[Buddha-l] Pudgalavada

[L.S. Cousins]

Dan,

Various points of interest noted.

>4. I suspect the underlying term for shou in this case is something 
>like upÇdhi, often taken as an equivalent for upÇdÇna (cf., e.g., 
>Sthiramati's Trimsika-bhasya). Lance's nuances (upanidhaa paññatti, 
>upaadaa[ya]) are helpful, but we have no assurance that the 
>pudgalavadins were using such terms in the same way that the Pali 
>tradition did, especially since one of the main contentious issues 
>between them revolved around different understandings of terms such 
>as pudgala and prajnapti. Theravadins may have employed these terms 
>in a deliberately differentiating manner from their Pudgalavadin 
>usage.

But this argument cuts both ways. What assurance do we have that the 
Pudgalavaadins were using these terms in the ways that we find in the 
predominantly northern and north-western literature that survives in 
Sanskrit and in Chinese or Tibetan translation ?

The comparison that I am thinking of here is with upaadaayaruupa 
(Pali upaadaaruupa). Here the various kinds of materiality (eye, 
visible object, etc.) are secondary to or dependent on the four 
primary elements. I don't think there is any question of 
appropriation here.

Obviously, the issue partly depends on whether I am right to think 
that what we have are examples of these three kinds of prajñapti in 
association with ignorance. They could also apply in other cases 
without ignorance. Or, is there something in the Chinese text which 
rules this out ?

Lance Cousins
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/private/buddha-l/attachments/20061204/289a17f0/attachment.html