buddhist hinduism?

[Malcolm]

And what part of said text has eternalist elements creeping in?

"therefore all things from the beginning transcend all forms of verbalization, description, and conceptualization and are, in the final analysis, undifferentiated, free from alteration, and indestructible. They are only of the One Mind; hence the name Suchness."

As translated, very similar to Advaita.

"But the essence of Suchness itself cannot be put an end to, for all things in their Absolute aspect are real; nor is there anything which needs to be pointed out as real, for all things are equally in the state of Suchness. It should be understood that all things are incapable of being verbally explained or thought of; hence the name Suchness."

As translated, this is a form of realism very similar to Kashmiri Shaivism.

[Indrajala]

"therefore all things from the beginning transcend all forms of verbalization, description, and conceptualization and are, in the final analysis, undifferentiated, free from alteration, and indestructible. They are only of the One Mind; hence the name Suchness."

As translated, very similar to Advaita.

I'm looking at the Chinese and that last sentence has an additional part.

《大乘起信論》卷1：「唯是一心故名真如，以一切言說假名無實，但隨妄念不可得故。」(CBETA, T32, no. 1666, p. 576, a12-14)

"They are only just one mind ergo the name suchness because all language and provisional appellations have no reality only accompanying delusional thoughts which are unattainable."

The "they" at the beginning is referring to "all dharmas" (一切法). "Transcend" is also not a good translation for li 離 which just means "apart from".

This is really just a Cittamatra position. Such remarks are made in the context of epistemology and not ontology. Mind here is equated to suchness. Is that really eternalist?

"But the essence of Suchness itself cannot be put an end to, for all things in their Absolute aspect are real; nor is there anything which needs to be pointed out as real, for all things are equally in the state of Suchness. It should be understood that all things are incapable of being verbally explained or thought of; hence the name Suchness."

As translated, this is a form of realism very similar to Kashmiri Shaivism.

《大乘起信論》卷1：「此真如體無有可遣，以一切法悉皆真故；亦無可立，以一切法皆同如故。當知一切法不可說、不可念故，名為真如。」(CBETA, T32, no. 1666, p. 576, a14-18)
[3]極＝相【金】。

Unfortunately you are relying on a bad translation.

This line ...

for all things in their Absolute aspect are real

...is an interpretation rather than a translation.

If you look at the Chinese and literally translate it word for word it sounds like this:

以一切法悉皆真故
[instrumental particle] all dharmas entirely all true/real thus

I don't see where the translator got "Absolute aspect" from. This section of the text is talking about how conventional phenomena and the principle behind them complement each other.

[Malcolm]

As I said, "as translated" --


"all dharmas entirely all true/real thus"

This is definitely off. Not Buddhist.

"therefore all things from the beginning transcend all forms of verbalization, description, and conceptualization and are, in the final analysis, undifferentiated, free from alteration, and indestructible. They are only of the One Mind; hence the name Suchness."

As translated, very similar to Advaita.

I'm looking at the Chinese and that last sentence has an additional part.

《大乘起信論》卷1：「唯是一心故名真如，以一切言說假名無實，但隨妄念不可得故。」(CBETA, T32, no. 1666, p. 576, a12-14)

"They are only just one mind ergo the name suchness because all language and provisional appellations have no reality only accompanying delusional thoughts which are unattainable."

The "they" at the beginning is referring to "all dharmas" (一切法). "Transcend" is also not a good translation for li 離 which just means "apart from".

This is really just a Cittamatra position. Such remarks are made in the context of epistemology and not ontology. Mind here is equated to suchness. Is that really eternalist?

"But the essence of Suchness itself cannot be put an end to, for all things in their Absolute aspect are real; nor is there anything which needs to be pointed out as real, for all things are equally in the state of Suchness. It should be understood that all things are incapable of being verbally explained or thought of; hence the name Suchness."

As translated, this is a form of realism very similar to Kashmiri Shaivism.

《大乘起信論》卷1：「此真如體無有可遣，以一切法悉皆真故；亦無可立，以一切法皆同如故。當知一切法不可說、不可念故，名為真如。」(CBETA, T32, no. 1666, p. 576, a14-18)
[3]極＝相【金】。

Unfortunately you are relying on a bad translation.

This line ...

for all things in their Absolute aspect are real

...is an interpretation rather than a translation.

If you look at the Chinese and literally translate it word for word it sounds like this:

以一切法悉皆真故
[instrumental particle] all dharmas entirely all true/real thus

I don't see where the translator got "Absolute aspect" from. This section of the text is talking about how conventional phenomena and the principle behind them complement each other.

[kirtu]

Unfortunately you are relying on a bad translation.

Are there any good translations? I chanced upon the DT Suzuki translation and it seems strongly eternalist in it's choice of vocabulary.

Kirt

[Indrajala]

As I said, "as translated" --


"all dharmas entirely all true/real thus"

This is definitely off. Not Buddhist.

