|
TRANSLATIONS: A CRITIQUE
Namo Guru Manjughoshaya:
Translation is the process of rendering a piece of literature from its language of origin into the idiom of a distinctly different culture. The process involves on the one hand, a thorough understanding of the source text by the translator, its assimilation into that person's psyche, and a subsequent regurgitation, an accurate re-creation in a comprehensible and coherent form in the target language. The attempt in this paper is to analyze some of the key factors involved in this process. It derives from this writer's empirical observations and analyses conducted over nearly two decades of immersion in the Himalayan Buddhist, primarily within the Nyingma-Kagyu traditions, but from an expansive and non-sectarian or Ri-me perspective. At the onset, to obviate any confusion in this matter, it needs to be emphasised that this author does not lay claim to the appellation of a 'translator' as enunciated in this paper.
It is in actuality difficult to isolate the factors elucidated below because of considerable overlap. However for the sake of clarity they will be dealt with individually. These number seven, viz. language, culture, scholastics, meditative-realization, personality, grace, and methodology. The paper will conclude with a critique of a few pertinent terms and suggestions for their re-translation. Threefurther sub-sections, Sanskrit, Translitration, and Phonetics will also be included here since they are pertinent.
Language: Language, the first, is a fairly obvious consideration. A translator needs to be proficient in two languages, the source and target. Certain of the more subtle aspects are apparently overlooked unfortunately, in the exemplary zeal evinced by westerners particularly in this issue.
Until half a century ago, study curricula placed an inordinate emphasis on language. A graduate of a public school in the U.K., corresponding to an elitist private school elsewhere, would thus emerge with a strong foundation not only in English, having been rigorously taught its grammar and composition. one would also have studied Greek or Latin together with an european language. More recently educationists consider such emphasis on language misplaced. The result is that a frighteningly large number of aspiring translators lack an extensive foundation in their own parent language. Naturally then, their forays into Tibetan lack proper preparation. This is most obvious in terms of their vocabulary limited to perhaps no more than 8,000 words in English, a serious handicap. Unfortunately however, publishers avidly pick up their efforts, circulating wittingly or otherwise, a plethora of distorted works on Buddhism.
Tibetan and English, together with virtually any other language, have three distinct variants: literary, official, and vernacular. It need not be mentioned that a philosophical exegesis needs to be rendered as such, whilst an official document must preserve its character in the target language. The vernacular on the other hand, is fair game for the translator as one may express it in any suitable form desired. The unique fascination for Oxbridge English evinced by the late Vidyadhara Trungpa (strictly Dhrungpa) Rinpochhe of Zurmang is noteworthy. He would constantly emphasise the need for the English-speaking peoples to go back to their linguistic origins. His rather amusing attempts to educate his American disciples into speaking English correctly, and the elocution booklets he prepared deserve mention here.
This is the only remedy to this problem. Those who aspire to be translators need to study their own parent language first to a degree of acceptable literary proficiency. Simultaneously, they need to have a deep appreciation for their heritage. Only then can they be expected to delve into the intricacies of Tibetan, a language vastly different from their own. It is to the general disadvantage that this is often overlooked.
A bilingual person moreover, is able to think directly in either or both the languages. This is one way of self-assessment. Another deeper method constitues dream analysis: should one find oneself dreaming in any language, this is to be construed as an indication of the extent to which it has been assimilated into one's psyche. A qualified translator must necessarily possess these two qualities.
Culture: Tibetans have an interesting saying, "We've drunk 'thugpa' together many times during puja-assemblies." This leads on to the second parameter of culture and acculturisation. The question which arises here is, "As a non-Tibetan how well do you know the Tibetan peoples?"
For the average alien there are two paths open. The most convenient is to have a Tibetan spouse or a companion. Those accepting the path of renunciation need to immerse themselves without any reservations whatsoever into the sub-culture of their monastery, eating, drinking, sleeping. and so on with their Tibetan counterparts, lice and fleas included. Only then will the aspirant learn to understand their gestures, smiles, moods, and the forces, religious, cultural, and political which propel them onwards. The aspirant needs to simultaneously be equally mobile in this culture. Where such mobility of consciousness is lacking, translations attempted will be wanting in the vitality and exuberance of the original.
