Lam rim chen mo on svabh\u0101va<\/span><\/a><\/span>). The Tibetan rang bzhin (Sanskrit svabh\u0101va) is normally translated as \u201cintrinsic nature\u201d in this book.* In this section, however, rang bzhin (svabh\u0101va) is translated as \u201cnature\u201d in some places and as \u201cintrinsic nature\u201d in other places, and even as \u201cfinal nature.\u201d Thus, N\u0101g\u0101rjuna speaks only of a \u201cnature\u201d in the two verses quoted by Candrak\u012brti, also quoted by Tsongkhapa (p. 195). Candrak\u012brti is asked only if this \u201cnature\u201d exists, and says it does, and Tsongkhapa agrees (pp. 197-198). Then Tsongkhapa denies only an \u201cintrinsic nature\u201d (p. 198). A concluding quote is added, where Candrak\u012brti accepts only a \u201cfinal nature\u201d (p. 198). In all of these places, as may be seen in the Tibetan quoted below, the word being translated is only rang bzhin (Sanskrit svabh\u0101va), \u201cinherent\/intrinsic nature.\u201d<\/p>\nBeing given Gelugpa interpretations of a Gelugpa text will not be a reason for surprise. Nor would there be much reason for doubting that these interpretations reflect what Tsongkhapa meant. The problem here is that readers are being given interpretations, and not being told that these are interpretations rather than direct translations. Tsongkhapa\u2019s text has many quotations of Sanskrit texts. The interpretative translations occur within these quotations as well. This was never allowed when these Sanskrit texts were translated into Tibetan to form the Tibetan Buddhist canon, the Kangyur and Tengyur. When the Sanskrit original had the term svabh\u0101va, it was translated into Tibetan as rang bzhin or its synonym ngo bo nyid. These are what were allowed. Throughout the whole Kangyur and Tengyur, we do not find interpretive translations of svabh\u0101va such as \u201cnature\u201d in one place, \u201cinherent\/intrinsic nature\u201d in another place, and \u201cfinal nature\u201d in a third place. The texts had to be translated as they were found, and let the interpretations come later.<\/p>\n
The meaning \u201cfinal nature\u201d for svabh\u0101va was mentioned in the paragraph that Jacques quoted from Jeffrey Hopkins\u2019 1983 book, Meditation on Emptiness<\/em>. Although that book has a glossary, \u201cfinal nature\u201d is not in it. However, it is found in the fuller glossary of Elizabeth Napper\u2019s 1989 book, Dependent-Arising and Emptiness<\/em>, which adopted the translation terminology used by Jeffrey Hopkins. There \u201cfinal nature\u201d is listed as translating rang bzhin mthar thug. In the passage from the Lam rim chen mo<\/em> under discussion (p. 198), \u201cfinal nature\u201d is given in a quotation from Candrak\u012brti\u2019s Prasannapad\u0101<\/em>. But Candrak\u012brti\u2019s text, and Tsongkhapa\u2019s quotation of it, has only rang bzhin, not rang bzhin mthar thug (quoted below). Its Sanskrit original has only svabh\u0101va, with no qualifiers (Poussin Skt. ed., p. 264, line 2). The \u201cfinal\u201d (mthar thug) is an interpretation, coming from the Four Interwoven Annotations<\/em> (see: The Nature of Things: Emptiness and Essence in the Geluk World<\/em>, by William Magee, p. 216, where the Four Interwoven Annotations<\/em> paraphrase Candrak\u012brti\u2019s rang bzhin as rang bzhin mthar thug). These Annotations<\/em> were written by four Gelugpa writers who lived a couple centuries after Tsongkhapa (on Ba-so being a later Ba-so, see Napper\u2019s Dependent-Arising and Emptiness<\/em>, pp. 219-220).