In my opinion, the above is a complete butchering of the original Sanskrit. I would compare it with any other translation. But that is just my mere opinion.dylanj wrote: ↑Tue Dec 11, 2018 10:30 pmThis is the translation I have of the relevant verses from Kalupahana:"The Buddhas have make known the conception of self and taught the doctrine of no-self. At the same be, they have not spoken of something as the self or as the non-self."
"When the sphere of though has ceased, that which is to be designated also has ceased. Like freedom, the nature of things is non-arisen and non-ceased."
"Everything is such, not such, both such and not such, and neither such nor not such: this is the Buddha's admonition."
Nāgārjuna
Re: Nāgārjuna
What is the Uncreated?
Sublime & free, what is that obscured Eternity?
It is the Undying, the Bright, the Isle.
It is an Ocean, a Secret: Reality.
Both life and oblivion, it is Nirvāṇa.
Sublime & free, what is that obscured Eternity?
It is the Undying, the Bright, the Isle.
It is an Ocean, a Secret: Reality.
Both life and oblivion, it is Nirvāṇa.
Re: Nāgārjuna
Even Venerable Sujāto's off-the-cusp unpublished translation was better than Kalupahana's.
Once again, IMO, as someone with a working knowledge of Sanskrit myself.ātmety api prajñapitam anātmety api deśitam |
“Self” is just a designation, and even “not-self” is just a teaching.
buddhair nātmā na cānātmā kaścid ity api deśitam ||
The Buddha taught that there’s not even such a thing as self nor not-self.
nivṛttam abhidhātavyaṃ nivṛttaś cittagocaraḥ |
What is nameable has ceased, the scope of consciousness (or thought?) has ceased
anutpannāniruddhā hi nirvāṇam iva dharmatā ||
For the nature of extinguishment (nirvāṇa) is like the cessation of what has never arisen.
sarvaṃ tathyaṃ na vā tathyaṃ tathyaṃ cātathyam eva ca |
All is real, and not real, and both real and not real
naivātathyaṃ naiva tathyam etad buddhānuśāsanam ||
and all is neither real nor not-real: this is the teaching of the Buddhas.
What is the Uncreated?
Sublime & free, what is that obscured Eternity?
It is the Undying, the Bright, the Isle.
It is an Ocean, a Secret: Reality.
Both life and oblivion, it is Nirvāṇa.
Sublime & free, what is that obscured Eternity?
It is the Undying, the Bright, the Isle.
It is an Ocean, a Secret: Reality.
Both life and oblivion, it is Nirvāṇa.
Re: Nāgārjuna
Yes honestly I'd not be surprised if he is taking some extreme liberties, his translation of nibbāna as "freedom" irks me, among some other things. In general I've been avoiding reading the MMK in full because it seems different translators come out with wildly different meanings & I don't know who to trust. But I shared Kalupahana's regardless because as far as I can tell it seems the verses are open for not being rendered the way others have done so. Do you think it's definitely not the case that the shift in meaning here is valid? It seems Sujāto's somewhat aligns with it.Coëmgenu wrote: ↑Tue Dec 11, 2018 10:37 pmIn my opinion, the above is a complete butchering of the original Sanskrit. I would compare it with any other translation. But that is just my mere opinion.dylanj wrote: ↑Tue Dec 11, 2018 10:30 pmThis is the translation I have of the relevant verses from Kalupahana:"The Buddhas have make known the conception of self and taught the doctrine of no-self. At the same be, they have not spoken of something as the self or as the non-self."
"When the sphere of though has ceased, that which is to be designated also has ceased. Like freedom, the nature of things is non-arisen and non-ceased."
"Everything is such, not such, both such and not such, and neither such nor not such: this is the Buddha's admonition."