For the Tibetan his culture forms the acme of human civilisation, and must be acknowledged as such by all. This is in direct contrast to people from the west in general who are obsessed with highlighting the lacunae in their heritage rather than appreciating its inherent richness. One will find therefore, that a Tibetan Lama will instruct his disciples firmly grounded in his tradition. Westerners on the other hand are overly involved in the processes of acceptance and rejection. This is fraught with danger for the very same people who turned their backs on their own religion, will similarly, if disillusioned with the Tibetan container environment, not hesitate to spurn the Dharma together with its Tibetan trappings. This is a point Tibetans would do well to heed.
Scholastics: Both the western and eastern hemispheres are exceptionally rich in their traditions of scholasticism. Ancient Greece and Rome produced outstanding thinkers whose works form the very foundations of western consciousness. So has the east. The advent of Christianity brought about profound transformations in an erstwhile ‘pagan' culture, creating an all-pervasive idiom which is now its datum. There is no escaping this fact. Similarly the datum in India is distinctly Hindu, or more accurately, Sanatana.
What is fascinating is that in spite of the insularity of ancient cultures, one finds a large number of concepts and traits common to them. Learning for example. in ancient times had always been contained within the framework of religion. The striking difference has been that in India. religion and science had never been warring factions as witnessed in Europe. The two co-existed to the extent that religion, rather its basis spirituality, has been none other than a scientific investigation into the world of phenomena. However, India too has passed through its Dark Ages when invasion upon invasion enervated what had once been an extremely vital culture. It is most certainly to the credit of the Himalayan peoples that they have preserved intact within their heritage the wisdom of ancient India in both its scholarship and praxis.
The west unfortunately has been sadly deprived of the latter. Fortunately there have been exceptions in the persons of those such as St. Augustine, St. Francis of Assisi, St. Teresa of Avila, St. John of the Cross, and more recently Thomas Merton and Mother Teresa. They are bold statements of the fact that in spite of oppressive institutions, the grace of the Holy Trinity is still functional, finding expression in the human realm through the lives of these saints. They are witnesses to that wisdom which cannot be claimed to be solely possessed by any given nation, culture or creed.
Returning to language one finds that English for example, has evolved through Chaucer, Shakespeare, the poets of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, through Charles Dickens, until more recently Bertrand Russell, Aldous Huxley, and others. Europe too has similarly seen the advent of great literateurs : Rousseau, Dumas, Voltaire, Goethe, Leo Tolstoy and Jean Paul Sartre are virtually household names there, as also Samuel Beckett. Thus there has been no dearth of thinkers there, their works outstanding testimonies to the genius of the west. There writings above all, reveal their acumen in the use of language. It is said of Goethe that his genius lay in his ability to express himself succinctly in German to an extent none had done before. Similarly the works of Russell and Huxley reveal a remarkable degree of sophistication, maturity and depth in their understanding and use of English.
It stands to reason therefore, that renditions into English for example, of Tibetan treatises, primary texts or scholia, cannot be effectively undertaken by people who have little or no grounding in western academia. In this context the translations of the Pali Text Society, London, and the efforts of scholars such as Prof. Edward Conze and Prof. Herbert V. Guenther amongst others, become exceptionally pertinent. Admittedly their style may be wanting from certain points of view, however, in spite of these supposed shortcomings, their genius needs to be appreciated. A high level of scholarship in the western tradition is thus a necessary though not a sufficient qualification for any who might covet the term translator in the Buddhist world.
Coming now to scholarship in the lndo-Tibetan tradition. A 'mKhas. Pa.' or Pandita is defined as an erudite person capable of discerning between right and wrong, truth and falsity, the relative and the absolute, virtue and sin. Implied is that one such will have a profound understanding of one's own language and a deep appreciation of one's heritage. One will have studied the Dharma including other branches of learning in the manner they were taught in the ancient Universities of Nalanda and Vikramashila. One is expected to have extensively engaged in the triads of audition, contemplation, and meditation; exposition, debate, and composition; and is therefore sagacious, diligent, and magnanimous. Out of compassion, in order to take mother-beings to the other shore, one imparts instructions to disciples urging them similarly on to train their errant egos. This defintion of a scholar is peculiar to the Buddhist tradition. The Lotsawas of the past were such!
