The Author's Comments on
Translations
by Robert L. Peck
Using a dictionary,
almost anyone can understand or translate a sentence containing
unfamiliar words, provided the sentence is descriptive of something that
he or she is familiar with. This is a basic method of expanding your
wisdom. With this
brief reminder, let me start this section with my experiences of
translating foreign writings.
Years ago, I found that I
needed to translate technical Russian documents because they related to my field of work in energy. Consequently, I took a very short course in technical Russian where I
learned such basic things as the transliteration of the Russian letters
into English letters and sentence structure. With the help of what I
learned in the course, and with a good Russian dictionary, I then found that I could slowly translate
technical Russian into understandable English. About this same time, I
was anticipating meeting some visiting Russian scientists and wanted to
at least learn how to say hello, so I then took a course in
conversational Russian. In the course, I did learn how to say hello as
well as such useful things as being able to ask where the toilet was and
what time the train arrives.
The instructor, who also
taught formal Russian at the University, explained that conversational
Russian was highly idiomatic and complex. To support her statement, she
brought in some grade school books used by Russian children
. Even with dictionaries, we could only understand but a small portion
of the books.
One of the students in the
class, who was also competent in translating Russian technical journals, brought in a few technical Russian articles
to the next meeting and presented them to the Russian teacher and asked
if she could read them. She could read them quite easily but because she
had no technical training, she admitted that she had no concept at all
of what the articles were describing. The resulting discussion was very
worthwhile as it demonstrated to everyone the problems of attempting to
translate or understand any article without a background or wisdom of what lay behind the words. As an example, an American speaking of
finding a ‘cool outfit at the mall’ would be absolutely incomprehensible
to someone who did not have an awareness of the American way of life.
I remember, as another
example, that at a much earlier time I was writing several technical
books and one summer hired a stenographer who was also a high school
literature teacher and much older than I was. After the first dictation,
she returned with a typed copy that had phrases that I simply could not
understand. Finally after I asked about them, she admitted to changing
the meaning of some of the technical terms to improve my writing, since
she felt that they were no longer valid words. She explained that the
word "potential" was better replaced with “possibility,” “pressure” with
“compulsion,” “energy” with "vigor,” etc. Fortunately, she had a great sense of humor and
could appreciate the funny result of her efforts and became one of the
best stenos I ever had, after she quit assuming that I was one of her
students.
Anyone translating a document must first have a wisdom and awareness of the milieu from which the document comes from, as well
as experience with the subject being written about. This effect of different
backgrounds is evidenced even in the differing opinion you can have
about reading the same newspaper article as someone else. In order to
make your own view clear you must then add words or modify the meanings
of words in the article and many times you must restate the entire
article so that it reflects what you think the writer was attempting to
say. This problem is multiplied many times in translating or
understanding writings from a different culture. It is this process that
generally makes translations by different people so different. As the scope of what is being
translated expands, so do the variations between individual
interpretations. For instance, there is less variation in the common
understanding of an article describing the proper setting for a dinner
table than is found in attempting to describe what was said at a dinner
table. The variations in interpretation of the activities of the world are, of course,
extreme.
There is an excellent
method of dealing with these problems. It consists of first determining
what is commonly called the set and setting of what is stated. For
instance, it is common to ask, “Where is all of this coming from?” or,
“Where does all of this lead?” in attempting to understand someone
else’s thesis.
In attempting to defend
their own translation or interpretation, individuals may not be able to
describe either the past or the future. To compensate they generally increase their arguments for the present such as by making the present interpretation sacred, approved, or
beyond question or understanding. We encounter this in childhood as we question some grown-up’s statement that seems to make no sense at
all.
There is another problem
that arises with writings dealing with metaphysical issues. This is a serious problem in the modern world, since the world increasingly denies and suppresses usage of metaphysical
terms which occupied a large portion of the efforts of many early
teachers and writers. As a quick introduction to the problem, consider
the difference between an ancient and modern individual describing the
flu. The modern individual can say quite easily with physical terms, “I am sick with the flu and am running a fever of 103.” Now
consider the problem of an ancient Hindu who would have to ascribe the
same condition to the Will of some god or to some failure in following proper religious ritual. The symptoms
might be explained as resulting from indwelling demons or gods with the
fever being perhaps the flames of the god Agni. Conversely,
imagine the problems that we would have in attempting to describe the
functioning of the perineal muscles in terms of
cauldrons of fire,
serpents, rushing vital waters, a heating breath, indwelling demons or gods, instead of with modern physiological
terms.
Without the modern wisdom offered by science, the ancients had to rely upon metaphors to explain their views and
feelings. The word metaphor comes from the Greek word
metaphora, which means “to carry from one place to another.”
A metaphor was, therefore, an “agent
of transference”
of feelings and ideas. A metaphor becomes of particular importance in
describing metaphysical forces
, such as describing the mysterious inner heat of a fever with Agni.
However, if the metaphysical is not understood or is rejected as done in
our modern society, metaphors cease to exist as such. The Chinese describe this modern
inability for a metaphor to transfer the mind to the metaphysical with the short maxim, “The finger pointing at the
moon.” The implication is, of course, that modern individuals see and talk
only about the physical, manifest finger and do not look at what the finger is attempting to
transfer the concentration to. As a further example, Jesus, today, is not considered to use metaphors, but rather is said to speak
in parables which are defined as simple stories illustrating or adding
details to the text rather than suggesting another concept that cannot
be directly described. The elements
in the parable must then be considered as physical and real and studied
rather than what the elements point to. As an example, in the Sermon
on the Mount Jesus uses the metaphor of an
individual entering the tameion
during
“prayer”.
Tameion is the Greek name for a lower storeroom in a home also used
to store or hide valuables. Since the translators had no knowledge
or experience of a lower sacral heart as
described in this book, they missed the metaphor entirely and translated
tameion as a special room that should be used for reciting the
“Lord’s Prayer” or
“Our Father” (also metaphors). You can find modern dissertations as to what type of
room and furnishings should be selected to pray in, with the general agreement among Christians that praying really
should take place inside a proper church.
Translations 