Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra

Discuss and learn about the traditional Mahayana scriptures, without assuming that any one school ‘owns’ the only correct interpretation.
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra

Post by Malcolm »

Seeker12 wrote: Wed Feb 03, 2021 3:03 pm
Malcolm wrote: Wed Feb 03, 2021 1:03 pm According to the Lanka, it is a doctrine for those afraid of emptiness, therefore provisional.
According to Longchenpa, the TTG Sutras are the definitive ones. FWIW. I'm sure you know that.
They are for Gorampa as well, providing tathāgatagarbha is properly understood. But if for example the nine examples are not correctly understood, he states the TTG sūtras are provisional.

Also, the reason Longchenpa claims the TTG sūtras are definitive has to do with how he understands them in relation to Dzogchen. He also defines Prasanga Madhyamaka as the definitive view.

In general, however, the Buddha himself declares the tathāgatagarbha doctrine provisional, that is interpretable, in the Lanka Sūtra.
User avatar
FiveSkandhas
Posts: 917
Joined: Sat Jun 29, 2019 6:40 pm

Re: Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra

Post by FiveSkandhas »

Conceiving of the Tathagatagharba in Hindu-esque terms as a "something" is ultimately a linguistically-generated error rather than a doctinal issue. It comes from clinging too tightly to words and their conventional meanings. Resting in a state of non-conceptual cognition of emptiness (or even just understanding words in a looser, more heuristic way), the whole issue dissolves.

Human vocabulary and grammar, as well as the brain circuitry that processes them, are not really set up to deal with the conceptualization of Buddhist emptiness easily, as most of you know well. The minute you put shunyata into words, there is an automatic clinging to the words in a way that results in reification for most people. Hence the contortions and gyrations of upaya needed in every strain of Buddhism to prod our donkeylike minds into direct cognition of emptiness that goes beyond a clinging to words. Again, something most of us already know quite well...yet still the blind clawing at words often results in misunderstanding for even great minds. Yogacara and Tathagatagharba in particular seem to be set upon constantly by faulty readings.
"One should cultivate contemplation in one’s foibles. The foibles are like fish, and contemplation is like fishing hooks. If there are no fish, then the fishing hooks have no use. The bigger the fish is, the better the result we will get. As long as the fishing hooks keep at it, all foibles will eventually be contained and controlled at will." -Zhiyi

"Just be kind." -Atisha
User avatar
Queequeg
Former staff member
Posts: 14454
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 3:24 pm

Re: Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra

Post by Queequeg »

FiveSkandhas wrote: Wed Feb 03, 2021 3:35 pm Conceiving of the Tathagatagharba in Hindu-esque terms as a "something" is ultimately a linguistically-generated error rather than a doctinal issue. It comes from clinging too tightly to words and their conventional meanings. Resting in a state of non-conceptual cognition of emptiness (or even just understanding words in a looser, more heuristic way), the whole issue dissolves.

Human vocabulary and grammar, as well as the brain circuitry that processes them, are not really set up to deal with the conceptualization of Buddhist emptiness easily, as most of you know well. The minute you put shunyata into words, there is an automatic clinging to the words in a way that results in reification for most people. Hence the contortions and gyrations of upaya needed in every strain of Buddhism to prod our donkeylike minds into direct cognition of emptiness that goes beyond a clinging to words. Again, something most of us already know quite well...yet still the blind clawing at words often results in misunderstanding for even great minds. Yogacara and Tathagatagharba in particular seem to be set upon constantly by faulty readings.
:good:
There is no suffering to be severed. Ignorance and klesas are indivisible from bodhi. There is no cause of suffering to be abandoned. Since extremes and the false are the Middle and genuine, there is no path to be practiced. Samsara is nirvana. No severance achieved. No suffering nor its cause. No path, no end. There is no transcendent realm; there is only the one true aspect. There is nothing separate from the true aspect.
-Guanding, Perfect and Sudden Contemplation,
User avatar
Queequeg
Former staff member
Posts: 14454
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 3:24 pm

Re: Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra

Post by Queequeg »

Malcolm wrote: Wed Feb 03, 2021 1:03 pm
Queequeg wrote: Fri Jan 29, 2021 5:54 pm
In other words, Tathagatagarbha teaching are therapies for a misguided view of emptiness.