Currently however, Buddhism in the west is but in a nascent state, hence it is rare to find Panditas thus qualified. Most non-Tibetans therefore, are seriously handicapped. Moreover, a distinct western Buddhist idiom is still in the process of being created. The situation is both creative and inspiring. An aspiring translator could be fairly successful in one's efforts if one attempts to translate from 'within' the tradition, rather than from outside of it. This would entail a study of a particular text in a traditional manner, translation being effected subsequently. It is encouraging to note that a number of Khaenpos and Geshes are actively engaged in instructing their disciples in this way.
It may be mentioned here however, that H. E. Goshri Gyaltshab Rinpoche of Tshurphu, after returning once from teaching the Bodhicharyavatara at Samye Ling, Scotland, had expressed his disappointment at the intellectual calibre of the disciples there. Such a lack of sophistication is a serious drawback found in most university graduates these days not to mention those who never ventured that far.
Meditative-realisation: Scholarship therefore, though a necessary condition, should however be considered as insufficient in itself. The Tibetans themselves maintain that without a direct realisation of the Dharma, one is no better than a parrot. It is stated in the Lojong Dhon-dun-ma scholium by Ngui-chhu Thog-me:
"All Dharmas converge to a single purpose.
All the teachings of the Hinayana and the Mahayana are directed to the subjugation of self-identification. Therefore, should these teachings not become antidotal to it, then any practice accomplished becomes meaningless. On the other hand, if one's dharma-practice has be become antidotal to self-identification, this then is an indication that one's consciousness is being trained and purified. Herein lies the distinction as to whether your practice is really in accordance with the Dharma or not."
(excerpted from The Seven Components of the Training and Purification of Consciousness translated by this author published 1992.)
In direct contrast with western scholasticism where the individual ego is given a free rein for self-expression, Buddhism seeks to give expression solely to the wisdom of egolessness. Therefore a translator who wishes to be successful in one's efforts. needs to be a pilgrim along the journey leading to the dissolution of the ego, not its enhancement. The Lotsawas of the past were not only sagacious and erudite, they were also accomplished saints. For an average person to reach an acceptable proficiency as a translator, some twenty years of intensive study and meditation, within a framework of the Ethical Directives of the Buddha, would constitute a bare minimum. It is encouraging that such facilities are being progressively made the more available to westerners by various far-sighted Masters.
Personality : This leads on to the next parameter -- that of the personality of a translator. Beyond the factors already dealt with above, there are three other requisites : surrender to one's Guru(s), proper motivation and living in accordance with the Vinaya. For a person to be meaningfully expressive in this context, one has no alternative but to be constantly surrendering to one's Guru(s), constantly unmasking, hence actively training in the Two Bodhichittas. The Ethical Directives moreover, define the physical and psychological boundaries of the translator.
It is no hidden secret that only then will scriptures start revealing their multiplicity of nuances to the seeker. This is the more true with the Mantrayana. Thus only can the perception of one's spiritual environment be enhanced; the more this happens, the more discerning one gets. Those motivated by the Eight Worldly Dharmas viz. gain and loss, fame and notoriety, criticism and praise, happiness and suffering do more disservice to the world than anything else, and will never be called 'translators'. Derisiveness and the lack of willingness to constantly re-evaluate are none other than ego-functions. hence harmful both to oneself and others. The outlandish and the common as well both need to be analysed dispassionately, and a 'translator' should be able to do so discerningly. The personalities of the Masters of the Buddhist traditions stand out as shining examples for aspirants to emulate.
Grace: The parameter of grace is common to both the east and the west. It is pivotal to the traditions of India and Christianity. The years this unknown Indian spent in the Dharma, are themselves a witness to this crucial element, for without it he would have been as faceless as his 950 m. compatriots. In modern parlance this may be defined as a psychic link transcending the boundaries of self-identification. It transforms an individual's personality enhancing the perception of a spiritual environment. Ultimately it is none other than the Dharmakaya itself.
There is yet another perspective to this parameter perhaps uncommon elsewhere. The Buddhist Dispensation has been kept alive through the process of the transmission of the Dharma. In terms of the written word this has been done so by Masters reading out texts upon texts to their disciples to maintain an unbroken sequence of vocal transmission. The Tibetan term for this is Lung. This is important to such an extent that those teachings for which the continuity of Lung has been interrupted, have ceased to be vital, even though they might still be extant otherwise. Whereas in the past this unbroken link was transferred to Tibet through the medium of Lotsawas, a consensus has yet to be evolved concerning the translations into modern languages. This is a crucial issue indeed and one which will hopefully be resolved in the not so distant future.
