[INDOLOGY] Vajrasūcī

Hartmut Buescher buescherhartmut at gmail.com
Tue Jan 28 04:20:30 EST 2020


No, almost inexcusable, focussed on collecting those references provided,
I simply forgot to mention it. Was just about to rectify this omission,
when I saw
that it was already done. Sorry and thanks, Hartmut

On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 8:44 AM Jan E.M. Houben <jemhouben at gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear Hartmut,
> In his message to you, Prof. Schlingloff may have modestly omitted a
> reference to a publication of his that is in fact quite relevant in this
> regard:
> D. Schlingloff, *The Superhuman Faculties - Visual Meditation and
> Miracles in Buddhist Literature and Art*, Buddhismus Studien 9.
> In addition, it may or may not help to date and localise *siddhācārya* Aśvaghoṣa,
> but could the "Siddha" part in his title point to a "southern" (not
> necessarily as south as Tamil Nadu, but up to around the Parvata mountain
> mentioned in the VP) and rasaśástric connection (alleged flying
> experiences through mercury)?
> Jan Houben
> N.B.
> The itikartavyatā of the quotation may be clear: don't eat meat.
> But what would the verse really express in its original context?
> Or what type of  ākāśagamana is it referring to?
> ākāśagāmino viprāḥ patanti māṃsabhakṣaṇāt |
> viprāṇāṃ patanaṃ dṛṣṭvā tato māṃsāni varjayet ||12||
> "Due to consuming meat, the space-walking seers do fall (or fly, which is
> the older meaning of pat?).
> Hence, observing the seers’ fall (patana rather than pāta refers rather to
> the actual falling, flying?) one should abandon meats."
> Did these "seers" fall from the sky like Simon Magus after St Peter's
> prayer?
> Were they first staying up in space, enjoyed some meat there just like
> Mary Poppins and Uncle Albert drinking tea at the ceiling of the living
> room, and did they fall down next?
>
> On Tue, 28 Jan 2020 at 02:42, Hartmut Buescher via INDOLOGY <
> indology at list.indology.info> wrote:
>
>> Dear colleagues,
>>
>>
>>
>> allow me to qualify my previous remark about “having not yet met with
>>
>> the notion of an *ākāśagāmin* in the various Buddhist philosophical
>> contexts
>>
>> elaborating their notions of *mārga *… “ – in a beautifully suggestive
>> manner,
>>
>> Prof. Schlingloff rightly pointed out to me, being habitually forgetful,
>> that
>>
>> I may in fact be very well aware of a specific context in which various
>>
>> supernatural accomplishments, including that of “moving through space”,
>>
>> are regularly thematized.
>>
>> Indeed, it is difficult for Buddhologists not to be aware of the *bodhipakkhiyā
>> *
>>
>> *dhammā* and, as usual, Buddhaghoṣa is most entertaining when dealing
>> with the
>>
>> *iddhipāda*s in *Visuddhimagga*, ch. 12. Often, he refers back to the
>> *iddhikathā*
>>
>> chapter of the *Paṭisambhidāmagga*, whereas my favourite concise overview
>>
>> (with rather exhaustive references to canonical sources) still is Gethin’s
>>
>> treatment of these *iddhipāda*s in his *The Buddhist Path to Awakening*.
>>
>> For references to corresponding Sanskrit sources treating the *ṛddhipāda*s,
>>
>>
>> one may still be benefitted by consulting Har Dayal’s old *Bodhisattva
>> Doctrine*,
>>
>> pp. 104ff. and, of course, Lamotte’s *Traité* III: 1124f.
>>
>>
>>
>> Still, just as the notion of a *yogin* may be endowed with very
>> different
>>
>> connotations, depending on the textual and traditional context one looks
>> at,
>>
>> the accomplishments of the *ākāśagāmin *referred to by *siddhācārya*
>> Aśvaghoṣa
>>
>> may perhaps include, or overlap with, the success of those who practice
>>
>> the *iddhipāda*s/*ṛddhipāda*s, yet essentially differ (in terms of
>> practical details
>>
>> and ultimate achievement) from the latter, just as a tantric context does
>> crucially
>>
>> differ from a non-tantric one. Thus, though the horizon of what the
>> metaphor of
>>
>> ‘moving through/within space’ may entail is getting expanded,
>> unfortunately
>>
>> this does not immediately heighten the precision of determining
>> *Vajrasūcī*’s
>>
>> authorship.
