maranadhammomhi wrote:A recent comment in here suggesting (& I do not know if this is true) that the works of Early Mahāyāna thinkers such as Nagarjuna & Vasubhandu were based primarily on the early buddhist texts as opposed to uniquely Mahayana doctrines has piqued my interest in expanding my range of study...now, presently I am as Orthodox as can be, but before reaching this point I had a long on & off fling with Mahayana & here & there still think there is some value in texts formulated by various teachers. Based on that & on my general interest in Early Buddhism, plus the feeling that I'm soon exhausting the range of canonical & post-canonical Theravādin texts, I'd like to request recommendations for:
1) whichever english translations of EBTs exist & significantly differ from what is found in theravāda
2) any works, early buddhist or not, that are dominantly based off of the views in EBTs, such as those akin to what I mentioned above re: Nagarjuna & Vasubhandu.
3) commentaries on the above, comparisons of early buddhist doctrines, historical overviews, or anything at all that can expand my knowledge of the early buddhist dhamma beyond the range of what is offered by theravāda
With metta & karuna
Dylan
I second retro's recommendation
As far as #2 goes, my recommendations won't directly draw a correlation to EBTs (but its nevertheless there in my opinion). I would highly recommend starting with Professor Eviatar Shulman who's writings on Nagarjuna and Vasubhandu can be found on academia.edu. For Nagarjuna you could start with "Creative Ignorance: Nagarjuna on the Ontological Significance of Consciousness."
For Vasubhandu: "Vasubhandu on Truth and Subjectivity."
He has a chapter in a book comparing the two which is wonderful (not available on academia). Let me know if you're interested in that.
I would recommend avoiding other resources on Nagarjuna until you've read Shulman, and after you've done so the reason why I say this might become obvious (and you'll benefit more from the other resources).
I did it backwards, starting with Garfield, Kalupahana, etc, and it required a large dose of Shulman (and indirectly Nanananda) to 'unlearn' what I now hold to be later accretions and distortions of Nagarjuna's teachings and begin to approach what I think is a more correct understanding (I am not a scholar or an expert, this is merely an opinion). This will sound insane to some but I think Nagarjuna often appears incomprehensible precisely because of these later accretions and distortions. What he's saying is quite straight forward (I should cover my head as I say this, I can almost feel the mud being hurled at me).
Dan Lusthaus is highly praised for his works on Vasubhandu but I can't comment as that's been on my to do list for months.
metta
aflatun
"People often get too quick to say 'there's no self. There's no self...no self...no self.' There is self, there is focal point, its not yours. That's what not self is."
Ninoslav Ñāṇamoli
Senses and the Thought-1, 42:53
"Those who create constructs about the Buddha,
Who is beyond construction and without exhaustion,
Are thereby damaged by their constructs;
They fail to see the Thus-Gone.
That which is the nature of the Thus-Gone
Is also the nature of this world.
There is no nature of the Thus-Gone.
There is no nature of the world."
Nagarjuna
MMK XXII.15-16
here and in some of his many other works of Buddhist history and philosophy, but his approach may be quite useful for you.)