It stands to reason therefore, that translations attempted in the absence of precious grace, and subsequently taught or used without the existence of a vocal transmission for them, will turn out to be insipid and confused ego-functions. Lacking in the blessings of one's lineage, they will deviate from the purport of the original in that they will fail to accomplish the Two Ideals: those of personal accomplishments also accomplishing the welfare of others. Such works cannot but be retrogressive, a cause for the furtherance of entrapment in samsara!
One of the aspects of grace is traditionally know as 'sByin.Gyis.rLabs.Pa'i.bK'a.', the Dharma which manifests in the being of an aspirant as a function of the blessings of the lineage coming through the medium of one's Principal Guru. The Heart Sutra is an outstanding example of this.
Methodology : Assuming the above components are replete in an individual who may thus be referred to as a 'translator', the following methodology deserves serious considration. Actually it would be superfluous to advise one such, because the person would intuitively adopt this process.
As a matter of course, a Tibetan term needs to be understood together with its Sanskrit equivalents. This would also indicate its origin which could, without much difficulty, be traced to its Latin and/or Greek cognates. It need not be mentioned that Latin and Sanskrit are sister languages of the lndo-Aryan group which includes ancient Persian as well.
To consider an example, is the Tibetan 'Nyan.Thos.', 'shravaka' in Sanskrit: the root of the latter is 'shrinoti', its Latin cognate 'audibilis'. Thus it may be rendered as 'audient' a genuine word in English as per the OED. The word however, might need to be redefined slightly to suit the Buddhist context just as 'scholar' has been defined in this paper. The term 'listener' generally used for this term is insipid and evokes no imagery whatsoever in the mind of the reader, besides conveying little or no meaning to the English consciousness. This is absolutely the only way a Dharma vocabulary can be built up. The argument that 'audient' is archaic or obscure, holds absolutely no water, since both the Tibetan and its Sanskrit are equally obscure, meaning nothing to an ordinary Tibetan, or for that matter a Chinese Buddhist. It is a technical term, not a word in common usage. Similarly ‘audition' would be appropriate for 'Thos.Pa.'. It is evident then, that the onus of a translator is to be an educator in, not a popularizer of, the Dharma necessarily.
The Lotsawas of the Early Nyingma Translation School, had been in a similar situtation in the eighth century, that of evolving a language capable of containing the lion's milk of the Buddha's Dispensation. Tibetan had been given its script and grammar only two centuries previously though the Bon. Po. manitain differently. It fell to the lot of pioneers such as Variochana and his compatriots to create a new Buddhist vocabulary. This they did uncompromisingly. Their intent was not to popularize the Dharma per se in Tibet; it was to establish the Dispensation there without compromising the purport of the Buddha and the scholar-saints of India.
There is perhaps no better way to conclude this paper except to quote the renowned Lotsawa Lodaen Sherab of the New Translation School, some five centuries later:
"Vairochana's understanding is as expansive as the sky;
Kawa Paltseg's and Chogro Lu'i Gyaltshen's
As brilliant as the sun and the moon -
Mine, no more than the brightness of a firefly!"
We have indeed a long way to go!
TERMS
A considerable Dharma vocabulary has been built up in western languages during the last thirty years of its induction there. The reference is obviously to the Himalayan traditions. It'll be noticed that a large number of terms have gained currency primarily because of regular usage. This is merely to suggest that a stage of finality has yet to be reached in the codification of the Dharma in English for example, hence it is still viable to incorporate plausible alternatives which might be more expressive. Under the section on methodology the term 'shravaka' has already been dealt with. A few other pertinent terms will be studied briefly here. This would ideally be done however, as a group endeavour preferably together with those who know Greek, Latin, and Sanskrit. The standard works of reference used are the Oxford English Dictionary, Roget's Thesaurus, and of course the famous work by Sarat Chandra Das.
The first is the term 'Buddha shasana' roughly rendered 'the doctrine of the Buddha'. This is an extremely inadequate rendering in that 'Sangs.Gyas.Kyi.bStan.Pa.' is said to constitute two aspects, exposition and praxis. 'Dispensation' includes both these angles, as well as the notion of 'reign', also incorporated into 'shasana'. It is moreover, in current usage in the Indian media in this sense.