<\/p>\nEarlier in the Lam rim chen mo<\/em> translation (p. 173), \u201cfinal nature\u201d again occurs in a quotation from Candrak\u012brti, from his own commentary on his Madhyamak\u0101vat\u0101ra<\/em>. Again, Candrak\u012brti\u2019s text, and Tsongkhapa\u2019s quotation of it, has only rang bzhin, not rang bzhin mthar thug (Poussin Tib. ed., p. 107, line 15). In both of these cases, this occurs in a prose commentary by Candrak\u012brti, where he could have easily added a qualifier such as \u201cfinal\u201d to svabh\u0101va if he wanted to. He did not add one. Neither did Tsongkhapa when citing it. But the English translators, following the Tibetan annotators, did. The interpretive translation \u201cfinal nature\u201d completely obscures the fact that Candrak\u012brti, and Tsongkhapa citing him, has here only svabh\u0101va, elsewhere translated in this book as \u201cintrinsic nature.\u201d<\/p>\nWhen the English translation of the Lam rim chen mo<\/em> uses \u201cintrinsic nature\u201d for svabh\u0101va in the passage under discussion (p. 198), in contradistinction to its use of just \u201cnature\u201d for svabh\u0101va in this passage, it refers to \u201cinherent existence\u201d as mentioned in the paragraph that Jacques quoted from Jeffrey Hopkins\u2019 book, Meditation on Emptiness<\/em>. Jeffrey explains that the meaning \u201cinherent existence\u201d for svabh\u0101va\/rang bzhin takes it in the sense of rang bzhin gyis grub pa<\/em> (p. 438), and Tsongkhapa here adds the qualifier grub pa, \u201cestablished,\u201d to rang bzhin (quoted below). This means that something\u2019s existence is \u201cestablished by svabh\u0101va,\u201d i.e., \u201cestablished by [its] inherent\/intrinsic nature.\u201d But no dharmas, no phenomena, have a svabh\u0101va, an inherent\/intrinsic nature. Their existence cannot by established by something that they do not have. To say, then, that they are without an \u201cinherent\/intrinsic nature\u201d (svabh\u0101va) means that they are without an \u201cinherent existence.\u201d In this way, svabh\u0101va may be used to \u201cestablish\u201d (grub pa) something\u2019s ultimate existence or lack thereof.<\/p>\nAs alluded to in previous posts, this pertains to how Tsongkhapa narrowed down the meaning of svabh\u0101va, \u201cinherent\/intrinsic nature,\u201d to \u201cinherent existence,\u201d and made this the standard meaning in philosophical discourse in Tibet. If something is rang bzhin gyis grub pa, \u201cestablished by [its] svabh\u0101va,\u201d it truly or inherently exists. This Tibetan phrase would be in Sanskrit svabh\u0101va-siddha, \u201cestablished by svabh\u0101va,\u201d or svabh\u0101va-siddhi, \u201cestablishment by svabh\u0101va.\u201d However, such a term is not used in the Indian Buddhist Madhyamaka texts. They use only svabh\u0101va. The addition of the qualifier \u201cestablished,\u201d grub pa (hypothetical Sanskrit *siddha or *siddhi), is a Tibetan development. This is not at all to suggest that this meaning does not occur in Indian texts, for it certainly does. It is to say that taking this meaning as \u201cthe\u201d meaning is an interpretation, which may not be applicable to texts written prior to the time of Tsongkhapa. This would include the Book of Dzyan. Indian writers on Madhyamaka were not necessarily always thinking \u201cinherent existence\u201d when they used the term svabh\u0101va. They could apply the term svabh\u0101va to ultimates such as the dharmat\u0101, \u201ctrue nature,\u201d or dh\u0101tu, \u201celement, basic space,\u201d without any need to differentiate its meaning (as \u201cnature\u201d or as \u201cinherent\/intrinsic nature\u201d) or qualify this svabh\u0101va as \u201cfinal nature.\u201d<\/p>\n
