2:30 pm – Tsadra Conferences

Selfhood, Secrecy, Singularity: Reassessing the Early Life of the Tathāgatagarbha in India

Gwen Witt Dorring — Fri, 13 Sep 2019 06:24:17 +0000

The early history of buddha-nature teaching in India is in the process of some reassessment. Michael Radich’s contention that there is good reason to take the Mahāparinirvāṇamahāsūtra as our earliest source for an account of the tathāgatagarbha invites a fresh look at the wider corpus of Indian literature concerned with this expression, and with it the affirmation that what is essential to a Buddha (buddhadhātu) abides in all sentient beings. My research has focused on a revised trajectory of how buddha-nature was conceptualized in the first five hundred years of the Common Era, informed by the hypothetical primacy of Indian sources that explain tathāgatagarbha to refer to the permanent, indestructible buddhadhātu, and which teach that this constitutes nothing less than the Buddha’s account of the self (ātman).

I contend that the most likely trajectory of buddha-nature thought in India entailed a creative reimagining of the expression tathāgatagarbha away from contentious ‘ātmavādin‘ origins. With reference to the Indian tathāgatagarbha corpus delineated by Takasaki Jikidō, this paper will explore a revised picture of the development of early tathāgatagarbha thought by attending to several related themes: the relationship between buddha-nature and discourse about the self, the claim that it constitutes a ‘secret’ revealed by the Buddha – a complement to the teaching that there is only a single vehicle (ekayāna) to liberation – and the extent to which buddha-nature should be articulated in terms of the original purity of the mind.

Examples of the Term tathāgatagarbha Appearing in Indic Tantric Literature

Gwen Witt Dorring — Fri, 13 Sep 2019 06:23:35 +0000

This presentation focuses on the term tathāgatagarbha appearing in tantric scriptures and commentaries composed by Indic authors. In general, it has been pointed out that the tathāgatagarbha teaching has a strong doctrinal impact on tantric teachings, but actual examples of tathāgatagarbha appearing in tantric literature are rather rare in comparison with other terms of non-tantric Mahāyāna origin, such as the five jñānas of the Buddha, buddha’s bodies, etc. Through this investigation I shall clarify purposes of integration of this term into tantric contexts in each example. I have in my previous article in 2012 dealt with the literature of the Yoginītantra and the Highest yogatantra classes, and will here include those of Yogatantra-class.

Rong-zom-pa on the Tathāgatagarbha and Pratītyasamutpāda Theories

Gwen Witt Dorring — Fri, 13 Sep 2019 06:16:42 +0000

The critique of the tathāgatagarbha doctrine by the two Japanese scholars Shirō Matsumoto and Noriaki Hakamaya has compelled scholars engaged in the study of Buddhism to reflect on the Buddhist status of the doctrine. While the agenda and the underlying motives of these two scholars may be different, their dismissal of the tathāgatagarbha doctrine as non-Buddhist may have been inspired by some position found in Tibetan Buddhism. To my knowledge, however, Tibetan Buddhist scholars have never gone to the extent of apodictically rejecting the theory as non-Buddhist while some Tibetan Buddhist (e.g. Dol-po-pa’s or Jo-nang-pa’s) interpretation thereof has certainly been. One of the most significant criticisms of the tathāgatagarbha doctrine is that it contradicts or disregards the doctrine of dependent arising (pratītyasamutpāda), which has often been eulogized as the quintessence of the teachings of the Buddha. In this paper, I wish to (re)examine how the eleventh-century rNying-ma scholar Rong-zom Chos-kyi-bzang-po interprets the tathāgatagarbha theory particularly in relation to the pratītyasamutpāda theory and whether or not he viewed the tathāgatagarbha and pratītyasamutpāda theories to be mutually contradictory.

Translation Theories Made Practical

Marcus Perman — Thu, 26 Apr 2018 13:43:11 +0000

See the text discussed and presentation slides here.

Holly Gayley and Roger Jackson begin the discussion session with some provocations and a quote:

“Had translation depended for its survival on theory, it would have died out long before Cicero. Yet its practice has always assumed principle, the professional conscience of 2,000 years being summed up in Roman Jakobson’s ‘translator of what messages? betrayer of what values?’” – L.G. Kelly, The True Interpreter.

What makes for a good translation?
What are the translations you like to read and why?
What are the kinds of translations you like to create and why?

“Up to a point, each translation is a creation and thus constitutes a unique text…I do not mean to imply that literal translation is impossible; what I am saying is that it is not translation. It is a mechanism, a string of words that helps us read the text in its original language. It is a glossary rather than a translation, which is always a literary activity. Without exception, even when the translator’s sole intention is to convey meaning, as in the case of scientific texts, translation implies a transformation of the original. That transformation is not – nor can it be – anything but literary…” – Octavio Paz, “Translation: Literature and Letters.”

