Oh, I see it in the graphic now: Encyclopedia of Indian Philosophies vol. 3, but it looks like its also further adapted with someone else’s comments.
2 Likes
That’s just one of the many sources used in it. 
1 Like
Yes, and no one knows for sure if the “charred buds and corrupted seeds” sectarian myth is older than the “samādhi of the arhats” sectarian myth. Two very different sectarianisms, both directly in disagreement with each other.
The burnt seed myth appears in the Aṣṭasāhasrikāprajñāpāramitā, marking it as an anti-śrāvaka pro-bodhisatva polemical text, despite its early age. This is in tension with some trends in thinking that think of early Mahāyāna as non-sectarian and later Mahāyāna as sectarian. Texts like the Lotus Sūtra and the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa claim that the arhats are roused by the Buddhas to continue the cultivation of anuttarā samyaksaṁbodhi, meaning there is no such thing as a teaching of the Buddhas that does not culminate in Buddhahood (including the dispensation to the śrāvakas). Contrast this with interpretations of the Mahāyāna wherein there is no chance for ultimate salvation for the arhat at all.
2 Likes
My understanding is that the earliest witness of this text (it’s a Chinese version) is not sectarian and does not denigrate arhats. I don’t have the source right now for this. There are different manuscripts and versions of this text so which one are you referring to?
4 Likes
The only one I know is the one that Ven Huifeng translated, and that was the one I was thinking about above, and I’m pretty sure it’s the Ven Kumarajīva recension, T227.
AFAIK that’s the only Aṣṭasāhasrikāprajñāpāramitā. I don’t know if we have it in Sanskrit, or what the Tibetan version has in it. There are other early scriptures of fragments of this genre though. I couldn’t be wrong too about there not being multiple Aṣṭasāhasrikās.
You can see him (Ven Huifeng) argue for the theory of the burnt seed of the arhat over the theory of the samādhi of the arhat here, wherein he dismisses the narratives given in “those texts which say otherwise, ie. that arhats can continue on with the Mahayana,” i.e. the Lotus Sūtra, the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa, Bodhicittavivaraṇa, etc., as " teachings which do not express the real truth of the matter, but are expedients requiring further explanation."
2 Likes
There’s an earlier Chinese translation of it, by Lokakṣema circa 179. It’s this text that is less sectarian.
See: “Who Gets to Ride in the Great Vehicle?
Self-image and Identity Among
the Followers of the Early Mahayana”, Paul Harrison
5 Likes
I want to tag @cdpatton here in case I make a fool of myself mistranslating this Chinese.
The recension @Javier talked about spoken of in the Harrison paper is T224. At T224.429a20, do you read this as
以得須陀洹道，不可復得菩薩道。何以故？閉塞生死道故。
Because the path to stream-entry has been completed, there cannot again be the bodhisattva path. Why so? Because they have closed off and blocked saṁsāra’s path already.
?
I ask because, obviously, there is a lot here that is quite tricky (for me). It’s parallel to the passage linked to above where Ven Huifeng discussed the burnt seed, etc., at the start of Ch. 2, “Śakra.”
Here is Conze’s (from the Sanskrit) for further comparison: Chapter II — Sakra (RiBa) - Rangjung Yeshe Wiki - Dharma Dictionary
This is a very interesting passage, because in later Mahāyāna Buddhisms, stream-entry will be understood as the first bhūmi. This older recension advises against stream-entry (maybe?), indicating that this belief wasn’t held in the community that produced this recension.
4 Likes
Looks like you’ve got the gist of it to me.
Doesn’t stream entry mean nirvana is only seven rebirths away at most? So, it precludes the kind of long-term paramita-perfecting practice required to become a buddha following the bodhisattva path as it came to be imagined in jataka and avadana literature. A bodhisattva has to develop superhuman virtues yet remain defiled enough to remain in samsara for the inordinate number of lives required.
