[Y-Indology] samkara tradition and temple worship

[Guest guest]

If I'm not mistaken both the Sammittiyaas and the Vaastiputriyaas

d to the views of the Satyasiddhi school of Harivarman which

is unique in Buddhist philosophy for asserting the existence of a

semi-permanent self - ie they believed that in an individual apart

from the skandhas there was a self (pudgala) which existed for the

duration of one's life.

 

Vaasubandu devotes an entire chapter in his Abhidharmakosham to

dispute this particular view as heretic.

 

So it might be that these Buddhists who followed their own unique

views were shunned by the majority Buddhists who followed nairaatmaya.

 

INDOLOGY, Joseph Walser <joseph.walser@t...>

wrote:

> A minor point of correction: There were exclusively pudgalavaadin

monasteries

> in India. For example, there is a second century inscription from

Mathura

> mentioning the Saamitiiyas and another from 4th century Sarnath

mentioning the

> Vaatsiiputras -- both of whom are classed as "pudgalavaadin".

Nevertheless,

> your point is well taken. It might, however, be better illustrated

with

> Mahayana (prior to the fifth century) in place of pudgalavaada.

>

> Cheers

>

> Joseph Walser

> Tufts University

>

> Quoting Phillip Ernest <phillip.ernest@u...>:

>

> >

> > -

> > "subrahmanyas2000" <subrahmanyas@h...>

> > <INDOLOGY>

> > Thursday, March 13, 2003 12:05 AM

> > [Y-Indology] Re: samkara tradition and temple worship

> >

> >

> > >

> > > The question of who originated and who absorbed is

> > > not an appropriate question for the Indic traditions, since

there

> > > are no institutionalized orders. It is the

> > > "christian church" way of thinking to ask such questions

> > > and in many ways irrelevant to the particular guru-shishya

> > > lineage that may be under discussion.

> >

> > I think this is a real overstatement. Just looking at Buddhism,

it is true

> > to say that adherents of different Buddhist schools lived in the

same

> > monasteries, and that exclusively pudgalavaadin monasteries, for

example,

> > were not set up. But Buddhist literature reveals that there was

intense

> > interest in drawing boundaries between schools, deciding what was

whose and

> > what had originated where (many words were expended on trying to

sort out

> > whether the pudgalavaadins were or were not tiirthikas) even if

these

> > doctrinal divisions did not manifest as institutional schisms

_within

> > Buddhism_ in the same way that similar ones did in Christendom.

But who

> > will deny that Brahmanism and Buddhism had by the time of

shankara become

> > separate institutions? And the bitter criticisms that were

brought by

> > vedaantin and Buddhist alike against what even at the time was

seen as his

> > cooptation of madhyamaka ideas arose within and hardened

institutional

> > boundaries.

> >

> > P

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > indology

> >

> >

> >

> > Your use of is subject to

 

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

-

"vpcnk" <vpcnk

<INDOLOGY>

Friday, March 14, 2003 4:43 PM

[Y-Indology] Re: samkara tradition and temple worship

 

 

 

> So it might be that these Buddhists who followed their own unique

> views were shunned by the majority Buddhists who followed nairaatmaya.

 

It seems that one of the things that Buddhists found most troubling about

the pudgalavaadins was that there were really too many of them to shun.

Also, their heresy was weirdly indeterminate (as was their pudgala itself),

and apparently difficult to refute outright, or at least the refutations, if

doctrinally obvious, were sufficiently emotionally unconvincing that the

school grew and flourished for centuries, despite continuous protest. They

even escaped the damning designation of tiirthika, a new term being coined

for them which put them between the two camps (but I have lent out my copy

of Priestley's book, and can't now remember this term).

 

Phillip

[Guest guest]

Dear Professor Walser:

 

Here is the U of T library catalogue's entry for Prof. Priestley's book:

 

Priestley, Leonard C. D. C.; Pudgalav¯ada Buddhism : the reality of the

indeterminate self; Toronto: University of Toronto, Centre for South Asian

Studies, 1999. 255 p. ; 22 cm.

Includes bibliographical references (p. [228]-244) and index.

ISBN 1895214181. BQ 9800 .P33P758 1999

 

I don't know what kind of notice the book has received, or how well

distributed it has been. Thanks for the Thich Thien Chau reference.

 

Phillip

[Guest guest]

-

"vpcnk" <vpcnk

<INDOLOGY>

Friday, March 14, 2003 4:43 PM

[Y-Indology] Re: samkara tradition and temple worship

 

 

> Vaasubandu devotes an entire chapter in his Abhidharmakosham to

> dispute this particular view as heretic.

 

We just happen to have been reading this very chapter with Prof. Priestley.

Perhaps the very form of the chapter may actually reflect the unique

position of the pudgalavaada in the Buddhism of vasubandhu's time? It is, I

think, the only chapter where vasubandhu dispenses with verse and writes

entirely in prose bhaaSya, perhaps because the verse form is meant to

enshrine doctrine that can be reconciled to, or at least understood in terms

of, the sarvaastivaada.

 

P