|
|
Post by inavalan on Apr 5, 2021 14:12:35 GMT -5
Yeah, that was priceless.  When you get to 13 you'll see the connection between it and the title. And, to re-iterate, my understanding of the story goes that the Buddhist cannon wasn't written down when it was spoken, but after the Buddha died by his follower with the photographic memory, Annanda. So, the title page was made up by the scribes later. Oh, and the reason for the interest in the Chinese scroll is because it's the oldest complete physical artifact we currently have of the DS (or any other book, for that matter). So, it's a chain of copy thing. That seems plausible. And this touches upon an interesting dilemma: How do you preserve something for the ages? On paper? On bamboo slips? On stone tablets? That have been the options back then. And today? On a hard drive? When do hard drives start losing data? After a year? Or floppy disks? Who still has a floppy drive? Or CD? How are we going to store our data so that it will survive thru the ages when every storage medium at some point starts to decay and lose data? Seems like the oral tradition isn't so bad after all if we think in terms of millennia. [1]I took a look at that scroll. No punctuation. [2] Aces!  [1] What would we want to tell distant future generations? What would last that long? The latter seems easy: stone. The former ... We'd be restricted in the amount of information we could write in stone. What language, what symbolism? What is worth saying, besides that we existed? What should we pick to transmit distant future generations? [2] Is there any theory for why those ancient writing systems didn't use punctuation, nor even word separation? Even today Japanese doesn't use word separation. They must've had talked in sentences ... Then why write that way? It must've served a purpose. It must've made sense. I understand that Chinese didn't need to separate words as they wrote vertically, and each character used to represent one word. Still ... Language reflects the way of thinking, and influences it too. Maybe the reading difficulty was intentional? This intentional difficulty, that may induce some suffering ... maybe the traditional meanness of some spiritual gurus came from the belief that suffering is conducive to enlightenment. They got it that way, they should help their adepts to get enlightened the same way (?). |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Apr 5, 2021 22:46:30 GMT -5
That seems plausible. And this touches upon an interesting dilemma: How do you preserve something for the ages? On paper? On bamboo slips? On stone tablets? That have been the options back then. And today? On a hard drive? When do hard drives start losing data? After a year? Or floppy disks? Who still has a floppy drive? Or CD? How are we going to store our data so that it will survive thru the ages when every storage medium at some point starts to decay and lose data? Seems like the oral tradition isn't so bad after all if we think in terms of millennia. [1]I took a look at that scroll. No punctuation. [2] Aces! [1] What would we want to tell distant future generations? What would last that long? The latter seems easy: stone. The former ... We'd be restricted in the amount of information we could write in stone. What language, what symbolism? What is worth saying, besides that we existed? What should we pick to transmit distant future generations? [2] Is there any theory for why those ancient writing systems didn't use punctuation, nor even word separation? Even today Japanese doesn't use word separation. They must've had talked in sentences ... Then why write that way? It must've served a purpose. It must've made sense. I understand that Chinese didn't need to separate words as they wrote vertically, and each character used to represent one word. Still ... Language reflects the way of thinking, and influences it too. Maybe the reading difficulty was intentional? This intentional difficulty, that may induce some suffering ... maybe the traditional meanness of some spiritual gurus came from the belief that suffering is conducive to enlightenment. They got it that way, they should help their adepts to get enlightened the same way (?).
... it is generally accepted that the addition of spaces first appeared in Irish and Anglo-Saxon Bibles and Gospels from the seventh and eighth centuries.[7]:21 Subsequently, an increasing number of European texts adopted conventional spacing, and within the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, all European texts were written with word separation.
When word separation became the standard system, it was seen as a simplification of Roman culture because it undermined the metric and rhythmic fluency generated through scriptio continua. In contrast, paleographers today identify the extinction of scriptio continua as a critical factor in augmenting the widespread absorption of knowledge in the Pre-Modern Era. By saving the reader the taxing process of interpreting pauses and breaks, the inclusion of spaces enables the brain to comprehend written text more rapidly. Furthermore, the brain has a greater capacity to profoundly synthesize text and commit a greater portion of information to memory. ...
The recent fashion of neglecting orthography and punctuation seems to be a dumbing down trend. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Apr 7, 2021 9:16:49 GMT -5
*********************************************************************
The Diamond Sutra
Chapter 3
*********************************************************************
Sanskrit (Conze):
The Buddha: Someone who has set out in the vehicle of a Bodhisattva should produce a thought in this manner: ‘As many beings as there are in the universe of beings, comprehended under the term "beings" egg-born, born from a womb, moisture born, or miraculously born; with or without form; with perception, without perception, and with neither perception nor non-perception, as far as any conceivable form of beings is conceived: all these I must lead to Nirvana, into that Realm of Nirvana which leaves nothing behind.
‘And yet, although innumerable beings have thus been led to Nirvana, no being at all has been led to Nirvana’.
'And why? He is not to be called a Bodhi-being, in whom the notion of a self or of a being should take place, or the notion of a living soul or of a person.'
Sanskrit (Harrison):
The Buddha: Those who have set out on the bodhisattva path should have the following thought: ‘However many living beings are comprised in the total aggregation of living beings, be they born from eggs, or born from wombs, or born from moisture, or arising spontaneously, whether having physical form or being non-material, whether having apperception, or lacking apperception, or neither having apperception nor lacking apperception—however the realm of living beings is defined when one defines it—I should bring all of them to final extinction in the realm of extinction without substrate remaining.
‘But after I have brought immeasurable living beings to final extinction in this way, no living being whatsoever has been brought to extinction.’
What is the reason for that? If the idea of a living being occurs to a bodhisattva, he should not be called a bodhisattva. Why is that? Anybody to whom the idea of a living being occurs, or the idea of a soul or the idea of a person, should not be called a bodhisattva.
Tibetan (Roach):
The Buddha: This is how those who have entered well into the way of the bodhisattva must think to themselves as they feel the wish to achieve enlightenment: ‘I will bring to nirvana the total amount of living beings, every single one numbered among the ranks of living kind: those who were born from eggs, those who were born from a womb, those who were born through warmth and moisture, those who were born miraculously, those who have a physical form, those with none, those with conceptions, those with none, and those with neither conceptions nor no conceptions. However many living beings there are, in whatever realms there may be, anyone at all labeled with the name of "living being," all these will I bring to total nirvana, to the sphere beyond all grief, where none of the parts of the suffering person are left at all.
‘Yet even if I do manage to bring this limitless number of living beings to total nirvana, there will be no living being at all who was brought to their total nirvana.’
Why is it so? Because, if a bodhisattva were to slip into conceiving of someone as a living being, then we could never call them a "bodhisattva."
Chinese (TNH):
The Buddha: This is how the bodhisattva mahasattvas master their thinking. ‘However many species of living beings there are —whether born from eggs, from the womb, from moisture, or spontaneously; whether they have form or do not have form; whether they have perceptions or do not have perceptions; or whether it cannot be said of them that they have perceptions or that they do not have perceptions, we must lead all these beings to the ultimate nirvana so that they can be liberated.
‘And when this innumerable, immeasurable, infinite number of beings has become liberated, we do not, in truth, think that a single being has been liberated.’
Why is this so? If a bodhisattva holds on to the idea that a self, a person, a living being, or a life span exists, that person is not an authentic bodhisattva.
*********************************************************************
Bingo! There are no others. There is only what you are.
Commentary from TNH:
|
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Apr 7, 2021 22:19:15 GMT -5
********************************************************************* The Diamond Sutra Chapter 3 ********************************************************************* ... ********************************************************************* Bingo! There are no others. There is only what you are. Commentary from TNH: is an adage that states: " A man with a watch knows what time it is. A man with two watches is never sure." Same with these translations. Then there is also Paul Harrison's observation: “You’re left with a kind of negation which says AB is not AB —or not B, if the translator is being more careful—therefore it is AB.” “It seems to come out as a simple denial of identity, which to my mind doesn’t make good sense, and therefore people are left thinking that the Diamond Sutra is engaging in a mystical subversion of ordinary language. But in my view, that doesn’t make sense.” Conze: ‘And yet, although innumerable beings have thus been led to Nirvana, no being at all has been led to Nirvana’. NOTE: Re-reading my post I noticed that it might lead to a misunderstanding: the following conclusion that "Conze's translation is the most literal" is unrelated to the above Conze's quote. Actually the above quote, in my opinion, is a mis-translation.Conze's translation is the most literal, most true to the Sanskrit text, which may or may not mean that it is the most true to the Buddha's teachings. Looking at the Sanskrit text word by word, it's easy to see that even Conze added words, skipped words, changed formulations to better fit his expectations. I attempted a translation without firstly looking at the other translations. (I like the fact that Sanskrit is so richly inflected.) It seemed relatively straightforward. Surely, the common sense says that I'm the furthest from the Buddha's teachings. Anyway, there are some major differences, that I can't reconcile after reading the others' interpretations. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Apr 8, 2021 4:42:18 GMT -5
Okay, I think I've settled for 4 translations, Sanskrit (Conze and Harrison), Tibetan (Roach) and Chinese (Thich Nhat Hanh). TNH's commentary is also very informative. I'm going to quote a bit from there. And I'm going to cut out all the filler parts, just focusing on the essential parts. Which means we can skip the entire chapter one and move right to the end of chapter two... *********************************************************************
The Diamond Sutra
Chapter 2********************************************************************* Sanskrit (Conze):Subhuti: “How then should a son or daughter of good family, who have set out in the Bodhisattva-vehicle, stand, how progress, how control their thoughts?” Sanskrit (Harrison): Subhuti: “How, Lord, should one who has set out on the bodhisattva path take his stand, how should he proceed, how should he control the mind?” Tibetan (Roach): Subhuti: “What of those who have entered well into the way of the bodhisattva? How shall they live? How shall they practice? How should they keep their thoughts?” Chinese (TNH): Subhuti: “If sons and daughters of good families want to give rise to the highest, most fulfilled, awakened mind, what should they rely on and what should they do to master their thinking?” ********************************************************************* Okay, that looks like the age-old question: "How can I find peace of mind?" or "How to still the mind?" Commentary from TNH: The Tibetan phrasing interesting: "how to keep their thoughts?". Each of the other versions I've read uses some idea of control, although Hua's version uses "heart" instead of "mind". Chapter 1 is perhaps not perfunctory though. First of all this phrase "I have heard" is sort of a signal to the reader to bear in mind exactly what the interest was in starting this thread: that this is a retelling. What sets Chapter 1 even further apart is the way the Buddha and the setting are described. The Christians echoed it later (and perhaps the Jews were even influenced by it, that is a point of historical curiosity) with the Sermon on the Mount. The size of the gathering (presumably all monks) puts the setting late in the Buddha's life, and notice how he's portrayed as begging for his food, just like any other monk. That's important as this theme of "no attainment" runs throughout the text. Two things are true at the same time: the Buddha is both venerated, the source of the teaching, and yet, he humbles himself. A super-quick and shallow survey of the sutra's indicates that describing a convocation is not completely uncommon (as is "I have heard"), but certainly not every sutra starts that way. But even the ones that do don't seem to include this same sort of tension between the Buddha as the teacher and yet also as one who disclaims attainment. Dude, you gotta' read, or at least skim, this one. |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Apr 8, 2021 14:56:00 GMT -5
********************************************************************* The Diamond Sutra Chapter 3 ********************************************************************* ... ********************************************************************* Bingo! There are no others. There is only what you are. Commentary from TNH: is an adage that states: " A man with a watch knows what time it is. A man with two watches is never sure." Same with these translations. Then there is also Paul Harrison's observation: “You’re left with a kind of negation which says AB is not AB —or not B, if the translator is being more careful—therefore it is AB.” “It seems to come out as a simple denial of identity, which to my mind doesn’t make good sense, and therefore people are left thinking that the Diamond Sutra is engaging in a mystical subversion of ordinary language. But in my view, that doesn’t make sense.” Conze: ‘And yet, although innumerable beings have thus been led to Nirvana, no being at all has been led to Nirvana’. NOTE: Re-reading my post I noticed that it might lead to a misunderstanding: the following conclusion that "Conze's translation is the most literal" is unrelated to the above Conze's quote. Actually the above quote, in my opinion, is a mis-translation.Conze's translation is the most literal, most true to the Sanskrit text, which may or may not mean that it is the most true to the Buddha's teachings. Looking at the Sanskrit text word by word, it's easy to see that even Conze added words, skipped words, changed formulations to better fit his expectations. I attempted a translation without firstly looking at the other translations. (I like the fact that Sanskrit is so richly inflected.) It seemed relatively straightforward. Surely, the common sense says that I'm the furthest from the Buddha's teachings. Anyway, there are some major differences, that I can't reconcile after reading the others' interpretations. My interpretation of Chapter 3. The Buddha replies to Subhuta's question. To become a Bodhisattva one has to undertake it from his heart. Everything that exists, and the Buddha gives a lengthy enumeration, aspires to attain the absolute rest, Nirvana. Although an immeasurable number of such entities have reached Nirvana, none of them was liberated by the Buddha. The Bodhisattva that believes that there are entities liberated by the Buddha can't be called Bodhisattva. Somebody fit to be called so understands that every living thing is conscious of its existence or its soul. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Apr 9, 2021 12:28:22 GMT -5
That seems plausible. And this touches upon an interesting dilemma: How do you preserve something for the ages? On paper? On bamboo slips? On stone tablets? That have been the options back then. And today? On a hard drive? When do hard drives start losing data? After a year? Or floppy disks? Who still has a floppy drive? Or CD? How are we going to store our data so that it will survive thru the ages when every storage medium at some point starts to decay and lose data? Seems like the oral tradition isn't so bad after all if we think in terms of millennia. [1]I took a look at that scroll. No punctuation. [2] Aces! [1] What would we want to tell distant future generations? What would last that long? The latter seems easy: stone. The former ... We'd be restricted in the amount of information we could write in stone. What language, what symbolism? What is worth saying, besides that we existed? What should we pick to transmit distant future generations? [2] Is there any theory for why those ancient writing systems didn't use punctuation, nor even word separation? Even today Japanese doesn't use word separation. They must've had talked in sentences ... Then why write that way? It must've served a purpose. It must've made sense. I understand that Chinese didn't need to separate words as they wrote vertically, and each character used to represent one word. Still ... Language reflects the way of thinking, and influences it too. Maybe the reading difficulty was intentional? This intentional difficulty, that may induce some suffering ... maybe the traditional meanness of some spiritual gurus came from the belief that suffering is conducive to enlightenment. They got it that way, they should help their adepts to get enlightened the same way (?). Just think of astrotheology or our cultural myths in general. That's how they've preserved a great deal of knowledge about the cosmos, our solar system and our earth. I think it may have something to do with the oral tradition of teaching. In ancient times, most of the knowledge was passed on orally from master to student, and only the bare essential had been written down (if at all). So what had been written down was never intended for self study, on your own as a student. Enlightenment is a radical shift in perspective. Different traditions have different ideas about how such a radical shift can happen. Some think there's not much you can do, some others think there is something that can be done. And among those who think something can be done, some seem to think that if you only try hard enough or if the master pushes the disciple only far enough, it will happen. Chan doesn't seem so much of the pushy type because it's still mostly Daoism, but Zen does strike me as extremely pushy. But that may have something to do with local culture, too. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Apr 9, 2021 12:41:49 GMT -5
The Tibetan phrasing interesting: "how to keep their thoughts?". Each of the other versions I've read uses some idea of control, although Hua's version uses "heart" instead of "mind". Chapter 1 is perhaps not perfunctory though. First of all this phrase "I have heard" is sort of a signal to the reader to bear in mind exactly what the interest was in starting this thread: that this is a retelling. What sets Chapter 1 even further apart is the way the Buddha and the setting are described. The Christians echoed it later (and perhaps the Jews were even influenced by it, that is a point of historical curiosity) with the Sermon on the Mount. The size of the gathering (presumably all monks) puts the setting late in the Buddha's life, and notice how he's portrayed as begging for his food, just like any other monk. That's important as this theme of "no attainment" runs throughout the text. Two things are true at the same time: the Buddha is both venerated, the source of the teaching, and yet, he humbles himself. A super-quick and shallow survey of the sutra's indicates that describing a convocation is not completely uncommon (as is "I have heard"), but certainly not every sutra starts that way. But even the ones that do don't seem to include this same sort of tension between the Buddha as the teacher and yet also as one who disclaims attainment. Dude, you gotta' read, or at least skim, this one. Heart is probably the Chinese character 心 (xin/hsin) again which literally depicts a human heart. But since the Chinese thought that thinking happens in the heart and not in the brain, it can also mean 'mind' or even 'soul' depending on context. So that could mean the Tibetans had the Chinese text as their source. Hmmm... I skimmed it, it reminds me of Plato's dialogs with the sophists. |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Apr 9, 2021 15:27:36 GMT -5
[1] What would we want to tell distant future generations? What would last that long? The latter seems easy: stone. The former ... We'd be restricted in the amount of information we could write in stone. What language, what symbolism? What is worth saying, besides that we existed? What should we pick to transmit distant future generations? [2] Is there any theory for why those ancient writing systems didn't use punctuation, nor even word separation? Even today Japanese doesn't use word separation. They must've had talked in sentences ... Then why write that way? It must've served a purpose. It must've made sense. I understand that Chinese didn't need to separate words as they wrote vertically, and each character used to represent one word. Still ... Language reflects the way of thinking, and influences it too. Maybe the reading difficulty was intentional? This intentional difficulty, that may induce some suffering ... maybe the traditional meanness of some spiritual gurus came from the belief that suffering is conducive to enlightenment. They got it that way, they should help their adepts to get enlightened the same way (?). Just think of astrotheology or our cultural myths in general. That's how they've preserved a great deal of knowledge about the cosmos, our solar system and our earth. I think it may have something to do with the oral tradition of teaching. In ancient times, most of the knowledge was passed on orally from master to student, and only the bare essential had been written down (if at all). So what had been written down was never intended for self study, on your own as a student. Enlightenment is a radical shift in perspective. Different traditions have different ideas about how such a radical shift can happen. Some think there's not much you can do, some others think there is something that can be done. And among those who think something can be done, some seem to think that if you only try hard enough or if the master pushes the disciple only far enough, it will happen. Chan doesn't seem so much of the pushy type because it's still mostly Daoism, but Zen does strike me as extremely pushy. But that may have something to do with local culture, too. I think that the unbelievable success of ancient oral tradition in transmitting information about events of those times, is to some extent explained by the relative low education, ignorance, and lack of understanding characteristic to those that carried the information from mouth to mouth, while also manifesting respect, reverence to the importance of what they (to a large degree) parroted. They repeated, didn't interpret, didn't judge, so distortions were more limited than if the oral transmission would've been carried by smarter carriers (look at what smart people comprehend these days, and how they distort reality). Regarding " enlightenment" ... I don't believe that it should be a goal of life. We come from a place of enlightenment, and part of us is enlightened now. We are here to evolve thorough experience. So even if one gets enlightened and "sees" how tings are, that doesn't mean that he's done here. Even more, seeing how things are, that doesn't mean that one understands what they're supposed to do here, or how to expedite not returning here anymore. The unfortunate problem we humans face is that our rudimentary intellect, and overwhelming emotions created a human society that lost the knowledge of what we're here to accomplish. The primitive man who felt, and thought much less was more in touch with his non-physical aspects of his personality, and with the inner guidance available to each one of us. I think that this ties into the meaning of the Chapter 3 of the Diamond Sutra, where the Buddha says that people shouldn't expect that he can liberate them, they have to be conscious of their existence and their soul, by themselves. Surely, I share here what I believe in, now, with no intention to convince others, nor possibility of rationalization of the merits.  |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Apr 10, 2021 1:00:38 GMT -5
The way I understand human behaviour stems a fair bit from NLP, and ... You mentioned NLP ... In ancient Buddhist texts there is a pattern that keeps popping up, as discussed by Paul Harrison in relation to the Diamond Sutra: “You’re left with a kind of negation which says AB is not AB —or not B, if the translator is being more careful—therefore it is AB.” “It seems to come out as a simple denial of identity, which to my mind doesn’t make good sense, and therefore people are left thinking that the Diamond Sutra is engaging in a mystical subversion of ordinary language. But in my view, that doesn’t make sense.” Most translators keep repeating the apparently nonsensical formulation. In all cases I closely looked at, there is a better formulation I'd choose instead, but the fact that the annoying phrasing is intended by the original text's author is evident. I think that the " AB is not AB, therefore it is AB." is an NLP wording intended to make the reader more suggestible, and to convey the message directly to the mind. Serendipitously, I found this exercise that depicts a similar pattern:
The Echo exercise
Let's say you are sitting at the table, trying to start writing a report, staring at a pile of white paper. You feel a certain legitimate aversion to the task, which seems to be beyond your capabilities as well as interest.
Close your eyes and say, "I must write, I must write" (repeat eight times). Whisper it with ever-escalating fervor, until you reach a passionate crescendo, a demand. Then stop abruptly and let yourself flop back in your chair in a state of complete relaxation.
Now try to summon total indifference to the project, as you whisper, "I don't want to write" (repeat five times). Again build to passionate demand. Try to feel an emptiness, devoid of any trace of striving.
After about a minute, notice that something starts reverberating deep within you, and you will find yourself feeling: "I want to write!" (repeat it eight times).
Notice how saying the phrase gradually begets a feeling -- a feeling of potency, of energy that restlessly wants to express itself in action. Once you start feeling this urge, grab your pen and start writing your report, riding along on the wave of this desire to write.
|
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Apr 10, 2021 7:55:41 GMT -5
********************************************************************* The Diamond Sutra Chapter 3 ********************************************************************* ... ********************************************************************* Bingo! There are no others. There is only what you are. Commentary from TNH: is an adage that states: " A man with a watch knows what time it is. A man with two watches is never sure." Same with these translations. Then there is also Paul Harrison's observation: “You’re left with a kind of negation which says AB is not AB —or not B, if the translator is being more careful—therefore it is AB.” “It seems to come out as a simple denial of identity, which to my mind doesn’t make good sense, and therefore people are left thinking that the Diamond Sutra is engaging in a mystical subversion of ordinary language. But in my view, that doesn’t make sense.” Conze: ‘And yet, although innumerable beings have thus been led to Nirvana, no being at all has been led to Nirvana’. NOTE: Re-reading my post I noticed that it might lead to a misunderstanding: the following conclusion that "Conze's translation is the most literal" is unrelated to the above Conze's quote. Actually the above quote, in my opinion, is a mis-translation.Conze's translation is the most literal, most true to the Sanskrit text, which may or may not mean that it is the most true to the Buddha's teachings. Looking at the Sanskrit text word by word, it's easy to see that even Conze added words, skipped words, changed formulations to better fit his expectations. I attempted a translation without firstly looking at the other translations. (I like the fact that Sanskrit is so richly inflected.) It seemed relatively straightforward. Surely, the common sense says that I'm the furthest from the Buddha's teachings. Anyway, there are some major differences, that I can't reconcile after reading the others' interpretations. "The AB is not AB, therefore it is AB" thingy is simply a way of using language to point beyond language. IOW, most people are habituated by cultural conditioning and the intellect's function of abstraction, to see and understand reality as if it were composed of separate things and events. This worldview is so totally accepted that most people never investigate whether it is true or not. People who intuitively sense that something is fundamentally flawed with this understanding may begin looking at the boundaries that define separate things and sooner or later they may realize that no boundaries are actual; they're all imaginary. Of course, an intellectual examination of boundaries can only remain within the intellectual realm, but if there is a direct realization that what we call"reality" is a unified whole, how can that realization be communicated in language which is, by it's very nature, dualistic and based on abstract distinctions? One way is to point out that what appears to be a separate thing is not separate is to use the Buddha's approach. It's a bit pedantic to read this sort of word-usage repetitively, but the point is pretty clear. In the world of the actual there are no separate things, so to indicate that this is known (directly) sages often use the Buddha's approach. When (I forget his name) was sanctioned to became a Zen Master, Maizumi Roshi, during the ceremony, said something like, "I offer this no-hand to no-you in acknowledgement of a non-attained attainment." I don't think this had anything to do with NLP; it was just a way of acknowledging in public that the guy had seen sufficiently deep into the nature of reality that he could be sanctioned to be a teacher within that lineage. |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Apr 10, 2021 13:48:55 GMT -5
Quite beautiful writing:
वज्रच्छेदिका प्रज्ञापारमिता सूत्र
vajracchedikā prajñāpāramitā sūtra
vajracchedaka [ chedaka ] a. m. n. f. vajracchedikā which cuts the diamond.
vajracchedakaprajñāpāramitā [ prajñāpāramitā ] f. bd. np. of the Vajracchedakaprajñāpāramitā or Vajracchedikā “Wisdom which cuts the diamond” or “DiamondSutra”, founding work of Mahāyāna Buddhism, in the form of a dialogue between Buddha and his disciple Subhūti on the emptiness and impermanence of the world; it was translated into Chinese by Kumārajīva in 401, we know of a printed version of it from 868
prajñāpāramitā [ pāramitā ] f. bd. perfect wisdom (one of the cardinal virtues of Buddhism) | bd. np. of Prajñāpāramitā , Wisdom personified | bd. family of texts giving the teaching of Buddha through his dialogues with disciples and gods
prajñāpāramitāsūtra [ sūtra ] n. bd. np. of the Prajñāpāramitāsūtra “Treaty of the Great Virtue of Wisdom”
|
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Apr 14, 2021 16:10:49 GMT -5
You mentioned NLP ... In ancient Buddhist texts there is a pattern that keeps popping up, as discussed by Paul Harrison in relation to the Diamond Sutra: “You’re left with a kind of negation which says AB is not AB —or not B, if the translator is being more careful—therefore it is AB.” “It seems to come out as a simple denial of identity, which to my mind doesn’t make good sense, and therefore people are left thinking that the Diamond Sutra is engaging in a mystical subversion of ordinary language. But in my view, that doesn’t make sense.” Most translators keep repeating the apparently nonsensical formulation. In all cases I closely looked at, there is a better formulation I'd choose instead, but the fact that the annoying phrasing is intended by the original text's author is evident. I think that the " AB is not AB, therefore it is AB." is an NLP wording intended to make the reader more suggestible, and to convey the message directly to the mind. Serendipitously, I found this exercise that depicts a similar pattern:
The Echo exercise
Let's say you are sitting at the table, trying to start writing a report, staring at a pile of white paper. You feel a certain legitimate aversion to the task, which seems to be beyond your capabilities as well as interest.
Close your eyes and say, "I must write, I must write" (repeat eight times). Whisper it with ever-escalating fervor, until you reach a passionate crescendo, a demand. Then stop abruptly and let yourself flop back in your chair in a state of complete relaxation.
Now try to summon total indifference to the project, as you whisper, "I don't want to write" (repeat five times). Again build to passionate demand. Try to feel an emptiness, devoid of any trace of striving.
After about a minute, notice that something starts reverberating deep within you, and you will find yourself feeling: "I want to write!" (repeat it eight times).
Notice how saying the phrase gradually begets a feeling -- a feeling of potency, of energy that restlessly wants to express itself in action. Once you start feeling this urge, grab your pen and start writing your report, riding along on the wave of this desire to write.
The " AB is not AB, therefore it is AB." pattern seems to be widely used, under various assumptions. For example:
The Holy Affirming Prayer (a.k.a. The Holy Equation) Holy- Affirming, Holy- Denying, Holy- Reconciling, Transubstantiate in me, For my Being. The Holy Equation is based on the Law of Three as formulated by Gurdjieff - " The higher blends with the lower to actualize the middle, which becomes lower for the next higher or higher for the previous lower." This is the fundamental formula for all energy transformation in the universe. It is also the basis for all spiritual transformation which seeks to develop the higher energies required for self-realization and resonant contact with the Source of all energy.
Each dialectical theory involves three interactive functions or forces that determine how change or flux occurs in the phenomenal world. P. D. Ouspensky describes Gurdjieff's teaching re the Law of Three in Chapter 4 of his book entitled In Search of the Miraculous. The following table summarizes these basic ideas: Name: Affirmation | Negation | Union of Opposites ---- Tria Principia of Alchemy: Sulphur - Spirit of Life | Salt - Base Matter | Mercury - Connects High and Low Gurdjieff & Ouspensky (Law of Three): Holy Affirming Force | Holy Denying Force | Holy Reconciling Force Heraclitus (Conflict between Opposites): Entity | Opposing Entity | Unity (Reconciliation of Opposites) Hegel (Struggle between Opposites): Thesis | Antithesis | Synthesis Marx (Struggle between Social Classes): Proletariat (Working Class) | Capitalist Class | Communist Society Freud (Struggle within the Human Mind): Superego (Conscience) | Id (Unconscious Self) | Ego (Conscious Self)
Triamazikamno - an Interesting term that it's clearly Greek. Tria = three mazi = together kamno = I'm doing |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on May 27, 2021 8:08:23 GMT -5
********************************************************************* The Diamond Sutra
Chapter 4
********************************************************************* Sanskrit (Conze):When he gives gifts he should not be supported by sight objects, nor by sounds, smells, tastes, touchables, or mind-objects; or, Subhuti, the Bodhisattva, the great being should give gifts in such a way that he is not supported by the notion of a sign. And why? Because the heap of merit of that Bodhi-being, who unsupported gives a gift, is not easy to measure.
“What do you think, Subhuti, is the extent of space in the East easy to measure?” Subhuti replied: No indeed, O Lord. The Lord asked: In like manner, is it easy to measure the extent of space in the South, West or North, downwards, upwards, in the intermediate directions, in all the ten directions all round? Subhuti replied: No indeed, O Lord. The Lord said: Even so the heap of merit of that Bodhibeing who unsupported gives a gift is not easy to measure. That is why, Subhuti, those who have set out in the Bodhisattva-vehicle, should give gifts without being supported by the notion of a sign. Sanskrit (Harrison): “However, a bodhisattva should not give a gift while fixing on an object, Subhuti. He should not give a gift while fixing on anything. He should not give a gift while fixing on physical forms. He should not give a gift while fixing on sounds, smells, tastes or objects of touch or on dharmas. For this is the way, Subhuti, a bodhisattva should give a gift, so that he does not fix on the idea of the distinctive features (of any object). Why is that? Subhuti, it is not easy to take the measure of the quantity of merit, Subhuti, of the bodhisattva who gives a gift without fixation.
What do you think, Subhuti, is it easy to take the measure of space in the east?” Subhuti said, “Indeed not, Lord.” “Similarly, is it easy to take the measure of space in the south, west, north, nadir, zenith, all the intermediate directions and any direction besides them, in the ten directions?”Subhuti said, “Indeed not, Lord.” The Lord said, “Quite so, Subhuti. Quite so, Subhuti. It is not easy to take the measure of the quantity of merit of the bodhisattva who gives a gift without fixation. However, this is the way a bodhisattva should give a gift, Subhuti, as an instance of the meritorious activity which consists in giving. Tibetan (Roach): And I say, o Subhuti, that a bodhisattva performs the act of giving without staying in things. They perform the act of giving without staying in any object at all. They perform the act of giving without staying in things that you see. They perform the act of giving without staying in sounds, and without staying in smells, or tastes, or things that you touch, or in objects of the thought. O Subhuti, bodhisattvas perform the act of giving without conceiving of any thing in any way as a sign. That is how they give. Why is it so? Think, o Subhuti, of the mountains of merit collected by any bodhisattva who performs the act of giving without staying. This merit, o Subhuti, is not something that you could easily ever measure. O Subhuti, what do you think? Would it be easy to measure the space to the east of us? And Subhuti respectfully replied, O Conqueror, it would not. The Conqueror said, And just so, would it be easy to measure the space in any of the main directions to the south of us, or to the west of us, or to the north of us, or above us, or below us, or in any of the other directions from us? Would it be easy to measure the space to any of the ten directions from where we now stand? And Subhuti respectfully replied, Conqueror, it would not. Then the Conqueror said: And just so, Subhuti, it would be no easy thing to measure the mountains of merit collected by any bodhisattva who performs the act of giving without staying. Chinese (TNH): “Moreover, Subhuti, when a bodhisattva practices generosity, he does not rely on any object—that is to say he does not rely on any form, sound, smell, taste, tactile object, or dharma—to practice generosity.” “That, Subhuti, is the spirit in which a bodhisattva should practice generosity, not relying on signs. Why? If a bodhisattva practices generosity without relying on signs, the happiness that results cannot be conceived of or measured.
Subhuti, do you think that the space in the Eastern Quarter can be measured?” “No, World-Honored One.” “Subhuti, can space in the Western, Southern, and Northern Quarters, above and below be measured?” “No, World-Honored One.” “Subhuti, if a bodhisattva does not rely on any concept when practicing generosity, then the happiness that results from that virtuous act is as great as space. It cannot be measured. Subhuti, the bodhisattvas should let their minds dwell in the teachings I have just given.” ********************************************************************* Sounds like karma yoga to me. Commentary from TNH: |
|
|
|
Post by zazeniac on May 27, 2021 9:11:08 GMT -5
A child enjoys washing dishes when he's watched the parent doing them and is taught how to do them. They enjoy washing them the first few times. Then they hate it when it becomes one of their chores.
|
|
When you get to 13 you'll see the connection between it and the title. And, to re-iterate, my understanding of the story goes that the Buddhist cannon wasn't written down when it was spoken, but after the Buddha died by his follower with the photographic memory, Annanda. So, the title page was made up by the scribes later.
