Red Pine's translation of the Lankavatara Sutra

Yes, right next to me hot off the press is a translation and commentary of The Lankavatara Sutra by Red Pine (Bill Porter).  First, let me say that if anyone is expecting this new translation to remove the scales from their eyes, forget it!  It ain’t going to happen.  (By the way, I have been reading the Sutra for several days.) 

The Lankavatara Sutra (hereafter, LS) shall always remain more or less impenetrable but not because of the grammar or the language.  It shall always be more or less impenetrable because the newbie who takes it up as a study has no profound insight into the nature of Mind (i.e., Mind as substance) or even what Buddhism is really about.  

First of all the LS is meant for Bodhisattvas.  To get into the Bodhisattva club it is first necessary to initially realize the Mind that is bodhi (S., bodhicitta).  No initial realization—no club membership.  Without this important and necessary step it is extremely difficult to see where the LS is going since it is for advanced Bodhisattvas.  

Making matters worse, the LS lacks a unifying story like some Sutras.  Given this problem, a system might seem absent.  Still, there is something that holds the LS together.  More importantly, it is not theoretical, in the sense of laying down some kind of abstract philosophy, but rather appeals to the gnostical side of us.  

Turning to Red Pine’s translation, and very much like Suzuki’s translation, what we are straightway presented with is the mystical transformation (paravrtti) of King Ravana’s consciousness.  Let’s call it for now a super gnosis.  What is important during Ravana’s gnosis is “he realized what appeared was nothing but the perception of his own mind.”  He then “found himself in a realm free from such projections.”  

This is no run-of-the-mill gnosis but one in which King Ravana becomes profoundly transformed; who sees the world the way it really is which is “the realm of nothing but mind” which is “something the foolish don’t know / bewildered by false projections”.  By the same token, this gnosis is not subjective.  There is not a single case in the LS in which mind is a subject of an activity such as thinking or perceiving.  Mind is really absolute substance (tathata)—not subject—when mind is set free (Red Pine and Suzuki, XLIII).  As such, the everyday world is illusory and dreamlike—only Mind is real.

Switching gears, for now I don’t find Red Pine's translation to be any better than D.T. Suzuki’s translation as if he were able to magically erase the difficulties such a text brings with it which speaks of a profound gnosis.  This is evident if the reader has both translations and follows the chapters.  Let me add that Red Pine’s commentary proves helpful but so is D.T. Suzuki’s Studies in the Lankavatara Sutra, not to mention Florin Giripescu Sutton’s book, Existence and Enlightenment in the Lankavatara-sutra, and Auke D. Forsten’s marvelous work, Between Certainity and finitude: A Study of Lankavatarasutra Chapter Two. 

One more thing.  I believe Zen began to go downhill when, by choice, it began to ignore the importance of the LS.  Early Zen, of course, did not ignore the LS.  In fact, it was pivotal to its extraordinary development because it was transmitted by Bodhidharma to Hui-k’o who became the Second Patriarch of Zen.  Without the Lankavatara Sutra no Zen, in other words.  If Red Pine’s translation serves a worthy purpose it will be to remind the present day generation of Zennists just how far they have strayed off the path, indulging in far too much ritual and sitting.  Keep in mind that the Second Patriarch predicted that “the understanding of this Sutra will become superficial after four generations.  How utterly lamentable.”

 

Comments

[Gregory Wonderwheel]

In the Continued Biographies of Eminent Monks (T50 No. 2060), in the section on Fachong Biography it says "Again, (Fachong) came across those who (had been) intimately taught by master Ke, relying on the One Vehicle (Ekayana) lineage of Southern India to explain it." This reference appears in DT Suzuki's Studies, so I'm wondering if Red Pine has anything to say about Bodhidharma's lineage being the One Vehicle lineage of Southern India.

[Gregory Wonderwheel]

The review seems to make my fears come true. There is certainly nothing written here that makes Red Pine's translation seem worth buying. I too wonder what the cross over between Chinese versions is about. Didn't Red Pine explain it?

[Charlie]

He must of lifted it from Bodhiruci or Siksananda because he thought it ought to be there. I've caught similar things being done by other translators, such as Cleary flipping from one version of the Avatamsaka to the other between passages.

[kojizen]

Charlie, you're going to get killed by all the folks who just received their copy of Red Pine's translation in the mail. I would say that Red Pine's and Suzuki's translations are somewhat synoptic.

[Charlie]

Wait ... I thought he translated Gunabhadra's version (T670). He has the King Ravana story at the beginning?