Born, become, arisen – made, prepared, short-lived
Bonded by decay and death – a nest for sickness, perishable
Produced by seeking nutriment – not fit to take delight in
Departure from this is peaceful – beyond reasoning and enduring
Unborn, unarisen – free from sorrow and stain
Ceasing of all factors of suffering – stilling of all preparations is bliss
Bonded by decay and death – a nest for sickness, perishable
Produced by seeking nutriment – not fit to take delight in
Departure from this is peaceful – beyond reasoning and enduring
Unborn, unarisen – free from sorrow and stain
Ceasing of all factors of suffering – stilling of all preparations is bliss
Re: Nāgārjuna
dylanj wrote: ↑Tue Dec 11, 2018 10:14 pmWhat?auto wrote: ↑Tue Dec 11, 2018 4:41 pmWhy just Nagarjuna? wouldn't anyone who does commentary and analysis fall under your fetish rule.dylanj wrote: ↑Tue Dec 11, 2018 9:26 am
My point is that Nāgārjuna takes directly from the early buddhist texts in his works, a point that is demonstrated by the quotes without me having to say it, & a point that would have no meaning merely being said without the quotes to support it. So I have to disagree that it would be better. Actually I think it would be worse. But thanks for offering your opinion.
When you use negative spin on your sentence, then you understand what i said.My point is that Nāgārjuna takes directly from the early buddhist texts in his works
Now you asked question: 'what'
That says you are pro Nagarjuna. Wiki search show he denies true self. You dislike Mahayana. You are mutual with Nagarjuna because of true self.
Re: Nāgārjuna
I am not DylanJ, but I am confused by what you wrote, can you clarify in more words?auto wrote: ↑Tue Dec 11, 2018 11:32 pmWhen you use negative spin on your sentence, then you understand what i said.My point is that Nāgārjuna takes directly from the early buddhist texts in his works
Now you asked question: 'what'
That says you are pro Nagarjuna. Wiki search show he denies true self. You dislike Mahayana. You are mutual with Nagarjuna because of true self.
What is the Uncreated?
Sublime & free, what is that obscured Eternity?
It is the Undying, the Bright, the Isle.
It is an Ocean, a Secret: Reality.
Both life and oblivion, it is Nirvāṇa.
Sublime & free, what is that obscured Eternity?
It is the Undying, the Bright, the Isle.
It is an Ocean, a Secret: Reality.
Both life and oblivion, it is Nirvāṇa.
Re: Nāgārjuna
Coëmgenu wrote: ↑Wed Dec 12, 2018 12:00 amI am not DylanJ, but I am confused by what you wrote, can you clarify in more words?auto wrote: ↑Tue Dec 11, 2018 11:32 pmWhen you use negative spin on your sentence, then you understand what i said.My point is that Nāgārjuna takes directly from the early buddhist texts in his works
Now you asked question: 'what'
That says you are pro Nagarjuna. Wiki search show he denies true self. You dislike Mahayana. You are mutual with Nagarjuna because of true self.
ok my other guess is that Nagarjuna is the maaan who takes directly from early buddhist...but others are not taking directly and distorting early texts messages.
So as you see i try to figure out what he meant by the OP post.
Re: Nāgārjuna
I agree. But if you think that the elders behind the name "Theravāda" are the "maaan(s)" who takes directly from early Buddhist... you got another thing coming to you. Theravāda and Mahāyāna are parallel evolutions out of common material.auto wrote: ↑Wed Dec 12, 2018 12:29 amok my other guess is that Nagarjuna is the maaan who takes directly from early buddhist...but others are not taking directly and distorting early texts messages.
So as you see i try to figure out what he meant by the OP post.
Not to claim you are the above, but still, you can claim the same about any sect.
What is the Uncreated?
Sublime & free, what is that obscured Eternity?
It is the Undying, the Bright, the Isle.
It is an Ocean, a Secret: Reality.
Both life and oblivion, it is Nirvāṇa.
Sublime & free, what is that obscured Eternity?
It is the Undying, the Bright, the Isle.
It is an Ocean, a Secret: Reality.
Both life and oblivion, it is Nirvāṇa.
Re: Nāgārjuna
Of the two translations you have given for the introduction, the second is far better. There is no "is true to the teacher" in Sanskrit, this is an interpretive addition, which the Kalupahana rendering of the ātmaparīkṣā is full of, I will include a more detailed linguistic analysis to demonstrate this either later tonight or some time tomorrow.dylanj wrote: ↑Tue Dec 11, 2018 10:30 pmMy understanding from the limited historical analysis of Nāgārjuna's works I've done is that, due to later 'madhyamikas' like Chandrakirti et al, a lot of the verses have been distorted/mistranslated.Coëmgenu wrote: ↑Tue Dec 11, 2018 12:36 pm
But what do you think of this?(Āryanāgārjunasya Mūlamadhyamakakārikāyām Ātmaparīkṣā, T1564.23c16 : 諸佛或說我 或說於無我 諸法實相中 無我無非我 [etc.], section 18)All Buddhas either speak of self or speak of no self.
