Oh.. alright, thanks.. much easier now.
"Early Buddhist schools" vs Mahayana ideas of them
Re: "early Buddhist schools" vs Mahayana ideas of them
In another sentence: The First Commandment for Translators: Thou shalt translate into thy native language.Paññāsikhara wrote:In one sentence: The choices and style of translations from Chinese sources are part of the reason behind the ongoing "hinayana" problem in a Western context.Darren_86 wrote:Sorry Pannasikhara,
I dont really get what u wanna express about here.
Any simplified version of it?
- Darren -
Mettāya,
Kåre
Kåre
Re: "early Buddhist schools" vs Mahayana ideas of them
They lump for example the Ekavyavaharikas and Prajnaptivadins as subschools of Vaibhashika for good reason. Namely that although they each assert meaningful distinctions between one another they still follow the same general presentation.Paññāsikhara wrote:However, if you are relying on 10th cty and later Tibetan monastic text books, chances are that you won't even find anything about these schools. Rather, they'll try to lump everything together into the standard four types: Sarvastivada / Vaibhasika, Sammitiya, Yogacara and Madhyamaka. A gross simplification, even for that time, and just quite useless for understanding the first 1000 yrs of the sasana.
Well what do they assert about physical objects exist then? It's not really a good thing to not assert physical ultimates.Amazed?
Seems some/many scholars such as Dr Berzin agree with you:tiltbillings wrote:And now we have as to why the Mahayana is not at all a good basis for understanding the Theravada, which is what this section of the forum is about.
"..for instance Theravada (gNas-brtan smra-ba, Skt. Sthaviravada), have their own distinctive set of assertions, they are not counted among the tenet systems."
http://www.berzinarchives.com/web/en/ar ... enets.html
However in texts such as "Maps of the Profound: Jam-Yang-Shay-Ba's Great Exposition of Buddhist and Non-Buddhist Views" there are long explanations of the 18 subschools of the Great Exposition Schools, and they all seem to include Sarvastivadins, Mahasamghikas, Sammitiyas, Sthavrias as basic schools with further divisions. For example in 1 presentation, according to Vinitadeva's Rendition, Kurukullas, Avantakas, and Vatsiputriyas are divisions of Sammitiyas. There are other such presentations, sometimes with only 3 or 2 main basic schools containing corresponding 18 divisions.
A Japanese man has been arrested on suspicion of writing a computer virus that destroys and replaces files on a victim PC with manga images of squid, octopuses and sea urchins. Masato Nakatsuji, 27, of Izumisano, Osaka Prefecture, was quoted as telling police: "I wanted to see how much my computer programming skills had improved since the last time I was arrested."
- tiltbillings
- Posts: 23046
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am
Re: "early Buddhist schools" vs Mahayana ideas of them
It would seems. The Mahayana is not the arbiter of what is what for other schools. It variously in its wildly disparate texts and schools defines the Buddha, bodhi, arahant, tathagata among other things differently than does the Theravada. And, while Nagarjuna is an interesting historical character, he and the schools that popped after him, are unnecessary to the Theravada.Seems some/many scholars such as Dr Berzin agree with you:
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.
“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.
“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
-
- Posts: 980
- Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 5:27 am
- Contact:
Re: "early Buddhist schools" vs Mahayana ideas of them
"They lump for example the Ekavyavaharikas and Prajnaptivadins as subschools of Vaibhashika for good reason."5heaps wrote:They lump for example the Ekavyavaharikas and Prajnaptivadins as subschools of Vaibhashika for good reason. Namely that although they each assert meaningful distinctions between one another they still follow the same general presentation.Paññāsikhara wrote:However, if you are relying on 10th cty and later Tibetan monastic text books, chances are that you won't even find anything about these schools. Rather, they'll try to lump everything together into the standard four types: Sarvastivada / Vaibhasika, Sammitiya, Yogacara and Madhyamaka. A gross simplification, even for that time, and just quite useless for understanding the first 1000 yrs of the sasana.
Then they really seem to not know what they are talking about! It is my turn to be amazed!
Go and read Bareau's book:Well what do they assert about physical objects exist then? It's not really a good thing to not assert physical ultimates.Amazed?
"they maintained that everything is fictive, the absolute as dependent, which, it seems, was the doctrine of the mother Mahāsāṇghika school prior to the schism. For them, saṃsāra and nirvāna, the laukika dharmas and the lokottara dharmas, were purely provisional (prajñapti), names only, and lacking in real substance."
"puts forth as its own the thesis according to which all dharmas are of purely nominal existence (prajnapti)."
And, as we know, in the lingo of the time, what is a prajnapti is not a paramartha dharma, ie. what is a designation is not an ultimate (phenomena).
Yes - the Mahaviharin Theras are neither Sarvastivadin, Mahasamghika or Sammitiya, and the Sthaviras that are referred to will be mainland Vibhajyavadins, not the Mahaviharins. A gross simplification of the schools that were around in the first 1000 yrs. Because Jamyang Shayba is much, much later than all of that.Seems some/many scholars such as Dr Berzin agree with you:tiltbillings wrote:And now we have as to why the Mahayana is not at all a good basis for understanding the Theravada, which is what this section of the forum is about.
