[Buddha-l] Pudgalavada - Vasumitra2b

[L.S. Cousins]

Dan/Stephen,

>Looking over the difference between the Skt Diirgha-agama and the
>Digha-nikaya passage re: the pudgalavadins, several thoughts occurred to me.
>
>First, it makes one wish that some of the other Tripitakas of the other
>Buddhist schools had survived. There may have been more interesting
>variations.

Yes, indeed.

>I suspect that the version of this sutra in the Vatsiputriya canon -- and,
>assuming the other pudgalavada schools shared the same canon without any
>significant deviations, the Sammitiyas, etc.as well

Bear in mind that, in one of the two or three extant inscriptions, 
the school in question is referred to as both Sammatiiya and 
Vaatsiiputriiya (with slight spelling variations). I see no reason to 
doubt that all of the Pudgalavaadin schools considered themselves to 
be Vaatsiiputriiyas.

>  -- was closer to what we
>find in the Pali than to this particular Skt recension. The Skt version
>almost seems deliberately modified to neutralize pudgalavada readings and
>appropriations: not only was prajnapti deleted (replaced by vyavahaara),

In fact, vohaara is already there in the Pali. I am not sure what to 
make of the absence of prajñapti.

>  but
>the number of terms used to identify a "self," e.g., puru.sa, etc. are
>increased, putting more stress on the rejection of "self" language, rather
>than setting limits for the proper use of "self" language, as the pali (and
>I assume the Vatsiputriya) version(s) expound.

This Sanskrit version belongs to what used to be called 
Muulasarvaastivaadin and is now perhaps better designated as 
Recension Two. Most scholars (but not Gregory Schopen) think that as 
a whole this very large collection was assembled relatively late.

>Do any of you have a different take on this?
>
>Dan Lusthaus

Not really. I do think it is clear that a collection process has gone 
on in the editing of discourses. Something like: if five things are 
mentioned in one discourse and five things in another with two of 
them different, a new version of both those discourses appears with 
all seven. Sometimes one or both of the earlier versions are even 
retained. So a list of the number of terms for "self" is likely to 
get longer in later collections. But the absence of prajñapti may be 
significant.

Lance