All dharmas’ true aspect, within this, there is neither self nor no self.
All dharmas’ true aspect is defined as mental activity’s and spoken language’s ending.
There is no arising and no cessation, there is calm extinction, such is nirvāṇa.
All is real, all is unreal, all is both real and unreal,
all is neither real nor unreal: this is called all Buddhas’ dharma.
A positive tetralemma? What does that even mean?
This is the translation I have of the relevant verses from Kalupahana:I think it's clear that the first two of these verses aren't in conflict with the Dhamma when rendered like this. Regarding the positive tetralemme, what Kalupahana argues is that "admonition" has been confused for "advice" & in fact Nāgārjuna is merely stating that the Buddha revealed the contradictions people run into using the four-cornered logic of the tetralemma."The Buddhas have make known the conception of self and taught the doctrine of no-self. At the same be, they have not spoken of something as the self or as the non-self."
"When the sphere of though has ceased, that which is to be designated also has ceased. Like freedom, the nature of things is non-arisen and non-ceased."
"Everything is such, not such, both such and not such, and neither such nor not such: this is the Buddha's admonition."
It makes a lot more sense to me like this. I've seen similar things with the introductory stanza where when translated by some mahāyānists it seems they have confused & conflated the matter, equating the description of asaṅkhata with the mention of dependent origination, whereas when translated by those who have a grounding in the early texts it comes out very clear. Here is an example of two translations of that verse:
That which is dependently arisen
Does not cease & does not arise
Does not come & does not go
Is not annihilated & is not permanent
Is not different & not the same
To the true teacher who reveals this peace
The complete pacification of constructs
To the perfect Buddha I bow downI am not skilled in language enough to be able to make much of a comment myself but I strongly suspect that most of the instances where his words seem to say the opposite of what the Buddha taught are a matter of confusion on the part of those who took his writings to be an assertion of some sort of positive ultimate truth instead of a negation of wrong views.I salute him, the fully enlightened, the best of speakers, who preached the non-ceasing and the non-arising, the non-annihilation and the non-permanence, the non-identity and the non-difference, the non-appearance and the non-disappearance, the dependent arising, the appeasement of obsessions and the auspicious
If you will forgive me the hubris, I would recommend you give Venerables Candrakīrti & Vimalākṣa another read. If you are going to accuse any Mahāyānikāḥ of "equating the description of asaṅkhata with the mention of dependent origination", there are better stapegoats to choose than Vens Candrakīrti & Vimalākṣa. You could choose the Venerable Ascetic Zhìyǐ as a target, or perhaps Venerable Tsongkhapa as a more appropriate target, but any confusion between any two things that they are guilty of, it is not a confusion between nirvāṇa and that which is dependently originated. Their alleged misunderstandings of Ven Nāgārjuna are unique and their own.
I would recommend that you read Ven Shì Huìfēng's article as well, which explains how these two (namely the asaṁskṛta dharma and the pratītyasamutpanne dharmāḥ, those which you called wrongly conflated) are one and the same in the EBTs, and argues that Ven Nāgārjuna merely builds upon this equivalency.
If you believe that "a lot of the verses have been distorted/mistranslated," than the onus is on you to demonstrate that. The Ven Vimalākṣa commentary is profoundly older than Ven Candrakīrti's, and the Chinese recension of the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā is demonstrably comparatively more elderly than the Sanskritic recension, much for the same reasons why the Koreana Tripiṭaka is the more ancient complete account of śrāvaka scriptures, dating from the 1200sAD, than the Pāli Canon, the oldest fragmentary testaments to those scriptures being from the 1500sAD, and the oldest complete Pāli tipiṭaka being from the 1800s, only existing because it was compiled by European Buddhologists.
Much like the Dàodéjīng. I should tell you, I am of the persuasion that the Chinese is a much more reliable testament to the 'original text' and the intentions of that text, but I am in an extreme minority for believing so.dylanj wrote: ↑Tue Dec 11, 2018 10:54 pmYes honestly I'd not be surprised if he is taking some extreme liberties, his translation of nibbāna as "freedom" irks me, among some other things. In general I've been avoiding reading the MMK in full because it seems different translators come out with wildly different meanings & I don't know who to trust.