Unfortunately people grasp it as something. Those people need the therapy of emptiness.
According to the Lanka, it is a doctrine for those afraid of emptiness, therefore provisional.
I don't have an unassailable source, but I'll go out on a limb and assert that grasped emptiness is provisional, too. The razor's edge is tough to balance on.
There is no suffering to be severed. Ignorance and klesas are indivisible from bodhi. There is no cause of suffering to be abandoned. Since extremes and the false are the Middle and genuine, there is no path to be practiced. Samsara is nirvana. No severance achieved. No suffering nor its cause. No path, no end. There is no transcendent realm; there is only the one true aspect. There is nothing separate from the true aspect.
-Guanding, Perfect and Sudden Contemplation,
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra

Post by Malcolm »

FiveSkandhas wrote: Wed Feb 03, 2021 3:35 pm Yogacara and Tathagatagharba in particular seem to be set upon constantly by faulty readings.
No, Yogacāra really is a realist school, despite the attempts of some traditional Tibetan and Chinese scholars, and modern scholars like Dan Lusthaus, to revision it in nonrealist terms.
User avatar
Queequeg
Former staff member
Posts: 14454
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 3:24 pm

Re: Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra

Post by Queequeg »

Malcolm wrote: Wed Feb 03, 2021 3:42 pm
FiveSkandhas wrote: Wed Feb 03, 2021 3:35 pm Yogacara and Tathagatagharba in particular seem to be set upon constantly by faulty readings.
No, Yogacāra really is a realist school, despite the attempts of some traditional Tibetan and Chinese scholars, and modern scholars like Dan Lusthaus, to revision it in nonrealist terms.
For the less learned, can you explain that?
There is no suffering to be severed. Ignorance and klesas are indivisible from bodhi. There is no cause of suffering to be abandoned. Since extremes and the false are the Middle and genuine, there is no path to be practiced. Samsara is nirvana. No severance achieved. No suffering nor its cause. No path, no end. There is no transcendent realm; there is only the one true aspect. There is nothing separate from the true aspect.
-Guanding, Perfect and Sudden Contemplation,
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra

Post by Malcolm »

Queequeg wrote: Wed Feb 03, 2021 3:42 pm
Malcolm wrote: Wed Feb 03, 2021 1:03 pm
Queequeg wrote: Fri Jan 29, 2021 5:54 pm
In other words, Tathagatagarbha teaching are therapies for a misguided view of emptiness.

Unfortunately people grasp it as something. Those people need the therapy of emptiness.
According to the Lanka, it is a doctrine for those afraid of emptiness, therefore provisional.
I don't have an unassailable source, but I'll go out on a limb and assert that grasped emptiness is provisional, too. The razor's edge is tough to balance on.
You can just use Nāgārjuna as a source: emptiness incorrectly seen is like grasping a viper by the tail or incorrect reciting a vidyāmantra. Nevertheless, the Lanka's perspective on tathāgatagarbha is pretty clear.
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra

Post by Malcolm »

Queequeg wrote: Wed Feb 03, 2021 3:44 pm
Malcolm wrote: Wed Feb 03, 2021 3:42 pm
FiveSkandhas wrote: Wed Feb 03, 2021 3:35 pm Yogacara and Tathagatagharba in particular seem to be set upon constantly by faulty readings.
No, Yogacāra really is a realist school, despite the attempts of some traditional Tibetan and Chinese scholars, and modern scholars like Dan Lusthaus, to revision it in nonrealist terms.
For the less learned, can you explain that?
For Yogacārins, emptiness exists, it is strictly defined as an affirming negation; a village is empty of a city, and so on. Asanga explicitly invokes the emptiness described in the Cullasuññata sutta in a rebuke to Madhyamakas.
User avatar
ThreeVows
Posts: 942
Joined: Mon May 08, 2017 5:54 pm

Re: Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra

Post by ThreeVows »

Malcolm wrote: Wed Feb 03, 2021 3:23 pm They are for Gorampa as well, providing tathāgatagarbha is properly understood. But if for example the nine examples are not correctly understood, he states the TTG sūtras are provisional.

Also, the reason Longchenpa claims the TTG sūtras are definitive has to do with how he understands them in relation to Dzogchen. He also defines Prasanga Madhyamaka as the definitive view.