'Mula Guru' or ‘rTsa.Wa’i.bLa.Ma.’ is commonly rendered 'Root Lama'. The usage of 'root' as an adjective is extremely obscure. Besides, it is extremely unsuggestive to an English-speaking person, invoking no imagery whatsoever. Surely 'Principal Guru'is far more evocative and immediately comprehensible. The Latin is 'principalis' and means exactly the same thing. 'Primary text' may be considered for 'root text'; 'fundamental breach' instead of 'root downfall' for 'rTsa.lTung.’ is far more replete with imagery.
The word 'samaya' could also easily be rendered 'vajrayana covenant'which is what it is in actuality, or simply 'covenant' -- Dam.Tshig.. It is futile really to harp on the point thatthis is a Judaeo-Christian term, as two thousand years of european history cannot be obliterated. Buddhists heed to learn to function meaningfully within the context of their own heritage. Yes, they might choose to suitably redefine a given word to suit the Buddhist context, an ancient ploy used extensively by scholars and philosophers in India. The word 'dharma' for instance, may be understood in one of ten different ways depending upon the context. Why then should Judaeo-Christian words be rejected outright, thus handicapping the evolution of Buddhist English. Moreover, in India, various Sanatana traditions have used the same words, redefined, to express concepts peculiar to the one school but unmaintainable by others. Even Buddhism has done the same in India. Hence what the Mimamsha school might understand by the word 'prakriti' is, most certainty not what a Buddhist might understand by it.
Thus there is absolutely no reason to reject 'sin' as a translation for ‘papa’. The reader has merely to refer to dictionary of any of the fifteen major languages in India to find that 'papa' is indeed defined as 'sin' in English. The term may however be elucidated to rid it of its Christian overtones, and express the Buddhist view. The word may also be used interchangeably with 'negative action' where it is understood that 'action' may be corporeal, vocal, or mental, already an usage peculiar to Buddhism. it may be noted here that the thrust of Buddhism is thorough understanding a far cry beyond the processes of acceptance and rejection.
‘bLo.’ is commonly translated 'mind' and perhaps justifiably so. However, in the instance of ‘bLo.sByong.’ the term consciousness or ‘psyche' would be far more expressive. ‘sByong.’ rendered as ‘training' misses out on the other aspect of its meaning 'purification'. Hence 'the training and purification of the consciousness/psyche' instead of 'mind training' as commonly used.
‘Kun.Khyab.’ or 'sarva vyapak' may be rendered 'all-pervading and all-encompassing' for obvious reasons.
‘bZang.Po.’ or 'bhadra' is a more difficult term. but 'magnanmous' is an extremely appropriate translation for it as per the OED. Thus for ‘bZang.sPyod.’ ‘magnanimity' could be used without any reservations whatsoever.
‘sKu.’, ‘Kaya’ on the other hand almost defies translation. Here again is an example of how a relatively common Sanskrit word has been used in an extremely profound methaphysical way, peculiar only to Buddhism. Ordinarily it refers merely to the physical body, 'Lus.' and is extant in Indian languages as such. Used in the context of the Five Kayas the word undergoes a tremendous transformation, becoming pivotal to the Mahayana. It refers to 'identity' -- the absolute and transcendant, the Dharmakaya: and the two forms Rupakayas in which egoless compassion spontaneously expresses itself; the mental imagery of the Sambhogakaya, and its extension in the physical plane the Nirmankaya, a psychosomatic complex; Svabhavikakaya, the composite existence of these three.
Other viable suggestions are 'demesne' for ‘ Zhing. Khams.’ and ‘wight' for ‘'Gro. Wa.’ even though the latter may only be found in the OED. But this exactly what is being proposed in this paper. Similarly, there exists a distinction between 'essential' and 'essentificial' and this writer is more inclined to use the latter as being the more connotative adjective of ‘Ngo. Wo.’, 'svabhava' or 'essence'.
