Difference between revisions of "The Pranyamûla-šâstra-tika Of Nâgârjuna By Rev. S. Beal, M.A., Rector Of Wark"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m (Adminos moved page THE PRANYAMÛLA-ŠÂSTRA-TIKA OF NÂGÂRJUNA bY REV. S. BEAL, M.A., RECTOR OF WARK to The Pranyamûla-šâstra-tika Of Nâgârjuna By Rev. S. Beal, M.A., Rector Of Wark without leaving a redirect) |
|||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
[[File:002.jpg173.jpg|thumb|250px|]] | [[File:002.jpg173.jpg|thumb|250px|]] | ||
− | : I shall here give a translation of the 25th section of the Chong-Lun Sûtra or Pranyamûla-šâstra-tika, by Nâgârjuna, on Nirvâ.na. | + | : I shall here give a translation of the 25th section of the Chong-Lun [[Sûtra]] or Pranyamûla-šâstra-tika, by Nâgârjuna, on Nirvâ.na. |
:(1) If all things are unreal, | :(1) If all things are unreal, | ||
Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
:Then how is it possible to remove | :Then how is it possible to remove | ||
− | :From that which does not exist | + | :From that which does not [[exist]] |
− | :Something, which, being removed, leaves Nirvâ.na? | + | :Something, which, [[being]] removed, leaves Nirvâ.na? |
− | :This section argues that if all things are alike empty and unreal, then there is no such thing as Birth and Death; consequently there can be no removal from sorrow, and the destruction of the five elements of existence (limited existence), by removal of which we arrive at Nirvâ.na (what is called Nirvâ.na). | + | :This section argues that if all things are alike [[empty]] and unreal, then there is no such thing as [[Birth]] and [[Death]]; consequently there can be no removal from [[sorrow]], and the destruction of the [[five elements]] of [[existence]] (limited [[existence]]), by removal of which we arrive at Nirvâ.na (what is called Nirvâ.na). |
:(2) But if all things are real, | :(2) But if all things are real, | ||
Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
:Then how can we remove | :Then how can we remove | ||
− | :Birth and Death, real existence, | + | :[[Birth]] and [[Death]], real [[existence]], |
:And so arrive at Nirvâ.na? | :And so arrive at Nirvâ.na? | ||
− | :This section argues that we cannot destroy that which has in itself real existence, and therefore, if all things have this real being, we cannot remove Birth and Death, and so arrive at Nirvâ.na; therefore, neither by the theory of Bhava, nor by the theory of Sunyata (emptiness), can we arrive at the just idea of Nirvâ.na. | + | :This section argues that we cannot destroy that which has in itself real [[existence]], and therefore, if all things have this real [[being]], we cannot remove [[Birth]] and [[Death]], and so arrive at Nirvâ.na; therefore, neither by the theory of [[Bhava]], nor by the theory of [[Sunyata]] ([[emptiness]]), can we arrive at the just idea of Nirvâ.na. |
:(3) That which is not striven for or "obtained," | :(3) That which is not striven for or "obtained," | ||
− | :That which is not "for a time" or "eternal," | + | :That which is not "for a time" or "[[eternal]]," |
− | :That which is not born, nor dies, | + | :That which is not born, nor [[dies]], |
[[File:003.jpga.jpg|thumb|250px|]] | [[File:003.jpga.jpg|thumb|250px|]] | ||
:This is that which is called Nirvâ.na. | :This is that which is called Nirvâ.na. | ||
Line 32: | Line 32: | ||
:p. 88 | :p. 88 | ||
− | :"Not to be striven for," that is, in the way of religious action (achârya), and its result (fruit). | + | :"Not to be striven for," that is, in the way of [[religious]] [[action]] (achârya), and its result (fruit). |
:"Not obtained" (or "arrived at"), that is, because there is no place or point at which to arrive. | :"Not obtained" (or "arrived at"), that is, because there is no place or point at which to arrive. | ||
