Customer Reviews

Verses from the Center: A Buddhist Vision of the Sublime

5 star:		(3)
4 star:		(5)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

There is much about Stephen Batchelor's new translation of Nagarjuna's Mulamadhyamakakarika which is extremely useful, although the work is also highly problematic. Batchelor has chosen to render Nagarjuna's verses in a very free fashion, communicating what he discerns to be the real message at the heart of the Karikas. He has felt free to omit material, paraphrase, summarize, and reword entire sections with enormous liberty. On the one hand this has freed the text from much of its cryptic quality which has resulted from the metrical constraints of the Sanskrit root text. On the other hand we must rely heavily on Batchelor's interpretation of what Nagarjuna actually meant. What did Nagarjuna actually mean? Batchelor sets forth his interpretive model in the lengthy and challenging introduction. Nagarjuna, Batchelor argues, should be interpreted as belonging to a common philosophical heritage. In comparing Nagarjuna's text with the writings of Taoism and Zen and even the English Romantic poets, Batchelor suggests that the Verses espouse a common insight which is far broader than many modern interpreters have suggested. It seems probable that the unspoken opponent of his exegesis is the Gelukpa and Gelukpa-inspired scholarship which has had much to say about Madhyamaka in recent years, and of which Batchelor himself was once a part when he translated Chandrakirti's Madhyamakavatara with Geshe Rabten in Echoes of Voidenss. Here, he briefly presents Dzong-ka-ba's view on Nagarjuna, which Batchelor clearly thinks is overly scholastic and removes the heart of the message by viewing emptiness as primarily a kind of anti-metaphysics. The real message, we learn, is that we are to approach the world with a particular stance of openess and sense of interconnectedness. Emptiness is to be lived in its realization, not realized propositionally. Clearly Batchelor has been deeply influenced by his experiences with Zen in this approach, and it has much to offer in considering the relationship of emptiness to the endeavor of liberation. This work is obviously highly personal, and highly personalizes the process of meditation on emptiness. That being said, I found the book to contain significant problems. In my opinion it behooves Batchelor to spend more energy in the introduction in justifying his beliefs. I do not see why we should necessarily believe that Nagarjuna is best read through the existential model that Batchelor suggests. This certainly flies in the face of many of his Indian commentators such as Aryadeva, Chandrakirti, Buddhapalita, and Bhavaviveka. I see no reason to assume that, on the basis of stylistic and rhetorical affinities, we should view Nagarjuna as belonging to the family of thought that somehow includes Chuang-Tzu and Keats rather than as belonging to the milieu in which he lived and wrote. "Verses" is clearly more of a presentation of Batchelor's views than an argument on their behalf, so while I personally resonated with much of what he said I found myself wondering what justified Batchelor in translating this work so freely. It is more a collaboration than a translation, and I'm not convinced that Nagarjuna needs a collaborator. If you are looking for a translation which is not extremely demanding philosophcially, this might be the version for you. Likewise if you are interested in a free, interesting and challenging reading of Nagarjuna, this book has much to offer. Be warned, however, that if you are interested in Nagarjuna's actual words, this is not the book for you.

Nagarjuna's philisophy of the "middle way" can be difficult. It has usually been left to discussion by academics. Stephen Batchelor, as in his other writings, makes this subject flow like the poetry it is. It permeates your whole being. The author's helpful commentary and analysis makes this book a "keeper." It is for anyone interested in the Buddhist path and its profound reflections on life and living. "In seeing things To be or not to be Fools fail to see A world at ease."

There is little doubt that Nagarjuna gave humanity a masterpiece with the MMK which is evident in the attention that this text has received over the centuries.

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.

I must admit that I realized only after a complete first read that this book had made its amazing impression on me. I thought as I was reading it that it was, well, interesting. It was only after reading it that I realized I was seeing life through an entirely different lens. It was an indescribable, incredible experience. I've read it twice since, and each time the feeling grows stronger. The book has allowed me to begin to experience emptiness, rather than try to understand emptiness.