It is when \u201cinherent existence\u201d is taken as \u201cthe\u201d meaning of svabh\u0101va that we see the denial of all svabh\u0101va. But this makes it difficult to see or even know that what may be called something\u2019s \u201cfinal nature\u201d is in fact just the very same word, svabh\u0101va. Moreover, as we have seen, this greatly influences the translations of these texts. I had earlier quoted Candrak\u012brti\u2019s statement, translated by William Ames, that: “Ultimate reality (don dam pa, param<\/em>\u0101rtha<\/em>) <\/em>for the Buddhas is svabh<\/em>\u0101va <\/em>itself.\u201d This same sentence was translated in Jeffrey Hopkins\u2019 valuable 2008 book, Tsong-kha-pa\u2019s Final Exposition of Wisdom<\/em>, (p. 254) as: \u201cThe ultimate for Buddhas is just the nature.\u201d Who would know that \u201cnature\u201d here is svabh\u0101va?<\/p>\nCandrak\u012brti is quoted in the passage under discussion from the Lam rim chen mo<\/em>, asking if such a svabh\u0101va exists. He answers that it is the dharmat\u0101, \u201cdharma-ness\u201d or \u201ctrue nature,\u201d citing the catechism-like phrase saying that it exists whether the Tath\u0101gatas arise or not. The next question asks what this dharmat\u0101 is. The answer given, as translated by William Ames, is: \u201cThe svabh\u0101va of these [dharmas], such as the eye.\u201d The answer given, as translated by William Magee (The Nature of Things<\/em>, p. 185), is: \u201cIt is the final mode of abiding of these phenomena, eyes, and so forth.\u201d Here, svabh\u0101va disappears without a trace, behind \u201cfinal mode of abiding.\u201d There is not even a \u201cnature\u201d to give a clue that svabh\u0101va is the word used here by Candrak\u012brti. From other sources, we learn that \u201cmode of abiding,\u201d also \u201cmode of subsistence,\u201d translates the Tibetan term gnas lugs. It has no Sanskrit equivalent; it is a technical term found only in Tibetan treatises on Buddhism. Here in this sentence it is a gloss of rang bzhin\/svabh\u0101va, coming from the Four Interwoven Annotations<\/em>.<\/p>\nMagee helpfully translates separately these Annotations<\/em> on this section of the Lam rim chen mo<\/em>. Two of its relevant headings here are (pp. 204, 206): \u201cIn our system the nature possessing the three attributes is the mode of subsistence, emptiness\u201d; and \u201cThough the nature refuted formerly and the nature which is the mode of subsistence of things have the same name, the meaning is different.\u201d These tell us that the two meanings given to svabh\u0101va (here translated as \u201cnature\u201d), an \u201cinherent existence\u201d and a \u201cfinal nature\u201d or \u201cmode of subsistence,\u201d are used \u201cin our system,\u201d i.e., in the Gelugpa system. These interpretations of what N\u0101g\u0101rjuna and Candrak\u012brti meant by svabh\u0101va may not be accepted in other systems. Even if they do correctly represent what N\u0101g\u0101rjuna and Candrak\u012brti meant but did not say about svabh\u0101va, readers have the right to know that they are being given interpretations rather than direct translations.<\/p>\nHowever excellent the English translation of the Lam rim chen mo<\/em> by the Lamrim Chenmo Translation Committee is, for questions like this it is still necessary to consult other translations when possible, if not the Tibetan text itself. The passage under discussion should be compared with Alex Wayman\u2019s more literal translation, however faulty it may be in other respects, found in Calming the Mind and Discerning the Real<\/em>, pp. 255-256 (also included in the attached \u201cLam rim chen mo on svabh\u0101va\u201d). Wayman here either retains the term svabh\u0101va (rang bzhin) in his translation, or translates it as \u201cself-existence,\u201d which he gives in his glossary. This makes much clearer what is actually being said in Tsongkhapa\u2019s Tibetan text. Interpretations from the Four Interwoven Annotations<\/em> (Wayman\u2019s Mchan<\/em> or Ja<\/em>, see p. 71) are given only in notes (e.g., note 139 referring to p. 233, corresponding to p. 173 of the Lamrim Chenmo Translation Committee translation, where occurs the second example of \u201cfinal nature\u201d that I discussed above). For grub pa, \u201cestablished,\u201d Wayman uses the translation \u201caccomplished.