Dear Nataliya and those, who follow this thread,

remembered yesterday that, long ago by now (‘90ies of the last century),

in the context of frequent talks with a friend, a serious Zen practitioner,

I wrote a short piece (for private use) that, retrospectively seen, also elucidates

variations (internal, intersubjective, traditional, trans- and cross-cultural),

levels and other aporetic aspects (the implicit, the unsaid, the suggestive [dhvani

à la Abhinavagupta], the ironic) that may be associated with the inherently

complex nature of translation and the tasks of transport it is expected at best

to achieve. Though due to the original context of its production, it is only

indirectly related to the cultural sphere of Sanskrit, it is qua allusions

nevertheless concerned with “the middle”, Madhyamaka, and with what

Nāgārjuna called prapañcopaśama (“the coming to rest of lifeworld-proliferations”),

a notion subsequently taken over by Gauḍapāda (cf.  Bhattacharya’s & Bouy’s

comments on GK II.35). And there are other ones. If not all of these allusions may

with equal ease be translated into adequate understanding by the individual

reader’s self-referentially narrative capacities executing hermeneutical processes,

no problem: this might then be taken as a direct, empirically reproduced, verification

of Dominic’s assertion (as referred to) about the translator’s “presuppositions”.

Initially hesitant to send ‘Half a Cloud’ to the list, yet as it does in a less than

dead serious manner (in this respect complying with Nataliya’s request)

illuminate general aporias all Indologists and Buddhologists are confronted with,

if the most significant classical Indian hermeneutical perspectives related to

first person perspective dimensions have to be translated into cultural spheres

dominated by third person perspective paradigms – and probably more or less

sparked by Dominic’s remarks on translation –, it’s now being sent.

Best wishes for a productive weekend, Hartmut