>>
>>
>>
>> Hartmut Buescher
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Jan 26, 2020 at 9:58 PM Hartmut Buescher <
>> buescherhartmut at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Dear Dean,
>>> saw your message first now, after having written and sent off mine,
>>> and, sure, we agree.  Hartmut
>>>
>>> On Sun, Jan 26, 2020 at 8:55 PM Dean Michael Anderson <
>>> eastwestcultural at yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'd be hesitant in using terms like *ākāśagamin *to date a text unless
>>>> there was an indication that it was part of a larger established doctrine.
>>>> Those kinds of abilities were regularly mentioned.
>>>>
>>>> The idea of sages moving through space is mentioned as early as Rig
>>>> Veda X.136 although it uses different terminology.
>>>>
>>>> In a forthcoming publication, I discuss how those types of experiences
>>>> may be part of a body of experiences that are universal psychological
>>>> responses to certain psychophysiological stimuli such as meditative
>>>> practices, entraining to rhythmic chanting, drugs, etc. (See Yoga Sutras
>>>> 4.1) I call it the yogic-shamanic continuum. Given that, using such
>>>> experiences alone to date a text would probably be misleading.
>>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>>
>>>> Dean
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sunday, January 26, 2020, 4:30:43 PM GMT+5:30, Dan Lusthaus via
>>>> INDOLOGY <indology at list.indology.info> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The idea of practitioners who become ākāśagamin is already in the
>>>> Yogasūtra (4th-5th century? earlier?) which explains how to do it;
>>>> pre-tantra. The term is probably older.
>>>>
>>>> YS 3, 42 kāyākāśayoḥ saṃbandhasaṃyamāl laghutūlasamāpatteś
>>>> cākāśagamanam |
>>>>
>>>> Dan
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>
>>>> On Sunday, January 26, 2020, 3:12:46 PM GMT+5:30, Johannes Bronkhorst
>>>> via INDOLOGY <indology at list.indology.info> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Allow me to add a word of caution about chronology with respect to
>>>> Manu. Even if *Vajrasūcī* 12 explicitly refers to *Mānava Dharmaśāstra*
>>>> 5.48, the *Vasiṣṭha Dharmasūtra* (4.7) does the same (being much
>>>> closer to Manu's text). And yet, Olivelle considers the *Mānava
>>>> Dharmaśāstra* "clearly posterior to Vasiṣṭha".
>>>>
>>>> There are other cases which show that even literal quotations from and
>>>> references to Manu do not necessarily prove that the text concerned is
>>>> posterior to Manu. I discuss them in detail in the following article:
>>>>
>>>> “Manu and the Mahābhārata.” *Indologica. T. Ya. Elizarenkova Memorial
>>>> Volume Book 2*. Ed. L. Kulikov & M. Rusanov. Moscow: Russian State
>>>> University for the Humanities. 2012. (Orientalia et Classica, 40.) Pp.
>>>> 135-156. (available on Academia and ResearchGate)
>>>>
>>>>  Johannes Bronkhorst
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 26 Jan 2020, at 03:57, Hartmut Buescher via INDOLOGY <
>>>> indology at list.indology.info> wrote:
>>>> Dear followers of this thread,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> although there may have been several Aśvaghoṣas (as in the cases of
>>>> Nāgārjuna,
>>>> Āryadeva, Vasubandhu, etc.), including a Tantric *siddhācārya*, the
>>>> one previously
>>>> referred to as our point of departure in this context, is of course
>>>> the one dated to
>>>> the 1st–2nd century CE, who “is widely acknowledged as one of the
>>>> earliest and
>>>> greatest representatives of Indian *kāvya* literature” (Eltschinger,
>>>> JIP 41 [2013]: 167),
>>>> and who lived around the same time that has been estimated by Olivelle
>>>> (“probably
>>>> in the middle of the second century CE”, in *Hindu **Law*, 2018: 24)
>>>> to be likewise that
>>>> of the composition of the *Mānavadharmaśāstra*.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> For various reasons, I stumbled over *Vajrasūcī*, verse 12, which in
>>>> the commentary
>>>> (2nd ed. Mukhopadhyaya, 1960: 3) is introduced as having actually been
>>>> uttered
>>>> (*uktaṃ hi mānave dharme*) in this *Mānavadharmaśāstra* (MDh):
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>           *ākāśagāmino viprāḥ patanti māṃsabhakṣaṇāt |*
>>>> *          viprāṇāṃ patanaṃ dṛṣṭvā tato māṃsāni varjayet ||12||*
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>           Due to consuming meat, the space-walking seers do fall.
