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

[Dan Lusthaus]

Lance,

> I certainly consider the absence of explicit evidence decisive
> without strong evidence accounting for that.

In the case of the Vatsiputriyas/Sammitiyas, Pali accounts attribute the
necessity for the so-called Second Council, traditionally dated to one
hundred years after Buddha's nirvana, to incitements by the Vajjiputtakas,
or Vajjiputtiyas (= Vatsiputriyas). There are, of course, all sorts of
historical complications here -- starting with dating Buddha, the
historicity and dating of the Second Council, etc. -- but, even if we
conclude (though there is no a priori reason that we should) that this is a
bit of Theravadin fiction concocted later, its concoction itself suggests
that the Vajjiputtakas were a sufficiently challenging presence at whatever
time that invention was devised -- which would, in any case, have been long
before Harsha -- that they are selected for the role of major villian in the
drama. They continue to be a presence, notable during Vasumitra's time (ca.
2nd c CE), a major irritant to Sarvastivadins and others (as evidenced in
Sarvastivadin literature, primarily preserved in Chinese, most not
translated into Western languages yet), and were a sufficient threat during
Vasubandhu's time (ca. 4th-early 5th c CE) for him to feel compelled to
devote an entire chapter to exclusively refuting them -- and turning them
into strawmen in the process). Centuries before Harsha, they were displacing
Sarvastivadins from places like Sarnath (a stone's throw from Benares).

Then Xuanzang arrives (he travelled from 629-645 through C. Asia and India).
He provides our first, and only attempt at a demographic breakdown of
Buddhism and Buddhists on the ground in India. He happens to arrive
contemporaneously with Harsha's rule, and provides, without any
editorializing whatsoever, the startling revelation that Sammitiyas
outnumber all other (non-Mahayanist) sects combined two-to-one, and that
they are distributed throughout the country, with 1,351 monasteries (with
higher concentration in the west, but strong numbers elsewhere as well).
Sthaviras, the next highest number, have only 401. Mahasanghikas (who,
unlike the Vatsiputriyas and Sammitiyas, figure prominently in modern
historical studies of Buddhism in India) have only 24 monasteries.
Sarvastivadins have 158. Of the 2079 total number of monasteries Xuanzang
mentions, more than half are Sammitiya. (Those figures are from Lamotte -- 
if your tabulation is different, please inform us). 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. 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. Hence attempting to counteract the
Sammitiya figures by adding Mahayana to the mix is problematic. 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.

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 Tripitaka, according to Yijing, consisted of "300,00
verses," though barely a shred of that literature survives (to determine how
it differs from extant Tripitaka). 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).

Since Xuanzang's demographic breakdown is our only contemporaneous
tabulation for the entire duration of Buddhism in India, its picture of
Sammitiya strength and distribution is surprising, since there is little in
the surviving literature that would have led us to expect that. Had Xuanzang
not given us those figures, it would be possible to argue that even during
his time and during Harsha's reign the Sammitiyas were a negligble presence
(discounting as erroneous or mistaken whatever slim evidence suggested the
contrary). That's the importance of Xuanzang's data. Their opponents were
not eager to admit, much less document, Pudgalavada successes. Unlike most
of the other early schools mentioned in the literature, who disappeared from
the scene only to remain as ciphers, the Sammitiyas survived and flourished,
challenging, influencing, and at times vanquishing other schools, enjoying
support from royalty (other than Harsha) and commoners.

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. The Sammitiyas seemed much less interested than some other
sects in promulgating their sect outside of India -- probably because they
were enjoying such a massive success at home. Hence, Mahayana gets
transplanted to China and eventually Tibet, Theravada eventually came to
dominate Sri Lanka and South East Asia (except for Vietnam, which also
developed a strong Mahayana presence, primarily from Chinese influence, not
India). The victors (or survivors) get to write the history, and write out
what displeases them -- until countervailing evidence comes to light and
gets a serious hearing.

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

> In general, I think Hsuan-tsang's account is reliable, although of
> course that is disputed by many scholars today.

That's what scholars do -- they dispute. This list provides ample evidence
of that. We need to be reminded, for instance, that when Ariel Stein, et
al., made their initial forrays into Central Asia, the Tarim Basin, etc.,
looking for lost ancient sites, the used as their guidebook Xuanzang's
travelog. He located the places he visited as so-many li (Chinese mile)
north, or west, or southeast, etc., from other sites. Using his directions,
they discovered, exactly where he said they were, ruins of ancient sites.
While we have to sort out the legendary materials he included from the more
"secular" details, his descriptions of places tend to be exacting and
accurate. As with the entire genre of ancient travel literature, one has to
also stay on guard for the difference between what he reports having seen
with his own eyes and what he provides second-hand material for (e.g., Sri
Lanka), but in the main he is a reliable reporter. A Kashmiri friend of mine
told me that he was amazed at Xuanzang's description of Kashmir -- that the
way he characterized the people there still hit the mark today.

> I think the evidence suggests that they were one of the four major
> traditions, but I think it likely that they took a disproportionate
> knock after the Arab invasion of Sind and the destruction of
> Valabhii. Or will you argue that the Islamic invasions did them no
> harm ?

