Sat Dec 20 14:46:35 UTC 2008

My son, Eric R. Huntington, is working on some Newar Sanskrit Manuscripts that are vidhi for  the Vajradhatu mandala. TheY range fro 16th to 19th century and are all fairly good Newar Sanskrit. In them "bodhisattva" is 'usually' (Eric's code for he is not 100% certain) with one t. He doesn't remember any with two t's

I would also point out that the mantras for Vajrasattva in the sources that I have looked into are always one t, (e.g., OM VAJRA SA TVA HUM as constructed in Tibetan script.)

As we are on a family holiday we are both away from our resources until January, so cannot carry this any farther at this time. 

What about in Pala Manuscripts?


----- Original Message -----
From: Dipak Bhattacharya <dbhattacharya2004 at YAHOO.CO.IN>
Date: Saturday, December 20, 2008 1:04 am
Subject: Re: bodhisattva/bodhisatva

> 20 12 08
> <There may be some copyist’s mistakes in manuscripts.>
> Has the reading bodhisattva been found in any ms that is  not a 
> copy made by a modern scholar?
> <The author of Nyasa commentry on Kasika,too,is mentioned 
> with the status of Bodhisattva and the term contains 'tt' 
> there.> 
> Where is Jinendrabuddhi so referred to? Was the ms-reading checked?
> These require clarification.
> DB
> --- On Sat, 20/12/08, girish jha <jhakgirish at YAHOO.COM> wrote:
> From: girish jha <jhakgirish at YAHOO.COM>
> Subject: Re: bodhisattva/bodhisatva
> Date: Saturday, 20 December, 2008, 7:18 AM
> Dear Mr Bhattacharya,
> The Sanskrit word Bodhisattva is accepted by Buddhists also in 
> BuddhistSanskrit and is not a hybrid one.
> The derivation of bodhi and sattva:
> <Budh +affix in by sarvadhātubhya in(Unādi).Bodhi is a kind 
> of Samādhi.
> Sato bhāvah sattvam.Sattvam dravye guṇe cite vyavasāyasvabhāvayoḥ
> One who has strongly resolved for bodhi is bodhisattva..There 
> may be some
> copyist’s
> mistakes in manuscripts.The author of Nyasa commentry on Kasika,too,is
> mentioned with the status of Bodhisattva and the term contains 'tt'
> there.
> Regards,
> Sincerely
> --- On Thu, 12/18/08, Dipak Bhattacharya 
> <dbhattacharya2004 at YAHOO.CO.IN>wrote:
> From: Dipak Bhattacharya <dbhattacharya2004 at YAHOO.CO.IN>
> Subject: Re: bodhisattva/bodhisatva
> Date: Thursday, December 18, 2008, 3:25 AM
> Dear Victor,
> Everyone, including you, has spelt 'bodhisattva'. All the 
> manuscripts i
> have consulted read 'bodhisatva'! I wonder if anyone has given a
> thought to if the latter is not incorrect?  DB
> --- On Thu, 18/12/08, victor van Bijlert 
> <victorvanbijlert at KPNPLANET.NL>wrote:
> From: victor van Bijlert <victorvanbijlert at KPNPLANET.NL>
> Subject: Re: questions on bodhisattva vow
> Date: Thursday, 18 December, 2008, 2:26 PM
> Reading this reaction, I feel tempted to suggest that Allen's 
> questionscould be posed from the point of view of a recent 
> convert to Buddhism who
> finds certain dogmas difficult to understand as yet. In a more 
> sociologicalapproach to Buddhist doctrine one could easily 
> explain these matters. It is
> perhaps also necessary to assume as a working hypothesis that these
> questions presuppose a unity in Buddhist doctrine which in 
> reality is not
> there. The questions are posed from a background in Mahayana. 
> The latter may
> be a container-concept covering many sectarian differences. This 
> means that
> the ansers to these questions would be manifold.
> I should warn that my replies are those of a non-expert in the 
> finer points
> of Buddhist doctrine.
> Victor van Bijlert
> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
> Van: Indology [mailto:INDOLOGY at] Namens Dan Lusthaus
> Verzonden: donderdag 18 december 2008 9:40
> Aan: INDOLOGY at
> Onderwerp: Re: questions on bodhisattva vow
> Allen,
> Are you requesting a doctrinal/apologetic answer to your 
> questions (you've
> already received a number of those), or a survey-of-the-
> literature type
> answer? These are not necessarily the same.
> First, there have been several discussions over the last couple 
> of decades
> between Buddhist scholars (mostly on e-lists like buddha-l and h-
> buddhism,very little in actual print) over the soundness of the 
> assertion that:
> The bodhisattva takes a vow not to enter into Nirvana until all other
> sentient beings have done so before him.
> More specifically, the question is raised about the provenance 
> of that vow.
> While ubiquitous in secondary (esp. Western) literature on 
> Buddhism, it is
> far less in evidence in Buddhist texts themselves, and where passages
> possibly suggesting it appear, there are differences of opinion 
> on what
> those passages actually mean or entail. The bodhisattva vows (of 
> which this
> is typically one of four vows) appears relatively late, and is 
> not in
> evidence in the earlier Mahayana literature. Some speculate it 
> may have been
> a Chinese innovation (maybe 5th-6th c), though that is mere 
> speculation and
> one can argue otherwise (without, as far as I know, a smoking 
> gun to settle
> the matter).
> Some have gone as far as suggesting that the whole idea of 
> delaying one's
> own nirvana until all other sentient beings have already 
> attained it (what
> Bob Thurman called the cowherd model) is largely a Western scholarly
> invention. That's is not entirely the case. The notion that 
> bodhisattvas,unlike Hinayana Arhats, delay parinirvana for the 
> sake of others, is present
> in Mahayana literature (though delay is the not the same as awaiting
> everyone else. It seems to be alluded to in the Vimalakirti 
> Sutra (though
> how those passages are interpreted difers), and it is clearly 
> discussed in
> Asanga's Yogacarabhumi. The Tattvaartha chapter, for instance, 