>>>>           Hence, observing the seers’ fall one should abandon meats.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Although not being a direct quotation, the reference to MDh 5.48
>>>> is clear enough, especially in consideration of VS 12d and MDh 5.48d
>>>> (quoting Olivelle’s ed & tr in the following):
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>           *nākṛtvā prāṇināṃ hiṃsāṃ māṃsam utpadyate kvacit |*
>>>> *          na ca prāṇivadhaḥ svargyas tasmān māṃsaṃ vivarjayet || 48 ||*
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>           One can never obtain meat without causing injury to living
>>>> beings,
>>>>           and killing living beings is an impediment to heaven; he
>>>> should,
>>>>           therefore, abstain from meat.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> While this reference may be considered as providing sufficient
>>>> philological
>>>> evidence for historically assuming VS to be later than MDh, the fact
>>>> that the
>>>> notion of an *ākāśagāmin* corresponds to that of a *khecara* would at
>>>> least not
>>>> contradict the assumption that the author of the *Vajrasūcī* may in
>>>> fact have
>>>> been associated with the social sphere of the *siddhācārya*s, being
>>>> also the
>>>> sphere of Vajrayāna.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Another twist of the story is provided by the respective arguments for
>>>> abstaining from consuming pieces of flesh from the corpses of brutally
>>>> slaughtered animals, given particularly in Mahāyāna, prior to the
>>>> antinomian
>>>> Vajrayāna practice of ritually consuming flesh, the main Buddhist
>>>> reason
>>>> for not harming any living beings has been compassion (cf., e.g., the
>>>> concise
>>>> outline in Schmithausen’s “The Case of Vegetarianism – A Buddhist
>>>> Perspective” [https://tinyurl.com/qqxhvrf]). – Comparing the two
>>>> verses quoted
>>>> above, it is in MDh 5.48, where compassion is appealed to. The
>>>> *Vajrasūcī*,
>>>> contrary to what we might expect, is not doing so. How to historically
>>>> account
>>>> for this evidence? Could it be that, while likewise casting a
>>>> side-glance at his
>>>> space-walking colleagues, *siddhācārya *Aśvaghoṣa’s intention has been
>>>> to also
>>>> include them in his critique of animal corpse consumers?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Best wishes,
>>>> Hartmut Buescher
>>>> .
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, Jan 26, 2020 at 4:52 AM Hartmut Buescher <
>>>> buescherhartmut at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Dear followers of this thread,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> although there may have been several Aśvaghoṣas (as in the cases of
>>>> Nāgārjuna,
>>>> Āryadeva, Vasubandhu, etc.), including a Tantric *siddhācārya*, the
>>>> one previously
>>>> referred to as our point of departure in this context, is of course
>>>> the one dated to
>>>> the 1st–2nd century CE, who “is widely acknowledged as one of the
>>>> earliest and
>>>> greatest representatives of Indian *kāvya* literature” (Eltschinger,
>>>> JIP 41 [2013]: 167),
>>>> and who lived around the same time as that which has been estimated by
>>>> Olivelle
>>>> (“probably in the middle of the second century CE”, in *Hindu **Law*,
>>>> 2018: 24) to be
>>>> likewise that of the composition of the *Mānavadharmaśāstra*.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> For various reasons, I stumbled over *Vajrasūcī*, verse 12, which in
>>>> the commentary
>>>> (2nd ed. Mukhopadhyaya, 1960: 3) is introduced as having actually been
>>>> uttered
>>>> (*uktaṃ hi mānave dharme*) in this *Mānavadharmaśāstra* (MDh):
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>           *ākāśagāmino viprāḥ patanti māṃsabhakṣaṇāt |*
>>>> *          viprāṇāṃ patanaṃ dṛṣṭvā tato māṃsāni varjayet ||12||*
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>           Due to consuming meat, the space-walking seers do fall.
