The Nirvana Sutra News

Discuss and learn about the traditional Mahayana scriptures, without assuming that any one school ‘owns’ the only correct interpretation.
Post Reply
User avatar
Leo Rivers
Posts: 498
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2011 4:52 am
Contact:

The Nirvana Sutra News

Post by Leo Rivers »

Fun Fact

The new BDK NIRVANA SUTRA (MAHĀPARINIRVĀṆA-SŪTRA) VOLUME I, (Taishō Volume 12, Number 374) translated by Mark L. Blum. This has the first 10 of 40 FASCICLES, with three volumes left to come.
DOWNLOAD IT FOR FREE!https://buddhanature.tsadra.org/index.p ... a_Volume_I

NOW let's look at the Mahayana Mahāparinirvāṇa-Sūtra , translated by Kosho Yamamoto. This in 46 CHAPTERS
CHECK IT OUT https://nirvanasutranet.wordpress.com/

After comparing I can confirm that Doctor Tony Page's edition has both the core 10 chapters which Dharmakṣema translated in 421 CE and the 30 extra chapters which Dharmakṣema, ahem, co-incidentally is alleged to have "translated" in the subsequent decades.

The first 10 FASCICLES of the BDK edition indeed end after the 17th CHAPTER of the Page edition. [page 131 to page 140]

I quote the wiki here:
The translation done by Dharmakṣema from 421 CE on may for a large part be based on a non-Indian text.[15]

The first ten fascicles may be based on a birch-bark manuscript of the Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra from North-Western India that Dharmakṣema brought with him, which he used for the initial translation work of his version. This version corresponds overall in content to the "six fascicle" version and the Tibetan version.[16]:157[17][6]:104

Dharmakṣema's translation of the Mahāyāna Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra extends for a further thirty fascicles, beyond the first ten fascicles of this sutra. Many scholars doubt if these thirty fascicles are based on an Indian Sanskrit text. The chief reasons for this skepticism are these:[18]:12–13

no traces of an extended Sanskrit text has ever been found, while Sanskrit manuscript fragments of twenty four separate pages distributed right across the core portion of the Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra have been found over the past hundred years in various parts of Asia;[18]:12–13
no quotations are known from this latter portion in any Indian commentaries or sutra anthologies;[15]
no other translator in China or Tibet ever found Sanskrit copies of this portion.[15]
In addition, these doubts correspond with an account from the Chinese monk-translator Yijing,[note 6] who mentions that he searched for a copy of the enlarged Mahaparinirvāṇa-sūtra through all that time, but only found manuscripts corresponding to the core portion of this work.[6]

For these reasons, textual scholars generally regard the authenticity of the latter portion as dubious. It may have been a local Central Asian composition at best, or else written by Dharmakṣema himself, who had both the ability and the motive for doing so
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mah%C4%81 ... S%C5%ABtra

The upshot, I'll keep my BDK edition for study and spiritual edification and I'll save my money by NOT buying 2 to 4 of the BDK, hanging onto the Page edition as good enough for that material.
:cheers:
User avatar
Queequeg
Former staff member
Posts: 14462
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 3:24 pm

Re: The Nirvana Sutra News

Post by Queequeg »

Nice work. I'll follow your lead.
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
Zhen Li
Posts: 2748
Joined: Sun Apr 07, 2013 8:15 am
Location: Tokyo
Contact:

Re: The Nirvana Sutra News

Post by Zhen Li »

Firstly, we need to forget the idea that there's a scholarly consensus on the Nirvana Sutra and authenticity. There is not a quorum of scholars working on the Nirvana Sutra for us to say anything definitive. Textual composition and transmission is a complicated matter, and the arguments that Dharmakṣema was up to funny business have many issues and we can address them one by one if necessary. I am open to the idea that they are not genuine if a convincing argument is provided, but these theories about Dharmakṣema singlehandedly composing this variety of very insightful fascicles is hard to believe.

Anyway, on the topic of this thread, I wrote to Tony Page a few times about the Yamamoto translation. I made some mistakes in my older posts on this forum in claiming that it was the same as the Dharmakṣema translation (T374), it is not.