"all dharmas entirely all true/real thus"

That last character reading as "true/real" (zhen 真) might be an abbreviation for zhenru 真如 which is suchness. Given that the sentence pattern here is made up of four-character segments this is probably the case. In Literary Chinese they have a habit of maintaining four-character segments and will abbreviate binomials to make them fit into the sequence. It leads to a lot of confusion as one might imagine.

So it would probably be best read as:

"all dharmas entirely all suchness thus"

Looking at the Chinese a bit closer I'm sure that the zhen 真 here is an abbreviation for zhenru 真如 because in the following sentence you get the other half of the binomial appearing (ru 如).

This section of the text is saying that all dharmas are suchness, therefore they need not be rejected or affirmed (pointed to). They conventionally exist and their conventional existence need not be rejected or affirmed when the principle is understood.

Do you see anything wrong with saying that all dharmas are entirely suchness?

[Indrajala]

Unfortunately you are relying on a bad translation.

Are there any good translations? I chanced upon the DT Suzuki translation and it seems strongly eternalist in it's choice of vocabulary.

Kirt

Hakeda's translation isn't bad as I recall. It was the first (and only) translation I read before I could read the original.

The original uses a lot of wordplay that is hard to reproduce in translation. Mind you that is the case for almost all Literary Chinese texts both Buddhist and not.

[Malcolm]

It may be the case that a certain eternalism creeps in at the hands of translators like Suzuki, nevertheless many people read these translations without knowing original language and take them at face value.

Bad translations die hard too.

N

As I said, "as translated" --


"all dharmas entirely all true/real thus"

This is definitely off. Not Buddhist.

"all dharmas entirely all true/real thus"

That last character reading as "true/real" (zhen 真) might be an abbreviation for zhenru 真如 which is suchness. Given that the sentence pattern here is made up of four-character segments this is probably the case. In Literary Chinese they have a habit of maintaining four-character segments and will abbreviate binomials to make them fit into the sequence. It leads to a lot of confusion as one might imagine.

So it would probably be best read as:

"all dharmas entirely all suchness thus"

Looking at the Chinese a bit closer I'm sure that the zhen 真 here is an abbreviation for zhenru 真如 because in the following sentence you get the other half of the binomial appearing (ru 如).

This section of the text is saying that all dharmas are suchness, therefore they need not be rejected or affirmed (pointed to). They conventionally exist and their conventional existence need not be rejected or affirmed when the principle is understood.

Do you see anything wrong with saying that all dharmas are entirely suchness?

[Indrajala]

It may be the case that a certain eternalism creeps in at the hands of translators like Suzuki, nevertheless many people read these translations without knowing original language and take them at face value.

Bad translations die hard too.

N

Indeed, they do die hard.

The text itself strikes me as being an indigenous product of domesticated Buddhism rather than being a translation. Some sources during the Tang Dynasty say it was a translation and that an original Sanskrit edition actually existed, but scholars doubt the validity of such claims given the Sino-Buddhist content of the text. I also look at the Chinese text itself and sense it isn't a translation given the way it is written. One scholar Dr. Ishii Kosei has suggested the text is a hybrid containing both translated sections from an original Sanskrit text and indigenous Chinese additions.

In any case, I don't think said text espouses eternalist doctrines.

[Malcolm]

The text itself strikes me as being an indigenous product of domesticated Buddhism rather than being a translation.

I was referring to Suzuki's text. And yes, I agree it is a Chinese text. Not indian. Post Paramartha.

In any case, I don't think said text espouses eternalist doctrines.

pretty hard to tell that from the extant english translations, both Suzuki's and Hakeda's.

Plus, in some Shingon Literature in English, Mahāvairocana is definitely given a theistic slant lacking in Tibetan or Indian sources.

[Indrajala]

pretty hard to tell that from the extant english translations, both Suzuki's and Hakeda's.

Plus, in some Shingon Literature in English, Mahāvairocana is definitely given a theistic slant lacking in Tibetan or Indian sources.

Interestingly I recall seeing Hakeda's Kukai: Major Works classified under the category of "Pantheism".

I think the problem is that in Hakeda's time he was writing for a community of predominately Christian scholars and had to make use of the standard religious studies lexicon of the time. Other authors who wrote on Buddhism used words like "the Church" when referring to Buddhist institutions. Using words from Christian theology only compounded misunderstandings and the presentation of Buddhism in the west.

[Malcolm]

pretty hard to tell that from the extant english translations, both Suzuki's and Hakeda's.

Plus, in some Shingon Literature in English, Mahāvairocana is definitely given a theistic slant lacking in Tibetan or Indian sources.

Interestingly I recall seeing Hakeda's Kukai: Major Works classified under the category of "Pantheism".

I think the problem is that in Hakeda's time he was writing for a community of predominately Christian scholars and had to make use of the standard religious studies lexicon of the time. Other authors who wrote on Buddhism used words like "the Church" when referring to Buddhist institutions. Using words from Christian theology only compounded misunderstandings and the presentation of Buddhism in the west.

Many people these days in Zen understand terms like "One Mind" exactly in the same sense as Advaita. Which is why we see cross-over teachers like Adyashanti and so on.

