The Mahaparinirvana Sutra
- DNS
- Site Admin
- Posts: 5270
- Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 4:23 pm
- Location: Las Vegas, Nevada, Estados Unidos de América
- Contact:
Re: The Mahaparinirvana Sutra
Apparently those translations are from:
http://kathodos.com/att.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The main pages on the website are entered by permission only, so went to the who is info:
http://www.whois.com/whois/kathodos.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
It is Ken Wheeler of Dark Zen. As my father would say, "consider the source."
Take those translations with a grain of salt or rather a couple of 100kg bags of salt.
http://kathodos.com/att.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The main pages on the website are entered by permission only, so went to the who is info:
http://www.whois.com/whois/kathodos.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
It is Ken Wheeler of Dark Zen. As my father would say, "consider the source."
Take those translations with a grain of salt or rather a couple of 100kg bags of salt.
Re: The Mahaparinirvana Sutra
Thanks David. That kathodos webpage is an obvious attempt to spread misinformation.David N. Snyder wrote:Apparently those translations are from:
http://kathodos.com/att.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The main pages on the website are entered by permission only, so went to the who is info:
http://www.whois.com/whois/kathodos.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
It is Ken Wheeler of Dark Zen. As my father would say, "consider the source."
Take those translations with a grain of salt or rather a couple of 100kg bags of salt.
-
- Posts: 1123
- Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2011 6:48 pm
Re: The Mahaparinirvana Sutra
Jnana wrote:Thanks David. That kathodos webpage is an obvious attempt to spread misinformation.David N. Snyder wrote:Apparently those translations are from:
http://kathodos.com/att.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The main pages on the website are entered by permission only, so went to the who is info:
http://www.whois.com/whois/kathodos.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
It is Ken Wheeler of Dark Zen. As my father would say, "consider the source."
Take those translations with a grain of salt or rather a couple of 100kg bags of salt.
The translations are not from the kathodos webpage,by all means compare them,the translations are different in wording.
Although im pretty sure no matter how much proof is provided no matter how many suttas and commentary texts are qouted you will still wont accept the proof.
Re: The Mahaparinirvana Sutra
Perhaps you could cite where your translations are coming from?Son of Buddha wrote: The translations are not from the kathodos webpage,by all means compare them,the translations are different in wording.
Although im pretty sure no matter how much proof is provided no matter how many suttas and commentary texts are qouted you will still wont accept the proof.
-
- Posts: 1123
- Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2011 6:48 pm
Re: The Mahaparinirvana Sutra
Huseng wrote:Perhaps you could cite where your translations are coming from?Son of Buddha wrote: The translations are not from the kathodos webpage,by all means compare them,the translations are different in wording.
Although im pretty sure no matter how much proof is provided no matter how many suttas and commentary texts are qouted you will still wont accept the proof.
Buddha-nature in the Pali Canon | Randrols Ramblings
randrolsramblings.wordpress.com/.../buddha-nature-in-the-pali-cano...
The Translator is a well known Translator
Douglas Duckworth
their Sanghas Information is listed contacts can be made if you need to do back ground info on said individuals and the information for their Monks is also posted,if anyone needs to talk to the teachers.
(I beleive MR Duckworth is into Shentong True self as is myself,which lead him to obviously look for the teachings in the suttas to confirm an old foundation for such views)
also looking at the kathodos webpage I noticed the translations are different in wording(mainly the sentences are the same it seems however they have replaced (self) with (soul) so these are 2 completely different translations that can be compared.
(sorry I didnt post this earlier I couldnt find the website on Bing,It took me alittle while to realise the search engine needed to be changed to google)
Peace and Love
Re: The Mahaparinirvana Sutra
These translations are problematic.Son of Buddha wrote: Buddha-nature in the Pali Canon | Randrols Ramblings
randrolsramblings.wordpress.com/.../buddha-nature-in-the-pali-cano...
The Translator is a well known Translator
Douglas Duckworth
their Sanghas Information is listed contacts can be made if you need to do back ground info on said individuals and the information for their Monks is also posted,if anyone needs to talk to the teachers.
(I beleive MR Duckworth is into Shentong True self as is myself,which lead him to obviously look for the teachings in the suttas to confirm an old foundation for such views)
Perhaps you might consider using Access to Insight?
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
-
- Posts: 1123
- Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2011 6:48 pm
Re: The Mahaparinirvana Sutra
how are they problematic?you have 2 different translations by 2 different people saying almost the same exact thing(one useing self the other useing soul)Huseng wrote: These translations are problematic.
Perhaps you might consider using Access to Insight?
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
now I could see it being problematic if these two different translations were completely different from one anouther but they are not.(they seem to be in agreement on everything other that the punchline(self)(soul)
Re: The Mahaparinirvana Sutra
Son of Buddha wrote: how are they problematic?you have 2 different translations by 2 different people saying almost the same exact thing(one useing self the other useing soul)
now I could see it being problematic if these two different translations were completely different from one anouther but they are not.(they seem to be in agreement on everything other that the punchline(self)(soul)
Your selection are clearly aimed at promoting an adharmic view and hence are unacceptable.
