{"id":1232,"date":"2014-12-31T23:59:07","date_gmt":"2014-12-31T23:59:07","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/prajnaquest.fr\/blog\/?p=1232"},"modified":"2015-02-20T03:59:45","modified_gmt":"2015-02-20T03:59:45","slug":"mahayana-sutrala%e1%b9%83kara-a-review","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/prajnaquest.fr\/blog\/mahayana-sutrala%e1%b9%83kara-a-review\/","title":{"rendered":"Mah\u0101y\u0101na-s\u016btr\u0101la\u1e43k\u0101ra: A Review"},"content":{"rendered":"

<\/em><\/p>\n

(keywords: Mahayana-sutralamkara<\/em>, Mahayanasutralamkara<\/em>)<\/p>\n

A new English translation of the Mah\u0101y\u0101na-s\u016btr\u0101la\u1e43k\u0101ra<\/em> came out last month (November, 2014): Ornament of the Great Vehicle S\u016btras: Maitreya\u2019s Mah\u0101y\u0101nas\u016btr\u0101la\u1e43k\u0101ra with Commentaries by Khenpo Shenga and Ju Mipham<\/em>, translated by Dharmachakra Translation Committee (Boston & London: Snow Lion, 2014). It was preceded by two other English translations of this text: (1) Mah\u0101y\u0101nas\u016btr\u0101la\u1e43k\u0101ra by \u2018Asa\u1e45ga<\/em>,\u2019 Sanskrit Text and Translated into English by Dr. (Mrs.) Surekha Vijay Limaye (Delhi: Sri Satguru Publications, 1992); and (2) The Universal Vehicle Discourse Literature (Mah\u0101y\u0101nas\u016btr\u0101la\u1e43k\u0101ra), By Maitreyan\u0101tha\/\u0100ry\u0101sa\u1e45ga, Together with its Commentary (Bh\u0101\u1e63ya), By Vasubandhu<\/em>, Translated from the Sanskrit, Tibetan, and Chinese by L. Jamspal, R. Clark, J. Wilson, L. Zwilling, M. Sweet, R. Thurman (New York: American Institute of Buddhist Studies, 2004). The new translation has been hailed as the most readable one now available. While readability is important, even more important is accuracy. It will be worthwhile to compare the existing translations using this criterion.<\/p>\n

The 2014 English translation of the Mah\u0101y\u0101na-s\u016btr\u0101la\u1e43k\u0101ra<\/em> is a translation of a translation, being made from the Tibetan translation in the Derge edition (Translators\u2019 Introduction, note 12, p. 964), without reference to the Sanskrit original. This allows us to see how this text was understood in Tibet, as do the two accompanying commentaries written in Tibet in comparatively recent times. The value of this is that the Buddhist tradition has been lost in India, its homeland, for about a thousand years now. Thus, as I have noted elsewhere,1<\/sup> the 1992 English translation made in India from the published Sanskrit text (without reference to the Tibetan translation) is quite unreliable. The obviously sincere and well-meaning translator acknowledges the help of her teacher and of her supervisor (Introduction, p. xxiii), who clearly were unfamiliar with the Buddhist teachings. The common Buddhist phrase, \u015bara\u1e47a-gamana<\/em>, \u201cgoing for refuge,\u201d is here translated as \u201crecourse to surrender\u201d (p. 24); the term pudgala<\/em>, used throughout Buddhism to mean \u201cperson,\u201d is here translated as used throughout Jainism to mean \u201cmatter\u201d (e.g., pp. 244, 441, 447, etc.); the phrase giving the fundamental Buddhist doctrine, \u0101tma-d\u1e5b\u1e63\u1e6di<\/em>, \u201c(false) view of self,\u201d is here translated as \u201cone\u2019s own view point\u201d (p. 69). The Tibetan tradition regards itself as having preserved the Indian tradition intact, giving the original meaning of the text unchanged. A welcome window into the Tibetan exegesis of this text is provided by the new translation. For the Mah\u0101y\u0101na-s\u016btr\u0101la\u1e43k\u0101ra<\/em> itself, however, modern scholarship must question whether a translation of a translation, however competently done, can take the place of a translation of the original, competently done.<\/p>\n

The prior 2004 English translation of the Mah\u0101y\u0101na-s\u016btr\u0101la\u1e43k\u0101ra<\/em> was also made from the Tibetan translation, but was then clarified and corrected by comparison with the published Sanskrit text, and with some reference to the early Chinese translation. When a text goes from a language having a very large vocabulary, such as Sanskrit, into a language having a much smaller vocabulary, such as Tibetan, something is inevitably lost. While the Tibetan tradition has no doubt correctly preserved the meaning of the Sanskrit text in general, to expect it to have captured every particular is unrealistic. Therefore, the translators of the 2004 translation felt the need to utilize the Sanskrit text. Because the Tibetan vocabulary is smaller than the Sanskrit vocabulary, one Tibetan word must translate more than one Sanskrit word. For example, in verse 6.3d (Sanskrit edition and 2004 English translation) or 7.3d (Tibetan translation and 2014 English translation), the Sanskrit word dharmamaya\u1e25<\/em> was translated by the Tibetan words chos kyi rang bzhin<\/em>. The Sanskrit word dharma<\/em> is always translated by the Tibetan word chos<\/em>, and is here used in its meaning, \u201cthe elements of existence\u201d or \u201cphenomena.\u201d The Tibetan word rang bzhin<\/em> most often translates the Sanskrit word svabh\u0101va<\/em>, \u201cinherent nature.\u201d This allowed the Tibetan words to be understood as the very common phrase used in philosophy, \u201cthe inherent nature of phenomena.\u201d Thus, the 2014 translation has: \u201cThis is the nature of phenomena.\u201d Here, however, the Tibetan word rang bzhin<\/em> translates the Sanskrit suffix, -maya<\/em>, \u201cconsisting of.\u201d The verse is talking about people (Skt. jana\u1e25<\/em>, Tib. skye bo<\/em>), saying that they \u201cconsist of phenomena\u201d; it is not making a statement about the nature of phenomena. Accordingly, the 2004 translation has: \u201cthey [beings] . . . are objective,\u201d where by \u201cobjective\u201d we are to understand that they are \u201cobjects,\u201d \u201cthings,\u201d \u201cphenomena\u201d (dharma<\/em>-s).<\/p>\n

Similarly, when putting teachings into metrical verses, which the Mah\u0101y\u0101na-s\u016btr\u0101la\u1e43k\u0101ra<\/em> is composed of, words must often be altered or substituted to fit the meter. In Sanskrit texts, these words are usually restored in the accompanying commentary. In the Tibetan translations of these metrical verses, syllables must often be dropped to fit the Tibetan meter, which is regulated by the number of syllables per line of verse. Sometimes these omitted syllables are ones that provide necessary information, such as the declension or number of a word. Declensional endings, separate syllables in Tibetan, tell the reader how to take the word in the sentence. Without them, the reader is left to guess at the construal and intended meaning. For example, in verse 6.6c or 7.6c, the Sanskrit word dharme\u1e63u<\/em> (locative declension, plural number) was translated by the Tibetan word chos la<\/em> (accusative, dative, or locative declension, singular number). The syllable showing the plural number (rnams<\/em>) was dropped to fit the meter. This allowed the word dharma<\/em> or chos<\/em> to be taken in the Tibetan translation in the singular, as \u201cthe Dharma,\u201d i.e., the Buddhist teachings, rather than as the dharma<\/em>-s, the \u201celements of existence\u201d or \u201cphenomena\u201d or \u201cthings.\u201d Thus, the 2014 translation has: \u201cThe bodhisattva contemplates the Dharma in a most decisive way\u201d; while the 2004 translation has: \u201ca bodhisattva becomes decisive in her judgment about things.\u201d<\/p>\n

The Tibetan translations are deservedly renowned for their high degree of accuracy in following the Sanskrit originals very closely. The Tibetan translations are much more literal than the great majority of English translations today. This literal accuracy has resulted in the most precise transferal of a body of religious knowledge from one language to another known to history. Because the Tibetan translations follow the Sanskrit originals so closely, their style is closer to Sanskrit than to native Tibetan. This at times can present a challenge in understanding them, and in translating these translations into English. When the Sanskrit text is available, ambiguities in the Tibetan translation can usually be clarified by reference to it. For example, the 2014 translation of the Mah\u0101y\u0101na-s\u016btr\u0101la\u1e43k\u0101ra<\/em>, made only from the Tibetan, erroneously has (verse 2.7): \u201cBecause of its [the Great Vehicle\u2019s] vastness and profundity, maturation and nonconceptuality, its teaching is twofold.\u201d The 2004 translation, clarified by comparison with the Sanskrit, has (verse 1.7, or verse 1.13 in the Sanskrit edition): \u201cFrom the magnificent and the profound come evolutionary development and nonconceptual (wisdom). (The universal vehicle) teaches both, . . .\u201d The verse does not say, \u201cBecause of its . . . maturation and nonconceptuality,\u201d but rather speaks of its twofold teaching of vastness and profundity, saying that maturation comes from vastness, and nonconceptuality comes from profundity. This is unmistakable in the Sanskrit. Many more errors of this type could be cited, that would have easily been avoided by reference to the Sanskrit.<\/p>\n