> explainsthat
> Hinayanists (not to be confused with Theravada) loathe life and 
> so, out of
> fear, rush to seek nirvana. The well-trained bodhisattva has 
> overcome such
> fears, and so delays his parinirvana in order to stay around to 
> assist other
> sentient beings. Asanga does not, however, say that this delay is
> interminable or that a bodhisattva remains until every last 
> sentient being
> has been liberated -- that would, for him, be the future Buddha 
> Maitreya'sjob, who is awaiting that advent in the Tu.sita heaven 
> and will be reborn as
> a human Buddha when the time is ripe. Asanga only suggests that the
> bodhisattva delays his nirvana in order to help others, and even 
> suggeststhat the amount of time of the delay may vary with the 
> degree of the
> bodhisattva's accomplishments. He, in other words, completely 
> avoids the
> dilemmas you raise. Janice Willis translated this chapter (On Knowing
> Reality, Columbia U Press), so you can check out his arguments 
> (this text is
> also available in Sanskrit, Chinese and Tibetan).
> In standard models, like the ten stages (bhuumis) of a bodhisattva,
> enlightenment occurs during the 8th bhumi. That leaves two 
> subsequent bhumis
> in which to hone one's upayic skills at helping others. Some 
> will also
> posit
> kind of phase, post-10th-bhumi but pre-Buddhahood, in which some
> bodhisattvas can linger (in deva realms, etc.) in order to help 
> others.
> The more Buddhistic problem -- and one not dealt with explicitly 
> in any
> detail in Buddhist texts -- is the assumption that once one has 
> enteredparinirvana one no longer can be an effective agent 
> working for the benefit
> of others. Since Buddha explicitly has attained parinirvana, is 
> he still
> around in some form, available to assist others? The Lotus 
> Sutra, one of the
> earlier Mahayana works, proposes an entirely new theory of 
> Buddha, in which
> "Buddha" is no longer to be identified exclusively with
> "Sakyamuni, but is a
> cosmic Buddha of which "Sakyamuni was only a docetic instance. 
> That idea
> influenced Mahayanic Buddhology in numerous direct and indirect 
> ways (for
> instance, Amitabha Buddha eclipsing "Sakyamuni in importance). 
> So, if
> post-nirvana status still allows beneficial interactions with sentient
> beings, this whole problematic would seem to be a red herring, 
> based on a
> misconception of the nature of nirvana. This gets complicated with
> buddhological notions such as the stages of becoming a once-
> returner, a
> nonreturner, etc., which is one reason why Maitreya has put off 
> being born,
> since he might then not be able to be "born" when the time comes
> (once born
> in the life in which he will become a Buddha, he will be a non-
> returner,etc.), Of course, this can be recast in terms of the 
> Lotus track,
> sidestepping the problem. The danger then is that, contrary to 
> the Buddhist
> dictum to avoid the extremes of eternalism and annhilationalism, the
> Lotus-type Buddha dances dangerously close to eternalism (while 
> a Buddha
> that ceases to be once entering nirvana would be a case of
> annihilationalism -- and even in the Pali texts Buddha refuses 
> to say
> whether a Tathagata exists or doesn't exist after death).
> To address your questions more directly:
> 1.  Does this mean never?
> Why be such a pessimist?
> 2.  If so, is it because some beings are permanently 
> disqualified from
> nirvana?
> There are debates over the so-called icchantikas, incorrigible beings
> possibly constitutionally incapable (not "disqualified") from full
> awakening, lacking the requisite seeds of qualities. In my 
> reading of those
> debates, however, it seems that the idea that an icchantika 
> would be some
> continuous being eternally barred from nirvana is only stated by 
> opponentsof the idea, in order to straw man accuse others of 
> holding that position.
> An icchantika is incorrigable is the present life, and that 
> habit may
> continue for awhile, but everyone can eventually wisen up.
> 3.  Or is it that they are literally infinite in number, 
> and so though each
> will eventually enter it, there will always be more?  (I'm 
> not sure this
> makes sense logically, but I'm asking what's said.)
> This cosmological sort of question has no definitive doctrine; 
> there are
> lots of versions of Buddhist cosmology (let's call them cosmologies).
> Whether we are dealing with a fixed numbered set of sentient 
> beings that
> recycle through different types of existences, or whether beings 
> are added
> and subtracted from that set, is not usually discussed. Like 
> Hindus, many
> Buddhist cosmologies posit world ages in which the entire 
> pluriverse comes
> into being and goes out of being, in cycles. Is it the same cast of
> characters each time? That would be contrary to the notion of 
> liberation, so
> this remains an open question. Actually, aside from when in 
> certain moods,
> Buddhists do not seem interested in these sorts of speculations.
> 5.  Are these or similar questions ever raised at all?
> See above.
> Dan Lusthaus
>       Add more friends to your 
> messenger and enjoy! Go to
>       Add more friends to your 
> messenger and enjoy! Go to
> -- 
> ------------------------------------------------------
> Teach CanIt if this mail (ID 766698150) is spam:
> Spam:        
> spam:
> Forget vote: 
> --------------------------------------------------

_ * _ * _ * _ * _ * _ * _ * _ * _ * _ * _ *

John C. Huntington, Professor
    (Buddhist art and Practice Methodologies)  
    The Department of the History of Art
    The Ohio State University

More information about the INDOLOGY mailing list