As related to the above talk about providing a more detailed linguistic proof as to my comments, this will have to wait similarly, because I am pressed for time.dylanj wrote: ↑Tue Dec 11, 2018 10:54 pmBut I shared Kalupahana's regardless because as far as I can tell it seems the verses are open for not being rendered the way others have done so. Do you think it's definitely not the case that the shift in meaning here is valid? It seems Sujāto's somewhat aligns with it.
What is the Uncreated?
Sublime & free, what is that obscured Eternity?
It is the Undying, the Bright, the Isle.
It is an Ocean, a Secret: Reality.
Both life and oblivion, it is Nirvāṇa.
Sublime & free, what is that obscured Eternity?
It is the Undying, the Bright, the Isle.
It is an Ocean, a Secret: Reality.
Both life and oblivion, it is Nirvāṇa.
Re: Nāgārjuna
I say is, why use Nagarjuna(i suppose the source his quotes are from commentary and analysis) name when commentary and analysis in general use directly the sourcematerial anyway.Coëmgenu wrote: ↑Wed Dec 12, 2018 12:41 amI agree. But if you think that the elders behind the name "Theravāda" are the "maaan(s)" who takes directly from early Buddhist... you got another thing coming to you. Theravāda and Mahāyāna are parallel evolutions out of common material.
Not to claim you are the above, but still, you can claim the same about any sect.
Other possibility is framing something(i.e heretics) indirectly, in this case Nagarjuna is put into tank. So Nagarjuna is OP's man.
Re: Nāgārjuna
I wish more Theravadins would study Nagarjuna. The emptiness teaching not reifying consciousness or promoting nihilism, and study Greg Goode's books on emptiness along with Rob Burbea's Seeing That Frees have given me a lot of insight into dependent origination; a teaching which, while undoubtedly true, is a bit more wordy and technical than the emptiness teachings of nagarjuna.
Emptiness (real madhyamika, not what people usually misconstrue emptiness to be) and DO are 100% in agreeance in my experience, and without the emptiness teachings I would still be totally confused as to why the Buddha was always going on about arahants neither existing, nor not existing, both, or neither.
Emptiness (real madhyamika, not what people usually misconstrue emptiness to be) and DO are 100% in agreeance in my experience, and without the emptiness teachings I would still be totally confused as to why the Buddha was always going on about arahants neither existing, nor not existing, both, or neither.
- Nicholas Weeks
- Posts: 4210
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 11:26 pm
- Location: USA West Coast
Re: Nāgārjuna
Here is Santina's little book that has several of the bodhisattva's writings. The Friendly Letter was considered a primer for new Buddhists.Benjamin wrote: ↑Wed Jan 02, 2019 12:35 pm I wish more Theravadins would study Nagarjuna. The emptiness teaching not reifying consciousness or promoting nihilism, and study Greg Goode's books on emptiness along with Rob Burbea's Seeing That Frees have given me a lot of insight into dependent origination; a teaching which, while undoubtedly true, is a bit more wordy and technical than the emptiness teachings of nagarjuna.
Emptiness (real madhyamika, not what people usually misconstrue emptiness to be) and DO are 100% in agreeance in my experience, and without the emptiness teachings I would still be totally confused as to why the Buddha was always going on about arahants neither existing, nor not existing, both, or neither.
http://www.buddhanet.net/pdf_file/nagarjuna.pdf
Good and evil have no fixed form. It's as easy to turn from doing bad to doing good as it is to flip over the hand from the back to the palm. It's simply up to us to do it. Master Hsuan Hua.
- confusedlayman
- Posts: 6231
- Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2019 12:16 am
- Location: Human Realm (as of now)
Re: Nāgārjuna
u r 100% right. Nagarjuna words are true becz it can be validated in personal experience... and i also without nagarjuna teaching would have lost in to delima of conventionality with contradicting statements. I would have stuck on concepts and words ...Benjamin wrote: ↑Wed Jan 02, 2019 12:35 pm I wish more Theravadins would study Nagarjuna. The emptiness teaching not reifying consciousness or promoting nihilism, and study Greg Goode's books on emptiness along with Rob Burbea's Seeing That Frees have given me a lot of insight into dependent origination; a teaching which, while undoubtedly true, is a bit more wordy and technical than the emptiness teachings of nagarjuna.