The Yamamoto translation is a translation of the "Southern" edition, which is T375.

Tony Page made a big mistake in his chapter numberings which completely obscured the divisions in Yamamoto's publication. He just numbered fascicles as "chapters" which they are not.

The chapter divisions are accurate up until chapter 18. After that, they are as follows:
19. On Holy Actions (3 fascicles)
20. On Pure Actions (5 fascicles)
21. On the Actions of the Child
22. Bodhisattva Highly Virutous King (6 fascicles)
23. On the Bodhisattva's Lion's Roar (6 fascicles)
24. On Bodhisttva Kāśyapa (4 fascicles)
25. On Kauṇḍinya (2 fascicles)

There are 25 chapters in T375. There are 13 chapters in T374. Chapter 18 in T375 is Chapter 6 in Dharmakṣema's translation. This is because T374 has more chapter divisions before 18.

However, Dharmakṣema's chapters are longer, and T374 cut them down. I think the reasons behind this are not completely clear. Some say it is readability, but I don't know if that's true...

Regarding length differences, in T374
7. On Holy Actions has 4 fascicles
8. On Pure Actions has 9 fascicles
12. On Bodhisattva Kāśyapa has 6 fascicles

Otherwise they're around the same length.

I don't know if Blum's translation is going to help with our understanding of the sūtra and its history. It is complicated and there are no easy answers.

If we study the latter chapters, we can see that there is a lot of interesting material there. If they are the product of one mind, he is a genius. I doubt it. It has the mark of the Dharma, but there are still major question marks that I have with a lot of passages. My in-depth study has made it to chapter 21 so far.
User avatar
Leo Rivers
Posts: 498
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2011 4:52 am
Contact:

Re: The Nirvana Sutra News

Post by Leo Rivers »

I appreciated reading you comment. I do think the fact that all the sanscrit quotes and fragments are from the first 10 sections does suggest a dissconnect in source if not anything nifarious.

Leo
User avatar
Zhen Li
Posts: 2748
Joined: Sun Apr 07, 2013 8:15 am
Location: Tokyo
Contact:

Re: The Nirvana Sutra News

Post by Zhen Li »

I am open to the idea that there's a disconnect and layers to development. The Prajñāpāramitā of course has layers, but the seems are harder to see because it does not announce its structure at any point. The last 3/4s of the Nirvana Sutra announces its structure pretty early on, with the different kinds of actions. There are of course interludes like the Ajataśatru materials. The point is to unfold teachings on Buddha Nature and the inversions, and how bodhisattvas and buddhas act in the world on both a conventional and ultimate level. I am planning to make an overview of the structure and maybe analyse it a bit, so I will post something if it comes to fruition.
User avatar
Leo Rivers
Posts: 498
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2011 4:52 am
Contact:

Re: The Nirvana Sutra News

Post by Leo Rivers »

see right sidebar for more on same topic! Leo

Michael Radich. The Mahāparinirvāṇa-mahāsūtra and the Emergence of Tathāgatagarbha Doctrine. Hamburg Buddhist Studies 5. Edited by Michael Zimmermann. Hamburg: Hamburg University Press, 2015. 978-3-943423-20-4.
https://www.academia.edu/10895693/Micha ... 43423_20_4
:reading:

Famously, tathāgatagarbha doctrine holds that every sentient being has within the body a womb for Buddhas, or an embryonic Buddha – the potential for full buddhahood. Previous scholars have seen this doctrine as originating in the Tathāgatagarbha-sūtra. In this book, Michael Radich argues that rather, the Mahāparinirvāṇa-mahāsūtra is most likely our earliest extant tathāgatagarbha text. Radich then argues that tathāgatagarbha ideas originated as part of a wider pattern of docetic Buddhology – ideas holding that Buddhas are not really as they appear. Buddhist docetic texts are clearly troubled by the notion that Buddhas could have flesh-and-blood human mothers. The Mahāparinirvāṇa-mahāsūtra is one such text, and tathāgatagarbha functions as a better substitute for imperfect human maternity: rather than a putrid, painful human womb, buddhahood springs from a “womb” inherent in every sentient being, which promises final liberation from flesh altogether. This book should interest readers concerned with the history of Buddhist ideas, gender in Buddhism, the early Mahāyāna, the cult of the Buddha’s relics, and relations between Buddhist ideas and practice
User avatar
Zhen Li
Posts: 2748
Joined: Sun Apr 07, 2013 8:15 am
Location: Tokyo
Contact:

Re: The Nirvana Sutra News

Post by Zhen Li »

I'm starting to get tired of these scholars and their categories for the sake of churning out publications.

