Theos-Talk Archives (May 1996 Message tl00430)

At 06:06 AM 5/7/96 -0400, you wrote:

>
>I will have to add a few comments to my own previous posting. What we are
>discussing is a possible text given that heading in the tibetan canon. It
>will have nothing to do with the tantrika systems of yoga  - or the
>translation is done with "a metaphysical key"  - see Col.W. XII p. 606.
>This is very  possible both in tibetan and sanskrit. Fx the writings of
>Nagarjuna can -
>
>a) when translated in a general way appear to be a few logic investigations
>in the lack of self-being (svabhava) of manifestations.
>b) when translated as treating on metaphysical subjects as treatises of the
>origination of differentiated elements in the One Element (in the form of
>svabhavat).
>
>Translations of eastern works are actually more interpretations and much is
>in the eye of the beholder.
>
>In friendship,
>
>Kim
>
>
>Kim:

Well I have absolutely no problems in accepting that. If I am understandings
you correctly, you're saying that there is a really significant difference
between "Tantras" and "Tantrika" and that it is "Tantrika" to which HPB, and
the others to whom I referred, objected. I certainly agree with you that
translations of Eastern works are primarily interpretations. One need only
follow the nature of the relations that existed between HPB and Max Mueller.
One is then left with the questions: "Which Metaphysical Key" and more
important still, and this is not my own question but one which clearly many
academics ask, and that is: "Is ANY "Metaphysical Key" valid?". As to me I
am perfectly happy with HPB's sources when it refers to her teachers, but I
really don't know what to believe when talking about things like "The
Stanzas". But then I suppose that's what this kind of study is all about.

In friendship:

alexis d.