>>>>           Hence, observing the seers’ fall one should abandon meats.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Although not being a direct quotation, the reference to MDh 5.48
>>>> is clear enough, especially in consideration of VS 12d and MDh 5.48d
>>>> (quoting Olivelle’s ed & tr in the following):
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>           *nākṛtvā prāṇināṃ hiṃsāṃ māṃsam utpadyate kvacit |*
>>>> *          na ca prāṇivadhaḥ svargyas tasmān māṃsaṃ vivarjayet || 48 ||*
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>           One can never obtain meat without causing injury to living
>>>> beings,
>>>>           and killing living beings is an impediment to heaven; he
>>>> should,
>>>>           therefore, abstain from meat.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> While this reference may be considered as providing sufficient
>>>> philological
>>>> evidence for historically assuming VS to be later than MDh, the fact
>>>> that the
>>>> notion of an *ākāśagāmin* corresponds to that of a *khecara* would at
>>>> least not
>>>> contradict the assumption that the author of the *Vajrasūcī* may in
>>>> fact have
>>>> been associated with the social sphere of the *siddhācārya*s, being
>>>> also the
>>>> sphere of Vajrayāna.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Another twist of the story is provided by the respective arguments for
>>>> abstaining from consuming pieces of flesh from the corpses of brutally
>>>> slaughtered animals, given particularly in Mahāyāna, prior to the
>>>> antinomian
>>>> Vajrayāna practice of ritually consuming flesh, the main Buddhist
>>>> reason
>>>> for not harming any living beings has been compassion (cf., e.g., the
>>>> concise
>>>> outline in Schmithausen’s “The Case of Vegetarianism – A Buddhist
>>>> Perspective” [https://tinyurl.com/qqxhvrf]). – Comparing the two
>>>> verses quoted
>>>> above, it is in MDh 5.48, where compassion is appealed to. The
>>>> *Vajrasūcī*,
>>>> contrary to what we might expect, is not doing so. How to historically
>>>> account
>>>> for this evidence? Could it be that, while likewise casting a
>>>> side-glance at his
>>>> space-walking colleagues, *siddhācārya *Aśvaghoṣa’s intention has been
>>>> to also
>>>> include them in his critique of animal corpse consumers?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Best wishes,
>>>> Hartmut Buescher
>>>> .
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, Jan 26, 2020 at 3:41 AM Dan Lusthaus via INDOLOGY <
>>>> indology at list.indology.info> wrote:
>>>> Dear Vincent,
>>>>
>>>> Thank you for your further comments.
>>>>
>>>> I didn’t mean to suggest that the yukta pramāṇa described in the Caraka
>>>> Saṃhitā was the same as the dharmārthayuktaṃ vacanaṃ pramāṇam of the
>>>> Vajrasūcī. Only that a pramāṇa explicitly based on yukta (however one
>>>> parses that phrase) is something seen early on, and then it disappears. The
>>>> yukta-pramāṇa of the Caraka is a fascinating thing whose loss probably was
>>>> a loss for the entire Indian philosophical enterprise. Farmers and doctors
>>>> shared a common concern, which is that to get from initial cause to actual
>>>> fruition involves a process in time of multiple causes, with multiple
>>>> stages, any of which can effect or nullify the outcome: planting a crop and
>>>> being able to harvest; pregnancy making it to term; etc. Taking all
>>>> relevant factors into account and calculating the probabilities of a
>>>> successful final outcome was what yukta pramāṇa was designed to accomplish.
>>>> In some ways, that is closer to the probabalistic reasoning that has
>>>> displaced causal thinking in western philosophy (and some sciences) since
>>>> the early 20th c than the more mechanistic cause and invariant effect
>>>> reasoning more prevalent in Indian thought. Obviously, the Caraka’s yukta
>>>> pramāṇa is not the same thing as drawing knowledge through discourse
>>>> employing reasoning based on dharma and artha (or the meaning/purpose of
>>>> dharma).
>>>>
>>>> The idea of prototypical ideas that emerge later under the rubric of
>>>> Mīmāṃsā is intriguing. The Yogācārabhūmi is an often ignored treasure trove
>>>> of ideas circulating in India earlier than is often recognized (as is the
>>>> Tattvasiddhi, though not adequately captured in Sastri’s translations, in
>>>> which many of the stock arguments repeated in pramāṇavāda texts are already
>>>> found). Squeamishness about sacrifices is quite early — Jains and even
>>>> Sāṃkhyans express those ideas, and one can see some reaction against that
>>>> even in the Bhagavad Gītā (whether one dates that to 200 BCE or 200 CE).
>>>> Dignāga does deal with Mīmāṃsā in PS, for which there is no
>>>> (available) Chinese translation. (There is a hint that a one fascicle
>>>> translation was made, but no evidence of it aside from a mention of its
>>>> title in a catalogue of translations).
