of Consciousness'. Students of the text will know that the thrust of 'lo-jong' is the transformation of one's worldly orientation to phenomena, into a perspective infinitely more conducive to individual and social well-being and happiness.

It is evident from the above that English as a language does not lack in sophistication when compared with Tibetan. What is unfortunate is that a number of translators are not able to use a wide range of vocabulary in the transposition of sophisticated Buddhist idiom into English, almost as if they've developed an inferiority complex with respect to Tibetan. Neither the Indians nor the Tibetans hesitated in the use of precise words to convey the import of the teachings. It is unfortunate that there is a tendency most current to over simplify English as a language, of course much to the detriment of its users. Considered from this point of view, the translations published under the aegis of the Pali Text Society, London are outstanding examples of erudition, even though their style may be criticized by many as being archaic. On the other hand, attempts to over-simplify are apt to appear as counter-productive.

Wishing to revert back to my study of the Lo-jond text with reference to its commentary by Ngul-chhu Thog-med. I got involved in this work at the behest of H.H. the XVIth. Gyalwang Karmapa who, in the summer of 1981, had told me to act as the translator for these teachings scheduled to be given in Bodh-Gaya later that winter for an Antioch International program. Not only was I extremely raw as a translator then, but tomake matters worse, I was distinctly unable to correlate existing translations with the teachings being given on it. A few months later therefore, I sat down with an English speaking Rinpoche and within five to six weeks, we had drafted a fairly intelligible re-creation of the work with the help of a Canadian writer and his quite erudite wife.

There was, however, a flaw inherent in our approach, which was our attempt to understand the work word by word without referring to a qualified Khanpo. Later, while discussing it casually with the Sakya Khanpo Rinpoche in Darjeeling, I became aware of the shortcomings of our effort, which is what led me to a re-analysis of it in the context of his explanations.

II

Three important points need to be mentioned here. The first concerns the Tibetan distortion of Sanskrit. An anecdote will illustrate this best. It seems that once Atisha fell sick in Tibet and a 'ngag-pa', a tantrika-practitioner, had to be summoned to take care of him. The latter started his chants and when he came to the mantras, continued to utter them in his unique Tibetan way. Jho-wo-je was so bamused by his pronounciation that he burst out into a guffaw; being cured immediately of his ailment. He is then stated to have said, 'you Tibetans, your pronounciation of Sanskrit is awful; however, even so, you preserve theblessings of thelineage.'

It is rare to come across a mantra spelt correctly in Tibetan texts. To make matters worse, these mantras themselves are not in pure Sanskrit but Hybrid Sanskrit andcontain a mixture of Prakrita, Apabhramsha, & Pishacha, interspersedoccasionally with words from other obscure languages. Efforts therefore, nedto be made to return to the k'a-gyur and Tan-gyur to find their original renderings, rather than to continue to perpetrate them in their incorrect variations.

Until more recently, it really did not matter to anyone else what the Tibetans did amongst themselves, to themselves, or to each other. This is o longer the case now and the time has come for Tibetan Buddhists to extend themselves intelligibly in an international context, and meaningfully as well. To give an example, it is not generally known that the compound consonant 'jna' in Sanskrit is pronounced 'gya' by those whose mother-tongues derive from Sanskrit. Thus 'prajna' ispronounced in this sub-continent as 'pragya', 'jnana' as 'gyana' and so on. Therefore they should be rendered as such to facilitate communiation and understanding. Another casualty is the Sanskrit letter 'cha' which is romanised as 'ca'. people unfamiliar with this find it extremely difficult to know whether he word 'Bodhicharyavatara' is pronounced 'Bodhicharyavatara', 'Bodhikaryavatar', Bodhisaryavatara' or what! Similarly the letter 'chha' rendered as 'cha' causes general confusion.

The second relates to the phonetic renderings of Tibetan woods into Roman characters. These characters can be adapted with fair accuracy to the transliteration of Tibetan words themselves, together with their intricate spellings; their phoneticization however, is a completely different matter since English, for example, does not incorporate some of the sounds used in other languages. Some of the renderings present barely justify themselves because even a Tibetan would not pronounce them as such, granted the variations in his dialects. Chos.grags.rgya-mtsho., for example, the name of the seventh Gyalwang Karmapa, would be pronounced by a Tibetan either as Chho-dhrag Gya-tsho or Jam-tsho. 'bar.do.' similarly, would be pronounced as 'bhar-dho'. (Incidentally, H.H. the XVIth. Gyalwang Karmapa would always correct anybody who referred to him as the Karmapa or H.H. the Karmapa, saying that correct form of address was H.H. the Gyalwang Karmapa, and not otherwise.).

The last point concerns the selection of English words as equivalent of Tibetan ones. For words in general usage, this is not particularly difficult. Tibetan is an extremely concise language and more often than not, phrases are needed to express the more terse words in other languages. English no less than Tibetan, and of course Sanskrit, provides its users with a wide range of words for self-expression. Whereas some of the dharmik terminology virtually defies direct translations, the idiomatic principles of English cannot be over-looked when attempting to transpose concepts. Necessarily, great caution and skill is required in evolving equivalent dharmik terminology.

To illustrate this the Tibetan word 'rtsa.ba.' is generally rendered in English as 'root'. Thus we have the 'Three Roots', 'Foot Lama' ad 'root text' amongst others. The usage of the word 'root' as an adjective is extremely obscure according to the Oxford English Dictionary. Hence, whereas the term 'three Roots' is accurate for 'rtsa.wa.gsum.'; rtsa.ba'i.bla.ma.' however, is best rendered as 'Fundamental Guru' simply because 'fundamental' is the adjective corresponding to 'root' according to the same dictionary. An English-speaking person moreover, might find the term 'Fundamental Guru' more comprehensible than 'Root Guru' and that too without any loss of import. The term 'rtsa.ba.' when applied to a text is perhaps better rendered 'basic', giving 'basic text' as an alternative to 'root test', as commonly used.

To conclude, it is essential that translators approach their vocation realisatically. For a path which upholds a mother and child relationship between all beings, the Buddhist world is inordinately fragmented into ethnic and sectarian splinter-groups. It is the process of modernization which is making each person aware of the very human-ness of others, even though, thousands of miles may separate them – a fundamental fact of life which traditional societies, in spite of all their flaunted superiority, have never cared to teach their members. This then is the message of mutual concern which is the onus of a translator to convey across ethnocultural barriers; he must succeed where others have failed. None is superior to the other: no, not the Tibetan to the Indian and vice versa; no Westerner to an Easterner and vice versa and so on in an infinitude of possible permutations. And this needs to be brought home to all, presenting the message of the Buddhas accurately, intelligibly, unhypocritically and without pretensions, to a humanity already over-burdened with strife as individuals seek to impose their own parochial, selfish, and therefore misguided interests of others!

'May all beings possess happiness and the causes of happiness; May they be free from suffering and the causes of suffering; May they not be separated from that happiness which is not contaminated with suffering:

giving up attachment to their kindred and aversion to others.

May they dwell in boundless equanimity!'

Notes :

1. the adjective from 'Buddha' is 'Bauddha', hence it is incorrect to use 'Buddha Dharma'. Similarly the adjective for 'dharma' is 'dharmik' spelt with a 'k'.