[Buddha-l] Re: Pudgalavada

[L.S. Cousins]

Dear Ven. Dhammanando,

Well, this is what comes from writing quickly from memory without checking.

I was confusing this with a separate issue concerning the latter part 
of the word. Most editions have always Vajjiputtaka. And that is 
certainly normal for the names and peoples in the Canon. However, for 
the later school, Mss often have Vajjiputtika or Vajjiputtiya. I 
suspect that a different form to Vajjiputtaka is in fact  intended.

>Though it's certainly an error to equate the (Second Recital) 
>Vajjiputtakas of Vesaalii with the (pudgalavaadin) Vatsiputriyas, 
>nevertheless, it's clear from the commentary to the Kathaavatthu 
>that the Theravada tradition used the name "Vajjiputtaka" for both 
>groups. For example at Kv-a. 9 the pudgalavaadin view is attributed 
>to "vajjiputtakaa c'eva samitiyaa ca bahiddhaa ca bahuu 
>a~n~natitthiyaa."
>
>As far as I know, your suggested correct form, "Vacchiputtaka", is 
>not found in any Pali texts at all.

Yes. I think you are correct. I had misremembered.

So the name of the school in Pali was probably Vajjiputtiya. But how 
do we explain this ? The account of the18 schools in Pali derives 
only from the Diipavam.sa - there is no reason to think it was in the 
earlier (Sinhalese) commentaries. So it is clearly based on Vasumitra 
(or his source) where Vr.jiputraka and Vaatsiiputriiya are not 
confused.

Given that there are only a few references to school in Pali, we may 
after all be dealing with Vacchiputtiya corrupted by the proximity of 
Vajjiputtaka. The textual tradition of the Diipavam.sa may never have 
been very good and the corruption could be rather old.

Lance Cousins