In general, however, the Buddha himself declares the tathāgatagarbha doctrine provisional, that is interpretable, in the Lanka Sūtra.
Just to add to this, FWIW, from Dudjom Rinpoche:

"...while the intention of the final transmitted precepts is not the same as that of the mundane Mind Only system in any of its forms, the purposes of the lower phases of the vehicle are gradually gathered within the higher, so that [Mind Only and the like] are not contradictory apart from their vindication of an extreme position. Indeed, one must truly comprehend that the great distinction of the higher over the lower phases is a feature of the precious teaching of the sublime Sugata. Otherwise, after one had been given teaching on suffering, selflessness, impurity and impermanence according to the first promulgation and everything had been established as emptiness according to the intermediate transmitted precepts, if one were then to grasp literally the meaningful intention revealed according to the final transmitted precepts concerning bliss, purity, permanence and true self, without knowing how to accept them with an attitude confident in the four kinds of reliance, one would engage in conceptualising thoughts which would confuse those who require training and wrongly scrutinize the teaching."
“Whoever wants to find the wisdom beyond intellect without praying to his guru is like someone waiting for the sun to shine in a cave facing the north. He will never realize appearances and his mind to be one.”
Kyabje Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche
Archie2009
Posts: 1583
Joined: Tue Jun 09, 2020 10:39 pm

Re: Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra

Post by Archie2009 »

Malcolm wrote: Wed Feb 03, 2021 3:42 pm
FiveSkandhas wrote: Wed Feb 03, 2021 3:35 pm Yogacara and Tathagatagharba in particular seem to be set upon constantly by faulty readings.
No, Yogacāra really is a realist school, despite the attempts of some traditional Tibetan and Chinese scholars, and modern scholars like Dan Lusthaus, to revision it in nonrealist terms.
Does that include Karl Brunnhölzl?
User avatar
Svalaksana
Posts: 477
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2020 11:11 pm

Re: Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra

Post by Svalaksana »

Zhen Li wrote: Wed Feb 03, 2021 4:08 am
Manjushri wrote: Mon Feb 01, 2021 11:52 am Yes, but unfortunately I have not been able to accustomize to reading long texts on a screen, whether laptop or tablet, as it bothers my eyes after a while, especially with long texts. I'm also used to make notes on the sides and highlight passages, hence why that option won't suit me. In any case, thank you for the suggestion.
I'm going to fall down on the side of sticking to the Yamamoto/Page translation for now.
Thanks for your feedback on the translations and your suggestion. It's a novel approach for me, but I'll certainly give it a try.
Looking but not seeing - that's my eye.
Thinking but not minding - that's my mind.
Speaking but not expressing - that's my tongue.
Traveling but not going - that's my path.
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra

Post by Malcolm »

Seeker12 wrote: Wed Feb 03, 2021 3:59 pm
Malcolm wrote: Wed Feb 03, 2021 3:23 pm They are for Gorampa as well, providing tathāgatagarbha is properly understood. But if for example the nine examples are not correctly understood, he states the TTG sūtras are provisional.

Also, the reason Longchenpa claims the TTG sūtras are definitive has to do with how he understands them in relation to Dzogchen. He also defines Prasanga Madhyamaka as the definitive view.

In general, however, the Buddha himself declares the tathāgatagarbha doctrine provisional, that is interpretable, in the Lanka Sūtra.
Just to add to this, FWIW, from Dudjom Rinpoche:

"...while the intention of the final transmitted precepts is not the same as that of the mundane Mind Only system in any of its forms, the purposes of the lower phases of the vehicle are gradually gathered within the higher, so that [Mind Only and the like] are not contradictory apart from their vindication of an extreme position. Indeed, one must truly comprehend that the great distinction of the higher over the lower phases is a feature of the precious teaching of the sublime Sugata. Otherwise, after one had been given teaching on suffering, selflessness, impurity and impermanence according to the first promulgation and everything had been established as emptiness according to the intermediate transmitted precepts, if one were then to grasp literally the meaningful intention revealed according to the final transmitted precepts concerning bliss, purity, permanence and true self, without knowing how to accept them with an attitude confident in the four kinds of reliance, one would engage in conceptualising thoughts which would confuse those who require training and wrongly scrutinize the teaching."

