Two recent BDK publications:

Discuss and learn about the traditional Mahayana scriptures, without assuming that any one school ‘owns’ the only correct interpretation.
Post Reply
User avatar
Zhen Li
Posts: 2749
Joined: Sun Apr 07, 2013 8:15 am
Location: Tokyo
Contact:

Two recent BDK publications:

Post by Zhen Li »

Hello everyone.

No one has posted about these yet, so I will just make an announcement in case anyone is interested in these new translations from 2021 published by BDK.

Analysis of the Middle and Extremes (T1600) by Jeffrey Kotyk
Analysis of the Middle and Extremes is the first English translation of the Chinese translation of the Madhyāntavibhāga-bhāṣya from Sanskrit by Xuanzang (602–664). The Madhyāntavibhāga-bhāṣya is an explanation of Mahayana Buddhist thought, intended to explicate the full path to buddhahood via gradual advancement through the bodhisattva stages. The text can be regarded as a kind of detailed manual explaining the career of a successful Buddhist practitioner—specifically a bodhisattva—from the very beginning until their achievement of the ultimate goal, buddhahood itself. The work is comprised of primary verses (kārikā) together with interspersed commentary (bhāṣya). This text subsequently became an important component within the Yogācāra corpus.
and
The Scripture on the Monk Nāgasena (T1670B) by Bhikkhu Analayo
The Scripture on the Monk Nāgasena is one of two extant Chinese counterparts to the Pāli Milindapa ha, the “Questions of Milinda,” a debate on central themes of Buddhist doctrine between a king called Milinda, apparently corresponding to the Bactrian Greek King Menander (second century B.C.E.), and the Buddhist monk Nāgasena. While the actual circumstances of the translation into Chinese of this text are unknown, and the identity of the translator(s) and the time of the translation work remain uncertain, it was likely done sometime in the second or third century C.E. The actual encounter between Nāgasena and Milinda stands in the tradition of ancient Indian debate, where the point is not primarily to refute an argument with sound proofs but to successfully counter a challenge in order to win the debate and convert the opponent. The discussion reported in the Milindapa ha and its Chinese parallels gradually evolves from its starting point as a debate to becoming more of an exchange between teacher and pupil, and the debates are enlivened by the rich use of metaphors and similes.
https://bdkamerica.org/product/analysis ... -nagasena/

The Mahayana Sutra of Previous Lives and Contemplation of the Mind-ground (T159) by Rolf Giebel
This scripture is best known in China and Japan for its exposition of the four debts of gratitude and to a lesser extent its instructions concerning an abridged version of a visualization practice characteristic of the Sarvatathāgatatattvasaṃgraha. It also merits attention for its chapters on renunciant bodhisattvas and their practices, which are likely to be the most faithful to Prajña’s Sanskrit base text and provide further insights into the current of eremeticism that is known to have constituted an important aspect of the early Mahayana.
https://bdkamerica.org/product/the-maha ... nd-ground/

I'm focusing on the MPNS and Tathāgataguhya at the moment so I might not be making a close study of these any time soon, but if anyone has read them and has any thoughts I'd be interested in hearing.
:anjali:
User avatar
Svalaksana
Posts: 477
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2020 11:11 pm

Re: Two recent BDK publications:

Post by Svalaksana »

Hey Zhen Li, thank you for letting us know. I try to keep up with most recent Buddhist publications from major publishers, but the ones you mentioned went under my radar.

I'd be interested in knowing on what are the main differences between the proper, original text of the Analysis of the Middle and Extremes and Xuanzang's translation, if there's any, and wether it's meaningful to add to one's collection if one already has, say for example Shambhala's Middle Beyond Extremes : Maitreya's Madhyantavibhaga with Commentaries by Khenpo Shenga and Ju Mipham.
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.
User avatar
Zhen Li
Posts: 2749
Joined: Sun Apr 07, 2013 8:15 am
Location: Tokyo
Contact:

Re: Two recent BDK publications:

Post by Zhen Li »

Svalaksana wrote: Fri Sep 24, 2021 6:06 pm Hey Zhen Li, thank you for letting us know. I try to keep up with most recent Buddhist publications from major publishers, but the ones you mentioned went under my radar.