− | :"Not for a time" (or not by way of interruption) [per saltum] for the five skandhas having been from the time of complete enlightenment proved to be unreal, and not part of true existence, then on entering final Nirvâ.na (anupadišesha Nirvâ.na).--What is there that breaks or interrupts the character of previous existence? | + | :"Not for a time" (or not by way of interruption) [per saltum] for the [[five skandhas]] having been from the time of complete [[enlightenment]] proved to be unreal, and not part of true [[existence]], then on entering final Nirvâ.na (anupadišesha Nirvâ.na).--What is there that breaks or interrupts the character of previous [[existence]]? |
− | :"Not for ever," or "everlasting," for if there were something to be obtained that admitted of distinctions whilst in the possession of it, then we might speak of an eternal nirvâ.na, but as in the condition of silent extinction (Nirvâ.na) there can be no properties to distinguish, how can we speak of it as "everlasting?" | + | :"Not for ever," or "everlasting," for if there were something to be obtained that admitted of distinctions whilst in the possession of it, then we might speak of an [[eternal]] nirvâ.na, but as in the [[condition]] of [[silent]] extinction (Nirvâ.na) there can be no properties to distinguish, how can we speak of it as "everlasting?" |
− | :And so with reference to Birth and Death. | + | :And so with reference to [[Birth]] and [[Death]]. |
:Now that which is so characterised is what we call Nirvâ.na. | :Now that which is so characterised is what we call Nirvâ.na. | ||
− | :Again, there is a Sûtra which says, "Nirvâ.na is the opposite of 'Being' and 'not Being'; it is the opposite of these two combined, it is the opposite of the absence of 'Being', and the absence of 'not Being'. | + | :Again, there is a [[Sûtra]] which says, "Nirvâ.na is the opposite of '[[Being]]' and 'not [[Being]]'; it is the opposite of these two combined, it is the opposite of the absence of '[[Being]]', and the absence of 'not [[Being]]'. |
− | :So, in short, that which admits of no conditions such as are attached to limited existence; that is Nirvâ.na. | + | :So, in short, that which admits of no [[conditions]] such as are attached to limited [[existence]]; that is Nirvâ.na. |
− | :(4) Nirvâ.na cannot be called Bhava; | + | :(4) Nirvâ.na cannot be called [[Bhava]]; |
− | :For if so, then it admits of old age and death, | + | :For if so, then it admits of [[old age]] and [[death]], |
[[File:004.jpg6e77.jpg|thumb|250px|]] | [[File:004.jpg6e77.jpg|thumb|250px|]] | ||
− | :In fact both "being" and " not being" are phenomena, | + | :In fact both "[[being]]" and " not [[being]]" are [[phenomena]], |
− | :And therefore are capable of being deprived of characteristics (lakshanam). | + | :And therefore are capable of [[being]] deprived of characteristics (lakshanam). |
− | :This means that as all things which the eye beholds are seen to begin and to end, and this is what the Šlôka calls "Life" and "Death" (or birth and death). Now if Nirvâ.na is like this, then it would be possible to speak of removing these things and so arriving at something fixed--but here is a plain contradiction of terms--for Nirvâ.na is supposed to be that which is fixed and unchangeable. | + | :This means that as all things which the [[eye]] beholds are seen to begin and to end, and this is what the Šlôka calls "[[Life]]" and "[[Death]]" (or [[birth]] and [[death]]). Now if Nirvâ.na is like this, then it would be possible to speak of removing these things and so arriving at something fixed--but here is a plain contradiction of terms--for Nirvâ.na is supposed to be that which is fixed and unchangeable. |
− | :(5) If Nirvâ.na is Bhava (existent), | + | :(5) If Nirvâ.na is [[Bhava]] ([[existent]]), |
:Then it is personal; | :Then it is personal; | ||
Line 66: | Line 66: | ||
:Is spoken of as not "personal." | :Is spoken of as not "personal." | ||
− | :This means that as all phenomenal existence comes from cause and consequent production, therefore all such things are rightly called "personal." | + | :This means that as all [[phenomenal existence]] comes from [[cause]] and consequent production, therefore all such things are rightly called "personal." |
− | :(6) If Nirvâ.na be Bhava, | + | :(6) If Nirvâ.na be [[Bhava]], |