Sure, if you accept the scheme of the Samdhnirmocana Sūtra as defintive. I never have. I prefer the approach of the Sandhivyākaraṇa Tantra: "The pleasing single vajra word is heard different by beings with different dispositions."

Also, I don't think that Dudjom Rinpoche's position here withstands examination. He is largely just repeating Kongtrul, etc. People who adhere to the extrinsic emptiness position will find this convincing, those who don't, won't.
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra

Post by Malcolm »

Archie2009 wrote: Wed Feb 03, 2021 5:50 pm
Malcolm wrote: Wed Feb 03, 2021 3:42 pm
FiveSkandhas wrote: Wed Feb 03, 2021 3:35 pm Yogacara and Tathagatagharba in particular seem to be set upon constantly by faulty readings.
No, Yogacāra really is a realist school, despite the attempts of some traditional Tibetan and Chinese scholars, and modern scholars like Dan Lusthaus, to revision it in nonrealist terms.
Does that include Karl Brunnhölzl?
KB admits that the Yogacāra of Maitreyanatha, Asanga etc., adheres to the portrait of Yogacāra painted by Bhavaviveka.
User avatar
Matt J
Posts: 1440
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2010 2:29 am
Location: Denver, CO

Re: Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra

Post by Matt J »

Here is what Khenpo Tsultrim Gyamtso says about it:
The tirthikas, such as different Hindu traditoins and so on, hold the belief of there being a self or atman that is eternal, unique, and independent. This self or atman is called "true self." The term “perfection of true self” is to be understood as follows: The tirthikas, such as different Hindu traditions and so on, hold the belief of there being a self or atman that is eternal (Tib. rtag pa), unique (Tib. gcig), and independent (Tib. rang dbang). This self or atman is called “true self.” The shravakas and so on remedy this belief by the meditation on the non-existence of a self. They meditate that everything does not exist as a self at all, that everything is nothing but sheer voidness. The belief in the existence of an eternal, unique, and independent self is a wrong concept and perception. While the recognition that everything is utterly non-existent constitutes a valid remedy for this wrong perception of the tirthikas, it is in its turn also distorted in that it does not correspond to the ultimate nature of everything either.

The ultimate nature of everything is a state of peace completely beyond the conceptual elaboration in terms of the existence of a self or the non-existence of a self. If, for instance, while dreaming one thinks in terms of “self” and “I,” attachment to one’s body will arise born from the belief in an existing self. This is a mistaken reaction based on a deluded concept. If, while dreaming, one thinks that a self does not exist at all and therefore takes this body to be nothing but empty, this is also a deluded thought. In truth it is beyond any of these conceptual elaborations.

There is a great difference between “true self” as taught in the Hindu traditions and as taught in the Mahayana system. In the first sense the term “true self” denotes a self that is eternal, unique, and independent. “True self” as taught in the Uttara Tantra Shastra is equivalent to the state of peace in terms of complete freedom from any conceptual elaboration. This state of peace has only been given the name of “true self.” There is a mere similarity in terms. The Mahayana system does not hold the view of an eternal, unique, and independent self. Between light and darkness, for instance, there is only a similarity inasmuch as they are both things (Skt. bh›va, Tib. dngos po) fulfilling a function. Apart from that they contradict each other; there is not the slightest similarity. (emphasis and paragraphs added)
More here:

https://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.p ... 31#p487831


anagarika wrote: Thu Jan 28, 2021 10:55 pm I´ve recently come across this essay whose title strikes me as very... non-Buddhist, to say the least :D. It is called "Affirmation of Eternal Self in the Mahāyāna Mahaparinirvana Sutra":
"The world is made of stories, not atoms."
--- Muriel Rukeyser
illarraza
Posts: 1257
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2011 4:30 am

Re: Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra

Post by illarraza »

anagarika wrote: Thu Jan 28, 2021 11:25 pm

Ignore Dr. Tony Page.