Re: The Mahaparinirvana Sutra
Duckworth says he didn't make those translations. The significant similarities (right down to citation style and number, etc.) strongly suggests that they are merely a slightly reworked version of what is found on that Kathodos webpage. Both versions are seriously flawed to the point that they aren't translations at all. The main error -- which is obviously intentional -- is translating pronouns as if they referred to a metaphysical Self.Son of Buddha wrote:The Translator is a well known Translator
Douglas Duckworth
-
- Posts: 1123
- Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2011 6:48 pm
Re: The Mahaparinirvana Sutra
Jnana wrote:Duckworth says he didn't make those translations. The significant similarities (right down to citation style and number, etc.) strongly suggests that they are merely a slightly reworked version of what is found on that Kathodos webpage. Both versions are seriously flawed to the point that they aren't translations at all. The main error -- which is obviously intentional -- is translating pronouns as if they referred to a metaphysical Self.Son of Buddha wrote:The Translator is a well known Translator
Douglas Duckworth
in the 5 minutes I posted this you have already talked to him??
whats his phone number,have him send me a message.
Re: The Mahaparinirvana Sutra
I suspected that was the case.Jnana wrote:The main error -- which is obviously intentional -- is translating pronouns as if they referred to a metaphysical Self.
Very intentional mistranslation, unless the author is completely inept.
In any case we should not allow for bogus translations to be passed off as legitimate translations of texts. Everyone can express their opinion on matters, but misrepresenting sutras with false translations is unacceptable.
Re: The Mahaparinirvana Sutra
Not to mention negative karma for the person doing it and confusing for those trying to understand the doctrine.
-
- Posts: 1123
- Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2011 6:48 pm
Re: The Mahaparinirvana Sutra
Huseng wrote:I suspected that was the case.Jnana wrote:The main error -- which is obviously intentional -- is translating pronouns as if they referred to a metaphysical Self.
Very intentional mistranslation, unless the author is completely inept.
In any case we should not allow for bogus translations to be passed off as legitimate translations of texts. Everyone can express their opinion on matters, but misrepresenting sutras with false translations is unacceptable.
I'm sorry I didnt know they were a bogus translation,I assumed it being on a Sangha website it could be trustworthy.
- Johnny Dangerous
- Global Moderator
- Posts: 17100
- Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:58 pm
- Location: Olympia WA
- Contact:
Re: The Mahaparinirvana Sutra
Now I have read this thread, and I am forced to know this "dark zen" exists, thanks alot guys, I should have known better than to look at the website
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when afflicted by disease
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when sad
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when suffering occurs
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when you are scared
-Khunu Lama
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when sad
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when suffering occurs
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when you are scared
-Khunu Lama
Re: The Mahaparinirvana Sutra
I am reluctant to announce it - it seems like whenever I do, something happens and I end up on hiatus again - but I've begun to work on my old, ancient, horrible draft of this Sutra from the late 90s and will be posting chunks every other week or so over at my website, dharmatrove.info. I'll be attempting to footnote it thoroughly, so it should be a step over and above the Yamamoto "translation" everyone is struggling with these days. So, far, there is just the beginning of Chapter 1 online. But you can see what I'll doing there.
Charlie.
Charlie.
-
- Posts: 1123
- Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2011 6:48 pm
Re: The Mahaparinirvana Sutra
Thats good we need more translations,for objective comparrisons,I do feel for you,this sutra is Massive,translating it looks like a nightmare.cdpatton wrote:I am reluctant to announce it - it seems like whenever I do, something happens and I end up on hiatus again - but I've begun to work on my old, ancient, horrible draft of this Sutra from the late 90s and will be posting chunks every other week or so over at my website, dharmatrove.info. I'll be attempting to footnote it thoroughly, so it should be a step over and above the Yamamoto "translation" everyone is struggling with these days. So, far, there is just the beginning of Chapter 1 online. But you can see what I'll doing there.
Charlie.
Peace and Love
Re: The Mahaparinirvana Sutra
Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra mention this:
What this means?The Buddha said to Kasyapa: "Seven hundred years after my entering Parinirvana, this Marapapiyas will spoil my Wonderful Dharma.
May all beings be free from suffering and causes of suffering
Re: The Mahaparinirvana Sutra
I am preparing a talk on Buddha Nature this Tuesday at Buddhist library Sydney. The audiences are generally small and non-specialists, I certainly don't want to overwhelm them with doctrinal niceties. But it has been edifying, digging into the details of the Buddha-nature teachings. I must confess, I feel an intuitive sympathy with the idea of Buddha Nature.Astus wrote: ↑Mon Jun 04, 2012 7:32 pmReconcile with which traditional Buddhism? Do you mean Theravada? Just because Mahayana seemingly has many teachings not in accord with Theravada. Otherwise, however, the Nirvana Sutra is a basis of traditional Buddhism, at least in East Asia. The Buddha is eternal. But this eternity is the unborn nature of all, it is the dharmadhatu. In other words, emptiness.Spirituality wrote:That was way more than necessary, but clear, at least in this translation. You're right: in this translation this sutra does teach Buddha is eternal and is, as such, hard to reconcile with traditional Buddhism.