\u201d So for \u201cestablished by svabh\u0101va,\u201d Wayman gives \u201caccomplished by self-existence.\u201d<\/p>\nHere follows\u00a0the Tibetan passage corresponding to the Lamrim Chenmo Translation Committee\u2019s English translation, vol. 3, p. 197, last six lines, to p. 198, first thirty-one lines (attached above). I have added some English words in blue to help with following the text. As occurring in this translation, I have inserted the words \u201cnature,\u201d \u201cintrinsic nature,\u201d and \u201cfinal nature\u201d in red after the Tibetan term it translates, also putting these in red. The Tibetan word that these three translate is the same: \u201crang bzhin,\u201d Sanskrit svabh\u0101va. I have also put in green the qualifier grub pa (\u201cestablished\u201d), added by Tsongkhapa in one of the paragraphs, since this was not translated separately.<\/p>\n
As said above, and now can be seen, the Lamrim Chenmo Translation Committee here departs from its usual translation of rang bzhin as \u201cintrinsic nature,\u201d and translates it several times as only \u201cnature.\u201d These occur in quotations from N\u0101g\u0101rjuna (p. 195, Tibetan not given here) and Candrak\u012brti, where we know that the original Sanskrit word is svabh\u0101va, and where in earlier quotations from these writers it was translated as \u201cintrinsic nature\u201d (see footnote below). Then it switches back to \u201cintrinsic nature\u201d when Tsongkhapa added the qualifier grub pa to rang bzhin. Then again, it uses \u201cfinal nature,\u201d in a quotation from Candrak\u012brti where we know that he only had svabh\u0101va, and Tsongkhapa\u2019s text citing him has only rang bzhin. This interpretive translation came from the later Four Woven Annotations<\/em>. Lastly, in following this passage, we must also know that when svabh\u0101va is defined as dharmat\u0101 (Tib. chos nyid), dharmat\u0101 is here translated as \u201creality.\u201d<\/p>\n <\/p>\n
[Question:]<\/span> ‘O NA SLOB DPON GYIS SNGAR BSHAD PA LTAR MA BCOS PA DANG GZHAN LA LTOS PA MED PA RANG BZHIN “nature”<\/span> GYI MTSAN NYID DU GSUNGS PA DE BRTAG PA MTHA’ BZUNG GI SGO NAS GSUNGS SAM RANG BZHIN “nature”<\/span> DE ‘DRA BA ZHIG YOD PA YIN ZHE NA,<\/p>\n[Reply:]<\/span> ‘DI NI CHOS RNAMS KYI CHOS NYID CES GSUNGS PA DE LA RANG BZHIN “nature”<\/span> ZHES BZHAG PA YIN TE BCOS MA MIN PA DANG GZHAN LA RAG LAS PA MIN PA’O, ,DE NI YOD DE, ‘JUG ‘GREL LAS,<\/p>\n[beginning of quotation from Candrak\u012brti’s Explanation of the “Middle Way” Commentary<\/em>:]<\/span> KHYAD PAR DU MDZAD PA RNAM PA DE LTA BU’I RANG<\/span> @416B BZHIN “nature”<\/span> SLOB DPON GYIS ZHAL GYIS BZHES PA ZHIG YOD DAM ZHE NA, GANG GI DBANG DU MDZAD NAS BCOM LDAN ‘DAS KYIS DE BZHIN GSHEGS PA RNAMS BYUNG YANG RUNG MA BYUNG YANG RUNG CHOS RNAMS KYI CHOS NYID ‘DI NI GNAS PA NYID DO ZHES RGYAS PAR GSUNGS PA CHOS NYID CES BYA BA NI YOD DO, ,CHOS NYID CES BYA BA ‘DI YANG CI ZHIG ,MIG LA SOGS PA ‘DI DAG GI RANG BZHIN “nature”<\/span> NO, ,DE DAG GI RANG BZHIN “nature”<\/span> YANG GANG ZHIG CE NA, DE DAG GI BCOS MA MA YIN PA NYID DANG GZHAN LA LTOS PA MED PA GANG YIN PA STE MA RIG PA’I RAB RIB DANG BRAL BA’I SHES PAS RTOGS PAR BYA BA’I RANG GI NGO BO’O, ,JI DE YOD DAM MED DO ZHES DE SKAD SU SMRA, GAL TE MED NA NI CI’I DON DU BYANG CHUB SEMS DPA’ RNAMS PHA ROL TU PHYIN PA’I LAM SGOM PAR ‘GYUR TE, GANG GI PHYIR CHOS NYID RTOGS PAR BYA BA’I PHYIR BYANG CHUB SEMS DPA’ RNAMS DE LTAR DKA’ BA BRGYA PHRAG RTZOM PA YIN NO ZHES MDO’I SHES BYED DANG BCAS PAS BSGRUBS SO,,<\/p>\n[Question:]<\/span> ‘O NA SNGAR CHOS THAMS CAD LA RANG BZHIN<\/span> GRUB PA<\/span> “intrinsic nature”<\/span> MA BKAG GAM SNYAM NA,<\/p>\n[Reply:]<\/span> NANG GI BLOS BTAGS PA MIN PA’I CHOS RNAMS LA RANG GI NGO BOS GRUB PA’I<\/span> RANG BZHIN “intrinsic nature”<\/span> NI RDUL TZAM YANG MED DO ZHES KHO BO CAG GIS LAN DU MAR MA SMRAS SAM, DES NA DE ‘DRA BA’I RANG BZHIN “nature”<\/span> DU NI CHOS GZHAN RNAMS LTA CI SMOS, CHOS NYID DON DAM PA’I BDEN PA DE YANG GRUB PA<\/span> [rang bzhin is only implied in this sentence] “intrinsic nature”<\/span> CUNG ZAD KYANG MED DE, TSIG GSAL LAS,<\/p>\n[beginning of quotation from Candrak\u012brti’s Clear Words<\/em>:]<\/span> DUS GSUM DU’ANG ME LA MI ‘KHRUL BA GNYUG MA’I NGO BO MA BCOS PA GANG ZHIG SNGAR MA BYUNG BA LAS PHYIS ‘BYUNG BA MA YIN PA GANG ZHIG ,CHU’I TSA BA’AM TSU ROL DANG PHA ROL LAM RING PO DANG THUNG NGU LTAR RGYU DANG RKYEN @417A *, ,LA LTOS PA DANG BCAS PAR MA GYUR PA GANG YIN PA DE RANG BZHIN “final nature”<\/span> YIN PAR BRJOD DO, ,CI ME’I RANG GI NGO BO “nature” [svar\u016bpa]<\/span> DE LTA BUR GYUR PA DE YOD DAM ZHE NA DE NI RANG GI NGO BOS YOD PA’ANG MA YIN LA MED PA’ANG MA YIN NO, ,DE LTA YIN MOD KYI ‘ON KYANG NYAN PA PO RNAMS KYI SKRAG PA SPANG BAR BYA BA’I PHYIR SGRO BTAGS NAS KUN RDZOB TU DE YOD DO ZHES BRJOD PAR BYA’O,, [end of quotation]<\/span><\/p>\nZHES RANG BZHIN “nature”<\/span> DE YANG RANG GI NGO BOS GRUB PA BKAG NAS THA SNYAD DU YOD PAR GSUNGS SO,<\/p>\n <\/p>\n
*For example, rang bzhin is translated as \u201cintrinsic nature\u201d in these places: pp. 131, 137, 147, 191, quoting N\u0101g\u0101rjuna\u2019s Vigraha-vy\u0101vartan\u012b<\/em>, verses 1, 22, 26cd, 26, respectively, and pp. 143, 149, quoting Candrak\u012brti\u2019s Prasannapad\u0101<\/em> 17.30, 24.11, respectively, and p. 157, quoting Catu\u1e25\u015bataka-\u1e6d\u012bk\u0101<\/em> 13.21 or 321. These Sanskrit texts are extant, and svabh\u0101va can be seen in them.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"As just seen at the end of the previous quotation, Candrak\u012brti wonders who would ask if such a svabh\u0101va (\u201cinherent nature\u201d) exists or not. If it did not, what would be the purpose of all the strivings of bodhisattvas? Now we must wonder why Tsongkhapa, followed by his Gelugpa order, is commonly understood to deny […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":5,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","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":[17],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-260","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-dhatu"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/prajnaquest.fr\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/260","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=260"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"http:\/\/prajnaquest.fr\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/260\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":262,"href":"http:\/\/prajnaquest.fr\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/260\/revisions\/262"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/prajnaquest.fr\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=260"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/prajnaquest.fr\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=260"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/prajnaquest.fr\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=260"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}