Emptiness (real madhyamika, not what people usually misconstrue emptiness to be) and DO are 100% in agreeance in my experience, and without the emptiness teachings I would still be totally confused as to why the Buddha was always going on about arahants neither existing, nor not existing, both, or neither.
If someone says they attained stream entry but cant explain nagarjuna work, then they can declare that their stream entry is not real experience... If anyone can understand his teaching, then u are already path attained or in verge of attaining sotapanna stage at minimum...
I may be slow learner but im at least learning...
Re: Nāgārjuna
Nagarjuna is not the Buddha and has different view to Buddha. The above post is obviously false. For example, different to Nagarjuna:
1. Buddha did not teach Nibbana & Samsara are the same.
2. Did not teach Dependent Origination is non-arising & non-ceasing.
3. Did not teach Sunnata is Dependent Origination.
4. Did not teach non-conceptuality is Nibbana.
We cannot claim to not lie and we cannot claim to take refuge in Buddha for life if we believe in Nagarjuna.
No. U r 100% wrong
Buddha did not teach about "dilemma of conventionality". It seems the only convention the Buddha said was wrong was convention of "self", "beings" or "persons" (SN 5.10). There is a sutta where Buddha says the convention the world uses he also uses.confusedlayman wrote: ↑Fri Jun 05, 2020 4:44 pm without nagarjuna teaching would have lost in to delima of conventionality with contradicting statements. I would have stuck on concepts and words ...
The above appears to be very serious false speech & very serious reviling of the Ariya Sangha. The above appears to mean there is no refuge in the Tripe Gem.confusedlayman wrote: ↑Fri Jun 05, 2020 4:44 pmIf someone says they attained stream entry but cant explain nagarjuna work, then they can declare that their stream entry is not real experience...
Even if the above ideas were true, it remains immoral in Buddhism to create subversion in another religion. For example, it is morally wrong for a Buddhist to attend Christian religion places and subvert the Christian teachings by teaching anatta and teaching 8FoldPath is the only Path. Christianity teaches about self and about Jesus is only path and it is immoral for Buddhist to post on Christian forum to try to change the faith of Christian. In Buddhism, subversion is immoral.
Nagarjuna is not stream-entry. To have stream-entry three things must occur:confusedlayman wrote: ↑Fri Jun 05, 2020 4:44 pm If anyone can understand his teaching, then u are already path attained or in verge of attaining sotapanna stage at minimum...
1. Self is seen as false
2. Seeing self as false results in immediately tasting Nibbana. Therefore, faith in the Path is attained via experience of Nibbana.
3. Sensitivity of samadhi is such that kamma & its fruit is felt directly or touched by the heart. Therefore,there are no wrong views about precepts, morality, rites, rituals. etc.
Intellectual masturbation with Nagarjuna that does not end defilement does not necessarily result in the above three factors for stream-entry.
There is always an official executioner. If you try to take his place, It is like trying to be a master carpenter and cutting wood. If you try to cut wood like a master carpenter, you will only hurt your hand.
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/paticcasamuppada
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/anapanasati
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/paticcasamuppada
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/anapanasati
- cappuccino
- Posts: 12879
- Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am
- Contact:
Re: Nāgārjuna
rather this…DooDoot wrote: To have stream-entry three things must occur
Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta wrote:there arose in the venerable Kondañña the spotless, immaculate vision of the True Idea:
"Whatever is subject to arising is all subject to cessation."
Re: Nāgārjuna
No. Three factors of stream-entry are:
(1) Ending self-identity view
(2) Ending doubt about the Path to Nibbana.
(3) Ending superstitions about the role of kamma, morality, precepts, rituals, etc.
When there arose in the venerable Kondañña the spotless, immaculate vision of the True Dhamma: "Whatever craving, self-becoming & suffering is subject to arising is all subject to cessation", the venerable Kondañña had the spotless immaculate vision of (1) (2) & (3) above.
Last edited by DooDoot on Sat Jun 06, 2020 12:00 am, edited 3 times in total.
There is always an official executioner. If you try to take his place, It is like trying to be a master carpenter and cutting wood. If you try to cut wood like a master carpenter, you will only hurt your hand.
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/paticcasamuppada
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/anapanasati
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/paticcasamuppada
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/anapanasati