|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 2, 2021 14:23:38 GMT -5
As in you thought it was a tool for controlling the masses and found that the practitioners actually had genuinely touched something spiritually, OR that you thought it was a teaching about love and found its practitioners to have missed this point entirely? I suspect that Jesus was pointing toward non-duality, but unfortunately his followers never looked in the direction he was pointing.  All are the body of Christ. Only one Jesus though. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 2, 2021 19:20:21 GMT -5
As in you thought it was a tool for controlling the masses and found that the practitioners actually had genuinely touched something spiritually, OR that you thought it was a teaching about love and found its practitioners to have missed this point entirely? I suspect that Jesus was pointing toward non-duality, but unfortunately his followers never looked in the direction he was pointing. I simply don't understand much of modern Christianity. But one thing I suspect is that the sentence "No one comes to the Father except through Me.", is an epic mistranslation and misunderstanding. (If not invented outright.) It seems way out of line with all other teachers, and sounds arrogant or delusional. As Niz said: " Distrust those who put a distance between you and your true being and offer themselves as a go-between." But what are the odds that Jesus said something almost exactly like Ramana, Niz, etc.? Something like "You come to the Father though the I Am" ... and then someone with no inkling of reality translated it years later, and perceived that last phrase as a grammatical error, and "fixed" it. Or maybe it was just invented by church leaders who wanted to say "my God is better than your God". But I always liked the Sermon on the Mount. "Consider the lilies in the field ... " |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Mar 2, 2021 21:57:46 GMT -5
I suspect that Jesus was pointing toward non-duality, but unfortunately his followers never looked in the direction he was pointing. I simply don't understand much of modern Christianity. But one thing I suspect is that the sentence " No one comes to the Father except through Me.", is an epic mistranslation and misunderstanding. (If not invented outright.) It seems way out of line with all other teachers, and sounds arrogant or delusional. As Niz said: " Distrust those who put a distance between you and your true being and offer themselves as a go-between." But what are the odds that Jesus said something almost exactly like Ramana, Niz, etc.? Something like " You come to the Father though the I Am" ... and then someone with no inkling of reality translated it years later, and perceived that last phrase as a grammatical error, and "fixed" it. Or maybe it was just invented by church leaders who wanted to say "my God is better than your God". But I always liked the Sermon on the Mount. "Consider the lilies in the field ... " I agree. Obviously that phrase, as it reached us, means something else than it seems. I'd suggest something like "do as I do, if you want to reach your inner-self / true-being / ..., as it is the only way". It isn't about him as a gate-keeper who lets souls pass to heavens or not, but about his teachings. Everything he said was symbolical. I read somewhere his saying about not everybody getting it. Your suggestion is quite clever, but is probably putting words in his mouth. Unconsciously, we all look for and see confirmations of what we already believe.
EDIT: this is the interlinear translation from Greek, and that final " Me" is actually a possessive pronoun, genitive 1st person singular: " mine" ("... if not by mine") ... "my way"  biblehub.com/interlinear/john/14-6.htm |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Mar 2, 2021 22:16:05 GMT -5
Getting back to the Diamond Sutra ... I looked at several translations of #25, from Sanskrit, from Tibetan, from Chinese, some of them commented, and I was surprised of the variety of interpretations.
This is Paul Harrison's:
25 "What do you think, Subhūti? Does it occur to the Realized One that he has liberated living beings? This is again not the way one should see things, Subhūti. Why is that? There is no living being whatsoever who has been liberated by the Realized One. If moreover there were any living being who was liberated by the Realized One, Subhūti, that would constitute seizing upon a self on his part, seizing upon a living being, seizing upon a soul, seizing upon a person. This 'seizing upon a self,' Subhūti, has been preached by the Realized One as devoid of seizing, but it is learned by foolish ordinary people. These 'foolish ordinary people,' Subhūti, have been preached by the Realized One as peopleless. That is why they are called 'foolish ordinary people'."
I don't find it better than the others.
What is amazing, is that even those who give the Chinese and English side-by-side offer translations that are actually very much personal interpretations. For example:
The red highlight is a complete fantasy, in my opinion. Even Google is more likely ("If there is a Tathagata to save all beings, then there is a Tathagata who will live long.").