"..for instance Theravada (gNas-brtan smra-ba, Skt. Sthaviravada), have their own distinctive set of assertions, they are not counted among the tenet systems."
http://www.berzinarchives.com/web/en/ar ... enets.html
However in texts such as "Maps of the Profound: Jam-Yang-Shay-Ba's Great Exposition of Buddhist and Non-Buddhist Views" there are long explanations of the 18 subschools of the Great Exposition Schools, and they all seem to include Sarvastivadins, Mahasamghikas, Sammitiyas, Sthavrias as basic schools with further divisions. For example in 1 presentation, according to Vinitadeva's Rendition, Kurukullas, Avantakas, and Vatsiputriyas are divisions of Sammitiyas. There are other such presentations, sometimes with only 3 or 2 main basic schools containing corresponding 18 divisions.
My recently moved Blog, containing some of my writings on the Buddha Dhamma, as well as a number of translations from classical Buddhist texts and modern authors, liturgy, etc.: Huifeng's Prajnacara Blog.
-
- Posts: 980
- Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 5:27 am
- Contact:
Re: "early Buddhist schools" vs Mahayana ideas of them
Yes, sir! That is correct, sir!Kare wrote:In another sentence: The First Commandment for Translators: Thou shalt translate into thy native language.Paññāsikhara wrote:In one sentence: The choices and style of translations from Chinese sources are part of the reason behind the ongoing "hinayana" problem in a Western context.Darren_86 wrote:Sorry Pannasikhara,
I dont really get what u wanna express about here.
Any simplified version of it?
- Darren -
Now, we just have to convince a whole heap of people who are translating into somebody else's native language, that this is, indeed, the case.
My recently moved Blog, containing some of my writings on the Buddha Dhamma, as well as a number of translations from classical Buddhist texts and modern authors, liturgy, etc.: Huifeng's Prajnacara Blog.
Re: "early Buddhist schools" vs Mahayana ideas of them
So if translation is the main problem here,
Are we saying that Buddhist texts, shall remain in sanskrit and pali, and not to be translated into English, Chinese and all other world languages?
Direct translation of Sanskrit or Pali to English is not 100% accurate as well. This is due to the many meanings of a sanskrit or Pali word can have.
So if all the texts translated so far is incorrect, it seems that what we have been practicing so far has been incorrect as well. Was this?
Are we saying that Buddhist texts, shall remain in sanskrit and pali, and not to be translated into English, Chinese and all other world languages?
Direct translation of Sanskrit or Pali to English is not 100% accurate as well. This is due to the many meanings of a sanskrit or Pali word can have.
So if all the texts translated so far is incorrect, it seems that what we have been practicing so far has been incorrect as well. Was this?
Re: "early Buddhist schools" vs Mahayana ideas of them
I think what they are saying is
But keep in mind that both Pannasikkhara and Kare are translators...
_/|\_
In a third sentence: its not the translations per se that are a problem, it's bad translations.In one sentence: The choices and style of translations from Chinese sources are part of the reason behind the ongoing "hinayana" problem in a Western context.
In another sentence: The First Commandment for Translators: Thou shalt translate into thy native language.
But keep in mind that both Pannasikkhara and Kare are translators...
_/|\_
_/|\_
Re: "early Buddhist schools" vs Mahayana ideas of them
Hi Darren,
I think you may be misunderstanding. What is being suggested is that translations should be done by someone fluent in the target language, so translations to English are best done by a native English speaker...
Yesterday I was browsing a Dhamma book I have that was translated from Thai to English by someone with rather poor English. It is kind of interesting to try to figure out what some it means. In this case, since it's an introductory book, it's a useful exercise for me, but if it were something really technical it would be completely confusing...
Metta
Mike
I think you may be misunderstanding. What is being suggested is that translations should be done by someone fluent in the target language, so translations to English are best done by a native English speaker...
Yesterday I was browsing a Dhamma book I have that was translated from Thai to English by someone with rather poor English. It is kind of interesting to try to figure out what some it means. In this case, since it's an introductory book, it's a useful exercise for me, but if it were something really technical it would be completely confusing...
Metta
Mike
Re: "early Buddhist schools" vs Mahayana ideas of them
Oh.. thanks Dan 74 and Mikenz66
My fault.. misunderstood =)
My fault.. misunderstood =)
- tiltbillings
- Posts: 23046
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am
Re: "early Buddhist schools" vs Mahayana ideas of them
The above is split off from the Do you find Hinayana offensive? thread. Such splitting off is not always perfect, but this will allow the issue of early schools to be pursued without coming into conflict with the purpose of the Discovering Theravada forum.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.
“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.
