Twilight wrote:After doing the translation myself, the conclusion was very clear: Nanavira simply murdered the translation to make a case for his constructivism. So I am not surprised to see such gruesome translations from Nanavira. I suggest all to do the translation for themselves to see who murdered it to make a case for his views.
To me, this topic is starting to look a little funny. We have a contructivist (Cogemenu with Nagarjuna) debating with another constructivist (Celin with his Buddhadasa) and now we even have another constructivist, Nanavira thrown into the mix. Is this a constructivist party or something ? Am I the only therevadian person in this topic, trying to make a case for Buddha views ?
Now I have a little better understanding of what you are trying to say, and what/where your position comes from that causes you to accuse everything and everyone of supposed "constructivism", for which you give an extremely vague definition that involves arriving at things via inference rather than simply directly knowing from "directly" reading the text.
You are basically a post-Protestant in your hermeneutic. You think that you have a special "objective" "neutral" "true reading of the suttas just-as-they-are with no biases", and anything that disagrees with your "true reading" is "constructivist" because it is "inferring" things that you cannot see as directly written into the text. This is a Reform Protestant hermeneutic designed for reading Biblical literalism into the Bible. Now whether or not your are an American, Englishman, or Australian (the three nexuses of this form of Protestant hermeneutics), this hermeneutic has spread through the human population beyond its original genesis in Reform Christianity. It fundamentally transforms how religious texts are read, and this hermeneutic is now practiced by a great deal of secular "nonreligious people" in addition to fundamentalist Christians.
There are many such people here on this forum, and they generally like to say things like "the Dhamma is straightforward, open, and easy" versus the Dhamma being "subtle, deep, and profound".