The long lost Sanskrit text of the Mah\u0101y\u0101na-s\u016btr\u0101la\u1e43k\u0101ra<\/em> and its accompanying commentary (bh\u0101\u1e63ya<\/em>) was discovered in 1898 in Nepal by Sylvain L\u00e9vi. It was then edited by him and published in Paris in 1907 (posted on this website under \u201cSanskrit Texts\u201d), followed by his pioneering French translation in 1911. L\u00e9vi\u2019s edition was based on a transcript made for him of a single manuscript,2<\/sup> a paper manuscript written in 1677-1678 as we now know,3<\/sup> and such manuscripts are notoriously full of scribal errors. L\u00e9vi\u2019s edition became the basis of the 1970 edition by S. Bagchi, helpful because it corrects many misprints and other errors in L\u00e9vi\u2019s edition (see Bagchi\u2019s forty-page corrigenda), and these two became the basis of the 1985 edition by Dwarika Das Shastri. L\u00e9vi\u2019s edition also became the basis of the 1992 translation by way of Bagchi\u2019s edition, and was the Sanskrit text used for comparison for the 2004 translation. L\u00e9vi made many corrections to his 1907 Sanskrit edition in his 1911 French translation, and in 1958 Gadjin Nagao published eleven pages of corrections to L\u00e9vi\u2019s edition, including those made by L\u00e9vi.4<\/sup> Nagao\u2019s corrections were based primarily on the Tibetan and Chinese translations and on Sthiramati\u2019s sub-commentary (in Tibetan translation), and also on two additional Sanskrit manuscripts that were brought to Japan and are kept in the Ryukoku University Library.5<\/sup> Accordingly, the 2004 translation says that \u201cThere are three known Sanskrit texts of the MSA\u201d (Introduction, p. xxxiii), and the 2014 translation repeats this, referring to \u201cthe three extant Sanskrit manuscripts\u201d (Translators\u2019 Introduction, note 12, p. 964). In fact, additional Sanskrit manuscripts of this text exist in the Nepal National Archives.6<\/sup> In 1985, Naoya Funahashi published chapters 1, 2, 3, 9, and 10 of a much needed revised edition, based on these additional manuscripts, and in 2000, a revised edition of chapter 11.7<\/sup><\/p>\n

The 2004 translation is the result of a longstanding effort involving several scholars, who produced a completed draft already by the end of the 1970s. So by 1980 the Sanskrit text had already been compared. Thus, the corrections by L\u00e9vi (1911) and Nagao (1958, as well as his later personal input) were utilized, but the revised editions by Funahashi (1985, 2000) were not utilized. Nor were the many corrections that L\u00e9vi had written in his personal copy of his edition, published only in 2001 thanks to the efforts of Kamaleswar Bhattacharya, filling eight printed pages.8<\/sup> In the last few years, Kazuo Kano has been publishing the edited Sanskrit text of eight folios of a very old palm-leaf manuscript of the Mah\u0101y\u0101na-s\u016btr\u0101la\u1e43k\u0101ra<\/em> and bh\u0101\u1e63ya<\/em> found at the Ngor monastery in Tibet.9<\/sup> While these include valuable corrections, they also show that the Sanskrit text we have, disregarding scribal errors, is essentially the same as the one translated into Tibetan long ago. The 2004 translators shied away from referring to the \u201cSanskrit original\u201d (Preface, p. x), because of the many errors in the comparatively late Sanskrit manuscripts found in Nepal (on one of which L\u00e9vi\u2019s edition was based), but we can now certainly do so. The Tibetan translation, too, has numerous scribal errors, as may be seen by comparison between the various Tengyur editions.<\/p>\n

A translation of the very helpful Sanskrit commentary that accompanies the verses, the bh\u0101\u1e63ya<\/em> by Vasubandhu, is included in full in the 2004 translation (and also in the 1992 translation, but this translation is simply too unreliable to take into account). The Tibetan translation of this commentary was, in effect, abridged by Khenpo Shenga (1871-1927), and was thus partially included in the 2014 translation by way of his commentary. Thus, good explanations of the often too brief verses are found in both the 2004 and 2014 translations. Sometimes the verses are not explained (or not fully explained) in the accompanying commentary, which is comparatively brief, so a larger commentary must then be consulted. In India, this larger commentary is the sub-commentary by Sthiramati, so far still lost in Sanskrit, but preserved in its Tibetan translation. In Tibet, the larger commentary by Ju Mipham (1846-1912) drew heavily upon the commentary by Sthiramati. A translation of Mipham\u2019s lengthy commentary is included in full in the 2014 translation, bringing the page count of this translation to 929 pages. For the 2004 translation, Lobsang Jamspal read through the entire Sthiramati sub-commentary and adapted that translation accordingly.<\/p>\n

The dust jacket of the 2014 translation quotes scholars describing it as an \u201coutstanding translation,\u201d and saying that \u201cthe translators have rendered this text . . . into the most accessible and readable English now available.\u201d This is a polite way of adverting to the English of the 2004 translation as being less accessible and readable. An American longtime Buddhist put it more bluntly in an email reply to me shortly after the 2004 translation was published: \u201cYou are too kind to Thurman. I am disgusted that he took the serviceable version by ?? (forgot which Tibetan did it) [Lobsang Jamspal] and plugged in his \u2018evolution,\u2019 \u2018genius\u2019 and other ludicrous thurmanisms. I have tried to read it, but simply do not know what many of the thurmanisms correspond to. So it sits on the shelf. Thirty years wait and this is what we get! And he has no Tibetan-Thurman glossary so one could match up his goofy<\/span> translation choices.\u201d The English terminology in the 2004 translation is avowedly experimental (Preface, p. x), and Thurman\u2019s translation choices for these terms were mostly adopted later in the joint translation process. Besides \u201cevolution\u201d or \u201cevolutionary action\u201d for karma<\/em>, \u201cevolutionary maturity\u201d for parip\u0101ka<\/em> (translated as \u201cfull maturation\u201d in the 2014 translation), and \u201cgenius\u201d for dh\u012bmat<\/em> (a common epithet of a bodhisattva, translated as \u201cwise individual\u201d in the 2014 translation), the 2004 translation employs translations such as \u201caddictions\u201d (or \u201cmental addictions\u201d) for kle\u015ba<\/em>. This basic term in Buddhism had long been translated as \u201cdefilements,\u201d and more recently as \u201cafflictions\u201d (or \u201cmental afflictions\u201d), as it is in the 2014 translation. The 2004 translation also switches back and forth between \u201chis\u201d and \u201cher\u201d pronouns throughout, even though the original text does not, in deference to modern sensibilities about respect to women. Even the title was a last-minute change, translating ala\u1e43k\u0101ra<\/em> as \u201cliterature\u201d rather than as \u201cornament\u201d (Introduction, p. xiii, fn. 3).<\/p>\n

From Thurman\u2019s lifelong work and publications, I have no doubt that his translation choices are motivated by the bodhisattva ideal of benefiting all sentient beings. With these new translation terms, he is apparently trying to reach a wider public. As an unintended consequence, the 2004 translation is harder to use by students of Buddhism who are accustomed to more standard translations of Buddhist terms, and who may well make up the book\u2019s largest readership. Ironically, 27 years earlier in 1977, Thurman had rather harshly reviewed the translation of Longchenpa\u2019s text, Kindly Bent to Ease Us<\/em>, made by Herbert Guenther, who has become well-known for his unique choices of translation terms: \u201cUnfortunately, Guenther ruins the whole thing, shrouding the jewel of the original with his own intellectual obscurities so that we catch only an occasional glint of its brilliance.\u201d10<\/sup> It is certainly true that a glossary would have helped the 2004 translation immensely, and one will no doubt be added in a future edition. As the first volume in the Tanjur Translation Initiative, this book was published under more difficult circumstances than normal, and subsequent volumes in this series do have glossaries.<\/p>\n