I'd be interested in knowing on what are the main differences between the proper, original text of the Analysis of the Middle and Extremes and Xuanzang's translation, if there's any, and wether it's meaningful to add to one's collection if one already has, say for example Shambhala's Middle Beyond Extremes : Maitreya's Madhyantavibhaga with Commentaries by Khenpo Shenga and Ju Mipham.
Well, I haven't read either yet. If I am not wrong, Middle Beyond Extremes : Maitreya's Madhyantavibhaga with Commentaries by Khenpo Shenga and Ju Mipham is also not a translation from Sanskrit, if thats what you mean by "the proper, original text." There are two translations from Sanskrit (D'Angelo's being the most well known), but manuscripts differ, so we can't actually talk about a "proper, original text." Just looking at Jeffrey's introduction, he says,
I have frequently referred to the Sanskrit in order to clarify meanings, although it must be noted that the Chinese translation was, it seems, produced using a different manuscript than Nagao’s recension. The structure and meaning of the Chinese differ considerably at times rom the extant Sanskrit version. It is uncertain whether these differences stem from Xuanzang’s reorganization of the text or the simple fact that he used a separate recension. The Sanskrit text consulted by Xuanzang in the seventh century, which is not extant, was no doubt different from Nagao’s text. Nagao’s text was based on a photographed version from Tibet that dates to the thirteenth or fourteenth century.

The present translation might be of use to readers interested in Indian Yogācāra. The Chinese text and commentary often provide clear and reasonable interpretations of otherwise ambiguous lines in the Sanskrit. In some cases, I favor traditional Chinese explanations over D’Amato’s translation of the corresponding Sanskrit, since it is reasonable to think that Xuanzang interpreted the text based upon what he had learned while resident at Nālanda. This is one advantage to consulting Xuanzang’s translations. Nevertheless, although the Sanskrit is indeed key to understanding Yogācāra in its Indian context, East Asian Yogācāra, or Faxiang zong (Jp. Hossō-shū 法相宗), was based on Chinese translations of Indic texts and the subsequent commentarial literature that followed.
So, it probably depends upon your interest. If you want to understand the text from an East Asian perspective, then of course you need to read Xuanzang's version. If from a Tibetan perspective, then of course the Shambhala one.

To really know the differences I suppose one would need to make a concordance with all the translations and editions side by side and then make a critical edition. I don't really see the use in doing that though. Like Malcolm said recently with regard to heavily annotated translations, they slow down the speed of translation. Overall, this slows down the speed to translating the entire canon. Personally I feel like we should try to get a good first attempt at translating everything available, and then, after we have a good birds eye view of what's available, go into the particulars.
User avatar
Svalaksana
Posts: 477
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2020 11:11 pm

Re: Two recent BDK publications:

Post by Svalaksana »

Thanks for the reply. Seems reasonable to have a look at Xuanzang's translation, expecting a clearer understanding of East Asian Buddhism.
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: Two recent BDK publications:

Post by Malcolm »

Svalaksana wrote: Sat Sep 25, 2021 9:23 am Thanks for the reply. Seems reasonable to have a look at Xuanzang's translation, expecting a clearer understanding of East Asian Buddhism.
Xuantsang is a valuable resource for understanding Yogacāra thought in the 6th century India. This is his main value.
User avatar
Svalaksana
Posts: 477
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2020 11:11 pm

Re: Two recent BDK publications:

Post by Svalaksana »

Thanks Malcolm. In the past year, I've delved into Vasubandhu and Yogacara thought, so this should be relevant to my interests.
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.
User avatar
Leo Rivers
Posts: 498
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2011 4:52 am
Contact:

Re:BDK publication Madhyāntavibhāga-Bhāsya THE DEBATE

Post by Leo Rivers »

THANKS Zhen Li !

This will be interesting.

Much current conversation about the Yogācāra Three Natures Theory have be a real disagreement is the Paratantra a "pivot" of psychological orientation, or are all three natures in the nature of a progression involving a transformation of the traveller?

SPONBERG and then after him D’AMATO adopted the PIVOT theory.

But with a [seems to me] more broadly supported investigation Joy specifically responded to them that she believes it was the transformation in the base theory that was correct... all though all the classical Yogācāra sources would drop a stitch occasionally and use the pivot model.

Joy says:
This paper has two goals: first, to use an exegetical method to show that the pivotal model is not in fact the three natures model that predominates in early and foundational Yogācāra-Vijñānavāda literature, and second, to offer an interpretation of the three natures theory that answers the fundamental question of the theory’s purport.
Joy's paper: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q ... XJRY87zDFS

BDK page: https://bdkamerica.org/product/analysi ... -nagasena/

Download link: https://bdkamerica.org/wp-content/uplo ... a_2021.pdf

Brennan, Joy. “The Three Natures and the Path to Liberation in Yogācāra-Vijñānavāda Thought.” Kenyon College, May 9, 2018.