If you actually read the text, even the one Page edited, it is clear that the "True Self" is actually the "non-self", just a way to talk about it in positive terms.
This was of course one of the ways of reading the sutra I tried, but even then the sutra speaks clearly against the cultivation of emptiness as being useless from the soteriological point of view... this makes things a bit trickier because it is now not merely a linguistic debate about negation/affirmation but a polemic with the method of liberation. Emptiness is said to be not conducive to it which is a radical departure from basic tenets of Buddhism (regardless of specific school).
Not from the basic tenets of the Nichiren Lotus Sutra schools who take to heart, from the Immeasurable Meanings Sutra (the prologue to the Lotus Sutra):

“Good men, in the past I sat upright for six years under the bodhi tree in the place of enlightenment and was able to gain supreme perfect enlightenment. With the Buddha eye I observed all phenomena and knew that this enlightenment could not be explained or described. Why? Because I knew that living beings are not alike in their natures and desires. And because their natures and desires are not alike, I preached the Law in various different ways. Preaching the Law in various different ways, I made use of the power of expedient means. But in these more than forty years, I have not yet revealed the truth. Therefore the ways they gained were not uniform but differed in different cases, and they have not been able to quickly attain unsurpassed enlightenment."

Mark
Nicholas Weeks
Posts: 4209
Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 4:21 am
Location: California

Re: Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra

Post by Nicholas Weeks »

anagarika wrote: Fri Jan 29, 2021 12:41 pm
Manjushri wrote: Fri Jan 29, 2021 12:19 pm I had asked this question before in the Books thread, but since I received no answer perhaps I'll have better luck here:

Are there other translations of the Mahaparinirvana Sutra, other than the (pricey) BDK edition or the translation from Dr. Tony Duff, which from what I understand, bears some "uncertainties", let's say?

I found this one:

http://lirs.ru/do/Mahaparinirvana_Sutra ... e,2007.pdf

But I´m not sure if this really is the text - I mean, is it possible that one single sutra is really so voluminous? :O It´s more than 500 pages!
If this were the original Yamamoto version, fine, but it is not. It says Page edited it. Yamamoto's is out there, in print.
User avatar
Zhen Li
Posts: 2748
Joined: Sun Apr 07, 2013 8:15 am
Location: Tokyo
Contact:

Re: Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra

Post by Zhen Li »

Nicholas Weeks wrote: Sat Feb 13, 2021 3:39 pm If this were the original Yamamoto version, fine, but it is not. It says Page edited it. Yamamoto's is out there, in print.
Is it really? I have searched for ages and can't find any copies. Even on ABE books.

As far as I could determine Page's edit is the only one that is published and distributed.

It would be helpful if you could lay out some of the specific issues you see with Page's edit of Yamamoto's translation, since you seem to have knowledge of this matter. What are they and how can they be improved? What was better in Yamamoto's original which is different in Page's edit? Finally, for all the talk of the shortcomings of Yamamoto's translation, what are the real issues with Yamamoto's translation which are observed? I only ever hear complaints but no evidence that those complaining have actually compared the translation to the Chinese or offered suitable alternatives. Having myself read into it quite a bit, as with most translations you get used to the terminological idiosyncrasies after a few pages so the only issues that are substantial have to be grammatical. Could some of those who are complaining please stand up to the plate and defend their claims?
User avatar
Queequeg
Former staff member
Posts: 14454
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 3:24 pm

Re: Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra

Post by Queequeg »

Zhen Li wrote: Tue Feb 16, 2021 1:29 am
Nicholas Weeks wrote: Sat Feb 13, 2021 3:39 pm If this were the original Yamamoto version, fine, but it is not. It says Page edited it. Yamamoto's is out there, in print.
Is it really? I have searched for ages and can't find any copies. Even on ABE books.

As far as I could determine Page's edit is the only one that is published and distributed.

It would be helpful if you could lay out some of the specific issues you see with Page's edit of Yamamoto's translation, since you seem to have knowledge of this matter. What are they and how can they be improved? What was better in Yamamoto's original which is different in Page's edit? Finally, for all the talk of the shortcomings of Yamamoto's translation, what are the real issues with Yamamoto's translation which are observed? I only ever hear complaints but no evidence that those complaining have actually compared the translation to the Chinese or offered suitable alternatives. Having myself read into it quite a bit, as with most translations you get used to the terminological idiosyncrasies after a few pages so the only issues that are substantial have to be grammatical. Could some of those who are complaining please stand up to the plate and defend their claims?
:coffee:
There is no suffering to be severed. Ignorance and klesas are indivisible from bodhi. There is no cause of suffering to be abandoned. Since extremes and the false are the Middle and genuine, there is no path to be practiced. Samsara is nirvana. No severance achieved. No suffering nor its cause. No path, no end. There is no transcendent realm; there is only the one true aspect. There is nothing separate from the true aspect.
-Guanding, Perfect and Sudden Contemplation,
User avatar
jikai
Posts: 200
Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2011 12:52 pm
Location: Tokyo, Japan.
Contact:

Re: Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra

Post by jikai »

Zhen Li wrote: Tue Feb 16, 2021 1:29 am
Nicholas Weeks wrote: Sat Feb 13, 2021 3:39 pm If this were the original Yamamoto version, fine, but it is not. It says Page edited it. Yamamoto's is out there, in print.
Is it really? I have searched for ages and can't find any copies. Even on ABE books.

As far as I could determine Page's edit is the only one that is published and distributed.

It would be helpful if you could lay out some of the specific issues you see with Page's edit of Yamamoto's translation, since you seem to have knowledge of this matter. What are they and how can they be improved? What was better in Yamamoto's original which is different in Page's edit? Finally, for all the talk of the shortcomings of Yamamoto's translation, what are the real issues with Yamamoto's translation which are observed? I only ever hear complaints but no evidence that those complaining have actually compared the translation to the Chinese or offered suitable alternatives. Having myself read into it quite a bit, as with most translations you get used to the terminological idiosyncrasies after a few pages so the only issues that are substantial have to be grammatical. Could some of those who are complaining please stand up to the plate and defend their claims?
For what it's worth, I have a copy of the original Kosho Yamamoto translation (I.e. not the Tony Page edition). It is out there, but I doubt it is 'still in print'. I picked my copy up many moons ago in a second hand book shop in Japan. Though, having this version I've not needed to look into the Page version too deeply- so I couldn't say with much detail what changes have been made to the text itself. If anyone is curious about particular sections or passages, I'd be happy to check it against the original.

Gassho,

Jikai
"止觀明靜前代未聞"
(摩訶止觀)

"此妙法蓮花經者本地甚深之奧藏也"
( 法華玄義)

"觀心者空觀是般若假觀是解脫中觀是法身"
(法華文句)
User avatar
Zhen Li
Posts: 2748
Joined: Sun Apr 07, 2013 8:15 am
Location: Tokyo
Contact:

Re: Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra

Post by Zhen Li »

jikai wrote: Tue Sep 28, 2021 6:09 amFor what it's worth, I have a copy of the original Kosho Yamamoto translation (I.e. not the Tony Page edition). It is out there, but I doubt it is 'still in print'. I picked my copy up many moons ago in a second hand book shop in Japan. Though, having this version I've not needed to look into the Page version too deeply- so I couldn't say with much detail what changes have been made to the text itself. If anyone is curious about particular sections or passages, I'd be happy to check it against the original.
Thank you for that offer. If there is something I would be happy to contact you.

I found a scan of the table of contents at some point and was able to figure out the chaptering that Page's edit completely obscured. Now as I read the translation I always follow along in the Chinese to see how it compares. It's fairly literal and I don't have many doubts about Yamamoto's translation aside from choice of terminology. As far as I can tell, Page puts all of his own edits in square brackets, which are sometimes helpful. Sometimes Yamamoto uses a different word for the same term in Chinese from one sentence to the next (I can't think of any off my head, but it's something I noticed this weekend).

There are some things that I haven't been able to figure out though, which might be clearer in T374. For one, the sūtra lists the five kinds of action (五行) that were supposed to be taught to the assembly:
1. Holy Action
2. Pure Action
3. Heavenly Action
4. Illness Action
5. Child's Action

I was able to figure out what these correspond to, but Heavenly Action really is not explained anywhere in T375. I wonder if it is something that fell away, if indeed T375 is an edit of Dharmakṣema's version. Or perhaps it corresoponds to something which is given a synonymous name elsewhere—it also seems like illness action is not clearly signposted, but I assume it means the Buddha not really experiencing sickness.

I will try to make an outline based on my notes when I get through the whole thing. There's definitely a very interesting structure underlying the sūtra.
Post Reply

Return to “Sūtra Studies”