2

The verses in question are from Nāgārjuna's Mūlamadhyamakakārikā chapter 25 on an examination of nirvana.

Mūlamadhyamakakārikā 25:19–20
न संसारस्य निर्वाणात् किं चिद् अस्ति विशेषणं
na saṁsārasya nirvāṇāt kiṁ cid asti viśeṣaṇaṁ

न निर्वाणस्य संसारात् किं चिद् अस्ति विशेषणं। १९
na nirvāṇasya saṁsārāt kiṁ cid asti viśeṣaṇaṁ| 19

निर्वाणस्य च या कोटिः।कोटिः। संसरणस्य च
nirvāṇasya ca yā koṭiḥ koṭiḥ saṁsaraṇasya ca

न तयोर् अन्तरं किंचित् सुसूक्ष्मम् अपि विद्यते। २०
na tayor antaraṁ kiñcit susūkśmam api vidyate| 20

4

There are two mainstream Mulamadhyamakakarikas (hereafter MMK). There might be one in manuscript form recently dicovered that I am unaware of, but there are two that I am aware of, and they are the Sanskrit reconstructed from Venerable Candrakirti's commentary (which might actually be from Tibetan), and the Chinese version with the nested commentary by Venerable Vimalākṣa. The Chinese source text to do with the Sanskrit you provided is:

涅槃與世間無有少分別世間與涅槃亦無少分別涅槃之實際及與世間際如是二際者無毫釐差別 (T1564.35c27)

In the following list, "Skt" means "from Sanskrit," "Ch" means "from Chinese," and "Tb" means "from Tibetan."

INADA (Skt):

Samsara (i.e., the empirical life-death cycle) is nothing essentially different from nirvana. Nirvana is nothing essentially different from samsara. The limits (i.e., realm) of nirvana are the limits of samsara. Between the two, also, there is not the slightest difference whatsoever.

JONES (Skt):

There is not the slightest difference of cyclical existence from nirvana. There is not the slightest difference of nirvana from cyclical existence. The full extent of nirvana is the full extent of cyclical existence. There is not slightest interval between them.

KALUPAHANA (Skt):

The life-process has no thing that distinguishes it from freedom. Freedom has no thing that distinguishes it from the life-process. Whatever is the extremity of freedom and the extremity of the life-process, between them not even a subtle something is evident.

MCCAGNEY (Skt):

There is no distinction whatever between saṃsāra and nirvāṇa. There is no distinction whatever between nirvāṇa and saṃsāra. The limit of nirvāṇa is that of saṃsāra. The subtlest difference is not found between the two.

SPRUNG (Skt):

There is no specifiable difference whatever between nirvāṇa and the everyday world; there is no specifiable difference whatever between the everyday world and nirvāṇa. The ontic range of nirvāṇa is the ontic range of the everyday world. There is not even the subtlest difference between the two.

STRENG (Skt):

There is nothing whatever which differentiates the existence-in-flux (samsara) from nirvana; And there is nothing whatever which differentiates nirvana from existence-in-flux. The extreme limit (koti) of nirvana is also the extreme limit of existence-in-flux; There is not the slightest bit of difference between these two.

STCHERBATSKY (Skt):

There is no difference at all Between Nirvana and Samsara. There is no difference at all Between Samsara and Nirvana. What makes the limit of Nirvana Is also then the limit of Samsara. Between the two we cannot find The slightest shade of difference.

ROBINSON (Skt):

Samsara has nothing that distinguishes it from nirvana; nirvana has nothing that distinguishes it from samsara. The limit of nirvana is the limit of samsara; there is not even the subtlest something separating the two.

BOCKING (Ch):

Between nirvana and the world There is not the slightest distinction Between the world and nirvana There is not the slightest distinction. The real limit of nirvana And the limits of this world Between these two limits There is not the least distinction

BATCHELOR (Tb):

Samsara does not have the slightest distinction from Nirvana. Nirvana does not have the slightest distinction from Samsara. Whatever is the end of Nirvana, that is the end of Samsara. There is not even a very subtle slight distinction between the two.

DOCTOR (Tb):

Cyclic existence is not the slightest bit Different from the transcendence of suffering Transcendence of suffering is not the slightest bit Different from cyclic existence. That which is the condition of transcendence Is the condition of cyclic existence as well. Between these two there is not The slightest bit of difference.

GARFIELD (Tb):

There is not the slightest difference Between cyclic existence and nirvana. There is not the slightest difference Between nirvana and cyclic existence. Whatever is the limit of nirvana, That is the limit of cyclic existenence. There is not even the slightest difference between them, Or even the subtlest thing.

GOLDFIELD (Tb):

Samsara is not the slightest bit different from nirvana. Nirvana is not the slightest bit different from samsara. The true nature of nirvana Is the true nature of samsara, And between these two There is not even the tiniest, subtlest difference.

HAGEN (paraphrase):

Nothing whatever distinguishes samsara from Nirvana. Nothing whatever distinguishes Nirvana from samsara. Whatever is the limit of Nirvana is also the limit of samsara. There is not even the subtlest difference between them.

NISHIJIMA (paraphrase):

Without leaving the process of wandering, it will become leaving Nirvana. It does never suggest that we have been given up by Nirvana, Not belonging to Nirvana, is leaving from the wandering. It does never suggest that we have been given up by Nirvana, What is included by Nirvana is just Time, And the Time is also belonging to the wandering life of ups and downs. The two kinds of substances, that is, Time and the wandering life of ups and downs, Seems to be as if they were nothing. Then something excellently delicate is recognized very clearly...

Two of the "translations" that Korin compiles are paraphrases, not translations. All of the above material is from MMK study notes from Venerable Korin available at https://abhidharmakosa.wordpress.com/.

There is one more translation for me to add.

CAOIMHGHIN (Ch)

Between nirvāṇa and the world, there is not the slightest differentiation. Between the world and nirvāṇa, there is also not the slightest differentiation. From the true apex of nirvāṇa to the apex of the world, like this, there are two apices with not a sliver of difference between them.

3
  • If what you want is the "correct interpretation," I would recommend downloading the full file of the study notes and reading the nested commentaries and seeing what you think of them, if you agree, if you disagree, etc. We can see for instance that it is like Kalupahana is working with a completely different text. He really radically reinterprets the content of the MMK.
    – Caoimhghin
    Feb 15 at 15:33
  • 1
    Hi Caoimhgin, here is another one for your list... Garfield actually updated his translation for that verse in his translation of, "Ocean of Reasoning: A Great Commentary on Nāgārjuna’s Mūlamadhyamakakārikā rJe Tsong Khapa" and I have been told directly by him that he considers the latter the authoritative better translation of his. I will give that translation in another answer. Feb 16 at 1:46
  • The document abhidharmakosa.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/… is not easy to find from your link. Can you update the link? Jun 5 at 22:12
2

Extracted from

Ocean of Reasoning: A Great Commentary on Nāgārjuna’s

Mūlamadhyamakakārikā rJe Tsong Khapa Circa 1407—1408

Translated from Tibetan into English by Geshe Ngawang Samten & Jay L. Garfield 2006

25.19 Cyclic existence is not the slightest bit
      Different from nirvana.
      Nirvana is not the slightest bit
      Different from cyclic existence.

25.20 Whatever is the limit of nirvana,
      That is the limit of cyclic existence.
      There is not even the slightest difference between them,
      Or even the subtlest thing.
1
  • What about including the Tibetan original in the answer? Aug 9 at 16:53

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.