AFAIK, the three vehicles theory was formalized in the Abhidharma traditions, and it wasn’t particularly sectarian. The Mahayanists, though, disagreed with the Abhidharma conclusion that the path to Nirvana was the best path to take for most people. Theirs was an ironic take on the traditional thinking: It’s better to be defiled and altruistic than to be saintly and self-liberated. Mahayana texts like the Prajnaparamita always ring a little sarcastic to me, assuming they were a response to Abhidharma thought.
9 Likes
I don’t actually know anything about the technical definition of this rooted in the suttas vis-a-vis this seven lifetime business, which is to say I haven’t read much from the EBTs on stream-entry. I’ve heard the seven lifetime claims etc.
I know IIRC that in Sarvāstivāda Abhidharma, stream-entry is a sequence of 16 dharmas on the path of seeing, and this is how Mahāyāna maps the first bhūmi onto stream-entry, these same dharmas, which euphemistically is referred to as “penetration into emptiness,” and those 16 being the four noble truths in four aspects each, 4x4, unless I’m very mistaken.
Yes, and it seems all of the recensions studied here say more or less the same thing in different ways. After this tiny section, the text goes on to talk about the necessary time to acquire the guṇas of Buddhahood which is missing otherwise.
If the said teaching was an expedient, have you any idea what aim it would have been intended to expedite?
4 Likes
I haven’t the foggiest, to be frank, bhante.
Also, the paper that Javier mentioned is here. It is good reading, if one is interested.
3 Likes
Thanks for quoting!
That was 2 years ago.
I was not familiar with Hinduism by that time.
Just like what you’ve quoted, it is the other way round!
I am currently reading Agamasastra by Gaudapada, who was the teacher of Shankara.
Nargajuna’s work was not from Advaita Vedanta, in the contrary, the Advaita Vedanta was from Nargajuna’s work!
5 Likes
Ssssshhhhhhhh… just don’t tell the Advaitins.
4 Likes
I’m not the bhante in question that this was originally addressed to, but I actually found one in plain sight.
如幻亦如夢 如乾闥婆城
所說生住滅 其相亦如是
Like an illusion or like a dream,
like a city of gandharvas,
that which we speak of, arising, abiding, ceasing,
is characterized also like this.
(T1564.12a15, end of Ch 7)
The “city of gandharvas” is a reference to a Prajñāpāramitā simile:
When the sun rises, we see a city (nagara) of buildings with stories (kūṭāgāra), palaces (rājakula), with people coming in and going out. The higher the sun rises, the more indistinct this city becomes; it is just an optical illusion without any reality. This is what is called a city of the gandharvas. People who have never before seen it and who discover it some morning in the east believe in its reality and hurry towards it; but the closer they come, the more unclear it becomes and when the sun is high, it disappears. Tormented by hunger and thirst (kṣutpipāsā), the people who perceive a haze like a herd of gazelles (ghoṭakamṛga) believe in the presence of water and hasten towards it, but the closer they come, the more the illusion becomes blurred. Exhausted, worn out, they come to a high mountain or a narrow valley; they utter cries and groans and the echo replies to them; they believe in the presence of inhabitants and try to find them, but they tire themselves out in vain and find nothing. Finally, when they have reflected and understood, their illusion disappears. In the same way, the ignorant man thinks he sees an ātman and dharmas in the aggregates (skandha), the elements (dhātu) and the bases of consciousness (āyatana) which are empty (śūnya) of any reality. Prey to desire (rāga), anger (dveśa) and obstinacy (cittābhiniveśa), they wander in the four directions to satisfy their desire. Lost and deceived, they are plunged into poverty and misery. But when they have recognized the non-existence of the ātman and real dharmas by means of wisdom (prajñā), their mistake (viparyāsa) disappears.
Furthermore, the city of the gandharvas is not a city; it is the mind of the person who sees it as such. In the same way, fools (bāla) conceive of that which is not a body as a body (kāya) and as a mind (citta) that which is not a mind.
Question. – A single example would suffice in understanding; why multiply the comparisons (upamāna) in this way?