− | :Then it cannot be called "without sensation" (anuvedana); | + | :Then it cannot be called "without [[sensation]]" (anuvedana); |
− | :For non-Being comes not from sensation, | + | :For non-Being comes not from [[sensation]], |
:And by this obtains its distinct name. | :And by this obtains its distinct name. | ||
[[File:005.jpgfa.jpg|thumb|250px|]] | [[File:005.jpgfa.jpg|thumb|250px|]] | ||
− | :This means that as the Sûtras describe Nirvâ.na as being "without sensation" (anuvedana), it cannot be Bhava; for then Abhava would come from sensation. But now it will be asked, if Nirvâ.na is not Bhava, then that which is "not Bhava" (abhava), surely then is Nirvâ.na. To this we reply-- | + | :This means that as the [[Sûtras]] describe Nirvâ.na as [[being]] "without [[sensation]]" (anuvedana), it cannot be [[Bhava]]; for then Abhava would come from [[sensation]]. But now it will be asked, if Nirvâ.na is not [[Bhava]], then that which is "not [[Bhava]]" (abhava), surely then is Nirvâ.na. To this we reply-- |
− | :(7) If Nirvâ.na be not Bhava, | + | :(7) If Nirvâ.na be not [[Bhava]], |
− | :Much less is it nothing (abhava); | + | :Much less is it [[nothing]] (abhava); |
− | :For if there be no room for "Being," | + | :For if there be no room for "[[Being]]," |
− | :What place can there be for "not Being." | + | :What place can there be for "not [[Being]]." |
− | :This means that "not Being" is the opposite of "Being." If, then, "Being" is not admissible, how can we speak of "Not Being"? (its opposite). | + | :This means that "not [[Being]]" is the opposite of "[[Being]]." If, then, "[[Being]]" is not admissible, how can we speak of "Not [[Being]]"? (its opposite). |
− | :(8) If again Nirvâ.na is nothing, | + | :(8) If again Nirvâ.na is [[nothing]], |
− | :How is it called without "sensation?" (anuvedana), | + | :How is it called without "[[sensation]]?" (anuvedana), |
− | :For it would be wonderful indeed if everything not capable of sensation, | + | :For it would be wonderful indeed if everything not capable of [[sensation]], |
− | :Were forthwith spoken of as nothing. | + | :Were forthwith spoken of as [[nothing]]. |
− | :If then Nirvâ.na be neither "Being," nor "non-Being," what is it? | + | :If then Nirvâ.na be neither "[[Being]]," nor "non-Being," what is it? |
− | :(9) By participation in cause and effect | + | :(9) By participation in [[cause and effect]] |
− | :Comes the wheel of continual existence, | + | :Comes the [[wheel]] of continual [[existence]], |
[[File:008.jpg73.jpg|thumb|250px|]] | [[File:008.jpg73.jpg|thumb|250px|]] | ||
− | :By non-participation in cause and effect | + | :By non-participation in [[cause and effect]] |
:Comes Nirvâ.na. | :Comes Nirvâ.na. | ||
− | :As by knowing a thing to be straight we also know that which is crooked, so by the knowledge of the elements of finite existence comes the knowledge of continual life and death. Do away with those, and you do away also with the other. | + | :As by [[knowing]] a thing to be straight we also know that which is crooked, so by the [[knowledge]] of the [[elements]] of finite [[existence]] comes the [[knowledge]] of continual [[life]] and [[death]]. Do away with those, and you do away also with the other. |
− | :(10) As Buddha says in the Sûtra,-- | + | :(10) As [[Buddha]] says in the [[Sûtra]],-- |
− | :Separate "Being," separate "not Being," | + | :Separate "[[Being]]," separate "not [[Being]]," |
:This is Nirvâ.na, | :This is Nirvâ.na, | ||
− | :The opposite of "Being," the opposite of "not Being." | + | :The opposite of "[[Being]]," the opposite of "not [[Being]]." |
− | :"Being" here alludes to the three worlds of finite existence. The absence of these three worlds is "Not Being." Get rid of both these ideas, this is Nirvâ.na. But it may now be asked, if Nirvâ.na is not "Being," and if it is not "Absence of Being," then perhaps it is the intermixture of the two. | + | :"[[Being]]" here alludes to the three [[worlds]] of finite [[existence]]. The absence of these three [[worlds]] is "Not [[Being]]." Get rid of both these ideas, this is Nirvâ.na. But it may now be asked, if Nirvâ.na is not "[[Being]]," and if it is not "Absence of [[Being]]," then perhaps it is the intermixture of the two. |