I'd love to hear what someone with access to the original language who knows something of the Buddhist history of ideas has to say about this text.
I have made this comment on the slide I have prepared for this sutra:
Just running this by the learned sangha here as it's a sensitive point.This is a controversial text in many eyes because of its apparent exhortation of the ‘true self’ which almost everywhere else in Buddhist texts is identified with the doctrines of Vedanta, who were the traditional antagonists of the Buddhists.
However the Buddhist conception can be differentiated because the ‘true self’ is, in fact, empty of self! There is nothing about it which can be identified as ‘me and mine’. In this sense, it can be said that the true self is actually no self, and that no self is true self. But, this can only be realised by complete giving up of attachment to the idea of self – in other words, by the realisation of Buddha-hood.
'Only practice with no gaining idea' ~ Suzuki Roshi
Re: The Mahaparinirvana Sutra
I would recommend you read Dolpopa's "Mountain Dharma" in order to get a good understanding of the Shengtong view of "True Self". I found it rather enlightening and it made it obvious to me that the shentong/rangtong divide does not seem to be really based on anything serious (except maybe a serious misunderstanding of each other's position).Wayfarer wrote: ↑Sun Nov 25, 2018 8:33 amI am preparing a talk on Buddha Nature this Tuesday at Buddhist library Sydney. The audiences are generally small and non-specialists, I certainly don't want to overwhelm them with doctrinal niceties. But it has been edifying, digging into the details of the Buddha-nature teachings. I must confess, I feel an intuitive sympathy with the idea of Buddha Nature.Astus wrote: ↑Mon Jun 04, 2012 7:32 pmReconcile with which traditional Buddhism? Do you mean Theravada? Just because Mahayana seemingly has many teachings not in accord with Theravada. Otherwise, however, the Nirvana Sutra is a basis of traditional Buddhism, at least in East Asia. The Buddha is eternal. But this eternity is the unborn nature of all, it is the dharmadhatu. In other words, emptiness.Spirituality wrote:That was way more than necessary, but clear, at least in this translation. You're right: in this translation this sutra does teach Buddha is eternal and is, as such, hard to reconcile with traditional Buddhism.
I'd love to hear what someone with access to the original language who knows something of the Buddhist history of ideas has to say about this text.
I have made this comment on the slide I have prepared for this sutra:
Just running this by the learned sangha here as it's a sensitive point.This is a controversial text in many eyes because of its apparent exhortation of the ‘true self’ which almost everywhere else in Buddhist texts is identified with the doctrines of Vedanta, who were the traditional antagonists of the Buddhists.
However the Buddhist conception can be differentiated because the ‘true self’ is, in fact, empty of self! There is nothing about it which can be identified as ‘me and mine’. In this sense, it can be said that the true self is actually no self, and that no self is true self. But, this can only be realised by complete giving up of attachment to the idea of self – in other words, by the realisation of Buddha-hood.
"My religion is not deceiving myself."
Jetsun Milarepa 1052-1135 CE
"Butchers, prostitutes, those guilty of the five most heinous crimes, outcasts, the underprivileged: all are utterly the substance of existence and nothing other than total bliss."
The Supreme Source - The Kunjed Gyalpo
The Fundamental Tantra of Dzogchen Semde
Jetsun Milarepa 1052-1135 CE
"Butchers, prostitutes, those guilty of the five most heinous crimes, outcasts, the underprivileged: all are utterly the substance of existence and nothing other than total bliss."
The Supreme Source - The Kunjed Gyalpo
The Fundamental Tantra of Dzogchen Semde
Re: The Mahaparinirvana Sutra
Malcolm wrote:A couple of observations:
The term "true self" is nowhere used in any Indian or Tibetan Buddhist text, not even in gzhan stong texts.
Even in the Uttaratantra, where we find the Tibetan term, dam pa'i bdag in the discussion of ātmapāramitā, the Sanskrit text simply gives the term as ātma. The "dam pa" was added by Ngog Lotsawa to distinguish this "self," free from the proliferation of the self [i.e. existence] imputed by the hindus and nonself [i.e. nonexistence] imputed by śrāvakas, as a quality of the dharmakāya, — in other words, it is another way of saying the dharmakāya is free from extremes. This usage in the Uttaratantra comes from contrasting the impurity, nonidentity, suffering, and impermanence of compounded phenomena, with the purity, identity, bliss, and permanence of dharmakāya. But if someone should think this contextual usage of "self" with respect to dharmakāya means dharmakāya is an existent self, they have not understood anything of Mahāyāna at all, let alone Dzogchen, or even Buddhadharma for that matter.