SANSKRIT
The peculiarities of the Tibetan language and culture has produced its own versions of this ancient language. In India itself, the Mahayana had been codified in what is termed Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit a looser variant of the classical. As in India currently, few Tibetans have any knowledge of this exalted language. The Tibetan tongue moreover, finds itself pathetically incapable of getting around Sanskrit syllables. Hence 'vajra' is distorted to 'benza' 'satva' to 'sato'. and 'prajwala'to 'tra-dzo-la' whilst compound letters are split up into their single components and given full letter value -- ‘adhyaya’ would be pronouned adhi-ya-ya or adha-ya-ya. Texts are extant in Tibetan on Sanskrit pronunciation, but few are knowledgeable in it. A person knowing Sanskrit would thus find it extremely difficult to follow Tibetan mantra chanting. This needs to be taken into consideration by Tibetans now, should they ever wish to establish meaningful relations with the Indian academia. The Central Institute of Higher Tibetan Studies, Saranath, near Varanasi, is doing a commendable piece of service to the Dispensation in this context. Besides teaching the language. works are being re-translated into Sanskrit from their Tibetan renderings under the skilled guidance of learned Indian scholars.
A well-known story often told in this context is that of Jo.Wo.rJe.dPal.lDan. 'Swami Shriman' Atisha. On one occasion having fallen sick in Tibet, a tantrika had to be summoned to heal him. The latter, chanting mantras in his own unique fashion, caused the Swamiji to burst out into a guffaw, being cured of his ailment immediately. This elicited the comment from him, "You Tibetans, your pronunciation of Sanskrit is horrendous; even so you preserve the blessings of the Dharma."
Europeans should therefore be urged to say Om mani padme hung instead of Om mani peme hung.
Another problem here was authored by Thu.Mi.Sam.Bho.Ta. himself. It is obscure as to why he should have chosen Tsa. Tsha. Dza. as equivalents for the Sanskrit consonants 'cha chha ja', since these sounds exist in Tibetan as well. Hence Tibetans say 'tsitta’ instead of chitta' and 'dzala' for 'jala'. It does not really make sense that europeans who trace their linguistic roots back to the the lndo-Aryan languages should not revert to the more aryan pronunciation rather than accepting blindly the mongolian distortions of Sanskrit. There is no reason whatsoever to suspect for a moment that the blessings of the lineage will be lost should this be done.
The last is a more complex problem and an extremely serious one. During the centuries of the use of mantras in Tibet, errors have crept into their transliterations in Tibetan. Reading Sanskrit in Tibetan script is trying since it is almost impossible to discern where a vowel should be short, or where it should be long, and where a word might begin or end. Mantras moreover, are found in a curious admixture of Sanskrit, Prakrit, Apabhramsha, Pishacha, and Tibetan. Resultantly it is extremely difficult to follow them, or correct them. One is left with really not option other than to go back to their sources in the bK'a.'Gyur. and bsTan.'Gyur. for their correct versions, an exceptionally tedious process no doubt. Simultaneously before reducing a mantra to print. in Roman script, or even in Tibetan for that matter, it should be refered to a scholar of Sanskrit . This writer has seen a sufficient number of goof-ups in this context in Tibetan and English works accepted as standard, to be overly concerned. It is a serious matter indeed when 'hrih'. replaces 'tri', and 'divya', the Sanskrit for 'heavenly' 'resplendant' is rendered 'adivya'. its exact opposite, and used as such.
TRANSLITERATION
Since an accurate system of transliteration of Tibetan in Roman is already in vogue, a couple of things may be pointed out here. The real victim of the current system is the letter 'cha' rendered 'ca' leaving the reader in a dilemma as to what it might be. Some pronounce this consonant as 'sa', some as 'ka', only the knowledgeable as 'cha'. These needs to be remedied, and the subsequent letter written 'chha'.
Other suggestions as Nga. for Na., Nya. for Na., Sha. for Sa., and Ri, for R. This author has yet to figure out as to why the Sanskrit 'wa' as in 'swami' should be written 'svami', when currently Sanskrit has no sound equivalent to 'va'. It may also be suggested here that the compound letter 'jna' be pronounced 'gya' as in a number of Indian tongues. This rendition could be made current since ‘gyana' reads far more smoothly than 'jnana', or as the Tibetans would write 'dznana'.