We may now turn to a few example verses from the two translations. Kamaleswar Bhattacharya picked out verse 9.23 (or 10.23) as a key verse with which to open his book, L\u2019\u0100tman-Brahman dans le Bouddhisme ancien<\/em> (The \u0100tman-Brahman in Ancient Buddhism<\/em>). This verse pertains to the question of the \u0101tman<\/em> or \u201cself,\u201d whose denial is considered to be one of the defining characteristics of Buddhism. The Sanskrit is given below from L\u00e9vi (1907) as corrected by Nagao (1958) and Funahashi (1985), and also in a footnote in the 2004 translation. As noted by Bhattacharya (2001, p. 6), it turns out that the incorrect Sanskrit reading found in L\u00e9vi\u2019s 1907 edition, nair\u0101tmy\u0101nm\u0101rgal\u0101bhata\u1e25, is a silent emendation by L\u00e9vi himself. His manuscript had it correct except for a missing \u201cr\u201d (a small stroke under the \u201cga\u201d), which threw him off the right track. Bhattacharya reproduces the actual manuscript folio that L\u00e9vi used, showing the reading, nair\u0101tmy\u0101tm\u0101gal\u0101bhata\u1e25 (at the very beginning of that folio). The Tibetan is given below from the Comparative Tengyur published in China (vol. 70, 2001, p. 823, lines 4-5, text of the verses only, having the present form \u2019gyur<\/em> for the last syllable, and pp. 1196-1197, text of the verses with commentary, having the past form gyur<\/em> for the last syllable, which I adopt in agreement with the Sanskrit past form gata<\/em>).<\/p>\n

\u015b\u016bnyat\u0101y\u0101\u1e43 vi\u015buddh\u0101y\u0101\u1e43 nair\u0101tmy\u00e2tm\u00e2gra-l\u0101bhata\u1e25 |
buddh\u0101\u1e25 \u015buddh\u00e2tma-l\u0101bhitv\u0101t gat\u0101 \u0101tma-mah\u00e2tmat\u0101m || 9.23 ||<\/p>\n

stong pa nyid ni rnam dag na || bdag med mchog gi bdag thob pas ||
sangs rgyas dag pa\u2019i bdag thob phyir || bdag nyid chen po\u2019i bdag tu gyur ||<\/p>\n

9.23. In pure voidness buddhas achieve the supreme self of selflessness, and realize the spiritual greatness of the self by discovering the pure self. (2004 translation)<\/p>\n

10.23. Within pure emptiness,
The buddhas achieve the supreme self of selflessness.
Thus they achieve the pure self,
And are hence the self of great beings. (2014 translation)<\/p>\n

First, we see that both translations use \u201cselflessness\u201d for nair\u0101tmya<\/em> (Tib. bdag med<\/em>). The word selflessness in English has always meant unselfishness or altruism. Here it has been employed to mean something very different, the Buddhist teaching of the \u201cabsence of a self\u201d in persons (pudgala<\/em>-s), and according to Mah\u0101y\u0101na Buddhism, also in things or phenomena (dharma<\/em>-s). If you are \u201cin the loop,\u201d if you are among those who have read a number of modern books on Buddhism, you will know this meaning and usage of the word selflessness. If you are not in the loop, this translation of nair\u0101tmya<\/em> will make little sense.<\/p>\n

Another translation of this verse, one that follows the Sanskrit very closely, was made by Paul Griffiths in a 1990 article (p. 52):11<\/sup><\/p>\n

\u201cIn pure emptiness,
By obtaining the supreme self which is without self,
Buddhas arrive at the great-selfed self
As a result of obtaining the pure self.\u201d<\/p>\n

The 2014 translation says that the buddhas \u201care hence the self of great beings.\u201d While the Tibetan translation allows this English translation, the Sanskrit, both of the verse and of the commentary, does not. In the Tibetan words bdag nyid chen po<\/em>, taken as \u201cgreat being,\u201d the nyid<\/em> actually translates the Sanskrit abstract suffix -t\u0101<\/em>, \u201c-ness,\u201d on mah\u0101tmat\u0101<\/em>, literally \u201cgreat-self-ness,\u201d or \u201cgreat-selfed\u201d in the Griffiths translation, or just \u201cgreatness\u201d in the 2004 translation.<\/p>\n

Vasubandhu\u2019s commentary tells us that this verse is about the highest self (param\u00e2tman<\/em>) of the buddhas in the uncontaminated (an\u0101srava<\/em>) realm (dh\u0101tu<\/em>, here Tib. dbyings<\/em>, and also may be translated as space or element). Vasubandhu also tells us that it is the self (\u0101tman<\/em>) of the buddhas in the sense of \u201cinherent nature\u201d (svabh\u0101va<\/em>), important because both \u0101tman<\/em> and svabh\u0101va<\/em> are otherwise denied in Mah\u0101y\u0101na Buddhism. Unless we know that \u201cintrinsic reality\u201d translates svabh\u0101va<\/em> in the 2004 translation, as a glossary would tell us, we would miss this. Here is Vasubandhu\u2019s commentary on this verse as found in the 2004 translation, preceded by the Sanskrit (from Funahashi\u2019s edition, with one missing diacritic restored by me, otherwise agreeing with L\u00e9vi\u2019s edition) and Tibetan (Comparative Tengyur, vol. 70, p. 1197, showing five variant readings, of which I cite only one):<\/p>\n

tatra c\u00e2n\u0101srave dh\u0101tau buddh\u0101n\u0101\u1e43 param\u00e2tm\u0101 nirdi\u015byate | ki\u1e43 k\u0101ra\u1e47a\u1e43 | agra-nair\u0101tmy\u00e2tmakatv\u0101t | agra\u1e43 nair\u0101tmya\u1e43 vi\u015buddh\u0101 tathat\u0101 s\u0101 ca buddh\u0101n\u0101m \u0101tm\u0101 svabh\u0101v\u00e2rthena tasy\u0101\u1e43 vi\u015buddh\u0101y\u0101m agra\u1e43 nair\u0101tmyam \u0101tm\u0101na\u1e43 buddh\u0101 labhante \u015buddha\u1e43 | ata\u1e25 \u015buddh\u00e2tma-l\u0101bhitv\u0101t buddh\u0101 \u0101tma-m\u0101h\u0101tmya\u1e43 pr\u0101pt\u0101 ity anen\u00e2bhisa\u1e43dhin\u0101 buddh\u0101n\u0101m an\u0101srave dh\u0101tau param\u00e2tm\u0101 vyavasth\u0101pyate |<\/p>\n

zag pa med pa\u2019i dbyings de la sangs rgyas rnams kyi bdag nyid kyi mchog ston te | ci\u2019i phyir zhe na | bdag med pa mchog gi bdag nyid kyi phyir ro || bdag med pa mchog ni de bzhin nyid rnam par dag pa\u2019o || de yang ngo bo nyid kyi don gyis sangs rgyas rnams kyi bdag yin no || de rnam par dag na sangs rgyas rnams kyis bdag med pa mchog gi bdag nyid dag pa \u2019thob po || de bas na sangs rgyas rnams kyi dag pa\u2019i bdag thob pa\u2019i phyir bdag nyid chen po\u2019i bdag tu gyur pa yin te | dgongs pa \u2019di* ni zag pa med pa\u2019i dbyings la sangs rgyas rnams kyi bdag gi mchog rnam par \u2019jog go ||<\/p>\n

*\u2019dis in the Peking and Narthang editions.<\/p>\n

\u201cThis shows the supreme self of the buddhas in the uncontaminated realm. Why? Because hers is the self of supreme selflessness. Supreme selflessness is completely pure suchness, and that is a buddha\u2019s \u2018self,\u2019 in the sense of \u2018intrinsic reality.\u2019 When this is completely pure, buddhas attain superior selflessness, a pure self. Therefore, by attaining a pure self buddhas realize the spiritual greatness of self. Thus it is with this intention that buddhas are declared to have a supreme self in the uncontaminated realm.\u201d<\/p>\n

Khenpo Shenga\u2019s commentary is here quite brief, extracting only a couple of points from Vasubandhu\u2019s commentary. As found in the 2014 translation, Khenpo Shenga\u2019s commentary on this verse follows. Words quoted from the verse itself are put in bold, a helpful feature.<\/p>\n

\u201cWithin pure emptiness, the buddhas achieve<\/strong> the suchness that is the supreme self of selflessness. Thus they achieve the<\/strong> supremely pure self, and hence<\/strong> they are the self<\/strong> that is the realization of great beings<\/strong>.\u201d<\/p>\n

