bodhisattva/bodhisatva
Acri, A.
a.acri at LET.LEIDENUNIV.NL
Mon Dec 22 16:57:54 UTC 2008
On Dec 21, 2008, at 4:13 AM, Michael Slouber wrote:
> It should be noted that this type of degemination is not at all
> limited to Bauddha manuscripts.
> It is the norm for words like "tattva" to be spelled "tatva" in
> almost every "Saiva manuscript I have seen, and at least one Naa.taka.
> Most of these are from Nepal. Perhaps someone with broader
> experience can comment if it reaches to other genres and regions as
> well.
>
This is also the case in the totality of the Old Javanese/Sanskrit
manuscripts (mostly containing "Saiva texts) that i have read.
Perhaps the question might be put in this way: is there any
manuscript tradition, within or without the Subcontinent, in which
the spelling -ttva is implemented with consistency?
Andrea Acri
Kern Institute / Leiden Insititute for Area Studies
Leiden University
>
>
>
> On Dec 20, 2008, at 8:31 PM, JOHN HUNTINGTON wrote:
>
>
>> 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?
>>
>>
>> John
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Dipak Bhattacharya <dbhattacharya2004 at YAHOO.CO.IN>
>> Date: Saturday, December 20, 2008 1:04 am
>> Subject: Re: bodhisattva/bodhisatva
>> To: INDOLOGY at liverpool.ac.uk
>>
>>
>>> 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
>>> To: INDOLOGY at liverpool.ac.uk
>>> 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
>>> GIRISH K. JHA
>>> SANSKRIT,PATNA UNIV.INDIA
>>>
>>>
>>> --- 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
>>> To: INDOLOGY at liverpool.ac.uk
>>> 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
>>> To: INDOLOGY at liverpool.ac.uk
>>> 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 liverpool.ac.uk] Namens Dan Lusthaus
>>> Verzonden: donderdag 18 december 2008 9:40
>>> Aan: INDOLOGY at liverpool.ac.uk
>>> 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
>>> http://messenger.yahoo.com/invite/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Add more friends to your
>>> messenger and enjoy! Go to http://messenger.yahoo.com/invite/
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> BEGIN-ANTISPAM-VOTING-LINKS
>>> ------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> Teach CanIt if this mail (ID 766698150) is spam:
>>> Spam:
>>> https://antispam.osu.edu/b.php?c=s&i=766698150&m=6b30ec1b836eNot
>>> spam: https://antispam.osu.edu/b.php?
>>> c=n&i=766698150&m=6b30ec1b836e
>>> Forget vote:
>>> https://antispam.osu.edu/b.php?c=f&i=766698150&m=6b30ec1b836e----
>>> --------------------------------------------------
>>> END-ANTISPAM-VOTING-LINKS
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _ * _ * _ * _ * _ * _ * _ * _ * _ * _ * _ *
>>
>> John C. Huntington, Professor
>> (Buddhist art and Practice Methodologies)
>> The Department of the History of Art
>> The Ohio State University
>>
>
>
On Dec 21, 2008, at 4:13 AM, Michael Slouber wrote:
> It should be noted that this type of degemination is not at all
> limited to Bauddha manuscripts.
> It is the norm for words like "tattva" to be spelled "tatva" in
> almost every "Saiva manuscript I have seen, and at least one Naa.taka.
> Most of these are from Nepal. Perhaps someone with broader
> experience can comment if it reaches to other genres and regions as
> well.
>
>
> Michael Slouber
> PhD Candidate
> South and Southeast Asian Studies
> UC Berkeley
>
>
>
> On Dec 20, 2008, at 8:31 PM, JOHN HUNTINGTON wrote:
>
>> 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?
>>
>>
>> John
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Dipak Bhattacharya <dbhattacharya2004 at YAHOO.CO.IN>
>> Date: Saturday, December 20, 2008 1:04 am
>> Subject: Re: bodhisattva/bodhisatva
>> To: INDOLOGY at liverpool.ac.uk
>>
>>> 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
>>> To: INDOLOGY at liverpool.ac.uk
>>> 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
>>> GIRISH K. JHA
>>> SANSKRIT,PATNA UNIV.INDIA
>>>
>>>
>>> --- 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
>>> To: INDOLOGY at liverpool.ac.uk
>>> 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
>>> To: INDOLOGY at liverpool.ac.uk
>>> 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 liverpool.ac.uk] Namens Dan Lusthaus
>>> Verzonden: donderdag 18 december 2008 9:40
>>> Aan: INDOLOGY at liverpool.ac.uk
>>> 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
>>> http://messenger.yahoo.com/invite/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Add more friends to your
>>> messenger and enjoy! Go to http://messenger.yahoo.com/invite/
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> BEGIN-ANTISPAM-VOTING-LINKS
>>> ------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> Teach CanIt if this mail (ID 766698150) is spam:
>>> Spam:
>>> https://antispam.osu.edu/b.php?c=s&i=766698150&m=6b30ec1b836eNot
>>> spam: https://antispam.osu.edu/b.php?
>>> c=n&i=766698150&m=6b30ec1b836e
>>> Forget vote:
>>> https://antispam.osu.edu/b.php?c=f&i=766698150&m=6b30ec1b836e----
>>> --------------------------------------------------
>>> END-ANTISPAM-VOTING-LINKS
>>>
>>
>> _ * _ * _ * _ * _ * _ * _ * _ * _ * _ * _ *
>>
>> 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