Answer. – i) We have already answered this question [by saying] that the Mahāyāna is like the waters of the ocean and it contains absolutely all dharmas. Since the Mahāyāna multiplies the arguments (hetupratyaya), the large number of comparisons is not a fault.
ii) Moreover, the bodhisattvas have profound and sharp knowledge (jñāna); it is by means of all kinds of teachings (dharmaparyāya), reasonings (hetuprayāya) and comparisons (upamāna) that they eliminate dharmas. In order that people should understand, it is necessary to multiply the examples.
iii) Finally, in the texts of the śrāvakas, we never find the example of the city of the gandharvas, but there are all kinds of other comparisons to illustrate impermanence (anityatā). [For example, a sūtra says]: “Form (rūpa) is like a ball of foam (phenapiṇḍa); feeling (vedanā) like a water bubble (budbudha); perception (saṃjñā) like a mirage (marīci), volition (saṃskāra) like the trunk of a banana tree (kadalīskandha); consciousness (vijñāna) like a magic show (māyā) and a magic net (māyājāla).” In the sūtras, these are the comparisons used to illustrate emptiness. Since the city of the gandharvas is a different comparison, it is mentioned here.
Question. – In the śrāvaka texts, the body (kāya) is compared to a city; why is the example of the city of the gandharvas given here?
Answer. – In the example of the city used by the śrāvakas, the subject of comparison exists as such (dravyasat), whereas the city has merely nominal existence (prajñaptisat). But in the city of the gandharvas, the subject of comparison itself is non-existent; it is like the burning brand flourished in a circle (alātacakra) that deceives the human eye. In the śrāvaka texts, the example of the city is used only to refute the ātman. Here we use the example of the city of the gandharvas so that the bodhisattvas of keen faculties (tīkṣnendriya) penetrate the emptiness of dharmas deeply, which is why these are compared to a city of the gandharvas.
(Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa)
6 Likes
Ah yes, thanks. That’s a very clear one.
Regarding the stream entry and bodhisattva issue. We must remember that the bodhisattva doctrine went through various stages of development.
It seems like at first, it was a doctrine in which one postponed nirvana itself, so as to help beings along the way, develop the paramis to perfection and eventually become a Buddha. According to Paul Williams’ Mahayana Buddhism, this view can be seen in the Pañcavimsatisahasrika-prajñaparamita-sutra. In this view of the bodhisattva then, if you attain too high of a spiritual level, then you can no longer be a bodhisattva since you’re on the fast track to arhatship.
But then at some point a doctrine developed which said there are two kinds of Nirvana - a lower Nirvana of the arhats, and the apratiṣṭhita nirvana which allows one to remain active in the world. This seems to have developed to maturity among the Yogacara school (and thus is fully presented in Asanga’s Mahāyānasaṃgraha), but perhaps Mahasamghika had something similar since they saw Buddhas as active transcendental beings. When this doctrine became popular, it made no sense to say that one had to postpone nirvana, one just rejected the arhat nirvana. And so things like stream entry and were then re-interpreted from the perspective of the bhumis and so on.
6 Likes
I’ve just found it:
Rig Veda Book 5 Hymn 83
- divo no vṛṣṭim maruto rarīdhvam pra pinvata vṛṣṇo aśvasya dhārāḥ |
arvāṅ etena stanayitnunehy apo niṣiñcann asuraḥ pitā naḥ ||
6 Send down for us the rain of heaven, ye Maruts, and let the Stallion’s flood descend in torrents.
Come hither with this thunder while thou pourest the waters down, our heavenly Lord and Father.
asuraḥ = heavenly
1 Like
As I recall, devas were the “bad guys” of Zoroastrianism, and the asuras were the “good guys,” while in India it was the reverse with Brahmanism. The two traditions both seem to have branched off from the same tradition otherwise, though. Greeks, too. The titans were like the asuras in India (very generally, at least).
5 Likes
Also in Norse and Germanic Paganism. Oh, those Indo-Europeans… or were they Euroindians?
3 Likes
Apparently, the exaltation of asuras contra devas is a trend is Buddhist myth as well.
As David B. Gray says in his The Cakrasamvara Tantra (The Discourse of Sri Heruka): A Study and Annotated Translation:
