Verses from the Center: A Buddhist Vision of the Sublime (Anglais) Broché – 1 juillet 2001
Descriptions du produit
Présentation de l'éditeur
Biographie de l'auteur
Aucun appareil Kindle n'est requis. Téléchargez l'une des applis Kindle gratuites et commencez à lire les livres Kindle sur votre smartphone, tablette ou ordinateur.
Pour obtenir l'appli gratuite, saisissez votre adresse e-mail ou numéro de téléphone mobile.
Détails sur le produit
En savoir plus sur les auteursDécouvrez des livres, informez-vous sur les écrivains, lisez des blogs d'auteurs et bien plus encore.
Dans ce livre(En savoir plus)
BEHIND THE GILDED SWAYAMBU STUPA, WHOSE PAINTED eyes gaze over the Nepalese capital of Kathmandu, is a nondescript building with a single shabby room, empty save for a bronze door smeared with vermilion powder. Lire la première page
Couverture | Copyright | Table des matières | Extrait | Quatrième de couverture
Commentaires en ligne
Commentaires client les plus utiles sur Amazon.com (beta)
Moreover as a vertebra in the backbone of the student-centric disclosure of emptiness, MMK is indeed an essential read for those of us who tread the fascinating and beautiful road to insight.
The MMK is not about Philosophy or Sanskrit but of sharing a direct, living experience of emptiness through the medium of writing; using language and concept to reveal a non-conceptual experience of emptiness. In my mind this would be the only way of 'translating' a text such as the MMK. A good re-presentation of the MMK must be memorable and life-changing. Self-grasping must be left with nothing to hold onto and be clearly revealed as the unskilful, foolish enemy that it is.
I feel that with this book, Batchelor is attempting to offer an alternative experience of MMK to those that are currently presented by the linguists and philosophers who have chosen MMK as belonging to their respective domains. His arguments are at their strongest when he resists ownership of the text by intellectualising academics. For this alone he gets a star. For his provocative alternative rewriting of the MMK, (helping us remember that there are alternative approaches to translation) he gets one more star.
Batchelor wishes to share with us the spontaneity of the verse form without getting lost in a rarified explication of his own understandings of the intellectual import of the verses, which is indeed a lofty and noble goal, but the question arises over whether or not Batchelor is up to the challenge; I believe that he is not.
In this battle of academic ownership, Batchelor ends up forgetting the purpose of the text; his rendition is not student-centric, does little to help reveal the experience of insight and is not particularly memorable.
Instead, what we read is Batchelor. The text shows a lot of Batchelor- his life, his views and his interests ring out on nearly every page. In this he doesn't differ from most other translators, but my expectations were higher regarding both text and translator. Moreover I feel that he ends up conveying himself as an expert - as does several of his contemporaries (Berzin springs to mind) which is deeply unfortunate as self-aggrandisement is not a part of the path to emptiness and should not form a component of any translation of the MMK.
Batchelor also attempts to syncretise different traditions which more often than not is akin to shoving a stick into a hornets nest. It isn't even skilful as it implies that there is some Platonic 'truth' in the form of a common ground; this of course really weakens the purpose of the MMK altogether.
Why not just get on with the basic job of soteriesis?
In my opinion Batchelor fails again on the poetic front. He does not manage to convey any spirit or experience through verse in the MMK. I am at a loss to find either rhythm or metre in his 'verses'. It looks to me that he translated the verses into prose, and then used word juggling and formatting to make his translation appear to be an attempt at free verse.
I humbly suggest to Batchelor to learn something of the infrastructure of the English tradition of poetry and poetic translation before attempting such a translation in the first place. I recommend he read e.g Hobsbaum (ASIN 041508797X) chapter 7 for a good idea of what free verse can be. Even better would be to learn and develop experience with blank verse (i.e. unrhymed iambic pentameter) - a good choice for translating nine syllable Tibetan quatrains.
If he wishes to translate texts such as the MMK into verse he must also remind himself of the purpose of verse in India and Tibet- to help the reader memorise and recite the text, rather than for any sense of beauty or revelation. I feel that there is a pragmatic and legitimate purpose in following the import of the Indians and that a useful versification of the MMK is possible, but I believe it would require much more experience with writing verse in English than Batchelor reveals here.
