[Buddha-l] Personalists. Was: Are we sick of dogma yet?

[L.S. Cousins]

Dan,

responding to the middle part of your message:

>Xuanzang seems to have
>been somewhat dismayed at the virtual absence of Mahayana throughout Central
>Asia, not encountering any Mahayanist monasteries until within the Indian
>orbit.

This was because he went by the northern route. He met Mahaayaanists 
in Centreal Asia on his return journey.

>  If there was any exaggeration in his demographic figures, it would
>have been an inflation of Mahayana prominence, and I suspect some of that
>may very well have been the case.

That is possible.

>Hence attempting to counteract the
>Sammitiya figures by adding Mahayana to the mix is problematic.

Hardly. You have to take the actual figures given as your starting 
point. It is only Lamotte who separates them out.

>Again,
>Xuanzang would have had absolutely no reason to inflate figures for
>Sammitiyas. If anything, he would have had an inclination to under-report
>their presence. That adds strong credence and significance to his
>demographics in this regard.

I don't agree. Hars.a was his patron and he presented him as the 
Indian equivalent to the Chinese Emperor. So he may have had some 
motivation to over-state his support for Buddhism. Most Indologists 
believe he did.

>We know that subsequent to Xuanzang's visit, Yijing (= I-tsing) not only
>reported them as understood by the Indians to be one of the four main
>branches of Buddhism, but, as was mentioned already, to have a presence
>outside of India.

Their main presence was in Champaa in modern Vietnam.

>  Valabhi, which had been a Yogacara and
>Abhidharma stronghold during the time of Gunamati and Sthiramati (6th c),
>subsequently became a Sammitiya stronghold (until decimated by the Muslims,
>as per previous messages).

I think Valabhii (like Naalandaa) was always a centre for all the '18 
schools' as indicated by an inscription found there. I don't doubt 
that the Saamitiiyas predominated in numbers throughout, if not 
always in scholarship.

>My impression (if yours differs, please explain) is that the Sarvastivadins,
>who were virtually hegemonic throughout Central Asia for many centuries,
>were forced fairly early on (2nd-4th centuries) to retreat to the Northwest,
>drew a line in the sand in Kashmir, and prevented any major Sammitiya
>incursions there.

We have more inscriptions referring to the Sarvaastivaadins than any 
other school. That includes a number from Mathuraa and one from 
Sarnath. I suspect this simply means that inscriptions were more in 
vogue in the Kus.aan.a empire. So I do not think that they were 
'forced to retreat' to the NW. That's where they came from i.e. 
Northern Pakistan, Kashmir and the Punjab. From there they spread 
across Central Asia and also along the Himalayas. And, like the 
other major schools, back into Magadha.

>In short, conceding that Sammitiyas were only a major force during Harsha's
>reign doesn't do justice to the extant evidence.

At no point have I suggested that they were 'only a major force' at 
this time. I merely pointed out that this is likely to have been a 
point of special numbers and influence.

>Gregory Schopen happened to have been in town this week, so I took the
>opportunity to discuss some of this with him. When I asked him about
>epigraphic evidence of Sammitiyas, he immediately referred me to an article
>by someone named Lance Cousins! ;-)

Well, that's kind of him. For the record and in case you have access 
to a wealthy library, it's been reprinted in one of the eight 
volumes of:
Williams, Paul, _Buddhism: critical concepts in religious studies_, 
Routledge, London, 2005.

>However, when I mentioned your Harsha theory, his response, without any
>prompting from me, was, "that seems unlikely, doesn't it?" Without my
>mentioning anything about geographical distribution, he volunteered, "they
>were all over -- north, south, east and west."

Yes, I have seen this statement. But after looking hard for twenty 
years, I can't find any evidence of their presence in South India. I 
think this is simply wrong.

>Takakusu, p. xxiv, summarizes what Yijing reports as follows:
>
>"Arya-sammitiiya-nikaaya.
>1. Four subdivisions [=sects].
>2. Tripitaka in 200,000 slokas; the Vinaya alone is 30,000 slokas.
>3. Most flourishing in Laa.ta and Sindhu (W. India). It is in practice in
>Magadha. A few in S. India. Side by side with the other in E. India. (Not in
>N. India.) (Not in Ceylon.) A few in the islands of the Southern Sea. Mostly
>followed in Champa (Cochin-China). (Not in China proper.)"
>
>So Takakusu understands Yijing to be saying that the Sammitiyas are dominant
>in the west, more than holding their own in the East, present in the South,
>and excluded from the North and Sri Lanka.

This is just careless summarizing by Takakusu. The most you could 
possibly say is that when I-tsing says: "Towards the South (S. 
India), all follow the Sthaviranikaaya, though there exist a few 
adherents of the other Nikaayas" he might have intended to include a 
few Saamitiiyas. But since we know for a fact that Mahaasam.ghikas 
were present and Sarvaastivaada clearly spread into the Deccan in 
later times, it is unclear whether there is any reference to 
Saamitiiyas at all. Does the Chinese say: 'of the other Nikaayas' or 
does it say 'of other Nikaayas' ? In the latter case, or if it is 
ambiguous, there is no clear evidence  of Saamitiiya presence at all.

>Yijing does not give us anything like the demographic breakdown found in
>Xuanzang,

But much of what he says has been confirmed by more recent epigraphic 
and archaeological research e.g. for "Sriiks.etra and Dvaaravatii.

>  and, unlike Xuanzang, the accuracy of many of the details he
>provides on other matters (from his description of Indian medicine, to the
>curriculum at Nalanda) is in doubt.

On medicine in general he is clearly eclectic, but some of what he 
says about Indian medicine is clearly correct. What is wrong with his 
description of the curriculum at Naalandaa ?

>Takakusu's translation of this part is fine in general, but he misses some
>nuances. For instance, Li translates the Magadha information as:
>
>"In Magadha all four Nikayas are in practice, but the Sarvastivada-nikaya is
>the one most flourishing." (p. 11)
>
>This is only slightly different, but perhaps more clearly reflects that this
>is more a question of proportion than of major dominance.

It seems exactly the same to me !

Lance Cousins