A relaxed distillation of Nagarjuna's teaching, fleshed out with various reflections from the author's experience and intuitions gleaned from personal reading habits, this book has proven satisfying to people who might otherwise baulk at taking Nagarjuna 'straight.' Whether it constitutes a 'translation' of Nagarjuna's karikas - is open to question. For the Buddhist background, I recommend Murti's 'The Central Philosophy of Buddhism.'

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.

Nagarjuna, Batchelor, the other reviewers and I share a common problem: our grasp of reality is hampered by our brains' conceptual and perceptual limitations. Nagarjuna's attempts to deal with those limitations have affected millions of people through various translations and interpretations, and Batchelor's version will no doubt affect many who would be untouched by the others. His comparison of Nagarjuna to thinkers from different times and cultures serves to show that all have struggled with the limitations that are common to all human beings--the brains in which we live are quite similar.

In one review, Batchelor is faulted for failing to note the implications of Nagarjuna's writing for "realization of the unconditioned (absolute)... that which does not arise and pass away." Indeed, Batchelor proclaims that Nagarjuna's key insight was that emptiness is "inseparable from the utter contingency of life itself," it is "contingently configured" rather than absolute. Whether this interpretation is consistent with Nagarjuna's thought in the context of Buddhism as it was in his time or not, it is certainly consistent with the human condition: we are constitutionally incapable of apprehending anything that might be called "absolute." It seems that space itself, used for thousands of years as a metaphor for emptiness, is not empty at all, but chock-a-block full of dark energy, dark matter, and who knows what else.

The absolute, the unconditioned, the other shore, emptiness, the self, the soul, etc. are all human conceptions, and all human conceptions arise from our perceptions. As instruments expand our perceptions, our conceptions try to keep pace, but in many cases we have come to the point that the only way to express reality is through mathematical formulas--none of our perceptual metaphors can be stretched to fit: light seems to be neither a wave nor a particle, leaving us with something inconceivable. The only adequate response to this predicament is, as Batchelor says, "to be dumbfounded by the sheer fecundity of life."

Unfortunately, Batchelor cannot sit content with being dumbfounded, but somehow finds in emptiness, "the freedom to configure oneself..." as if one's self could somehow act independently of the contingencies that created it. The only freedom we have is to gaze in amazement at the things we think, say, and do, and it's quite enough, really.

If you're interested in Nagarjuna, and his Mulamadhyamakakarika
then pick up a copy of "The Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way";
which is a translation by Jay L. Garfield, and stay away from this
highly subjective abridgement of the MMK.

The book begins with Intuitions of the Sublime, which locates Nagarjuna's central and much-misunderstood idea of "emptiness" in the wider context of Buddhist, Taoist and Western traditions and offers a contemporary interpretation of Nagarjuna's vision. An introductory essay is followed by a poetic translation of the Tibetan text of Verses from the Center. For a more literal, academic translation, the reader is referred to Garfield's The Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way.

Batchelor has sought to translate Verses from the Center in such a way as to make Nagarjuna's insights come alive for anyone concerned with the question of what it means to live a free and awake life today. Instead of regarding the text as a work of Buddhist doctrine or philosophy, he treats it in the spirit of a Zen koan, which provokes intuitions of the sublime by forcibly challenging entrenched opinions about ourselves and the world.

In some ways I agree with "Jim Williams" review, though I do not see this commentary as harshly as he does -- and I see Batchelor as I always do, as a commentator, not a teacher. Not a good beginner's book on Nagarjuna's seminal work, but I am currently studying this in depth, and so appreciated Batchelor's work as I might enjoy sitting talking to another serious student, even when I saw his shortcomings. If you are beginning, read Nagarjuna as a translation and sit with him.

Stephen Bachelor is an excellent translator and interpreter of Nargarjuna's wisdom. His prose is clear and accessible and his translation of Nargarjuna's poetry inspired. This book is a must have for students of Mahayana Buddhism.