PHONETICS
The study of Tibetan phonetics is a hoary issue at the best of times and should form the topic of an independent study. The issue is extremely confused for two reasons. The first is that there is an old system of pronunciation ‘brDa. rNying. Ba.’ which is still extant in the far eastern parts of Kham. It is amazing to hear a native of Golog speak Tibetan as he is able to pronounce the various letters of a compound letter distinctly as well as differentiate between the various prefixes and so on. Modern Lhasa is distinctively a dilution of ancient Tibetan, a fact known to all. The other is that intonation and pronunciation vary to such an extent from region to region, as to make Tibetan from one utterly incomprehensible to that from another. This is evidence enough of the variations both ethnic and cultural, in what constitutes the Tibetan mozaic, and that their stress on pedigree perhaps holds little water on investigation.
Studies have been conducted and attempts made to reduce in Roman script some of these dialects, whose sounds are wholly foreign to the western ear. In fact the more subtle inflections are more often missed. Some strange and highly inaccurate renditions have come into vogue and it would be unskilful to name them as almost every Tibetan speaking non-Tibetan has this problem to varying degrees. This author would merely like to foreward a few suggestions for consideration.
The third vertical row of the Tibetan consonants contains Ga., Ja., Da., Ba., Dza., and 'a. Ga.. is pronounced as a cross between the Skt. ‘ga' and 'gha', a feat few non-Tibetans are capable of. However, should it have a prefix or be superscribed, the sound reverts immediately to that of a pure 'ga'. As such to distinguish between these sounds it might be appriate to render the plain Ga. phonetically as 'gha', and the compound Ga. as 'ga'. The same applies for the three letters following. Dza. doesn't really pose a problem except that europeans might have difficulty pronouncing it the English way. 'a. is the most difficult of all, and for the most part this author renders it as 'a'. An improvement is definitely possible.
Europeans also have problems with Zha. and Za. and they need to deal with them individually.
There is also a difference between ‘Grags.’ and ‘sGra.’, being pronounced as 'dhrag' and 'dra' respectively. Care is also needed to distinguish between the dental sounds of Ta. Tha. and Da. and those of the palatial 'Ta, Tha, and Da'. Amongst the vowels, E. and U. sometimes cause confusion. This may be avoided by ensuring that the former is rendered 'e' with an acute accent, the latter 'u’ with a circumflex accent.
The letter ‘Tsha.’ presents a problem in that the 'sha' is generally not pronounced as an aspirated 's' but 'sh'. Perhaps a way to work around it would be to render mtsho. as 'ts-ho', but never as 'tso' as it would be confused with the consonant immediately preceding it in the order.
Hence Bar.Do. would be more correctly rendered 'bhar dho', ‘Chhos.'Grags. rGya. mTsho.’, the VIIth. Gyalwang Karmapa as Chho. Dhrag. Jamts-ho, 'Brug. Pa. as Drug pa, and so on.
Of the ten rJe.’Jug., Ga. and Ba. seem to be a problem. There is no reason per se as to why dKon. mChhog. should be rendered 'kon chhok' instead of 'kon chhog' especially since Tibetans themselves do not pronounce the last letter as a 'k' but as 'g'. Ba. is the other victim often rendered as 'p' rather then the 'b' it actually is. Hence skyabs. is phoneticised as 'kyap or chap', which is ridiculous.
A consensus also needs to be arrived at concerning the way vowels modified by rJe.'Jug. Da., Na., La., and Sa. are represented. A simple method is to use the German umlaut e.g. Khanpo for mKhan. Po., Dhon for Don., Phud for Phud. with an umlaut over each vowel. The first of these however should not be confused with the vowel E. as there is a distinct difference between 'a' umlaut and 'e’ which must be preserved in the phonetics as well.
The Taala’i Lama having been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for 1989, the time is now opportune for correcting decades of misrepresentation of this title - Taala’i Lama is what it should be, and it could be used as of this very moment, and the world would accept it in no time.
Colophon: This paper is a humble offering to the all-pervading and all-encompassing Guru mandala. It has been prepared by Lama Shree N. Singh with the intention that it may serve as an aid in the establishment of the Buddha's Dispensation in the west. Acknowledging all shortcomings as his own, and accepting the truths enunciated herein as spiritual gifts from his Gurus, he prays to them, his lshtas, Dakinis, and the Dharmapalas, that they forgive him his errors and compassionately lead him onwards on the path of the Saddharma. May the virtue thus accrued become the cause for all mother-beings to attain understanding and liberation !
Bhavatu sarva mangalam! Jan 6, 1990.
|