I don't know the extent of damage to them. Obviously Valabhi was an
important base. The loss of the library, etc., not to mention the
substantial loss of life, must have had an impact. But, since they
presumably had over a thousand other monasteries in which to continue, this
would not have put an end to them. The Sarvativadins must have taken the
main brunt of the various Muslim incursions, situated in the Northwest and
Central Asia, but Sammitiyas, to the extent they were in the West, must have
also felt the threat. The details of how Buddhist demographics changed after
the 8th century are not clear to me.

> The importance of Hars.a's dynasty is evident from the figures:
> 20,000 monks at Hars.a's capital city alone.
>
> So I find the theory (I do not think I am the first to say this) not
> so much untenable as overwhelmingly evidenced.

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! ;-)

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."

So, further evidence that scholars dispute. ;-)

> I-tsing (a little later than Hsüan-tsang)
> mentions Saam.mitiiyas in the South. I think Lamotte is again a
> little misleading on this, if Takakusu's translation is correct. On
> p. 9 of Takakusu's translation of I-tsing, we are told:
> Towards the South (S. India), all follow the Sthaviranikaaya, though
> there exist a few adherents of other Nikaayas.
[...]

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. His figure on the size of the
Sammitiya Tripitaka was intentionally reduced by him from the 300,000 slokas
his text (and the Taisho) state (cf. Takakusu, p. 8 n.1). His text differs
at times from the Taisho edition; e.g., the passage about the Vinaya being
30,000 is *not* in the Taisho (I have a Chinese blockprint edition that also
gives 200,000 and the Vinaya line, so those are attested variants).

As for the South Seas, Yijing reports (Li, p. 12): "In the South Seas there
are more than ten countries where only the Mulasarvastivada-nikaya is
predominant, though one may occasionally find some followers of the
Sammitiya-nikaya. Recently a few adherents of the other two nikayas have
also been found there."

A little further on, he states (Li, p. 13): "...one may reach Bi-jing, and
proceeding further south one arrives at Champa, that is Lin-yi. In this
country the majority of the monks belong to the Sammitiya-nikaya, with only
a few adherents of the Sarvastivada-nikaya."

Yijing does not give us anything like the demographic breakdown found in
Xuanzang, 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. His Chinese translations, unlike
Xuanzang's, are also problematic, famously difficult to decipher, and thus
have mostly been preserved (as museum pieces) but largely ignored by the
East Asian tradition (aside from his Vinaya translation) and many modern
Asian scholars. His travelogs are a different story, since they are more
literary, and have been important as secondary documentation to Xuanzang's
reports.

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.

> >but resist the well attested fact that "sunyataa-vaada
> >also a blanket term used for a variety of non-Madhyamaka schools
(including
> >in Pali sources) is surprising.
>
> I asked for evidence.

We could start with the Vetulyas, discussed back in May on this list. I
wrote at that time:

As to who they were, the English tr. of the Kathaavatthu, _Points of
Controversy_, states in an annotation to XVII.6 (another position attributed
to them by the commentary) that "the Vetulya[ka]s, who are known as the
Mahaasu~n~nataavaadins." There is some debate among scholars whether these
Mahaa-"suunyataa-vaadins are to be identified with proto-Madhyamaka, other
groups (such as that reflected in the Tattvasiddhi), or something else. The
name Vetulyaka pops up from time to time, especially in Abhidharma
literature, negatively, when an author wants to dismiss an unacceptable
claim by associating the maker of such a claim with these Vetulyakas. Some
have suggested that Vaitulya is a synonym for Vaipuulya, which is often used
in Indian Abhidharma and early debate literature as a synonym for
Mahaayaana. See, e.g., P. Jaini, "On the Theory of Two Vasubandhus," BSOAS,
21, 1/3. 1958, pp. 48-53, in which he offers some evidence for that
equivalence.

Are all Vaipulyas Madhyamakas? In the early centuries CE some texts/schools
of thought, such as Harivarman's *Tattavasiddhi, were also considered by
some to expound a type of "Suunyataa-vaada. E.g. cf.
http://ccbs.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-PHIL/ew27145.htm

>This is Lamotte's error. Yet he at least
> presents plenty of evidence against his own understanding.

So this is why you wanted me to stick strictly to the Lamotte line? Lamotte
did a service by merely bringing a (shall we say "initial") tabulation to
our attention, though it took a number of decades for the import of that
tabulation to be taken up by others. For me the eye-opener was Thich Thien
Chau's book, which focused less on demographics, and rather tried to recover
from the Pudgalavadin texts themselves what the school in fact propounded.
It was so unlike what they had been depicted as holding -- so much more
reasonable and prefiguring later developments, especially in Mahayana. The
demographics, at least to me, are secondary, but significant. It's as if a
long-lost important school (for its doctrines and sheer presence for over a
millennium) was suddenly rediscovered.

> We have one inscription - at the site of the First Sermon. You cannot
> (or shouldn't) generalize from one piece of historical evidence. I
> believe it also claims that the Sarvaastivaadins had previously
> replaced the Vaatsiiputrikas. So who knows who subsequently replaced
> the Saam.mitiiyas !

These days it's a generic tourist site.

Dan Lusthaus