[Buddha-l] Saantideva (Re: Pudgalavada)

[Joy Vriens]

Richard wrote: 

>I'm currently trying to write an article on "Saantideva from the perspective   
>of virtue ethics. I find Williams's observations in the above-mentioned book   
>interesting, and I also find Siderits's analysis of some of Williams's ideas   
>interesting. My impression from Personal Identity is that he tends to agree   
>with Williams that "Saantideva's version of reductionism of the person could   
>very well undermine the practice of compassion. But by the time it's all   
>over, Siderits seems to defend "Saantideva against Williams, and he clearly   
>regards "Saantideva as a reductionist, not as an advocate pf non-reductionist   
>supervenience theory (the category in which he places the pudgalavaadins). I   
>find the discussion between Siderits and Williams thought-provoking, so I   
>look forward to reading Siderits's review in PEW, which I have not read yet.  

Has this discussion anything to do with the following passage? 

YID NI DBANG RNAMS LA MI GNAS 
GZUGS SOGS LA MIN BAR NA'ANG MIN 
“NANG YANG SEMS MIN PHYI MIN ZHING 
GZHANDU YANG NI RNYED MA YIN 

GANG ZHIG LUS MIN GZHAN DU MIN 
'DRES MIN LOGS SU'ANG 'GAR MED PA 
DE NI CUNG ZAD MIN DE'I PHYIR 
SEMS CAN RANG BZHIN MYA NGAN 'DAS” 

102. The mind is not located in the sense facilities, or in form and other sense-objects, or in between them. The mind is also not found inside, or outside, or anywhere else.  
103. That which is not in the body nor anywhere else, neither intermingled nor somewhere separate, is nothing. Therefore, sentient beings are by nature liberated.  
http://www.shantideva.net 

Mind is neither within nor without 
Nor is it found anywhere else 
It is neither mixed with other things, nor apart from them.  
Beings are by nature in Nirvana.  
Guenther 

 (I don’t agree with the “that which
 is nothing” in the above translation) 

I am not sure Shantideva is advocating anything at all. I see him trying very hard to describe all sorts of corrective exercices to certain views that may cause unnecessary pain to ourselves and others. From the point of view of a man’s experience, what is the difference between pudgalavada and the “vada” of opposite view? What is exactly negated and what would be the effect of that negation? They both are only “vada”. One can reduce all one wants or inflate all one wants, one’s hardwired basic experience of being there, will remain unchanged. And not only of being there, but even of the basic elements of human condition. These are things that can’t be reduced away through “vada” and a wise person like Shantideva knows that, as would anyone not having a too literal reading of Shantideva’s descriptions. Shantideva also knows when describing the woman’s body as a bag of excrement that he is giving a corrective to (excessive) lust which will help to get a right balance. He is n!
 ot advocating that a woman's body is a bag of excrement.

Joy