All assumptions, guesses, suppositions. The historical arguments are as weak as any others. Mentioning certain places does not mean anything about the location of origin—people would not have been so ignorant of other parts of India as to not be able to mention a certain region just because they lived elsewhere.

The problem with these kinds of studies is treating a sutra as if it is isolated from and can be read as independent from Mahāyāna as a whole. What, for instance, does it add to our understanding of either the MPS or Tathāgataguhya (mentioned on pp. 46-7, I pick this out because I'm focusing on it recently) to say that the latter is not a Tathāgatagarbha text. It doesn't mention the word? Is it's doctrine contradictory? At least with Prajñāpāramitā, we are talking about a genre of Mahayana sutras recognised within Buddhist communities, but Tathāgatagarbha is just fundamental to all Mahāyāna—it is just expressed differently in different texts.

How does Radich's study, adding terminology upon terminology, really help us and does it really help us understand this sūtra in a way that a well-annotated translation would not? His appendices are useful, but of course these are things you'd notice naturally while reading through the sūtra anyway. In this light, I want to add that Blum's Vol 1/4 was published in 2013. If, optimistically, the second volume gets out next year, then at the same pace he will be almost 90 by the time the 4th volume is published. I don't mean to be so negative about these things, but we need academia to accept translation as legitimate work and allow scholars to shift their attention from churning out these useless articles which say everything about nothing, and start translating texts and building up a good quality English Tripitaka. If they annotate their translations well enough, they can make all the same arguments they make in these articles, while benefitting both fellow scholars who will read the notes and practitioners who will focus on the contents of the text.
:soapbox:
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: The Nirvana Sutra News

Post by Malcolm »

Zhen Li wrote: Sun Sep 19, 2021 4:46 pm I don't mean to be so negative about these things, but we need academia to accept translation as legitimate work and allow scholars to shift their attention from churning out these useless articles which say everything about nothing, and start translating texts and building up a good quality English Tripitaka. If they annotate their translations well enough, they can make all the same arguments they make in these articles, while benefitting both fellow scholars who will read the notes and practitioners who will focus on the contents of the text.
Strongly agree, however, I think academia is not up the task.

I personally don't like translations that are overly annotated. It is because of annotation, actually, that nothing gets translated in a speedy and efficient way. People are too worried about covering their asses.
User avatar
Zhen Li
Posts: 2748
Joined: Sun Apr 07, 2013 8:15 am
Location: Tokyo
Contact:

Re: The Nirvana Sutra News

Post by Zhen Li »

Malcolm wrote: Sun Sep 19, 2021 6:30 pm Strongly agree, however, I think academia is not up the task.

I personally don't like translations that are overly annotated. It is because of annotation, actually, that nothing gets translated in a speedy and efficient way. People are too worried about covering their asses.
This is true. Because most academics in Buddhist studies are not Buddhists or at least not sincere ones, they can never be satisfied and nitpick at each other's work. I am not saying Radich is that kind of a scholar, and I respect his work—it takes time to do these things. But frankly, a lot of what they are trying to point out in these papers is just obvious if you read the texts broadly. Contradictions or different approaches in presenting the same doctrines were clearly not a problem for Indian monks redacting these texts, and I also don't think we as Buddhists should belabour these points. If we fret over the subtle differences between Buddhatā and Tathatā, we will never see the point.

In presenting a sūtra, I think endnotes are probably preferrable to footnotes, and in this regard BDK tends to have the right balance. 84000 has a decent system as well, since it's all digital. I find that with 84000, the main advantage is also that they frequently go back and fix things. You don't have to worry about getting things perfect if you are open to revisions if someone finds an error.
Post Reply

Return to “Sūtra Studies”