Ju Mipham\u2019s commentary is also comparatively brief here, making up less than half a page in the 2014 translation. Sthiramati\u2019s commentary on this verse makes up two full pages in the English translation of chapter 9 of this commentary that is included in Cuong Tu Nguyen\u2019s 1990 Harvard PhD. thesis (attached, see link in footnote).12<\/sup> As a comparison of these commentaries on this verse will show, Mipham here takes little from Sthiramati, but instead comments more in accordance with the \u201cGreat Madhyamaka\u201d ideas that form the basis of the Ri-m\u00e9 or \u201cnon-sectarian\u201d movement. Mipham was one of the major teachers of this late nineteenth-century movement in Tibet. Here is Mipham\u2019s commentary on this verse as found in the 2014 translation:<\/p>\n

\u201cThe pure and natural luminosity of emptiness is completely free from the self-manifestation of the adventitious defilements. In the absence of the twofold self of persons and phenomena, this is the actual nature of things, the supreme nature of the abiding reality, the intrinsic nature or essence itself. In achieving this, the buddhas have achieved a nature that is of complete purity. Thus, [to actualize] the suchness that is the unmistaken way things are is to be \u2018the self of great beings.\u2019 This self is not the same as the conceived object that is involved when apprehending the twofold self because such a self has no bearing on things as they are. The buddhas, however, have actualized the unmistaken abiding reality, which is the suchness of the twofold selflessness, free from the extremes of existence and nonexistence. That is the supreme self\u2014\u2018the self of great beings.\u2019\u201d<\/p>\n

The next example is from the third chapter (or fourth in the Tibetan translation). This is the first chapter on a Buddhist doctrinal topic, after the introductory chapter(s) and the chapter on going for refuge. Its topic is the gotra<\/em> (Tib. rigs<\/em>), a term that is very hard to translate adequately into English. David Seyfort Ruegg has distinguished three main meanings in Buddhist usage: 1. mine, matrix; 2. family, clan, lineage; 3. germ, seed.13<\/sup> It is translated as \u201cspiritual gene\u201d in the 2004 translation, although in a 1979 draft of this translation that I have access to, it was translated as \u201cheritage.\u201d It is translated as \u201cpotential\u201d in the 2014 translation. (It is left untranslated in the 1992 translation.) Verse 4 of this chapter gives its defining characteristics. The Sanskrit is given from Funahashi\u2019s edition, agreeing with L\u00e9vi\u2019s edition. The Tibetan is given from the Comparative Tengyur, vol. 70, p. 810, lines 6-8, where the text of only the verses has a variant reading, and from vol. 70, p. 1152, lines 9-11, where the text of the verses with commentary has another variant reading. I have ignored a third variant reading that is obviously an error.<\/p>\n

prak\u1e5bty\u0101 paripu\u1e63\u1e6da\u1e43 ca \u0101\u015braya\u015b c\u00e2\u015brita\u1e43 ca tat |
sad asac c\u00e2iva vij\u00f1eya\u1e43 gu\u1e47\u00f4tt\u0101ra\u1e47at\u00e2rthata\u1e25 || 3.4 ||<\/p>\n

rang bzhin dang ni rgyas pa dang || de ni rten dang brten pa dang ||
yod med nyid* dang yon tan ni** || sgrol ba\u2019i don du shes par bya ||<\/p>\n

*gnyis in the Der-ge and Co-ne editions of the text of the verses with commentary.<\/p>\n

**dang in the Peking and Narthang editions of the text of the verses only.<\/p>\n

3.4 \u201cNatural, developed, support, supported, existent and nonexistent; it is to be understood in the sense of \u201cdelivering excellences.\u201d (2004 translation)<\/p>\n

4.4 \u201cThe natural and the developed
Are the support and the supported.
Present while not present,
It should be known to mean \u201cfreeing qualities.\u201d (2014 translation)<\/p>\n

Vasubandhu\u2019s commentary explains this verse, as found in the 2004 translation, preceded by the Sanskrit (from Funahashi\u2019s edition, with one missing diacritic restored by me, otherwise agreeing with L\u00e9vi\u2019s edition) and Tibetan (Comparative Tengyur, vol. 70, p. 1152, ignoring two variant readings that are obvious scribal errors):<\/p>\n

etena catur-vidha\u1e43 gotra\u1e43 dar\u015bayati | prak\u1e5bti-stha\u1e43 samud\u0101n\u012btam \u0101\u015braya-svabh\u0101vam \u0101\u015brita-svabh\u0101va\u1e43 ca tad eva yath\u0101-krama\u1e43 | tat punar hetu-bh\u0101vena sat phala-bh\u0101ven\u00e2sat | gu\u1e47\u00f4tt\u0101ra\u1e47\u00e2rthena gotra\u1e43 veditavya\u1e43 gu\u1e47\u0101 uttaranty asm\u0101d uddhavant\u00eeti k\u1e5btv\u0101 |<\/p>\n

\u2019dis ni rigs rnam pa bzhi ston te | rang bzhin du gnas pa dang | yang dag par bsgrubs pa dang | rten gyi ngo bo nyid dang | brten pa\u2019i ngo bo nyid de de dag nyid dang go rims bzhin no || de ni rgyu\u2019i dngos por yod do || \u2019bras bu\u2019i dngos por med do || rigs ni yon tan sgrol ba\u2019i don du yang rig par bya ste | \u2019di las yon tan sgrol zhing \u2019byung ba\u2019i phyir ro ||<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cThis shows the spiritual gene to be fourfold: existing by nature, being developed, having the nature of a support, and having the nature of the supported, respectively. It exists as a cause, it does not exist as an effect. The spiritual gene is to be understood in the sense of \u2018delivering excellences\u2019; because excellences are delivered\u2014that is, emerge\u2014from it.\u201d<\/p>\n

The Mah\u0101y\u0101na-s\u016btr\u0101la\u1e43k\u0101ra<\/em> chapter and Vasubandhu\u2019s commentary thereon, consisting of thirteen verses, give the gotra<\/em> teachings briefly. They are given more extensively, and in prose, in the Bodhisattva-bh\u016bmi<\/em>, where they form the first chapter. Thurman writes in his Introduction (p. xxxv): \u201cThe BBh [Bodhisattva-bh\u016bmi<\/em>] follows the pattern of the MSA [Mah\u0101y\u0101na-s\u016btr\u0101la\u1e43k\u0101ra<\/em>] very closely, which is why I consider it to be Asa\u1e45ga\u2019s own \u2018meaning-\u2019 or \u2018depth-commentary\u2019 (Tib. don \u2019grel<\/em>) on the text.\u201d It certainly does give the teachings in more depth. This is especially true of the tattv\u0101rtha<\/em> or \u201creality\u201d chapter. This is the sixth chapter (or seventh in the Tibetan translation) of the Mah\u0101y\u0101na-s\u016btr\u0101la\u1e43k\u0101ra<\/em>, consisting of only ten verses. It is the fourth chapter of the Bodhisattva-bh\u016bmi<\/em>, consisting of twenty-one pages in the 1937 Unrai Wogihara edition (pp. 37-57), and of fifteen pages in the 1966 Nalinaksha Dutt edition (pp. 25-39) (both posted on this website under \u201cSanskrit Texts\u201d). The central theme of this chapter in the Bodhisattva-bh\u016bmi<\/em> is the vastu<\/em>, the \u201cthing\u201d in itself. The vastu<\/em> is not even mentioned in this chapter of the Mah\u0101y\u0101na-s\u016btr\u0101la\u1e43k\u0101ra<\/em>. H. P. Blavatsky in a private letter of 1886, describing The Secret Doctrine<\/em> that she was then writing, linked the\u00a0\u201cBook of Dzyan\u201d with the secret book of Maitreya Buddha. By contrast, she referred to the known five books of Maitreya, which are written in verse, as blinds:<\/p>\n

\u201cI have finished an enormous Introductory Chapter, or Preamble<\/em>, Prologue, call it what you will; just to show the reader that the text as it goes, every Section beginning with a page of translation from the Book of Dzyan<\/em> and the Secret Book of \u2018Maytreya Buddha\u2019 Champai chhos Nga<\/em> (in prose, not the five books in verse known, which are a blind) are no fiction.\u201d14<\/sup><\/p>\n

