I’m interested in the corresponding part of the following part of the Mahanidana Sutta in the Agamas :
“Ānanda, if anyone should say of a bhikkhu whose mind has been thus liberated, that he holds the view ‘A Tathāgata exists after death’—that would not be proper; or that he holds the view ‘A Tathāgata does not exist after death’—that would not be proper; or that he holds the view ‘A Tathāgata both exists and does not exist after death’—that would not be proper; or that he holds the view ‘A Tathāgata neither exists nor does not exist after death’—that would not be proper. For what reason? Because that bhikkhu is liberated by directly knowing this: the extent of designation and the extent of the pathway for designation, the extent of language and the extent of the pathway for language, the extent of description and the extent of the pathway for description, the extent of wisdom and the extent of the sphere for wisdom, the extent of the round and the extent to which the round turns. To say of a bhikkhu who is liberated by directly knowing this that he holds the view ‘One does not know and does not see’—that would not be proper.
I looked for the corresponding part in the BDK translation, but was unable to find it.
It’s on page 33 of Volume 2 in the free PDF of the BDK translation. In the passage in DA 13, the four alternatives are that the Tathagata has ended (終), not ended, etc. rather than “exists after death.” The English translator chose to translate the Chinese as “limited,” “not limited,” etc.
Thanks for that, but I was actually more interested about this part was translated :
the extent of designation and the extent of the pathway for designation, the extent of language and The extent of the pathway for language, the extent of description and the extent of the pathway for description, the extent of wisdom and the extent of the sphere for wisdom, the extent of the round and the extent to which the round turns. To say of a bhikkhu who is liberated by directly knowing this that he holds the view ‘One does not know and does not see’—that would not be proper.
The BDK part seems a bit unclear and is confusing :
Having thus known the nature of sentient
beings thoroughly, those bhikṣus who have realized liberation through
transcendent insight, freed from the evil influence of defilements, though
neither seeing nor knowing in an ordinary sense, are yet able to see and
know the nature of the Tathāgata as it really is.
Is this part translated correctly ?
Though
neither seeing nor knowing in an ordinary sense, are yet able to see and
know the nature of the Tathāgata as it really is.
This is a great example of how interpretative that translation is, and why we’re working on a new one. It’s just kind of mystifying that the translator didn’t move his interpretations to footnotes.
This entire sentence:
Having thus known the nature of sentient
beings thoroughly, those bhikṣus who have realized liberation through
transcendent insight, freed from the evil influence of defilements, though
neither seeing nor knowing in an ordinary sense, are yet able to see and
know the nature of the Tathāgata as it really is.
Is this in the Chinese:
如是盡知已，無漏心解脫比丘不知不見如是知見。
“Having such full knowledge, the monk whose uncontaminated (anasava) mind is liberated doesn’t know or see such knowing and seeing [i.e., the views discussed earlier].”
All the other stuff is added by the English translator.