− | :(11) If it is said that "Being" and "Not Being," | + | :(11) If it is said that "[[Being]]" and "Not [[Being]]," |
:By union, produces Nirvâ.na, | :By union, produces Nirvâ.na, | ||
Line 130: | Line 130: | ||
:Two unlike things cannot be joined so as to produce one different from either. | :Two unlike things cannot be joined so as to produce one different from either. | ||
− | :(12) If it is said "Being" and "Not Being" | + | :(12) If it is said "[[Being]]" and "Not [[Being]]" |
:United make Nirvâ.na, | :United make Nirvâ.na, | ||
− | :Then Nirvâ.na is not "without sensation;" | + | :Then Nirvâ.na is not "without [[sensation]];" |
− | :For these two things involve sensation. | + | :For these two things involve [[sensation]]. |
− | :(13) If it is said that "Being" and "Not Being," | + | :(13) If it is said that "[[Being]]" and "Not [[Being]]," |
:United, produce Nirvâ.na, | :United, produce Nirvâ.na, | ||
Line 146: | Line 146: | ||
:For these two things are personal. | :For these two things are personal. | ||
− | :(14) "Being" and "Not Being," joined in one, | + | :(14) "[[Being]]" and "Not [[Being]]," joined in one, |
:How can this be Nirvâ.na? | :How can this be Nirvâ.na? | ||
− | :These two things have nothing in common. | + | :These two things have [[nothing]] in common. |
− | :Can Darkness and Light be joined? | + | :Can Darkness and [[Light]] be joined? |
− | :(15) If the opposites of "Being" and "Not Being," | + | :(15) If the opposites of "[[Being]]" and "Not [[Being]]," |
:Is Nirvâ.na, | :Is Nirvâ.na, | ||
Line 166: | Line 166: | ||
:And so, by union, become Nirvâ.na, | :And so, by union, become Nirvâ.na, | ||
− | :Then that which completes the idea of "Being" and "Not Being" | + | :Then that which completes the idea of "[[Being]]" and "Not [[Being]]" |
:Also completes the idea of the opposite of both. | :Also completes the idea of the opposite of both. | ||
− | :(17) Tathâgata, after his departure, | + | :(17) [[Tathâgata]], after his departure, |
− | :Says nothing of "Being" and "Not Being." | + | :Says [[nothing]] of "[[Being]]" and "Not [[Being]]." |
− | :He says not that his "Being" is not, or the opposite of this. | + | :He says not that his "[[Being]]" is not, or the opposite of this. |
− | :Tathâgata says nothing of these things or their opposites. The conclusion of the whole matter is, that Nirvâ.na is identical with the nature of Tathâgata, without bound, and without place or time. | + | :[[Tathâgata]] says [[nothing]] of these things or their opposites. The conclusion of the whole matter is, that Nirvâ.na is identical with the nature of [[Tathâgata]], without bound, and without place or time. |
: | : |
Revision as of 11:27, 25 August 2013
- I shall here give a translation of the 25th section of the Chong-Lun Sûtra or Pranyamûla-šâstra-tika, by Nâgârjuna, on Nirvâ.na.
- (1) If all things are unreal,
- Then how is it possible to remove
- From that which does not exist
- Something, which, being removed, leaves Nirvâ.na?
- This section argues that if all things are alike empty and unreal, then there is no such thing as Birth and Death; consequently there can be no removal from sorrow, and the destruction of the five elements of existence (limited existence), by removal of which we arrive at Nirvâ.na (what is called Nirvâ.na).
- (2) But if all things are real,
- Then how can we remove
- And so arrive at Nirvâ.na?
- This section argues that we cannot destroy that which has in itself real existence, and therefore, if all things have this real being, we cannot remove Birth and Death, and so arrive at Nirvâ.na; therefore, neither by the theory of Bhava, nor by the theory of Sunyata (emptiness), can we arrive at the just idea of Nirvâ.na.
- (3) That which is not striven for or "obtained,"
- That which is not "for a time" or "eternal,"
- That which is not born, nor dies,
- This is that which is called Nirvâ.na.
- p. 88
- "Not obtained" (or "arrived at"), that is, because there is no place or point at which to arrive.