Blavatsky\u2019s\u00a0description of the known verse works of Maitreya, including the Mah\u0101y\u0101na-s\u016btr\u0101la\u1e43k\u0101ra<\/em>, as a \u201cblind\u201d seems to be fitting when we compare it to the much more detailed teachings in the prose Bodhisattva-bh\u016bmi<\/em>. Nonetheless, even a \u201cblind\u201d (if it is such), contains important teachings, however brief. The Mah\u0101y\u0101na-s\u016btr\u0101la\u1e43k\u0101ra<\/em> in this tattv\u0101rtha<\/em> chapter speaks of the dharma-dh\u0101tu<\/em> beyond mind in verses 7-8. These are key verses for the Yog\u0101c\u0101ra school of Buddhism, often held to teach \u201cmind-only\u201d (citta-m\u0101tra<\/em>). Here are these verses in the two translations, preceded by the Sanskrit (from L\u00e9vi\u2019s edition, transliterated and hyphenated by me) and Tibetan (Comparative Tengyur, vol. 70, p. 816, lines 6-11, ignoring one variant reading, and p. 1174, lines 4-9, also ignoring one variant reading, a different one). Note that dharma-dh\u0101tu<\/em> is translated in the 2004 translation as the \u201cultimate realm,\u201d and in the 2014 translation as the \u201cbasic field of phenomena.\u201d<\/p>\n

arth\u0101n sa vij\u00f1\u0101ya ca jalpa-m\u0101tr\u0101n sa\u1e43ti\u1e63\u1e6dhate tan-nibha-citta-m\u0101tre |
pratyak\u1e63at\u0101m eti ca dharma-dh\u0101tus tasm\u0101d viyukto dvaya-lak\u1e63a\u1e47ena || 6.7 ||<\/p>\n

n\u00e2st\u00eeti citt\u0101t param etya buddhy\u0101 cittasya n\u00e2stitvam upaiti tasm\u0101t |
dvayasya n\u00e2stitvam upetya dh\u012bm\u0101n sa\u1e43ti\u1e63\u1e6dhate \u2019tad-gati-dharma-dh\u0101tau || 6.8 ||<\/p>\n

de yis brjod pa tsam du don rig nas || der snang sems tsam la ni yang dag gnas ||
de nas chos dbyings gnyis kyi mtshan nyid dang || bral ba mngon sum nyid du rtogs par \u2019gyur ||<\/p>\n

sems las gzhan med par ni blos rig nas || de nas sems kyang med pa nyid du rtogs ||
blo dang ldan pas gnyis po med rig nas || de mi ldan pa\u2019i chos kyi dbyings la gnas ||<\/p>\n

6.7. And once aware that objects are mere verbalizations she securely dwells in the realm of mind alone with such (objective) appearance. Then she realizes intuitively that the ultimate realm is (immanently) present, free of the nature of duality.<\/p>\n

6.8 Realizing intellectually that there is nothing apart from mind, she understands then that mind (itself) has no (ultimate) existence. Understanding that duality has no existence, such a genius dwells in the ultimate realm which has no (duality). (2004 translation)<\/p>\n

7.7 Hence, knowing objects to be mere expressions,
The bodhisattva recognizes that such appearances are mind only,
And then realizes the basic field of phenomena,
Free from the characteristics of duality, in direct perception.<\/p>\n

7.8 Becoming aware that there is nothing apart from the mind,
The bodhisattva also realizes that the mind does not exist at all.
Having seen that the two do not exist, the intelligent one abides
In the basic field of phenomena, which does not contain them. (2014 translation)<\/p>\n

As we see, following upon the idea that nothing exists other than mind (n\u00e2st\u00eeti citt\u0101t param), these verses say the bodhisattva realizes that the mind does not exist (cittasya n\u00e2stitvam). The Mah\u0101y\u0101na-s\u016btr\u0101la\u1e43k\u0101ra<\/em> is a fundamental text of the Yog\u0101c\u0101ra school, a school that is widely held to teach the existence of \u201cmind-only\u201d (citta-m\u0101tra<\/em>), and thus is also called the Cittam\u0101tra school. The \u201cGreat Madhyamaka\u201d tradition claims the five treatises of Maitreya as its source texts, saying that these texts do not teach \u201cmind-only\u201d; but rather they teach that mind, like all other phenomena, does not ultimately exist. These verses from the Mah\u0101y\u0101na-s\u016btr\u0101la\u1e43k\u0101ra<\/em> would be an important source reference in support of this assertion. Interestingly, although Mipham as a Ri-m\u00e9 teacher is a major exponent of the Great Madhyamaka tradition, he does not bring out this point in his commentary on these verses.<\/p>\n

The example verses quoted so far were chosen to illustrate important ideas found in the Mah\u0101y\u0101na-s\u016btr\u0101la\u1e43k\u0101ra<\/em>. They have not much illustrated the differences between the two translations in translation terminology. For this, we may look at verse 9.9 (or 10.9). Before doing so, we must note that the Tibetan translation of this verse differs from L\u00e9vi\u2019s Sanskrit edition in two places. Neither L\u00e9vi in his corrections published long posthumously in 2001 nor Nagao in his corrigenda published in 1958 suggested emendations to this Sanskrit verse. So we are glad to see that the 2004 translation in a footnote (p. 76, fn. 16) gives emendations to this Sanskrit verse in three places, even though none of these three emendations fit the meter, and the third of these is unnecessary.15<\/sup> The second of these emendations concerns the word \u2019jig tshogs<\/em> found in the Tibetan translation. This is the standard translation of the Sanskrit word satk<\/em>\u0101ya<\/em>, which is not found in L\u00e9vi\u2019s Sanskrit edition. However, Funahashi in his 1985 revised edition of this chapter shows that five Nepalese manuscripts do have satk<\/em>\u0101ya<\/em> here. The words sarvarak\u1e63\u0101pay\u0101na\u1e43<\/em> in L\u00e9vi\u2019s edition thus should be sarvasatk<\/em>\u0101yay\u0101na<\/em> as in Funahashi\u2019s edition. This also fits the meter. I give his revised text of this verse below. The remaining emendation to this Sanskrit verse is not so easy to ascertain.16<\/sup> I give the Tibetan from the text of only the verses in the Comparative Tengyur (vol. 70, p. 821, lines 13-16), which has one significant variant reading, and two insignificant ones that I have ignored. Likewise the text of the verses with commentary has two variant readings that I have ignored (vol. 70, p. 1192, lines 18-21).<\/p>\n

\u015bara\u1e47am anupama\u1e43 tac chre\u1e63\u1e6dha-buddhatvam i\u1e63\u1e6da\u1e43 janana-mara\u1e47a-sarva-kle\u015ba-p\u0101pe\u1e63u rak\u1e63\u0101 |
vividha-bhaya-gat\u0101n\u0101\u1e43 sarva-satk\u0101ya-y\u0101na-pratata-vividha-du\u1e25kh\u00e2p\u0101ya-n\u00f4p\u0101ya-g\u0101n\u0101\u1e43 || 9.9 ||<\/p>\n

sangs rgyas nyid de skyabs ni dpe med mchog tu \u2019dod ||
sna tshogs \u2019jigs gyur \u2019jig tshogs kun dang theg pa dang ||
ngan song rnam mang sdug bsngal thabs min song ba rnams ||
skye dang \u2019chi dang nyon mongs ngan song* kun las srung ||\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

*las rnams in the Peking and Narthang editions of the <\/span>text of the verses only.<\/span><\/p>\n

9.9 Supreme buddhahood is accepted as the incomparable refuge. It grants protection amidst births and deaths, amidst all addictions and hellish migrations, for all those who have fallen into various dangers, materiality, (inferior) vehicles, unremitting suffering of various kinds, hellish rebirths, and unliberating arts. (2004 translation)<\/p>\n

10.9 The refuge of buddhahood is held to be incomparably supreme,
For it protects against the different fears, all of the transitory collection, the vehicles,
The numerous sufferings of the lower realms, the pursuit of nonmethods,
Birth, death, afflictions, and the lower realms. (2014 translation)<\/p>\n

We notice in the 2004 translation three unique translation terms:<\/p>\n

(1) \u201caddictions\u201d for kle<\/em>\u015ba<\/em>-s (Tib. nyon mongs<\/em>), translated as \u201cafflictions\u201d in the 2014 translation. As said above, \u201cafflictions\u201d (or \u201cmental afflictions\u201d) has now become a frequent translation for kle\u015ba<\/em>-s in Buddhist texts, as has \u201cafflictive emotions.\u201d I have also seen \u201cmental and moral afflictions.\u201d These translations are based on the etymological and literal meaning of kle<\/em>\u015ba<\/em> as \u201caffliction.\u201d Interestingly, \u201caffliction\u201d was also the earliest English translation of kle<\/em>\u015ba<\/em>, found in James R. Ballantyne\u2019s 1852 and 1853 translation of Yoga-s<\/em>\u016btra<\/em> books 1 and 2 (where they are enumerated at 2.3), and adopted by many other translators of this Hindu text up to the present. In previous translations of Buddhist texts this term was often given more descriptive translations such as \u201cdefilements,\u201d \u201cmoral defilements,\u201d \u201cdefiled emotions,\u201d \u201cpassions,\u201d etc. The kle<\/em>\u015ba<\/em>-s are desire, hatred, delusion, pride, ignorance, wrong views, doubt, etc.<\/p>\n