>>>>
>>>> The Chinese sources frequently cite a school by its founder’s name
>>>> instead of the name of the school. Typically:
>>>> Kapila 迦毘羅, the founder of Sāṃkhya 數論; Ulūka 優樓佉 (a.k.a. Kaṇâda 食米齋),
>>>> the founder of Vaiśeṣika 勝論宗, and Ṛṣabha 勒沙婆, the founder of the
>>>> Nirgranthas.
>>>>
>>>> As far as I can find, there is no Chinese version of Jaimini’s name.
>>>> Again, I would be happy to learn otherwise.
>>>>
>>>> Dan
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Jan 25, 2020, at 8:11 PM, Eltschinger, Vincent <
>>>> Vincent.Eltschinger at oeaw.ac.at> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Dear Dan,
>>>> My impression is that the Buddhists became aware of Mīmāṃsā as a
>>>> distinct religio-philosophical school (and not just as a purely
>>>> intra-Brahmanical type of “theological/exegetical” inquiry) some time
>>>> during the fourth century CE (or perhaps in the early fifth), even though
>>>> the term may not occur, at least not regularly, before Dignāga (480-540).
>>>> It is also around the fourth century CE that certain Buddhists started
>>>> arguing against ideas that are close to those known to us from later
>>>> Mīmāṃsaka sources (e.g., on sacrificial violence, the caste-classes, etc.),
>>>> even though several among these ideas find interesting prototypes in the
>>>>  *Mānavadharmaśāstra*. This is especially the case in the so-called
>>>> *paravāda* section of the *Yogācārabhūmi*. Hundreds of pages could be
>>>> written on these topics.
>>>> The stanza you quote is arguably the most important in the *Vajrasūcī*,
>>>> for it spells out the philosophical-polemical program of the entire work. A
>>>> rough translation might be: “The Vedas are authoritative (*pramāṇa*);
>>>> the Smṛtis are authoritative; [any] speech/discourse endowed/connected (
>>>> *yukta*) with *dharma *and *artha *is authoritative. A [person] for
>>>> whom a [previously acknowledged] *pramāṇa* would cease (*na bhavet*)
>>>> to be a *pramāṇa *[because it contradicts his/her position on the
>>>> issue of the caste-classes], who [on earth] would take his/her
>>>> speech/discourse to be a *pramāṇa*/authoritative?” One can certainly
>>>> discuss the exact structure and meaning of the compound
>>>> *dharmārthayukta*, but seriously doubt that *yukta* here has anything
>>>> to do with the *pramāṇa* the medical tradition refers to as *yukti *(see
>>>> articles by Filliozat, Steinkellner, and others). Or did I miss the point?
>>>> I entirely agree with you as regards Sāṃkhya and Vaiśeṣika: from the 1
>>>> st-2nd to the 5th century, these traditions/schools are the most
>>>> frequent targets of the Buddhist controversialists. The Nyāya (works by
>>>> [the pseudo?]Nāgārjuna) and the Mīmāṃsā play a comparatively minor role, as
>>>> do the Jains (targeted as early as Āryadeva’s *Catuḥśataka*, and more
>>>> frequently from the *Yogācārabhūmi *onwards).
>>>> Very best,
>>>> Vincent
>>>>
>>>> Vincent Eltschinger, korrespondierendes Mitglied der OeAW
>>>> Directeur d'études
>>>> École Pratique des Hautes Études, Section des sciences religieuses
>>>> Patios Saint-Jacques, 4-14 rue Ferrus - 75014 Paris
>>>> vincent.eltschinger at ephe.sorbonne.fr
>>>> 0033 1 56 61 17 34 / 0033 7 85 86 84 05
>>>> ------------------------------
>>>> *Von:* Dan Lusthaus <yogacara at gmail.com>
>>>> *Gesendet:* Samstag, 25. Januar 2020 23:52:30
>>>> *An:* Eltschinger, Vincent
>>>> *Cc:* Matthew Kapstein; Olivelle, J P; indology at list.indology.info
>>>> *Betreff:* Re: [INDOLOGY] Vajrasūcī
>>>>
>>>> Dear all,
>>>>
>>>> Just to comment quickly, though I haven’t studied the Vajrasūcī in any
>>>> depth, the same passage that Vincent highlighted, naming the Vedas,
>>>> Grammarians, et al. is also the one that caught my attention, especially
>>>> the mention of Mīmāṃsikas. As far as I can tell, while the others do get
>>>> mentioned in Chinese translations of Buddhist texts, the only text
>>>> preserved in Chinese that mentions Mīmāṃsikas is Xuanzang’s translation of
>>>> Bhāviveka’s Prajñāpradīpa, which mentions them twice in close proximity:
>>>>
>>>> 《般若燈論釋》卷13〈22 觀如來品〉:「復有彌息伽外道言。佛家所說十二部經[1]者。非一切智人所說。有作者故。譬如鞞世師等論。」(CBETA,
>>>> T30, no. 1566, p. 119, b15-17)
>>>> [1]者=有【宮】。
>>>> [1]者=有【宮】。
>>>> “Again there are the non-Buddhist (tīrthika) Mīmāmsikas who say: ‘What
>>>> is said by Buddhists In the twelve divisions of the their sūtras (canon),
>>>> is that no person is omniscient, because they are conditioned (saṃskṭra),
>>>> just as is stated in treatises by the Vaiśeṣikas, and so on.”