“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
Re: "early Buddhist schools" vs Mahayana ideas of them
Any language is so rich on nuanced expressions that any translation can only be an approximation. Sometimes a close approximation, some times not so close. Just like some jokes are beyond translation, other and more deep and serious sentences can also be very hard to bring across without having to leave some nuances along the way.Dan74 wrote:I think what they are saying is
In a third sentence: its not the translations per se that are a problem, it's bad translations.In one sentence: The choices and style of translations from Chinese sources are part of the reason behind the ongoing "hinayana" problem in a Western context.
In another sentence: The First Commandment for Translators: Thou shalt translate into thy native language.
But keep in mind that both Pannasikkhara and Kare are translators...
_/|\_
In Italian there is a saying, 'Traduttore traditore', that is 'the translator is a traitor', or 'never trust a translator'. A true expression, trust me!
Mettāya,
Kåre
Kåre
Re: "early Buddhist schools" vs Mahayana ideas of them
My Italian is very rusty but I recall them teaching us about what they call "falso amico" (false friend) - a word that sounds similar in two languages but means something different. A dangerous pitfall for bad translators!Kare wrote:Any language is so rich on nuanced expressions that any translation can only be an approximation. Sometimes a close approximation, some times not so close. Just like some jokes are beyond translation, other and more deep and serious sentences can also be very hard to bring across without having to leave some nuances along the way.Dan74 wrote:I think what they are saying is
In a third sentence: its not the translations per se that are a problem, it's bad translations.In one sentence: The choices and style of translations from Chinese sources are part of the reason behind the ongoing "hinayana" problem in a Western context.
In another sentence: The First Commandment for Translators: Thou shalt translate into thy native language.
But keep in mind that both Pannasikkhara and Kare are translators...
_/|\_
In Italian there is a saying, 'Traduttore traditore', that is 'the translator is a traitor', or 'never trust a translator'. A true expression, trust me!
Anyway...
Sorry...
_/|\_
_/|\_
Re: "early Buddhist schools" vs Mahayana ideas of them
In French (if I remember correctly): Traduire, c'est trahir!Kare wrote: In Italian there is a saying, 'Traduttore traditore', that is 'the translator is a traitor', or 'never trust a translator'. A true expression, trust me!
Suan.
Re: "early Buddhist schools" vs Mahayana ideas of them
What’s there to get amazed about? I have not told you their reasons, and perhaps you don't know them. From Maps of the Profound:Paññāsikhara wrote:Then they really seem to not know what they are talking about! It is my turn to be amazed!
1. Etymology of Vaibhashika
Because of mainly propounding the Great Exposition of Particulars and because of propounding particulars of substantialities, they are called Proponents of the Great Exposition or Proponents of Particulars.
Word Commentary on Root Text: Because they propound tenets mainly following Vasumitra’s Great Exposition of Particulars, they are called Vaibhashikas [Proponents of the Great Exposition], or because they propound that the three time [that is, past, present, and future objects] are particulars of substantialities (dravya) or propound many substantially established phenomena like the Forder Vaisheshikas.
Nga-wang-bel-den’s Annotations: The three times are asserted to be particulars [or instances] of the substantially established things with respect to which they are posited. For example, when divided, a shoot has the three times which are itself. According to explanations in some Indian texts, [Proponents of the Great Exposition hold that] any phenomenon must have a separately apprehendable entity of its own, and since they do not know how to posit objects that are merely imputed to factors of other phenomena, their way of positing the existence of phenomena accords greatly with the Vaisheshika’s components-possessing substance, due to which they are called Vaibhashikas. This also appears to be a suitable [etymology].
Nga-wang-bel-den later says,
It is not suitable to treat all that are synonyms as equivalents because, for example, although Sarvastivada and Vibhajyavada are described as synonyms, it can be known from their etymologies that they are not equivalent:
1. Because Bhavaviveka explains that:
- Sarvastivadins are so called because of asserting that all three times substantially exist.
- Vibhajyavadins are so called because of propounding [tenets] within differentiating that past [objects] that have not issued forth effects and present [objects] are substantially existent, whereas past [objects] that have issued forth effects and future [objects] are imputedly existent.
This is subtle material and it is very easy to misunderstand true meanings and become confused. For example, just because something is a designation does not necessarily imply that it is not substantial. Vaibhashika asserts that some things are imputed whilst simultaneously asserting that they are substantial. This is because NOTHING has a nature of being merely imputed, the way Sautrantikas assert.Paññāsikhara wrote: "puts forth as its own the thesis according to which all dharmas are of purely nominal existence (prajnapti)."
And, as we know, in the lingo of the time, what is a prajnapti is not a paramartha dharma, ie. what is a designation is not an ultimate (phenomena).
A Japanese man has been arrested on suspicion of writing a computer virus that destroys and replaces files on a victim PC with manga images of squid, octopuses and sea urchins. Masato Nakatsuji, 27, of Izumisano, Osaka Prefecture, was quoted as telling police: "I wanted to see how much my computer programming skills had improved since the last time I was arrested."