(2) \u201cmateriality\u201d for sat-k<\/em>\u0101ya<\/em> (Tib. \u2019jig tshogs<\/em>), translated as \u201cthe transitory collection\u201d in the 2014 translation. The term \u201ctransitory collection\u201d is not uncommon in English translations made from the Tibetan, since it is a translation of the Tibetan translation, \u2019jig tshogs<\/em>, which in turn is a literal translation of the Sanskrit term, sat-k<\/em>\u0101ya<\/em>, as it is explained in Buddhist texts.17<\/sup> This term is associated with the basic Buddhist teaching of \u0101tma-d\u1e5b\u1e63\u1e6di<\/em>, the \u201c(false) view of self.\u201d The transitory or perishable collection or aggregation refers to the body, feelings, thoughts, etc. (the skandha<\/em>-s), that together make up a person, and which is falsely regarded as a permanent self. This term is therefore often given more descriptive translations. Thus, it is translated as \u201cfalse views of self\u201d in Cuong Nguyen\u2019s translation of Sthiramati\u2019s commentary on this verse (p. 359). Incidentally, Sthiramati takes the word \u201call\u201d (sarva<\/em>) with it in this verse, \u201call false views of self.\u201d<\/p>\n

(3) \u201cunliberating arts\u201d for na up<\/em>\u0101ya<\/em> (here used in a compound for anup\u0101ya<\/em> in order to fit the meter, Tib. thabs min<\/em>), translated as \u201cnonmethods\u201d in the 2014 translation. From the term \u201cnonmethods\u201d we can easily derive \u201cmethods,\u201d a common translation of up\u0101ya<\/em>, which is also often translated as \u201cmeans.\u201d Likewise, from \u201cunliberating arts\u201d we can derive \u201cliberating arts,\u201d which is used throughout the 2004 translation for up\u0101ya<\/em>. This term is frequently seen with praj\u00f1\u0101<\/em> in the contrasting and complementing pair, \u201cwisdom and means.\u201d It is also frequently seen with kau\u015balya<\/em> in the phrase, \u201cskill in means.\u201d<\/p>\n

Another unique translation term found in the 2004 translation is \u201ctheology\u201d for tarka<\/em> (Tib. rtog ge<\/em>), translated as \u201clogic\u201d in the 2014 translation and elsewhere. Thus, we read in verse 1.12 (L\u00e9vi Sanskrit edition) or 1.6 (2004 translation) or 2.6 (2014 translation):<\/p>\n

1.6. Theology is dependent, indefinite, non-comprehensive, superficial, tiresome, and the resort of the na\u00efve. Thus, this (universal vehicle) is not within its scope. (2004 translation)<\/p>\n

2.6. Logic is dependent, uncertain,
Incomprehensive, relative, and tiresome.
It is held to be reliable by the childish,
And this is, therefore, not within the domain. (2014 translation)<\/p>\n

As noted above, the anomalous use of \u201cselflessness\u201d has become accepted Buddhist jargon for those in the know. In combination, this leads to another unique translation term found in the 2004 translation, one that may take more than being in the loop to understand. In Vasubandhu\u2019s commentary on verse 4.14 we read, \u201cthere is equanimity towards all things due to the understanding of objective selflessness.\u201d In normal English, \u201cobjective selflessness\u201d would mean \u201cunbiased altruism\u201d or \u201cimpartial unselfishness,\u201d and this is something we might expect from a bodhisattva who has equanimity towards all things. Now that we are in the loop, however, we know that \u201cselflessness\u201d here means \u201cabsence of self,\u201d not \u201caltruism\u201d or \u201cunselfishness.\u201d So we next need to determine what \u201cobjective absence of self\u201d might mean. To do this, we must have studied Mah\u0101y\u0101na Buddhism long enough to know that it teaches two kinds of \u201cabsence of self\u201d: that of persons and that of phenomena or things. We can then see that \u201cobjective selflessness\u201d must mean \u201cabsence of self in objects,\u201d i.e., in things or phenomena. Without such a background, I do not think that this phrase would be understood to mean this. This phrase is found in the 2014 translation as \u201cselflessness of phenomena.\u201d The word \u201cphenomena,\u201d too, has become accepted Buddhist jargon. A Christian theologian pursuing interfaith studies may not find either of these translations to be very comprehensible.<\/p>\n

While the 2014 translation normally uses translation terminology that has now come in to common use, it does use a few uncommon or unique translation terms. These are, perhaps, harder to recognize in this translation because they are unexpected there. For example, it uses \u201cintrinsic nature\u201d for dharmat\u0101<\/em> (Tib. chos nyid<\/em>), a translation term that elsewhere almost always translates svabh\u0101va<\/em> (Tib. ngo bo nyid<\/em>, rang bzhin<\/em>). Thus, in verse 2.5 (= 1.11 in the L\u00e9vi Sanskrit edition), we read: \u201cIt [the Great Vehicle] does not conflict with the intrinsic nature\u201d; while in the 2004 translation (= 1.5) we find, \u201cit [the universal vehicle] does not run counter to actual reality.\u201d The term \u201cactual reality,\u201d like \u201ctrue reality,\u201d is within the norm for dharmat\u0101<\/em>, whose most common translation is \u201ctrue nature.\u201d<\/p>\n

Also unexpected in the 2014 translation is the translation of sa\u1e43j\u00f1\u0101<\/em> (Tib. \u2019du shes<\/em>) as \u201cidentification.\u201d There we read in verse 10.47: \u201cWhen the identification of space has transformed, whatever is wished for manifests.\u201d In the 2004 translation we find a more common translation of sa\u1e43j\u00f1\u0101<\/em> as \u201cconception\u201d in verse 9.47: \u201cIn the transmutation of the conception of space, highest mastery is attained.\u201d<\/p>\n

Likewise the translation of vij\u00f1apti<\/em> (Tib. rnam par rig pa<\/em>) as \u201cawareness\u201d in the 2014 translation is unexpected and therefore apt to be confusing. There we read in verse 12.24: \u201cThe causes of delusion and delusion are held to be awareness of form and awareness without form.\u201d In the 2004 translation we find a more common translation of vij\u00f1apti<\/em> as \u201cidea\u201d in verse 11.24: \u201cThe cause of error and error itself are considered to be the idea of matter and the idea of nonmateriality (respectively).\u201d<\/p>\n

These few unusual translation terms in the 2014 translation are very much the exception, and I call attention to them for the reason that they are unexpected there. The vast majority of the translation terms in the 2014 translation are ones that would be expected. Moreover, it does have a glossary, even though such glossaries are necessarily selective. Thus, for example, it leaves out \u201ctranscendence of suffering,\u201d for nirv\u0101\u1e47a<\/em>. Also, the English-Tibetan Glossary, through some glitch, omits all the words starting with \u201cs\u201d.<\/p>\n

In one case, both translations use uncommon or unique translation terms. For j\u00f1\u0101na<\/em> (Tib. ye shes<\/em>), common translations are \u201cknowledge,\u201d \u201cwisdom,\u201d \u201cgnosis,\u201d etc. The 2004 translation uses \u201cintuition\u201d for it, and the 2014 translation uses \u201cwakefulness\u201d for it. While such translations can provide helpful insights into the meaning of the original term, they can also make it harder to get the intended meaning, as may be seen in the following verse:<\/p>\n

9.34. Just as clouds and so forth are thought to obscure the rays of sunlight, so the deficiencies of beings obscure the buddhas\u2019 intuitions. (2004 translation)<\/p>\n

10.34. It is held that the rays of the sun
Are obscured by things such as clouds.
In the same way, the wakefulness of the buddhas
Is obscured by the flaws of sentient beings. (2014 translation)<\/p>\n

Both of these translations give the impression that the deficiencies or flaws of sentient beings interfere with the insights or awareness that the buddhas would otherwise have. Of course, the intended meaning is that the deficiencies or flaws of sentient beings interfere with their own realization of the wisdom or knowledge or gnosis possessed by the buddhas. This is clear in the translation of this verse by Cuong Nguyen:<\/p>\n

9.34. Just as clouds and the like obstruct the sunlight, so the faults of sentient beings block the Buddhas\u2019 wisdoms. (1990 thesis, p. 393)<\/p>\n

