[INDOLOGY] Publication Announcement

[dermot at grevatt.force9.co.uk]

When I saw "yajna and hotara" in this thread I understood the second word as a slip 
for "hotra", a near-synonym of yajna (though strictly referring to the part of the yajna 
performed by the hot.r). Is that what was intended?

Dermot Killingley

On 18 Dec 2013 at 18:25, Francois Voegeli wrote:

> Joseph,
> 
> Sorry to hop in this thread as a vedicist, but how would you (or your
> sources?) define "yajna" and "hotara".
> 
> Do you mean "sacrifice" (yaj;n;a-) and the "Hot.rs", i.e. officiants
> (from the plural hot;aara.h)?
> 
> F. Voegeli
> 
> 
> On 18 déc. 2013, at 18:05, "Walser, Joseph" <Joseph.Walser at TUFTS.EDU>
> wrote:
> 
> > Matthew,
> > I am particularly interested in Buddhism up to the beginning of the
> > Gupta Dynasty. When I look at the Nikayas and the Agamas, I notice a
> > handful (less than 10) of very carefully worded critiques of
> > sacrifice -- some of which appear to be quite close to criticisms
> > that brahmanical communities were already making. On the other hand,
> > the rejection of yajna and hotara defined as wrong view can be found
> > in the following sutras DN 23 MN 60, 76, 110, 114, 117 AN 3.117,
> > 3.118, 3.119, 10.176, 10.211, 10.212, and 10.217 (sorry no page
> > numbers, I cut this from my notes). I do not disagree with you that
> > rejection of Vedic sacrifice BECAME important for some Buddhist
> > communities later. But to say that from the time of the Buddha
> > onward there was a blanket rejection of Vedic sacrifice across the
> > board by all Buddhists on the basis of a few sutras assumes that all
> > communities used all the sutras that are available to us now. It
> > seems more likely that the anti-brahmanical sutras were enjoyed by
> > non-brahmin communities and that communities of Brahmin Buddhists
> > wouldn't pay much attention to them. 
> > 
> > This is part of a much larger argument that I hope to send off in a
> > few months. 
> > 
> > 
> > Joseph Walser
> > 
> > Associate Professor
> > 
> > Department of Religion
> > 
> > Tufts University
> > 
> > ________________________________________
> > From: Matthew Kapstein [mkapstei at uchicago.edu]
> > Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2013 11:39 AM
> > To: Walser, Joseph; Andrew Nicholson; Indology List
> > Subject: RE: [INDOLOGY] Publication Announcement
> > 
> > But, Joseph,
> > 
> > "The Nastika is one who denies the existence of karma and the
> > efficacy of yajna and hotara" surely implies that Buddhists were
> > nāstika-s in the sense that they did deny the efficacy of the Vedic
> > sacrificial cult.
> > 
> > As i recall, however, Kamalaśīla, in the TSP, does take the
> > Buddhists and Brahmanical traditions to be both āstika-s in that
> > they both affirm the doctrines of karma and moká¹£a.
> > 
> > I find it easier to make sense of these shifting uses of āstika and
> > nāstika if we understand the terms not as fixed categories of types
> > of believers, but in their literal sense as meaning "yeah-sayers"
> > and "nay-sayers". The precise usage may then be allowed to shift
> > according to just what the yeah or nay are about in any given
> > context. Of course, a more or less fixed use did set in, but as
> > you've all rightly suggested, this was a relatively late
> > development.
> > 
> > best,
> > Matthew
> > 
> > 
> > Matthew Kapstein
> > Directeur d'études,
> > Ecole Pratique des Hautes Etudes
> > 
> > Numata Visiting Professor of Buddhist Studies,
> > The University of Chicago
> > 
> > ________________________________________
> > _______________________________________________
> > INDOLOGY mailing list
> > INDOLOGY at list.indology.info
> > http://listinfo.indology.info
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> INDOLOGY mailing list
> INDOLOGY at list.indology.info
> http://listinfo.indology.info