[Buddha-l] MPNS & Buddha-nature (Lusthaus)

[Dan Lusthaus]

Dear Stephan,

> No, as far as I know none of these are even partial translations of the
> Mahayana-Mahaparinirvana-sutra -- certainly none have any connection with
> the Faxian / Tibetan portion of the MPNS.  They are possibly affiliated,
in
> various degrees, to the Mahaparinirvana-sutra (T 07) -- which is, as you
> know, a entirely different text.  Shimoda discusses this in his "Nehangyo
no
> Kenkyuu" pp60ff [for those who do not know, Prof Masahiro Shimoda is the
> leading Japanese authority on the MPNS].

So you are going to make me actually pull some books off the shelf (in lieu
of my notes which are not at hand). Nakamura's _Indian Buddhism_ p. 214:

The Tang-lai-pien-ching, the Fa-mieh-chin-ching, the Nandimitraavadaana
Ta-e-lo-han-nan-t'i-mi-lo-so-shuo-fa-chu-chi, translated by Hsuan-tsang are
excerpts from the Mahaaparinirvaa.na-suutra of Mahaayaana.

Nakamura cites Matsumoto Bunzaburou, _Hihyou: Butten Hihyou-ron_ , Kyoto:
Koubundou, 1927, p. 106 as his source for this. I mentioned two of the
three.

> ******
> Ok, if you find Chinese catalogues very reliable

As I said, sometimes not. They are often useful for dating translations and
some contemporary background related to translations and translators. But
not always. As for recycling stories about India, they are useful for
getting some account of what was thought/believed in China, not for
historical accuracy. The internal elements you mention -- references to
actual persons, places, etc., that suggest locality, or, if a Sanskrit text
is available, certain locutions that can be localized, etc. -- would be much
stronger evidence. So, again, we await your book. These sorts of questions
will require all of us to peruse and test the evidence you present.

> Also, if the text
> says it originated in the south, why should one necessarily discount that
?

Not necessarily. But one should not necessarily accept the claim
uncritically either. The colophon of the Dasheng Qixinlun tells us that it
was written by A"svagho.sa and translated by Paramaartha. Neither of those
claims is true.

> One perhaps needs to consider thase claims case by case, but there are
> various other things in the MPNS that suggest that the compilers were
> referring to actual places and events.  Be paitient and wait for my
eventual
> book :)

With bated breath.

> Evidently.  I never disputed this.  However, I think the Dharmaksema
> prototype of Ch1-17 split off from the textual stemma quite early.  The
> reason I suggest this is because there is an obvious lacuna in one passage
[...]

This is interesting, the rewards of close comparative reading. We await more
on this as well.

> there is internal evidence that the core MPNS has some connection
> with the Mahasanghikas.  It is possible that the "spurious" parts of
> Dharmaksema derive from a non-Mahasanghika milieau.

Mahasanghika is almost as vague a catch-all designation as Sarvastivada. So
I remain unclear.


> In the core portion of the MPNS I have worked on, fo-xing only translates
> Buddha-dhaatu.  Sa.mbuddha-gotra does not occur -- in fact, no "gotra"
> terminology or doctrines occur there, which is not too surprising.

Again, Nakamura, op. cit., p. 213 n.22, states (in relation to MPNS): "The
Sanskrit original of 'Buddhahood' is in many cases 'buddha-dhaatu' or
'sa.mbuddha-gotra' " and cites Mizutani, IBK [Indogaku Bukkyogaku Kenkyu],
vol.4, no.2, pp. 550f for this.

> Why should they ?  Just to please sceptics ?   I am agnostic about the
true
> value of the TG theory but am prepared to accept that there may be some
> spiritual truths that cannot be demonstrated logically.  In fact, I wonder
> just how much would be left of any Buddhist doctrines if they all had to
be
> logically proven and defended.

The Buddha of the Pali Nikayas seems agreeable to subjecting his claims to
that criterion (along with personal experience). True, not all Buddhists
practiced pramana-vada, and while the Pali Buddha says that Dhamma is
*difficult* to understand some later Buddhists change that to *impossible*
and start mouthing off about "inconceivables" - which they assure they, of
course, understand and know how to deploy. And "faith" grows proportionally
in importance over knowledge in conjunction with that... Still I prefer my
Buddhism clean of oozing irrationalities. The Pali Tipitaka, Mahaavibhaa.sa,
Nagarjuna, Candrakirti, Dignaga, Asanga, Vasubandhu, Sthiramati, Xuanzang,
Linji, Dogen, and a host of others satisfy this preference. Tut-tut-grubba
doesn't. All the pernicious d.r.s.tis the aforementioned are trying to help
us extirpate return with a vengence, smuggled in with the tut-tuts. Sukha,
aatman, "suddha, nitya -- those are viparyaasas, not foundations of
buddha-hood.

> ******
> While I accept that connotations of the Chinese term fo-xing *may* have
been
> somewhat extended beyond Indian sources, you have not mentioned anything
> that does not have an Indian ancestor or direct parallel.

One problem with much Japanese scholarship is that they view Chinese
Buddhism through Japanese prisms rather than approaching things from the
Indian side. Similarly much contemporary understanding of Indian Buddhism is
flavored with Tibetan spices and overlays. The allowances you are making for
what may have been happening in India seem, at least to me, to be colored by
Tibetan concerns and developments. Part of the problem may lie in what
exactly is being defined as "India" in various periods. Gandhara? Kashmir?
Sogdiana? Bactria? The Hindu Kush? I suspect, e.g., that the Ratnagotra
comes from Central Asia. Some tantras (like MPNS, and parts of the
Lankavatara Sutra, etc.) venerate the great aatman. Because some Buddhists
jumped off the bridge of reason doesn't mean any of us have to follow.

> so I would really expect better from you.

Since it seems Nakamura shares my delusions, I guess we both disappoint you.
All the host of bodhisattvas, mahasattvas, devas, brahmadevas, and scholars
eagerly await your book which shall certainly dispell our delusions and
raise the thought of enlightenment in us.

Dan Lusthaus