The renowned accuracy of the Tibetan translations in very closely following the Sanskrit originals goes hand in hand with their use of standardized translation terminology. This was implemented quite early by royal decree, and was used throughout the entire body of Buddhist texts. This standardized translation terminology allowed Tibetans to know that chos<\/em> is always dharma<\/em>, for example, no matter in what text or who translated it. We do not have this in our English translations today, nor are we likely to, because of our individualistic natures. Thurman has noted that the \u015b\u0101stra<\/em> texts comprising the Tengyur, of which the Mah\u0101y\u0101na-s\u016btr\u0101la\u1e43k\u0101ra<\/em> is one, are scientific treatises (pp. ii, vii, xvii). While their primary field is not the physical realm, as is that of the modern sciences of biology, chemistry, physics, etc., what they expound are similarly sciences that require the use of precise technical terms. Lacking standardized translation terms that all can agree on, we are obliged to add glossaries, or to add the Sanskrit terms in parentheses (as done by \u00c9tienne Lamotte in his valuable translations), or even to add the whole Sanskrit text (as is now frequent in translations of Hindu texts published in India). Things were different when the Buddhist texts were translated from Sanskrit into Tibetan. The use of standardized translation terminology, along with the literal accuracy of the Tibetan translations, together resulted in the most precise transferal of a body of religious knowledge from one language to another known to history.<\/p>\n

In conclusion, the two translations of the Mah\u0101y\u0101na-s\u016btr\u0101la\u1e43k\u0101ra<\/em> complement each other in important ways. The use of more standard translation terminology makes the 2014 translation more understandable, while the use of the Sanskrit original makes the 2004 translation more accurate. No serious student can afford to be without either of them.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Notes<\/p>\n

1. The Works of Maitreya: English Translations<\/em>, p. 7. Eastern Tradition Research Institute Bibliographic Guides, 2007: http:\/\/easterntradition.org\/etri%20bib-maitreya.pdf<\/a>.<\/p>\n

2. See Sylvain L\u00e9vi\u2019s Avant-propos to his 1907 Sanskrit edition. This edition is posted here under \u201cSanskrit Texts,\u201d then \u201cSanskrit Buddhist Texts,\u201d then Mah\u0101y\u0101nas\u016btr\u0101la\u1e43k\u0101ra: mahayana_sutralamkara_1907.pdf<\/a>. An English translation of this Avant-propos was made by Umesh Jha and published, along with the French, as \u201cA Rendition of L\u00e9vi\u2019s Preface to the S\u016btr\u0101la\u1e43k\u0101ra,\u201d Bulletin of the Mithila Institute of Post-Graduate Studies and Research in Sanskrit Learning, Darbhanga<\/em>, Vols. IV-VI, Sept. 1968-Sept. 1970, pp. 202-209, here attached as:\u00a0Mahayana-sutralamkara, Levi’s Preface, Eng.<\/a> The relevant portion is also quoted in French and translated into English by Kamaleswar Bhattacharya in his 2001 article, pp. 5-6 and fn. 5; for the full title and link, see note 8 below.<\/p>\n

3. As Kazuo Kano informs us in his 2012 article, \u201cEight Folios from a Sanskrit Manuscript of the Mah\u0101y\u0101nas\u016btr\u0101la\u1e43k\u0101rabh\u0101\u1e63ya from Ngor Monastery: Diplomatic and Critical Editions on X.9-XI.3,\u201d p. 33. See note 9 below for link.<\/p>\n

4. Gadjin M. Nagao, \u201cCorrigenda of the Text Edited by Professor Sylvain L\u00e9vi,\u201d in Index to the Mah\u0101y\u0101na-s\u016btr\u0101la\u1e43k\u0101ra (Sylvain L\u00e9vi Edition)<\/em>, Part One: Sanskrit-Tibetan-Chinese, pp. xi-xxii (Tokyo, 1958), here attached as: Mahayana-sutralamkara corrigenda Nagao 1958<\/a>.<\/p>\n

5. The two additional Sanskrit manuscripts that were brought to Japan and are kept in the Ry\u016bkoku University Library were first reported on and studied by Sh\u014dko Takeuchi in his Japanese language article, \u201cOn Mah\u0101y\u0101nas\u016btr\u0101la\u1e43k\u0101ra\u2014brought by \u014ctani Mission,\u201d Ry<\/em>\u016bkoku Daigaku Ronsh\u016b<\/em>, no. 352, Aug. 1956, pp. 72-87, here attached as: Mahayanasutralamkara brought by Otani Mission, Takeuchi 1956<\/a>. Besides being consulted by Nagao, these two manuscripts were also used by Takanori Umino, in his English language article, \u201cCorrections of the Mah\u0101y\u0101nas\u016btr\u0101la\u1e43k\u0101ra XI. 35,\u201d Journal of Indian and Buddhist Studies<\/em>, vol. 22, no. 1, Dec. 1973, pp. 513-508 (20-25), here attached as: Mahayanasutralamkara Corrections of XI.35, Takanori 1973<\/a>.<\/p>\n

6. Two of these additional Sanskrit manuscripts from the Nepal National Archives were compared with L\u00e9vi\u2019s edition by Risho Hotori, who published a \u201cConcordance of the Sanskrit Edition and Two Manuscripts of the Mah\u0101y\u0101nas\u016btr\u0101la\u1e43k\u0101ra,\u201d in Tetsugaku Nemp<\/em>\u014d<\/em>, no. 43, Feb. 1984, pp. 83-90, here attached as: Mahayanasutralamkara Concordance Two Manuscripts, Hotori 1984<\/a>. These two manuscripts were used by Gadjin Nagao, along with the two from the Ry\u016bkoku University Library, for his English translation of chapter 17, verses 29-64, with revised Sanskrit edition and list of corrections to L\u00e9vi\u2019s edition, published as \u201cThe Bodhisattva\u2019s Compassion Described in the Mah\u0101y\u0101na-s\u016btr\u0101la\u1e43k\u0101ra<\/em>,\u201d in Wisdom, Compassion, and the Search for Understanding<\/em> (University of Hawai\u2019i Press, 2000), pp. 1-38, here attached as: Mahayana-sutralamkara 17.29-64 Eng. Skt. Nagao 2000<\/a>.<\/p>\n

7. Naoya Funahashi, Mah\u0101y\u0101nas\u016btr\u0101la\u1e43k\u0101ra (Chapter I, II, III, IX, X), Revised on the basis of Nepalese manuscripts<\/em> (Tokyo, 1985). This is posted here under \u201cSanskrit Texts,\u201d then \u201cSanskrit Buddhist Texts,\u201d then Mah\u0101y\u0101nas\u016btr\u0101la\u1e43k\u0101ra: mahayana_sutralamkara_partial_1985.pdf<\/a>.<\/p>\n

8. Kamaleswar Bhattacharya, \u201cFor a New Edition of the Mah\u0101y\u0101nas\u016btr\u0101la\u1e43k\u0101ra<\/em>, Journal<\/em> of the Nepal Research Centre<\/em>, vol. XII, 2001, pp. 5-16, here attached as: Mahayanasutralamkara, For a New Edition of, Bhattacharya 2001<\/a>.<\/p>\n

9. Kazuo Kano has kindly posted his many valuable articles at Academia.edu (https:\/\/koyasan-u.academia.edu\/KazuoKano). This is very helpful because Japanese academic publications are not easily accessible here in the U.S.A., for example. Besides his article listed in note 3 above, his three other articles on the Mah\u0101y\u0101na-s\u016btr\u0101la\u1e43k\u0101ra<\/em> are: \u201cPalm-leaf Manuscript of the Mah\u0101y\u0101nas\u016btr\u0101la\u1e43k\u0101ra from Ngor Monastery\u2014Folio 27: XI.14-27\u2014,\u201d \u201cThe Sanskrit Manuscript of the Mah\u0101y\u0101nas\u016btr\u0101la\u1e43k\u0101rabh\u0101\u1e63ya from Ngor Monastery: Diplomatic Edition on XVII.37-39,\u201d and \u201cVairocanarak\u1e63ita\u2019s Glosses of the Mah\u0101y\u0101nas\u016btr\u0101la\u1e43k\u0101rabh\u0101\u1e63ya Chapter 17.\u201d In his article listed in note 3 above (pp. 36-37) he gives information about other Mah\u0101y\u0101na-s\u016btr\u0101la\u1e43k\u0101ra<\/em> manuscripts in Tibet. As access to these becomes possible, we may hope to eventually have a very accurate Sanskrit edition of this text. From access to an incomplete related text, the S\u016btr\u0101la\u1e43k\u0101ra-paricaya<\/em>, Ye Shaoyong was able to recover three verses, 2.9-11, that are absent in L\u00e9vi\u2019s edition due to a missing folio: \u201cThree Verses of the Mah\u0101y\u0101nas\u016btr\u0101la\u1e43k\u0101ra<\/em> Missing in Sylvain L\u00e9vi\u2019s Edition,\u201d Journal of Sino-Western Communications<\/em>, vol. 5, no. 1, July 2013, pp. 218-224, here attached as: Mahayanasutralamkara, three missing verses<\/a>.<\/p>\n