Working Together: Approaches to Collaboration and Negotiation

Marcus Perman — Wed, 25 Apr 2018 13:42:27 +0000

This discussion session was designed for maximum audience participation and covered topics provided by the audience, as well as touched on issues of collaboration with native speakers of either source or target language, competition between individuals and within groups, negotiation (with collaborators, but also with and between author and audience, translator and reader), and other questions of restriction, qualification, and inclusion. Some of the topics brought up by the audience included: differing intentions within groups, networking and connecting with a team, how to work together with one’s own guru, agreeing on hierarchies of correspondence, large-scale collaborations, and online forums.

Who Gets to Be a Translator? Qualifications and Questions of Authority

Marcus Perman — Tue, 24 Apr 2018 13:39:15 +0000

An open discussion about qualifications and questions of authority related to translating and being a translator. Who decides what to translate? How and why? How do translator’s learn from each other? What qualities seem most important to cultivate as a translator? What are the qualifications of a translator? What trainings were the most important in your development as a translator? Or what was lacking? How does one measure the qualifications of a translator and how does one improve? How do you take ownership and responsibility for your work?

The Translator’s Intention: Motivation, Intended Impact, and Why They Matter

Marcus Perman — Mon, 23 Apr 2018 13:40:34 +0000

This open discussion session focused on the themes of intention and motivation. Thomas Doctor and Eric Colombel facilitated the exploration of many topics the audience brought, including questions such as: What are the assumptions and expectations about reading audience? As a translator, do you feel the need to be clear and transparent about our background, perspectives, influences, and agenda? If so, how do you address that? What are we trying to reach in the readers? Cognitive understanding? Inspiration? Aesthetic enrichment? Somatic responses? Visionary opening? How do you assess the success of a translation?

Translation: Fidelity vs Innovation

Marcus Perman — Sun, 22 Apr 2018 13:40:41 +0000

As translators we create new texts while striving to transmit the authenticity of the original. What constitutes an authentic translation? Throughout the history of Buddhism in Tibet and across Asia, adaptation, assimilation, and innovation have been essential to the persistence and continued relevance of texts and the contents they transmit. As translators, do we bear responsibility for fidelity to our texts? To our readers? To “the tradition”? To what degree may we innovate in the work that we do? In sum, what are the ethics of representation in our translation work, and how do we balance our fidelity to the past with our allegiance to the present?

Kavya in Tibet

Marcus Perman — Wed, 18 Apr 2018 06:00:05 +0000

Kavya in Tibet is a session following from a workshop on Tseten Zhabdrung’s commentary on poetics (Snyan ngag spyi don) that was hosted at the Latse Library with Gendun Rabsel, Nicole Willock, Andy Quintman, and Kurtis Schaeffer. The Tibetan system of poetics and ornate poetry is highly influential in the history of Tibetan writing and is based on the most important Indian manual of poetics, Daṇḍin’s Mirror of Poetics (Kāvyādarśa). This session introduced some of the fundamental theory and practice of this snyan ngag type of literature. The intellectual gravity of snyan ngag did not make itself felt until 1267 and 1270 when the Kāvyādarśa was translated fully into Tibetan. From that point onward we see hundreds of major and minor works on snyan ngag and its influence on writers throughout the Tibetan world can hardly be overstated. The organizers of this session give four main reasons for presenting a more extended public presentation of kavya and why that would be useful and enjoyable for people who engage in different kinds of work with Tibetan texts: 1) snyan ngag is one of Tibet’s major art forms and most other types of writing are heavily influenced and often include snyan ngag; 2) This classical form of literary art is still alive today, and snyan ngag is at the center of contemporary discussions and debates about the relationship between innovation and tradition in modern Tibetan literature; 3) it is notoriously difficult to learn, but useful for a deeper understanding and appreciation of Tibetan literature; 4) historically it is now possible to approach this challenging technical literature because of the work being done be a few scholars and translators these days.

Translating the Languages of Contemplative Experience: rdzogs chen dang phyag rgya chen po

Marcus Perman — Tue, 17 Apr 2018 06:00:33 +0000

In this panel, we draw on our respective explorations of translating Dzogchen (rdzogs chen) and Mahamudra (phyag rgya chen po) texts. Our hope is that you will come away from this session with an enriched tool-kit for your own work. The central thesis we will explore is that because these texts rise from and speak to experience in multiple ways, effective translation must be sensitive to experience on multiple registers. In particular, we look at the challenges of translation from three different experiential perspectives:

Using the rhythms of speech to find grammar and wordings through which an English translation evokes experiences similar to those evoked by the original Tibetan.
Paying attention to the experiences elicited by a translation and what to do with that information.
Exploring the diverse contexts of contemplative practices against the background of their lived worlds to better translate the forms of life of contemplative practices and experiences.