>>>>
>>>> 《般若燈論釋》卷13〈22 觀如來品〉:「如彌息伽外道所計韋陀聲是常者」(CBETA, T30, no. 1566, p. 119,
>>>> c5-6)
>>>> “This like the non-Buddhist Mīmāmsikas who imagine that the Word of
>>>> the Vedas is eternal.”
>>>>
>>>> I have found no other mention of Mīmāṃsā in any other Chinese sources
>>>> (if anyone has information on discussions I might have missed, please let
>>>> me know). Bhāviveka, of course, devoted an entire chapter in his
>>>> Madhyamakahṛdaya to Mīmāṃsā, but his description of their doctrines
>>>> suggests they differed in several ways from the versions we are more
>>>> familiar with post Prābhākara and Kumārila. It is the latter’s
>>>> *Ślokavarttika*, of course, that made Mīmāṃsā hard to ignore for
>>>> subsequent Buddhists.
>>>>
>>>> Harivarman’s *Tattvasiddhi* (translated by Kumārajīva at the beginning
>>>> of the 5th c) identifies (among others) Vaiśeṣika, Sāṃkhya, Nyāya, and
>>>> Jains as pūrvapakṣins. More generally in Buddhist literature preserved in
>>>> Chinese prior to the middle of the seventh century, the most commonly cited
>>>> opponents are Vaiśeṣika and Sāṃkhya. Nyāya is mentioned infrequently, as
>>>> are Jains.
>>>>
>>>> As for the pramāṇa issue mentioned by Matthew, the Vajrasūrī verse
>>>> identifies what serve as authorities for non-Buddhists (the following verse
>>>> turns to lineage):
>>>>
>>>> vedāḥ pramāṇaṃ smṛtayaḥ pramāṇaṃ dharmārthayuktaṃ vacanaṃ pramāṇam |
>>>> yasya pramāṇaṃ na bhavetpramāṇaṃ kastasya kuryādvacanaṃ pramāṇam || 2
>>>> ||
>>>>
>>>> Which are more or less equivalent to śruti, smṛti, and āpti-pramāṇa,
>>>> and analogous to “scripture and reason” (āgama, yukti) that was the
>>>> established criteria for validity for Buddhists, even into the pramāṇavāda
>>>> era. And, as I wrote elsewhere:
>>>>
>>>> *"Pramāṇa*-theory rst appears in the eleventh chapter of the first
>>>> part (*Sūtra-sthāna*) of the *CS *[Caraka-saṃhitā]. Here the *CS *intriguingly
>>>> proposes, along with the three *pramāṇas *one would expect
>>>> (perception, inference, and authori- tative testimony), a fourth not found
>>>> anywhere else: synthetic inductive reasoning (*yukta-pramāṇa*).
>>>> Discussion of *pramāṇa *occurs in two other parts of the *CS*: part
>>>> 3, *Vimāna-sthāna*, chap. 4 and chap. 8, but the unique
>>>> *yukta-pramāṇa *is absent from those discussions, a sign of the
>>>> strati ed nature of the text.”
>>>> So a yukta pramāṇa suggest to me a possibly early date for that
>>>> category.
>>>>
>>>> Has anyone considered whether it is possible that the verses may have
>>>> been written by Aśvaghoṣa or someone relatively early while the prose
>>>> exposition may have been added by a later hand?