He must always remember the purpose of the MMK to be student-centred, soteriological and memorable; not poetic, philosophical, academic or as an excuse to talk about personal experiences or views.
He must also apply a strong vigilance to his authorship to leave the reader to struggle with the reader rather than with the author.
My position rests that the book is an entertaining but complementary read of MMK, not a final read.
Try reading it alongside e.g. Garfield's philosophical MMK (ASIN 0195093364).
Better still, leave them both on the electronic bookshelf and read the Dalai Lama e.g - "The Key of Madhyamika" (e.g. ASIN 1556431929) for a simple, practical and powerful introduction to emptiness.
Alternatively- purchase the final volume of the Lam Rim Chenmo (Vol 3: ASIN 1559391669) - The Dalai Lama's own recommendation for revealing emptiness most skilfully.
True, not everyone wants to read Nagarjuna with a close eye on all the interpretive questions that might be raised about the place this text occupies in Buddhism. Nevertheless, the wish to present the Madhyamaka - shorn of its traditional trappings, Buddhist-scholastic exegeses etc. - means that we are left wholly dependant upon the 'Batcheloresque' exegesis.
Other reviewers have pointed out some of the textual issues involved here - viz. Stephen's reading of the karikas. We might add that - contrary to what some of Stephen's observations suggest, Nagarjuna saw the Madhyamika as 'marga' centered - i.e. that it presupposed the Buddhist path. Even though it forsakes all dualism (advayavada) and allied thought constructs (drsti), Nagarjuna made it clear that this was in the interest of a religious ideal - viz. realization of the unconditioned (absolute), as against nihilism, scepticism or agnosticism etc. The Buddha said: 'two things only do I teach, suffering and its cessation.' The first - suffering (duhkha) is a corollary of impermanence (antiya) and 'dependent origination (pratitya-samutpada). Hence, Stephen's reference to the fact that we are (relatively) 'contingent beings.' But this is only half the picture. Buddhism is not just a philosophy of 'shifting sand' and the Madhyamika does not stop there.In theory, at least, that much is implied in the title of this book ('verses from the centre'). By teaching us to recognise the 'emptiness' of that which arises and passes away, it enables us to realize that which does not arise and pass away - hence the cessation of suffering and the path (nirodhapratipat/marga).
What troubles me about Stephen's account, is that he seems to stop with the sense of impermanence (anitya), yet when Nagarjuna declares that 'samsara is nirvana,' that is tantamount to saying that what appears contigent is simply that - apparent, not ultimately real. Hence, it is not a simple philosophy of 'contingent being/s.' That may well be said from the standpoint of conventional knowledge (samvrtti), but it is not true seen paramartha-satya - viz. through prajna insight, co-terminous with the path (marga). It strikes me that Stephen has fudged this issue. The Buddha and Nagarjuna are not Heraclitus, and Buddhism is not a simple statement that that 'everything flows,' let alone a recommendation to get dragged along with the current! Without clearer reference to praxis, making Buddhism into a philosophy of 'letting go' is a dangerous generalisation. The Buddha compared the Dharma to a raft, which can be abandoned only upon reaching the other shore. He who abandons it in mid-stream or even before leaving the banks of samvrtti-land, will never reach the other shore!
Most Buddhists endeavour to make sense of Nagarjuna's Madhyamika - through practices such as samatta-vipasyana and cognate disciplines. There is nothing adventitious about it. No marga or path - then, no 'Madhyamika' or 'middle way.' It is nice to invoke the intuitions of poets like Keats etc., but what real evidence is there, to suggest that Keat's had found 'the middle way'? In letters and literature, Keat's is always remembered as a poet dying of consumption, pining for Fanny Brawn.
A final point. However tempting it may be to present Nagarjuna's ideas as a kind of 'free floating philosophy,' minus Buddhist doctrine, the truth of the matter is that 'pure' Madhyamika is something of a fiction. In India, Tibet, China and Japan, it was combined with elements of the Vijnanavada/Yogacara, without which it was difficult to resolve many of the issues raised by the Madhyamika, such as how the illusion of nescience arises? Why the unconditioned appears 'conditioned' etc? For that, the Buddhists have had to rely on the teaching of the Alaya-vijnana etc.