A problem I see with these variations is that the translators try to fit what they believe, instead of trying to discover what the Sutra's authors meant.
|
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Mar 3, 2021 7:17:49 GMT -5
I suspect that Jesus was pointing toward non-duality, but unfortunately his followers never looked in the direction he was pointing. I simply don't understand much of modern Christianity. But one thing I suspect is that the sentence "No one comes to the Father except through Me.", is an epic mistranslation and misunderstanding. (If not invented outright.) It seems way out of line with all other teachers, and sounds arrogant or delusional. As Niz said: " Distrust those who put a distance between you and your true being and offer themselves as a go-between." But what are the odds that Jesus said something almost exactly like Ramana, Niz, etc.? Something like "You come to the Father though the I Am" ... and then someone with no inkling of reality translated it years later, and perceived that last phrase as a grammatical error, and "fixed" it. Or maybe it was just invented by church leaders who wanted to say "my God is better than your God". But I always liked the Sermon on the Mount. "Consider the lilies in the field ... " Agreed. When writing a book about non-duality for Christians I preferred the New English Bible translation to the King James version. Examples: What does it gain a man if he gains the whole world but loses his True Self? If anyone would follow me, he must leave self behind......and discover his True Self. I don't read Greek, but the theme of leaving selfhood behind in order to discover what is infinite certainly points in the right direction. |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Mar 3, 2021 16:32:52 GMT -5
I simply don't understand much of modern Christianity. But one thing I suspect is that the sentence "No one comes to the Father except through Me.", is an epic mistranslation and misunderstanding. (If not invented outright.) It seems way out of line with all other teachers, and sounds arrogant or delusional. As Niz said: " Distrust those who put a distance between you and your true being and offer themselves as a go-between." But what are the odds that Jesus said something almost exactly like Ramana, Niz, etc.? Something like "You come to the Father though the I Am" ... and then someone with no inkling of reality translated it years later, and perceived that last phrase as a grammatical error, and "fixed" it. Or maybe it was just invented by church leaders who wanted to say "my God is better than your God". But I always liked the Sermon on the Mount. "Consider the lilies in the field ... " Agreed. When writing a book about non-duality for Christians I preferred the New English Bible translation to the King James version. Examples: What does it gain a man if he gains the whole world but loses his True Self?
If anyone would follow me, he must leave self behind......and discover his True Self. I don't read Greek, but the theme of leaving selfhood behind in order to discover what is infinite certainly points in the right direction. I couldn't find your exact quotes on line. You must've paraphrased them. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Mar 3, 2021 17:04:33 GMT -5
Agreed. When writing a book about non-duality for Christians I preferred the New English Bible translation to the King James version. Examples: What does it gain a man if he gains the whole world but loses his True Self?
If anyone would follow me, he must leave self behind......and discover his True Self. I don't read Greek, but the theme of leaving selfhood behind in order to discover what is infinite certainly points in the right direction. I couldn't find your exact quotes on line. You must've paraphrased them. Yes, I was going from memory. What will a man gain from winning the whole world, at the cost of his true self? If anyone wishes to be a follower of mine, he must leave self behind; Whoever cares for his own safety is lost; but if a man will let himself be lost for my sake, he will find his true self. Basically Matthew 16:24-25, but also Luke 9:25, etc. |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Mar 3, 2021 18:38:27 GMT -5
I couldn't find your exact quotes on line. You must've paraphrased them. Yes, I was going from memory. What will a man gain from winning the whole world, at the cost of his true self? If anyone wishes to be a follower of mine, he must leave self behind; Whoever cares for his own safety is lost; but if a man will let himself be lost for my sake, he will find his true self. Basically Matthew 16:24-25, but also Luke 9:25, etc. Thanks. I thought unexpected for Jesus to mention the "true self" vs. the not-true self, and I wanted to see the context. biblehub.com/matthew/16-24.htmbiblehub.com/luke/9-25.htmI am not familiar with the bible, nor the gospels, but biblehub.com has a wealth of information and tools. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Mar 3, 2021 21:22:49 GMT -5
Yes, I was going from memory. What will a man gain from winning the whole world, at the cost of his true self? If anyone wishes to be a follower of mine, he must leave self behind; Whoever cares for his own safety is lost; but if a man will let himself be lost for my sake, he will find his true self. Basically Matthew 16:24-25, but also Luke 9:25, etc. Thanks. I thought unexpected for Jesus to mention the "true self" vs. the not-true self, and I wanted to see the context. biblehub.com/matthew/16-24.htmbiblehub.com/luke/9-25.htmI am not familiar with the bible, nor the gospels, but biblehub.com has a wealth of information and tools. It seems strange that they don't list the "New English Bible" translation. My version is 1961, but what interested me was the usage of the phrase "True Self." |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Mar 3, 2021 21:37:38 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Mar 3, 2021 21:53:05 GMT -5
A search for " true self" yielded this: New English BibleProv:19 8 To learn sense is true self-love; cherish discernment and make sure of success. Mt:16 25 Whoever cares for his own safety is lost; but if a man will let himself be lost for my sake, he will find his true self. Mt:16 26 What will a man gain by winning the whole world, at the cost of his true self? Or what can he give that will buy that self back? Mk:8 36 What does a man gain by winning the whole world at the cost of his true self? Lk:9 25 What will a man gain by winning the whole world, at the cost of his true self? EDIT: "true self" site:http://www.katapi.org.uk |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 4, 2021 0:09:17 GMT -5
Good find! The part about translators making a specific choice is spot on because that's exactly the same what happened with case #1 of the Blue Cliff Record. Someone decided to translate Bodhidharma's reply as " I don't know" and all other translators and commentators just followed that lead, even though it doesn't really make sense, or at least is debatable. And only when you go back to the original text you'll notice that Bodhidharma's reply is actually rather ambiguous and allows for different - and equally valid! - readings, which puts the entire case into a whole different light. So I hope people take this as a cautionary tale again, to not rely on translations or books in general. We've regularly had literal quote wars over (usually out of context) quotes from Niz and Ramana, people being absolutely sure what they've said and actually meant while parsing questionable English translations of the original words from both masters that they found via google search. That's how ridiculous this can get! What he says about the content of the diamond sutra, that sounds a lot like what Alan Watts was getting at in his talk about the symbolic and the real; i.e. people use the symbolic out of convenience, because it has practical value, but for whatever reason, at some point, people tend to forget that it is just symbolic and start mistaking the symbolic for the real. And that's when all the confusion begins which eventually leads to different degrees of existential suffering. In my past readings of the DS I've compared these two different versions: (1) seemingly older, native speakers to English (2) more recent, English speaker to English heh heh the Buddha was the first neo-Advaitist.  The DS verses make that distinction between "the thing" and "the idea of the thing" in multiple instances. I found each version to be helpful, for different reasons. I'm interested in what Harris has to say, but, as far as this form of double-negation that he objects to, it's a form that you should be familiar with. I intend to follow inavalen's links, but only after I'm done re-reading those two familiar versions. Wanted to get these examples down now as they occurred to me in the reading: === Unconditional peace is an absence. It's not dependent on the conditions that people need for peace, which is why we call it peace. Any enlightened person will tell you that there's no such thing as an enlightened person. A pointer is a concept, but it can't be understood conceptually, which is why we call it a pointer. The existential truth is ineffable, and can only be pointed to. So, the existential truth is that any statement of the existential truth is not the existential truth. "Since at any point of time and space I can be both the subject and the object of experience, I express it by saying that I am both, and neither, and beyond both." I just read all 3 translations (the one you and Ina linked) up to chapter 6 and I have to say, just judging by content, I am impressed. If you cut out all the filler, the perspective presented there is pretty much to the point and basically identical to what we are mostly talking about here, i.e. impersonal perspective, prior to mind, seeing thru the eyes of Source/CC perspective, the issues with objectifying/thing-ifying etc... Parts of it could actually come straight out of an A-H workshop, hehe. I think it would be worth doing an extra thread on this Diamond Sutra, chapter by chapter, and comparing the different translations, because this is really good and together with the Heart Sutra one of the most referenced texts in Chan/Zen. Thanks for sharing, guys! |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Mar 4, 2021 2:11:12 GMT -5
In my past readings of the DS I've compared these two different versions: (1) seemingly older, native speakers to English (2) more recent, English speaker to English heh heh the Buddha was the first neo-Advaitist. The DS verses make that distinction between "the thing" and "the idea of the thing" in multiple instances. I found each version to be helpful, for different reasons. I'm interested in what Harris has to say, but, as far as this form of double-negation that he objects to, it's a form that you should be familiar with. I intend to follow inavalen's links, but only after I'm done re-reading those two familiar versions. Wanted to get these examples down now as they occurred to me in the reading: === Unconditional peace is an absence. It's not dependent on the conditions that people need for peace, which is why we call it peace. Any enlightened person will tell you that there's no such thing as an enlightened person. A pointer is a concept, but it can't be understood conceptually, which is why we call it a pointer. The existential truth is ineffable, and can only be pointed to. So, the existential truth is that any statement of the existential truth is not the existential truth. "Since at any point of time and space I can be both the subject and the object of experience, I express it by saying that I am both, and neither, and beyond both." I just read all 3 translations (the one you and Ina linked) up to chapter 6 and I have to say, just judging by content, I am impressed. If you cut out all the filler, the perspective presented there is pretty much to the point and basically identical to what we are mostly talking about here, i.e. impersonal perspective, prior to mind, seeing thru the eyes of Source/CC perspective, the issues with objectifying/thing-ifying etc... Parts of it could actually come straight out of an A-H workshop, hehe. I think it would be worth doing an extra thread on this Diamond Sutra, chapter by chapter, and comparing the different translations, because this is really good and together with the Heart Sutra one of the most referenced texts in Chan/Zen. Thanks for sharing, guys! This seems a good site for Diamond Sutra, and more: terebess.hu/english/diamond.htmlIt is a long page, with lots of information. In the first part, after links, there is the translation from Sanskrit by Edward Conze. Searching in the page for " The discourse on transcendent awareness" there is another translation ( from colgate.edu): The #25 (that I looked into more deeply): [25] The lord Buddha continued, "Do you think, Subhuti, that the
well-traveled one would consider in his own mind, 'I will deliver
human beings'? That would be a degrading thought. Why? Because
there are not really any sentient beings to be delivered by the
well-traveled one. Should there be any sentient beings to be
delivered by the well-traveled one, it would mean that the well-
traveled one was harboring in his mind some arbitrary conceptions
about phenomena, such as a self, other selves, living beings, and
universal self. Even when the well-traveled one refers to himself
he is not holding on to such arbitrary thoughts. Only earth
people think of selfhood as a personal thing. Subhuti, even the
expression 'earth people' as used by the well-traveled one does
not mean that there are any such beings. It is merely used as a
figure of speech."
|
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Mar 4, 2021 15:41:19 GMT -5
I just read all 3 translations (the one you and Ina linked) up to chapter 6 and I have to say, just judging by content, I am impressed. If you cut out all the filler, the perspective presented there is pretty much to the point and basically identical to what we are mostly talking about here, i.e. impersonal perspective, prior to mind, seeing thru the eyes of Source/CC perspective, the issues with objectifying/thing-ifying etc... Parts of it could actually come straight out of an A-H workshop, hehe. I think it would be worth doing an extra thread on this Diamond Sutra, chapter by chapter, and comparing the different translations, because this is really good and together with the Heart Sutra one of the most referenced texts in Chan/Zen. Thanks for sharing, guys! This seems a good site for Diamond Sutra, and more: terebess.hu/english/diamond.htmlIt is a long page, with lots of information. In the first part, after links, there is the translation from Sanskrit by Edward Conze. Searching in the page for " The discourse on transcendent awareness" there is another translation ( from colgate.edu): The #25 (that I looked into more deeply): [25] The lord Buddha continued, "Do you think, Subhuti, that the
well-traveled one would consider in his own mind, 'I will deliver
human beings'? That would be a degrading thought. Why? Because
there are not really any sentient beings to be delivered by the
well-traveled one. Should there be any sentient beings to be
delivered by the well-traveled one, it would mean that the well-
traveled one was harboring in his mind some arbitrary conceptions
about phenomena, such as a self, other selves, living beings, and
universal self. Even when the well-traveled one refers to himself
he is not holding on to such arbitrary thoughts. Only earth
people think of selfhood as a personal thing. Subhuti, even the
expression 'earth people' as used by the well-traveled one does
not mean that there are any such beings. It is merely used as a
figure of speech."
I found two sites related to the Diamond Sutra, that have a lot of great information.
In Chinese, but easily navigated if your browser does automatic translation (e.g. Chrome): vajraprajnaparamitasutra.blogspot.com/ Comparison of Ten Translations of "Diamond Sutra·Annotation Pian" and New Annotations to Achieve Complete Wisdom and Break the Vajra Method
The comparison of the Chinese version of the "Diamond Sutra" has been studied by scholars and experts, especially in the comparison of "Dove Translation" and "Xuanyi".
The author focuses on the six Chinese translations, three English translations directly translated from Sanskrit texts.
Comparing, and taking the Sanskrit translation of the English version of "Müller" as a benchmark, there will be a little bit of ink if there are obvious differences between the translations.
Scholars have studied the "Gilgit version" and pointed out that this Sanskrit text is closer to the "Dove Translation". This can be seen from the comparison of the contents of "UOslo" and "Gilgit" and "Dove Translation".
In addition, the translation of "Colgate" among the three English translations adopts free translation, which is the so-called free translation, but this translation adds Many translators’ opinions. Therefore, it is only for reference in this book, and if there are big differences, it will be specially pointed out.
Therefore, the comparison of the English version is mainly based on the two versions of "Müller" and "Conze".
An extended list of Buddhist Sutras: www.buddhism.org/Sutras/ |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Mar 4, 2021 15:46:31 GMT -5
This seems a good site for Diamond Sutra, and more: terebess.hu/english/diamond.htmlIt is a long page, with lots of information. In the first part, after links, there is the translation from Sanskrit by Edward Conze. Searching in the page for " The discourse on transcendent awareness" there is another translation ( from colgate.edu): The #25 (that I looked into more deeply): [25] The lord Buddha continued, "Do you think, Subhuti, that the
well-traveled one would consider in his own mind, 'I will deliver
human beings'? That would be a degrading thought. Why? Because
there are not really any sentient beings to be delivered by the
well-traveled one. Should there be any sentient beings to be
delivered by the well-traveled one, it would mean that the well-
traveled one was harboring in his mind some arbitrary conceptions
about phenomena, such as a self, other selves, living beings, and
universal self. Even when the well-traveled one refers to himself
he is not holding on to such arbitrary thoughts. Only earth
people think of selfhood as a personal thing. Subhuti, even the
expression 'earth people' as used by the well-traveled one does
not mean that there are any such beings. It is merely used as a
figure of speech."
I found two sites related to the Diamond Sutra, that have a lot of great information.
In Chinese, but easily navigated if your browser does automatic translation (e.g. Chrome): vajraprajnaparamitasutra.blogspot.com/ Comparison of Ten Translations of "Diamond Sutra·Annotation Pian" and New Annotations to Achieve Complete Wisdom and Break the Vajra Method
The comparison of the Chinese version of the "Diamond Sutra" has been studied by scholars and experts, especially in the comparison of "Dove Translation" and "Xuanyi".
The author focuses on the six Chinese translations, three English translations directly translated from Sanskrit texts.
Comparing, and taking the Sanskrit translation of the English version of "Müller" as a benchmark, there will be a little bit of ink if there are obvious differences between the translations.
Scholars have studied the "Gilgit version" and pointed out that this Sanskrit text is closer to the "Dove Translation". This can be seen from the comparison of the contents of "UOslo" and "Gilgit" and "Dove Translation".
In addition, the translation of "Colgate" among the three English translations adopts free translation, which is the so-called free translation, but this translation adds Many translators’ opinions. Therefore, it is only for reference in this book, and if there are big differences, it will be specially pointed out.
Therefore, the comparison of the English version is mainly based on the two versions of "Müller" and "Conze".