10. Robert A. F. Thurman, review of Herbert V. Guenther, Kindly Bent to Ease Us<\/em>, in Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies<\/em>, vol. 37, no. 1, June 1977, pp. 222-228, here attached as: Thurman review of Guenther Kindly Bent to Ease Us<\/a>.<\/p>\n

11. Paul J. Griffiths, \u201cPainting Space with Colors: Tath\u0101gatagarbha in the Mah\u0101y\u0101nas\u016btr\u00e2la\u1e45k\u0101ra-<\/em>Corpus IX.22-37,\u201d in Buddha Nature: A Festschrift in Honor of Minoru Kiyota<\/em>, pp. 41-63 (Tokyo, 1990), here attached as: Mahayanasutralamkara 9.22-37, Tathagatagarbha in, Griffiths 1990<\/a>.<\/p>\n

12. Cuong Tu Nguyen, Sthiramati\u2019s Interpretation of Buddhology and Soteriology<\/em>, Harvard University PhD. thesis, 1990, pp. 379-383, including verse 9.23, here attached as: Mahayana-sutralamkara Sthiramati comm. 9.23 Nguyen trans.<\/p>\n

<\/a>13. D. Seyfort Ruegg, \u201cThe Meanings of the Term Gotra and the Textual History of the Ratnagotravibh\u0101ga,\u201d Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies<\/em>, vol. 39, 1976, p. 354. This article is posted here under \u201cReferences,\u201d then \u201cStudies,\u201d then \u201cDhatu \u2014 Gotra (Eleven articles),\u201d of which it is the fifth article, pp. 28-40 of that PDF.<\/p>\n

14. The Letters of H. P. Blavatsky to A. P. Sinnett<\/em>, London, 1925, p. 195.<\/p>\n

15. The third emendation to this Sanskrit verse given in a footnote in the 2004 translation (p. 76, fn. 16) is pratatavividhadu\u1e25kh\u0101p\u0101y\u0101nup\u0101g\u0101n\u0101\u1e43<\/span> for L\u00e9vi\u2019s pratatavividhadu\u1e25kh\u0101p\u0101yanop\u0101yag\u0101n\u0101\u1e43. Apparently this emendation is itself a typographical error, since it lacks a syllable and eliminates the word up<\/em>\u0101ya<\/em>, for which we have its standard translation thabs<\/em> in the Tibetan text. Probably the intended emendation was pratatavividhadu\u1e25kh\u0101p\u0101y\u0101nup\u0101ya<\/span>g\u0101n\u0101\u1e43. In any case, it is unnecessary. The use of the Sanskrit word \u201cna\u201d in a compound in order to fit the meter, here nop<\/em>\u0101ya<\/em> instead of anup<\/em>\u0101ya<\/em>, is not uncommon.<\/p>\n

16. The remaining emendation to this Sanskrit verse concerns the word p\u0101pa<\/em> (in kle\u015bap\u0101pe\u1e63u<\/em>), for which the Tibetan translation (in the Der-ge edition used in the 2004 translation, signified by \u201cD\u201d but not in the list of abbreviations) has ngan song<\/em>, the standard translation of the Sanskrit word ap<\/em>\u0101ya<\/em>. Since the letter \u201cp\u201d looks almost like the letter \u201cy\u201d in Sanskrit manuscripts, this allows the apparently easy emendation kle\u015b\u0101p\u0101ye\u1e63u<\/em>, as given in the 2004 translation footnote. However, the long \u201c\u0101\u201d resulting from merging kle\u015ba<\/em> and ap<\/em>\u0101ya<\/em> goes against the meter. The printed reading, kle\u015bap\u0101pe\u1e63u<\/em>, fits the meter, and is apparently found in all of the several Nepalese manuscripts collated by Funahashi. Since ap\u0101ya<\/em> is mentioned later in this verse, there would be no need to also have it here. Then, there is a variant reading in the Tibetan translation of this verse in the text giving the verses alone (but not in the text giving the verses and commentary together, Comparative Tengyur, vol. 70, p. 1192, lines 18-21). For ngan song<\/em> in the Der-ge and Co-ne editions, the Peking and Narthang editions have las rnams<\/em> (Comparative Tengyur, vol. 70, p. 821, line 16). The Tibetan word las<\/em> translates the Sanskrit word karma<\/em> (the rnams<\/em> is the plural marker). This indicates that the Sanskrit manuscript(s) used for the Peking\/Narthang edition had kle\u015bakarme\u1e63u<\/em> here. This also fits the meter. The Tibetan translation of Sthiramati\u2019s commentary here has ngan song<\/em>, seeming to confirm ap<\/em>\u0101ya<\/em>, but it explains las<\/em>, karma<\/em>, in conjunction with nyon mongs<\/em>, kle\u015ba<\/em>, the \u201cmental\/moral afflictions.\u201d So we do not know whether Maitreya here spoke of protection from p\u0101pa<\/em>, \u201csins,\u201d ap<\/em>\u0101ya<\/em>, \u201cbad rebirths,\u201d or karma<\/em>, \u201cactions.\u201d<\/p>\n

17. The Sanskrit term sat-k<\/em>\u0101ya<\/em> looks like it should mean \u201creal body,\u201d or \u201ctruly existing body.\u201d However, as explained in Buddhist texts such as the Abhidharma-ko<\/em>\u015ba-bh\u0101\u1e63ya<\/em> (5.7), here sat<\/em> means s<\/em>\u012bdati<\/em>. That is, it comes from the root sad<\/em>, meaning \u201cto break, decay, perish.\u201d It is not the present participle or noun sat<\/em> from the root as<\/em>, meaning \u201cexisting, truly existing, real.\u201d Also, here k<\/em>\u0101ya<\/em> is taken in its meaning, \u201cassemblage, aggregation, collection\u201d rather than \u201cbody.\u201d The Tibetan \u2019jig tshogs<\/em> is a literal translation of this, meaning \u201cdisintegrating collection,\u201d and thus is taken as \u201ctransitory collection.\u201d<\/p>\n

Additional note: A four-language electronic edition of the Mah\u0101y\u0101na-s\u016btr\u0101la\u1e43k\u0101ra<\/em> is available at the University of Oslo Bibliotheca Polyglotta website. It includes Sanskrit, Chinese, Tibetan, and French. It is very convenient, but must be used with caution at present. This is because, judging by the many typographical errors, it does not seem to have been proofread. It can be found at: http:\/\/www2.hf.uio.no\/polyglotta\/index.php?page=fulltext&view=fulltext&vid=85&cid=182062&mid=283928&level=1<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

(keywords: Mahayana-sutralamkara, Mahayanasutralamkara) A new English translation of the Mah\u0101y\u0101na-s\u016btr\u0101la\u1e43k\u0101ra came out last month (November, 2014): Ornament of the Great Vehicle S\u016btras: Maitreya\u2019s Mah\u0101y\u0101nas\u016btr\u0101la\u1e43k\u0101ra with Commentaries by Khenpo Shenga and Ju Mipham, translated by Dharmachakra Translation Committee (Boston & London: Snow Lion, 2014). It was preceded by two other English translations of this text: (1) […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":5,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_bbp_topic_count":0,"_bbp_reply_count":0,"_bbp_total_topic_count":0,"_bbp_total_reply_count":0,"_bbp_voice_count":0,"_bbp_anonymous_reply_count":0,"_bbp_topic_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_reply_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_forum_subforum_count":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[36],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1232","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-noteworthy-books"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/prajnaquest.fr\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1232","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/prajnaquest.fr\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/prajnaquest.fr\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/prajnaquest.fr\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/5"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/prajnaquest.fr\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1232"}],"version-history":[{"count":11,"href":"http:\/\/prajnaquest.fr\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1232\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1260,"href":"http:\/\/prajnaquest.fr\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1232\/revisions\/1260"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/prajnaquest.fr\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1232"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/prajnaquest.fr\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1232"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/prajnaquest.fr\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1232"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}