<< 1 >>
Rating: 
Summary: Point Well-Taken, But in All Fairness
Review: A previous reviewer has pointed out that the introductory text and translation of Mipham's Beacon of Certainty are inaccessible for their use of non-standard terminology, Latin terms and so forth. The author ought to acknowledge these observations gratefully, but as someone who has written a book that is in nearly every respect identical to the one under discussion, I have some idea of what goes into the translation and writing of such a book, and also why in this case the use of Greek- and Latin-based terms and non-standard conventions of translation is desirable, if not absolutely necessary. Two or three comments are in order here. First of all a "conventional and/or literal translation" of a philosophical term is not automatically the best translation. The early Tibetan translators were well aware of this and created an artificial vocabulary to translate Buddhist terms from Sanskrit into Tibetan -- so artificial that hardly anyone, even the most stalwart Tibetan Geshes and Khenpos, ever reads those old translations. Instead they read Tibetan-authored commentaries on the translated scriptures, which commentaries are highly technical, but nonetheless more readable than the translations. So perhaps Mipham's Beacon of Certainty is overly technical in its approach, but then Mipham's original composition is nothing if not a technical treatise. If the author of Mipham's Beacon of Certainty had been perfectly literal in his translation of the term "zung-'jug", for example, he might have used "pair-joined" instead of "coalescent". But what makes more sense in plain English: "pair-joined", or "coalescent"? What translation of " 'dra-bcom" more readable: the ungainly, literal "Foe Destroyer" or the elegant Sanskrit term, "Arhat"? And which is more evocative of the Tibetan "ye-shes": the venerable Greek "gnosis", the numbingly commonplace "wisdom", or the rather literal "timeless awareness"? A solid case could be built for using any of these terms. In the Beacon of Certainty it appears that "gnosis" was chosen because in the philosophical and mystical literature of the West "gnosis" has been used in ways very much analogous to how "ye-shes" is used in Nyingma philosophical commentaries. Perhaps not coincidentally, "ye-shes" translates the Sanskrit "jñana", which is closely cognate to the Greek "gnosis". While "gnosis" and "gnoseology" (the "logic of gnosis") might appear stilted or artificial to the uninquisitive reader, it turns out that the use of these and other Greek- and Latin-based technical terms in the Beacon of Certainty is hardly unwarranted. If Pettit is to be faulted for using Latin and Greek terms, he might as well be faulted for using Sanskrit terms like "samsara" and "nirvana". Those haven't been included in Webster's American Dictionary for as long as the words "coalescent" and "gnosis". If by using such technical, non-literal or unconventional terms the author has rendered Mipham's Beacon of Certainty less than accessible to some readers, he ought to apologize on that account. However we should not forget that the original Tibetan text of the Beacon of Certainty was not written in a "literal" or "conventional" style. It is a highly technical work that, by Tibetan standards, is highly original in its presentation. Why then shouldn't a translation of a highly technical and original Tibetan treatise also be technical and innovative by English-language standards? A technical philosophical commentary should be translated and commented upon by the standards of technical philosophical commentary. It should not strive to conform to the philosophical and literary standards of Cliff Notes or Reader's Digest. Most readers of Buddhist philosophical commentaries in English translation cannot expect to go cover-to-cover without also having to consult an excellent English-language dictionary, or without studying the footnotes. Tibetan monk-scholars face a similar challenge when they first study a treatise like the Beacon of Certainty. They cannot make sense of it without the learned commentary of their professor-Khenpos, who serve as interactive encyclopedias. I would suggest that the inaccessibility of learned studies and translations of Tibetan philosophical commentaries is not necessarily a fault on the translators' part. It might also be the fault of the reader for expecting an intrinsically difficult and profound subject to come in a predigested format. If inaccessibility really is a fault in Pettit's case, then the great Tibetan translators and philosophical commentators are also of fault, because their writings are so technical as to be almost completely inaccessible to the literate Tibetan layman. If Pettit's translation and writing are somewhat inaccessible to the average reader, so are those of Vairotsana, Tsongkhapa, Lonchenpa and Mipham. I think the same rule applies to reading these authors as to weight training: "No Pain, No Gain". Which sales pitch will you believe: the one that says you can look like Arnold in just fifteen minutes a day, or the one that says you have to bust your behind? A translation that needs to be studied carefully, and read repeatedly, in order to yield the depth of the original text, may do greater justice to the original than a translation that seems "obvious" the first time through. This would seem especially true in the case of the Beacon of Certainty and its commentary, which are difficult and subtle texts that are memorized, studied and debated for a year or more in Tibetan monastic colleges. That does not mean that the quintessential points of the Beacon of Certainty cannot be made more accessible for the layman. The Beacon can and should be rendered more accessible, but that I believe is the job of the kind and learned teacher who discourses on the text (which is the traditional way of studying). The translator's job, on the other hand, is to be as faithful and precise as possible regarding the original author's intention.
Rating:
Summary: Priceless text supported with solid apparatus
Review: Go for it. If you're thinking of taking the plunge here, go for it.
I won't bother explaining the virtues of Mipham's text, or of the supporting Tibetan materials Pettit supplements it with here. They speak for themselves. (Incidentally, the 19th Century Mipham Rinpoche who wrote the Beacon and plenty of other invaluable texts, including advice on Kalachakra, is reputedly reincarnated as the cheerful marathon-running Saykyong Mipham Rinpoche who teaches in North America. I'd like the chance to meet him.)
Pettit's translation seems to be an issue for some reviewers at amazon. It may be an issue for some. As a serious reader but no academic specialist, I did not find it distracting and I had no trouble following what Pettit was up to with his choices in terms. Also, I found his substantial introductory materials and glosses to be really useful in understanding the philosophical context in which Mipham wrote and taught. The read-it-cover-to-cover strategy reaps its rewards.
A short but very enthusiastic recommendation. Enjoy! Om Vajra Samantabhadra Om!
Rating:
Summary: correction!
Review: previous review should say "200 years" NOT "20 years" thank you, and apologies!
Rating: 
Summary: a quintessential text with somewhat inaccessible translation
Review: previous review should say "200 years" NOT "20 years" thank you, and apologies!
Rating:
Summary: A beacon for nyingmapas
Review: This study and translation of one of the more advanced texts on madhyamaka in the nyingma school is a welcome relief amid the overabundance of geluk-oriented material on the subject. Written by arguably the most influential philosopher and master practitioner of the last 20 years of nyingma history, the translated text alone makes this a valuable book. Add to that the highly readable analysis and background information, as well as the translation of another, shorter text by Mipham Rinpoche written from a contrasting point of view and you have a very well-rounded read certain to leave you with some enlightening and decidedly nyingma perspectives. Long overdue!
Rating:
Summary: a quintessential text with somewhat inaccessible translation
Review: While the mere availability of this text in english is certainly extraordinary and invaluable, the translation and writing will obstruct some of its benefit for most readers. The author's reliance on latin terminology, as well as an unwillingness to use conventional and/or literal tranlations of sanskrit and tibetan terms, makes this a difficult read. I would never describe this book as "readable"- just the opposite. As noted in other reviews, there is a wealth of information in the chapters leading up to the translation, but they suffer from the same faults. While I am grateful to Dr. Pettit for publishing this work, I look forward to the release of a new translation.
<< 1 >>
| 
