[Buddha-l] Vaitulyakas

[L.S. Cousins]

Rahula writes:

>However, I am Pali illiterate. Is that a complete sentence? What's 
>the context? Can anyone translate it?

Yes, the sentence is complete. There is almost no context. It is just 
a proposition. The refutation is almost sarcastic. The 
counter-questions which follow in the Kathaavatthu are:
should it be by one with single intent who is no longer a mendicant ?
should it be by one with single intent who is no longer a monk?
should it be by one with single intent who has cut the roots <of skilfulness>?
should it be by one with single intent who is excluded from the 
Sangha (paaraajika)?

This makes it fairly clear that the intention is to refer to monastics.

Then there is a further series - even more sarcastic:

  Should a living being be slain by one with with single intent ?

Then follows a series of further wrong actions, clearly intended as a 
reductio ad absurdum.

I did more or less translate it before, but here is a more literal 
rendering of the whole sentence:

ekaadhippaayena by one with (a) single intent/purpose
methuno dhammo coupling
pa.tisevitabbo to be practised

i.e.
"Is coupling to be practised by one whose intent is single/united/of 
one kind ?"
To which the opponent's reply is: "Yes".

Other renderings are perhaps also possible for ekaadhippaayena.

>I believe, that the book that I am reading, the author was trying 
>attribute the origin of Tantric practices to the Vaitulyakas

It is possible that this refers to some kind of "Tantric" practice 
around the first century A.D., but the attribution to Andhakas and 
Vetullas several centuries later is not really evidence, as it may 
simply mean that the author thought that this was the kind of thing 
that Mahaayaanists and Mahaasanghikas get up to.

In general the Kathaavatthu tends to give the last word to the 
criticized view. It is noteworthy that in the final chapter where 
this question occurs that does not happen at all. Given that it does 
seem to be a particularly late addition, we cannot use it as early 
evidence for Tantra in Buddhism. If it really is the earliest 
evidence, we should rather think of a later date for this addition - 
even the third century A.D.

Lance Cousins