An extended list of Buddhist Sutras: www.buddhism.org/Sutras/ (not including Sanskrit dictionary and commentary): vajraprajnaparamitasutra.blogspot.com/2014/08/blog-post_97.html25.03 《梵本》: आत्मग्राह इति सुभूते अग्राह एष तथागतेन भाषितः। स च बालपृथग्जनैरुद्गृहीतः। बालपृथग्जना इति सुभूते अजना एव ते तथागतेन भाषिताः। तेनोच्यन्ते बालपृथग्जना इति॥२५॥ 《IAST》: ātmagrāha iti subhūte agrāha eṣa tathāgatena bhāṣitaḥ| sa ca bālapṛthagjanair-udgṛhītaḥ| bālapṛthagjanā iti subhūte ajanā eva te tathāgatena bhāṣitāḥ| tenocyante bālapṛthagjanā iti||25|| 《鳩譯》: 須菩提！如來說有我者，則非有我，而凡夫之人，以為有我。須菩提！凡夫者，如來說則非凡夫，是名凡夫。」 《菩譯》: 須菩提！如來說：『有我者，則非有我，而毛道凡夫生者以為有我。』須菩提！毛道凡夫生者，如來說名非生，是故言毛道凡夫生。 《真譯》: 須菩提！此我等執，如來說非執，嬰兒凡夫眾生之所執故。須菩提！嬰兒凡夫眾生者，如來說非眾生，故說嬰兒凡夫眾生。 《笈譯》: 善實！非取，此，如來說；彼小兒凡夫生取。小兒凡夫生、小兒凡夫生者。善實！非生，彼，如來說；彼故，說名小兒凡夫生者。 《玄譯》: 善現！我等執者，如來說為非執，故名我等執，而諸愚夫異生強有此執。善現！愚夫異生者，如來說為非生，故名愚夫異生。」 《義譯》: 妙生，我等執者，如來說為非執，而諸愚夫，妄為此執！妙生，愚夫眾生，如來說為非生，故名愚夫眾生！」 《Müller》 And what is called a belief in self, O Subhûti, that is preached as no-belief by the Tathâgata. And this is learned by children and ignorant persons; and they who were preached as children and ignorant persons, O Subhûti, were preached as no-persons by the Tathâgata, and therefore they are called children and ignorant persons.' (25) 《Colgate》 Even when the well-traveled one refers to himself he is not holding on to such arbitrary thoughts. Only earth people think of selfhood as a personal thing. Subhuti, even the expression 'earth people' as used by the well-traveled one does not mean that there are any such beings. It is merely used as a figure of speech." 《Conze》 'Seizing of a self', as a no-seizing, Subhuti, has that been taught by the Tathagata. And yet the foolish common people have seized upon it. 'Foolish common people', Subhuti, as really no people have they been taught by the Tathagata. Therefore are they called 'foolish common people'.
Using Chrome automatic page translation (for reference): 25.03 "Sanskrit" : आत्मग्राह इति सुभूते अग्राह एष तथागतेथातनििििि स च बालपृथग्जनैरुद्गृहीतः। बालपृथग्जना इति सुभूते अजना एव ते तथगतािताितात।न तेनोच्यन्ते बालपृथग्जना इति॥२५॥ " IAST " : ātmagrāha iti subhūte agrāha eṣa tathāgatena bhāṣitaḥ| sa ca bālapṛthagjanair-udgṛhītaḥ| bālapṛthagjanā iti subhūte ajanā eva te tathāgatena bhāṣitāḥ| tenocyante bālapṛthagjanā iti||25|| "Dove Translation" : Subhuti! If there is me, there is no me, and ordinary people think that there is me. Subhuti! Ordinary people, such as extraordinary husbands, are ordinary people. " "Buddhist Translation" : Subhuti! For example: "Those who have me do not have me, and those who live in Maodao think that there is me. 』Subhuti! Those who live by Mao Dao ordinary people, if they say that the name is not born, is the old saying that Mao Dao ordinary people are born. "True Translation" : Subhuti! This self-holding, such as non-clinging, is the clinging of infants and human beings. Subhuti! Infant mortal beings, if speaking of non-living beings, it is said that infants are mortal beings. "Jiyi" : Goodness! Non-take, this, as said; that child is born and taken by ordinary people. Ordinary children, or ordinary children. Kindness! Non-birth, that is, such as speaking; for this, say that the name is a child or ordinary living person. "Xuan Yi" : Shan Xian!I wait for clinging, for example, it is non-attached, hence the name I wait for clinging, and allA foolish husband is strong in this obsession. Good now! The foolish man, the TathagataSaid to be a non-life, hence the name of a foolish husband. " "Yiyi" : Miaosheng, we are obsessed, such as non-clinging, and fools, arrogantly clinging to this! Wonderful life, foolish beings, such as non-beings, hence the name foolish beings! " 《Müller 》 And what is called a belief in self, O Subhûti, that is preached as no-belief by the Tathâgata. And this is learned by children and ignorant persons; and they who were preached as children and ignorant persons, O Subhûti, were preached as no-persons by the Tathâgata, and therefore they are called children and ignorant persons.' (25 ) " Colgate " Even when the well-traveled one refers to himself he is not holding on to such arbitrary thoughts. Only earth people think of selfhood as a personal thing. Subhuti, even the expression'earth people' as used by the well-traveled one does not mean that there are any such beings. It is merely used as a figure of speech." 《Conze 》 'Seizing of a self', as a no-seizing, Subhuti, has that been taught by the Tathagata. And yet the foolish common people have seized upon it.'Foolish common people', Subhuti, as really no people have they been taught by the Tathagata. Therefore are they called'foolish common people'. |
|