- "Not for a time" (or not by way of interruption) [per saltum] for the five skandhas having been from the time of complete enlightenment proved to be unreal, and not part of true existence, then on entering final Nirvâ.na (anupadišesha Nirvâ.na).--What is there that breaks or interrupts the character of previous existence?
- "Not for ever," or "everlasting," for if there were something to be obtained that admitted of distinctions whilst in the possession of it, then we might speak of an eternal nirvâ.na, but as in the condition of silent extinction (Nirvâ.na) there can be no properties to distinguish, how can we speak of it as "everlasting?"
- Now that which is so characterised is what we call Nirvâ.na.
- Again, there is a Sûtra which says, "Nirvâ.na is the opposite of 'Being' and 'not Being'; it is the opposite of these two combined, it is the opposite of the absence of 'Being', and the absence of 'not Being'.
- So, in short, that which admits of no conditions such as are attached to limited existence; that is Nirvâ.na.
- (4) Nirvâ.na cannot be called Bhava;
- And therefore are capable of being deprived of characteristics (lakshanam).
- This means that as all things which the eye beholds are seen to begin and to end, and this is what the Šlôka calls "Life" and "Death" (or birth and death). Now if Nirvâ.na is like this, then it would be possible to speak of removing these things and so arriving at something fixed--but here is a plain contradiction of terms--for Nirvâ.na is supposed to be that which is fixed and unchangeable.
- Then it is personal;
- But, in fact, that which cannot be individualized
- Is spoken of as not "personal."
- This means that as all phenomenal existence comes from cause and consequent production, therefore all such things are rightly called "personal."
- (6) If Nirvâ.na be Bhava,
- Then it cannot be called "without sensation" (anuvedana);
- For non-Being comes not from sensation,
- And by this obtains its distinct name.
- This means that as the Sûtras describe Nirvâ.na as being "without sensation" (anuvedana), it cannot be Bhava; for then Abhava would come from sensation. But now it will be asked, if Nirvâ.na is not Bhava, then that which is "not Bhava" (abhava), surely then is Nirvâ.na. To this we reply--
- (7) If Nirvâ.na be not Bhava,
- Much less is it nothing (abhava);
- For if there be no room for "Being,"
- What place can there be for "not Being."
- This means that "not Being" is the opposite of "Being." If, then, "Being" is not admissible, how can we speak of "Not Being"? (its opposite).
- (8) If again Nirvâ.na is nothing,
- How is it called without "sensation?" (anuvedana),
- For it would be wonderful indeed if everything not capable of sensation,
- Were forthwith spoken of as nothing.
- If then Nirvâ.na be neither "Being," nor "non-Being," what is it?
- (9) By participation in cause and effect
- By non-participation in cause and effect
- Comes Nirvâ.na.
- As by knowing a thing to be straight we also know that which is crooked, so by the knowledge of the elements of finite existence comes the knowledge of continual life and death. Do away with those, and you do away also with the other.
- This is Nirvâ.na,
- "Being" here alludes to the three worlds of finite existence. The absence of these three worlds is "Not Being." Get rid of both these ideas, this is Nirvâ.na. But it may now be asked, if Nirvâ.na is not "Being," and if it is not "Absence of Being," then perhaps it is the intermixture of the two.
- By union, produces Nirvâ.na,
- The two are then one;
- But this is impossible.
- Two unlike things cannot be joined so as to produce one different from either.
- United make Nirvâ.na,
- Then Nirvâ.na is not "without sensation;"
- For these two things involve sensation.
- United, produce Nirvâ.na,
- p. 89 Then Nirvâ.na is not Impersonal;
- For these two things are personal.
- How can this be Nirvâ.na?
- These two things have nothing in common.
- Can Darkness and Light be joined?
- Is Nirvâ.na,
- These opposites--
- How are they distinguished?
- (16) If they are distinguished,
- And so, by union, become Nirvâ.na,
- Also completes the idea of the opposite of both.
- (17) Tathâgata, after his departure,
- He says not that his "Being" is not, or the opposite of this.
- Tathâgata says nothing of these things or their opposites. The conclusion of the whole matter is, that Nirvâ.na is identical with the nature of Tathâgata, without bound, and without place or time.
- [1. The Oriental, October 9, 1875.]