>>>>
>>>> Dan
>>>>
>>>> On Jan 25, 2020, at 4:35 PM, Eltschinger, Vincent via INDOLOGY <
>>>> indology at list.indology.info> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Dear Matthew,
>>>> I was referring to *most *of the elements of the list I quoted, of
>>>> course, not to the entire *Vajrasūcī*. But you are right, Matthew: the
>>>> *Mahābhārata *plays an important role in the *Vajrasūcī*, as does… Manu
>>>> – which may be the reason for Patrick’s query. It is well known that the
>>>>  *Vajrasūcī *attributes several verses to Manu that cannot be traced
>>>> in the extant *Mānavadharmaśāstra *(if I remember well, this is the
>>>> reason why some scholars tentatively attributed them to a lost Mānava
>>>> *Dharmasūtra*). Whatever the case may be, we might perhaps agree that
>>>> the *Vajrasūcī* is unlikely to have been composed before the 3rd-4th
>>>> century CE. I am inclined to believe that it is even younger.
>>>> Very best,
>>>> Vincent
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Vincent Eltschinger, korrespondierendes Mitglied der OeAW
>>>> Directeur d'études
>>>> École Pratique des Hautes Études, Section des sciences religieuses
>>>> Patios Saint-Jacques, 4-14 rue Ferrus - 75014 Paris
>>>> vincent.eltschinger at ephe.sorbonne.fr
>>>> 0033 1 56 61 17 34 / 0033 7 85 86 84 05
>>>> ------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> *Von:* Matthew Kapstein <mkapstei at uchicago.edu>
>>>> *Gesendet:* Samstag, 25. Januar 2020 22:13:42
>>>> *An:* Eltschinger, Vincent; Olivelle, J P; indology at list.indology.info
>>>> *Betreff:* Re: Vajrasūcī
>>>>
>>>> Not wishing to differ with my learned colleague Vincent Eltschinger's
>>>> remarks (which are surely based on a deeper engagement with this corpus
>>>> than my own), I tend nevertheless to think it not quite plausible that "most
>>>> of its individual elements could have been known around 100 CE."
>>>> My sense is that the several epic and puranic parallels point to a
>>>> somewhat later period.
>>>>
>>>> Matthew
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Matthew Kapstein
>>>> Directeur d'études,
>>>> Ecole Pratique des Hautes Etudes
>>>>
>>>> Numata Visiting Professor of Buddhist Studies,
>>>> The University of Chicago
>>>> ------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> *From:* Eltschinger, Vincent <Vincent.Eltschinger at oeaw.ac.at>
>>>> *Sent:* Saturday, January 25, 2020 10:00 AM
>>>> *To:* Olivelle, J P <jpo at austin.utexas.edu>; Matthew Kapstein <
>>>> mkapstei at uchicago.edu>; indology at list.indology.info <
>>>> indology at list.indology.info>
>>>> *Subject:* AW: Vajrasūcī
>>>>
>>>> Dear Patrick,
>>>> As you know, Aśvaghoṣa directed some arguments against the Brahmanical
>>>> understanding of the caste-classes in one of his dramas, the
>>>> *Śāriputraprakaraṇa*/*Śaradvatīputraprakaraṇa*, several fragments of
>>>> which have been preserved in Central Asian manuscripts and edited by
>>>> Heinrich Lüders around 1910. It is thus plausible that Aśvaghoṣa
>>>> dedicated an individual treatise to this topic. The style, the method and
>>>> the philosophical ressources of the *Vajrasūcī*, however, are very
>>>> different from the ones we know from Aśvaghoṣa’s genuine works, and may
>>>> presuppose Buddhist works such as the *Śārdūlakarṇāvadāna *if not
>>>> Kumāralāta’s *Kalpanāmaṇḍitikā Dṛṣṭāntapaṅktiḥ*. Even if I am not
>>>> aware of any convincing argument against the attribution of the
>>>> *Vajrasūcī* to Aśvaghoṣa, I have always regarded the following
>>>> statement as anachronistic: *dṛśyante ca kvacic chūdrā api
>>>> vedavyākaraṇamīmāṃsāsāṃkhyavaiśeṣikanagnā*jīvikādisarvaśāstrārthavidaḥ */.
>>>> “And one observes in some cases that even *śūdra*s know the meaning of
>>>> all *śāstra*s such as the Veda, Grammar, Mīmāṃsā, Sāṃkhya, Vaiśeṣika
>>>> as well as [those of] the Jainas and the Ājīvikas.” (*-*nagnā- *em. :
>>>> *lagnā- *Ed.) Although such a list is not *per se* impossible in
>>>> Aśvaghoṣa’s time, i.e., although most of its individual elements could have
>>>> been known around 100 CE, I do not believe that such an enumeration would
>>>> have been possible, *as a doxographic statement*, at that time, and
>>>> even less so under Aśvaghoṣa's "pen." (The absence of the Nyāya from
>>>> the list is intriguing.)
>>>> Another element possibly deserving some consideration is the Sanskrit
>>>> colophon in which Aśvaghoṣa is characterized as *siddhācārya *(*kṛtir
>>>> iyaṃ siddhācāryāśvaghoṣapādānām iti*), an expression the exact meaning
>>>> of which remains somewhat unclear to me.
>>>> I am looking forward to reading other opinions on this interesting
>>>> topic.
>>>> Very best,
>>>> Vincent
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Vincent Eltschinger, korrespondierendes Mitglied der OeAW
>>>> Directeur d'études
>>>> École Pratique des Hautes Études, Section des sciences religieuses
>>>> Patios Saint-Jacques, 4-14 rue Ferrus - 75014 Paris
>>>> vincent.eltschinger at ephe.sorbonne.fr
>>>> 0033 1 56 61 17 34 / 0033 7 85 86 84 05
>>>> ------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> *Von:* INDOLOGY <indology-bounces at list.indology.info> im Auftrag von
>>>> Matthew Kapstein via INDOLOGY <indology at list.indology.info>
>>>> *Gesendet:* Samstag, 25. Januar 2020 15:09:59
>>>> *An:* Indology List; Olivelle, J P
>>>> *Betreff:* Re: [INDOLOGY] Vajrasūcī
>>>>
>>>> Dear Patrick,
>>>>
>>>> You'll find some discussion of it, inter alia, in Vincent Eltschinger, *"Caste"
>>>> et Philosophie Bouddhique *WSTB 47 (2000). As you no doubt know, the
>>>> Chinese translation is late - 10th c. if I recall correctly - and is
>>>> attributed to DharmakIrti. I rather doubt that the true authorship can be
>>>> established, given the available evidence. The emphasis on pramANa seems to
>>>> suggest that it was written during the second half of the first millennium,
>>>> not much before. But the way in which pramANa is used there does not
>>>> resonate closely with the Buddhist pramANa school. The precise milieu in
>>>> which it was composed remains a puzzle (at least to me!).
>>>>
>>>> all best,
>>>> Matthew
>>>>
>>>> Matthew Kapstein
>>>> Directeur d'études,
>>>> Ecole Pratique des Hautes Etudes
>>>>
>>>> Numata Visiting Professor of Buddhist Studies,
>>>> The University of Chicago
>>>> ------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> *From:* INDOLOGY <indology-bounces at list.indology.info> on behalf of
>>>> Olivelle, J P via INDOLOGY <indology at list.indology.info>
>>>> *Sent:* Saturday, January 25, 2020 6:59 AM
>>>> *To:* Indology List <indology at list.indology.info>
>>>> *Subject:* [INDOLOGY] Vajrasūcī
>>>>
>>>> Does anyone know of newer work on the identity and date of the author
>>>> of Vajrasūcī, often ascribed to Aśvaghoṣa? Any new ideas on its possible
>>>> date? With thanks and best wishes,
>>>>
>>>> Patrick Olivelle
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>> INDOLOGY mailing list
>> INDOLOGY at list.indology.info
>> indology-owner at list.indology.info (messages to the list's managing
>> committee)
>> http://listinfo.indology.info (where you can change your list options or
>> unsubscribe)
>>
>
>
> --
>
> *Jan E.M. Houben*
>
> Directeur d'Études, Professor of South Asian History and Philology
>
> *Sources et histoire de la tradition sanskrite*
>
> École Pratique des Hautes Études (EPHE, Paris Sciences et Lettres)
>
> *Sciences historiques et philologiques *
>
> *johannes.houben [at] ephe.psl.eu <johannes.houben at ephe.psl.eu>*
>
> *https://ephe-sorbonne.academia.edu/JanEMHouben
> <https://ephe-sorbonne.academia.edu/JanEMHouben>*
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://list.indology.info/pipermail/indology_list.indology.info/attachments/20200128/80fc6684/attachment.html>


More information about the INDOLOGY mailing list