[LastLegend]

Don't cry when I say this because translating Sutras is no joke

I hold very high standards to those who can and cannot translate the texts. Those who are qualified to translate the texts are those who have really been practicing with diligence for a very long time and is closed to being enlightened, and of course fluent in both languages inside out.

[LastLegend]

The text itself strikes me as being an indigenous product of domesticated Buddhism rather than being a translation. Some sources during the Tang Dynasty say it was a translation and that an original Sanskrit edition actually existed, but scholars doubt the validity of such claims given the Sino-Buddhist content of the text. I also look at the Chinese text itself and sense it isn't a translation given the way it is written. One scholar Dr. Ishii Kosei has suggested the text is a hybrid containing both translated sections from an original Sanskrit text and indigenous Chinese additions.

In any case, I don't think said text espouses eternalist doctrines.

Take Shurangama Sutra for example, it was also translated to Tibetan. So the Sanskrit edition of this text really existed.

[Malcolm]

The text itself strikes me as being an indigenous product of domesticated Buddhism rather than being a translation. Some sources during the Tang Dynasty say it was a translation and that an original Sanskrit edition actually existed, but scholars doubt the validity of such claims given the Sino-Buddhist content of the text. I also look at the Chinese text itself and sense it isn't a translation given the way it is written. One scholar Dr. Ishii Kosei has suggested the text is a hybrid containing both translated sections from an original Sanskrit text and indigenous Chinese additions.

In any case, I don't think said text espouses eternalist doctrines.

Take Shurangama Sutra for example, it was also translated to Tibetan. So the Sanskrit edition of this text really existed.

There are two: one was translated into Tibetan, one was not.

This however is not a certain test of whether a text has a Sanskrit original. The Vajrasamadhi sutra was also translated into Tibetan. However, it was composed in Korea.

N

[Jikan]

Said concept of fundamental enlightenment (Jpn. hongaku; Chn. benjue 本覺) appears first the treatise Awakening of Mahāyāna Faith 大乘起信論. It is not strictly a Tendai concept and is actually common to Huayan and some lines of thought in Chan / Zen.

It's true that the term appears in that earlier text (very influential in all schools of Chinese and Japanese Buddhism). I think it develops a meaning in the Kamakura period that is more eternalistic than the presentation in The Awakening of Faith as I understand it. That's what I was trying to articulate.

[LastLegend]

There are two: one was translated into Tibetan, one was not.

This however is not a certain test of whether a text has a Sanskrit original. The Vajrasamadhi sutra was also translated into Tibetan. However, it was composed in Korea.

Well well...eating meats lol anyway...

Where else could it come from if not Sanskrit edition? I know the Chinese has a version of Shurangama Sutra in Chinese and Tibetan got one in Tibetan. So my conclusion is they had to come from one source which is Sanskrit original. As for the Chinese one, its history said that it was brought to China by a monk from India. This monk had to cut his skin open put the Sutra (written on sheep's skin in very small letters) in there, sowed the skin until it's healed. Why did he need to do that? Because Shurangama was considered a national treasure that was prohibited to be brought out of the country...prior to this event the Tien Tai guy was praying for 18 years for the this Sutra to come to China...don't ask me for the source, take it or leave it. Or just consider it my opinion.

I did some research but here http://www.longbeachmonastery.org/NEWShurangama.htm. It also came from the words of Master Hsuan Hua.

[Indrajala]

Where else could it come from if not Sanskrit edition?

There are plenty of texts that have no Sanskrit originals.

Scholars agree that the Brahma Net Sutra 梵網經 was written in China. There are countless other examples.

[Malcolm]

Where else could it come from if not Sanskrit edition? I know the Chinese has a version of Shurangama Sutra in Chinese and Tibetan got one in Tibetan.

There are two Shurangama sutras in Chinese, only one of these two is in Tibetan and that one has a Sanskrit Manuscript, one does not.

[LastLegend]

Namdrol what you are saying is the Chinese got the Sutra first, then it got translated into Tibetan from the Sutra.

My claim is they came from the same original source, and whether the source is still with the translation as you said is not the case for one of it. If you implied that the one without the original is the fake one, then we can make comparison in meanings to see if they are basically saying the same thing.

For Huseng, if you have two different versions in the two different languages and if these people don't get it from each other, my claim is they have to come from the same source. Namdrol said that is not the case as the Chinese got it first, then got translated into Tibetan if I understand what he said correctly...now whether the original is still with us today is not what I am saying.

[Malcolm]

Namdrol what you are saying is the Chinese got the Sutra first, then it got translated into Tibetan from the Sutra.

My claim is they came from the same original source, and whether the source is still with the translation as you said is not the case for one of it. If you implied that the one without the original is the fake one, then we can make comparison in meanings to see if they are basically saying the same thing.

For Huseng, if you have two different versions in the two different languages and if these people don't get it from each other, my claim is they have to come from the same source. Namdrol said that is not the case as the Chinese got it first, then got translated into Tibetan if I understand what he said correctly...now whether the original is still with us today is not what I am saying.

One was written in India, one was written in CHina.