bodhisattva/bodhisatva
Maheswaran Nair
swantam at ASIANETINDIA.COM
Wed Dec 24 01:50:33 UTC 2008
Hello,
In writing Sanskrit even now the spelling -ttva is not implemented
with consistency.Similar is the case of using anusvara and makara
before svara.
Regards
K.Maheswaran Nair
Trivandrum
Quoting "Acri, A." <a.acri at LET.LEIDENUNIV.NL>:
> 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