D’AMATO, Mario. Maitreya’s Distinguishing the Middle from the Extremes - Madhyāntavibhāga - Along with Vasubandhu’s Commentary - Madhyāntavibhāga-Bhāsya. New York: Columbia University Press, 2012.

SPONBERG, Alan, and Helen HARDACRE. Maitreya, the Future Buddha. Cambridge University Press, 2010.

VASUBANDHU, Shramana. Analysis of the Middle and Extremes - the Madhyāntavibhāga-Bhāṣya from Sanskrit by Xuanzang (602–664). Translated by Xuanzang and Jeffrey Kotyk. Vol. 32,. BDK English Tripiṭaka Series 1670B. Moraga, California: BDK America, Inc, 2021.

What do YOU think? :popcorn:
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Re:BDK publication Madhyāntavibhāga-Bhāsya THE DEBATE

Post by Malcolm »

Leo Rivers wrote: Sat Sep 25, 2021 6:48 pm

What do YOU think? :popcorn:
Then there is Geoffery Forgue's theory that the three natures actually refer to the three turnings of the wheel, which you can read about in the intro to his new translation of the Samdhinirmocana...

Karl Brunholzl pretty much supports the the idea that the original model was the pivot theory model, and that the progressive model was a later development.
User avatar
Leo Rivers
Posts: 498
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2011 4:52 am
Contact:

Re: Two recent BDK publications:

Post by Leo Rivers »

Malcolm
do you know with which sutra or teacher the non- pivot theory emerged? Because Joy found evidence that the pivot theory occasionally showed up in works mostly using the other. That means both metaphors were viewed as situationally useful in the course of an exposition.

Thanks
Leo
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Two recent BDK publications:

Post by Malcolm »

Leo Rivers wrote: Sat Sep 25, 2021 8:17 pm Malcolm
do you know with which sutra or teacher the non- pivot theory emerged? Because Joy found evidence that the pivot theory occasionally showed up in works mostly using the other. That means both metaphors were viewed as situationally useful in the course of an exposition.

Thanks
Leo
According to a personal conversation with D'amato many years ago, he asserted that the progressive theory can be found the Mahāyānasūtralaṃkāra, resembling the gzhan stong idea that the perfected is empty of the imagined and the perfected.
User avatar
Leo Rivers
Posts: 498
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2011 4:52 am
Contact:

Re: Two recent BDK publications:

Post by Leo Rivers »

CORRECTION Sponberg reference was to Sponberg, Alan. “The Trisvabhāva Doctrine in India and China: A Study of Three Exegetical Models.” In Ryūkoku Daigaku Bukkyō Bunka Kenyūjo Kiyō 22 (1983): 97-119. :namaste:
User avatar
Zhen Li
Posts: 2749
Joined: Sun Apr 07, 2013 8:15 am
Location: Tokyo
Contact:

Re: Re:BDK publication Madhyāntavibhāga-Bhāsya THE DEBATE

Post by Zhen Li »

Leo Rivers wrote: Sat Sep 25, 2021 6:48 pm What do YOU think? :popcorn:
I would have to begin reading from the ABCs of Yogācāra as I am not really conversant any of these terms. :reading:
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Two recent BDK publications:

Post by Malcolm »

Malcolm wrote: Sat Sep 25, 2021 9:26 pm
Leo Rivers wrote: Sat Sep 25, 2021 8:17 pm Malcolm
do you know with which sutra or teacher the non- pivot theory emerged? Because Joy found evidence that the pivot theory occasionally showed up in works mostly using the other. That means both metaphors were viewed as situationally useful in the course of an exposition.

Thanks
Leo
According to a personal conversation with D'amato many years ago, he asserted that the progressive theory can be found the Mahāyānasūtralaṃkāra, resembling the gzhan stong idea that the perfected is empty of the imagined and the perfected.
Correction, empty of the imagined and dependent.
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Re:BDK publication Madhyāntavibhāga-Bhāsya THE DEBATE

Post by Malcolm »

Zhen Li wrote: Sun Sep 26, 2021 1:23 am
Leo Rivers wrote: Sat Sep 25, 2021 6:48 pm What do YOU think? :popcorn:
I would have to begin reading from the ABCs of Yogācāra as I am not really conversant any of these terms. :reading:
Yogacara sputtered to a halt partly because it is overly analytical. But it appeals to philosophers. Madhyamaka is actually more yogic than Yogacara.
Post Reply

Return to “Sūtra Studies”