[Buddha-l] Five Points

[L.S. Cousins]

This seems a separate issue; so I have split it off to a separate thread.



Dan Lusthaus wrote:

>> It did not. The old sources are the early parts of the Kathāvatthu and
>> Vijñānakāya which contain nothing of this sort. They are simply
>> doctrinal debates.
>>     
>
> Lamotte, in History of Indian Buddhism, largely confines his discussion of
> the issue to the pa~ncavastu, or five theses on Arhats, which appear not
> only in the Mahavibhasa, but in Vasumitra, and, as for earliness, Lamotte
> comments (p. 274; Fr. ed. p. 300):
>
> "At an early period, which we will try to specify, five propositions
> prejudicial to the dignity and prerogatives of the Arhat were debated in the
> communities. They are described in both the Pali Abhdhamma and the
> Sarvastivadin Abhidharma (Kathavatthu, II, 1-5, pp. 163-203; Jnanaprasthana,
> T 1543, ch. 10, p. 819b; T 1544, ch. 7, p. 956b); they are repeated and
> discussed in the Vibhasa (T 1545, ch. 99, p. 510c), the Kosa (I, p. 2), the
> _Glosses of Paramartha_ and the _Treatise on the Sects_ by Chi-tsang
> (Demieville, _Sectes_, pp. 30-40)."
>   

Many years ago I wrote an article largely on this subject. Basically, I 
think Lamotte is completely wrong on the matter. To summarize my thoughts:

1. The so-called five points (there are more than five) as they occur in 
the earliest sources are in no way prejudicial to the  dignity and 
prerogatives (what prerogatives ?) of the Arhat. They are abhidha(r)mma 
debates connected to descriptions of the process of enlightenment.

2. By early sources I mean particularly the Kathāvatthu. Probably also 
the Jñānaprasthāna. In fact, even in later sources this is often the 
position. So Vasumitra does not mention Mahādeva (except in 
Hsuan-tsang's later translation) and only refers to 5 points in two 
different contexts. (They may not be the same five points.) I don't 
understand the reference to the Kośa.

3. In later sources, posterior to the rise of Mahāyāna, they begin to 
take on a  prejudicial gloss. As Lamotte says, 'they are repeated and 
discussed'. These are mostly later sources. This is  confused by the 
fact that Lamotte takes T 1545 as an early source dating from the second 
century A.D. But we now know that this much larger version translated in 
the 7th century is based upon a seventh century Indian Ms which has been 
much enlarged over the centuries. We do not know its source. So that has 
to be regarded as late. In this particular case, the story of Mahādeva 
and the five points is missing from the earlier translations of Vibhāṣā 
material.

4. In effect then Lamotte's whole historical reconstruction here is 
fantasy. He is interpreting a debate which belongs to the third or 
second century B.C. in terms of evidence from perhaps the seventh 
century A.D. or a little earlier.

5. We should note also that the earliest Mahāyāna traditions also do not 
attack arahats. That comes later.
> Because he organizes his discussion around the problem of identifying these
> theses with the name Mahadeva, rather than tracing their impact on other
> literature (including in forms other than as the five theses), this barely
> scratches the surface. The arhat issue, particularly from the
> social-institutional perspective, would be a good, rich topic for a
> dissertation.
>
> The speculative issues about what an arhat achieves when he becomes as arhat
> (whether in contradistinction to a Buddha, for instance) are a separate set
> of issues, a separate discussion, though there is some overlap. The
> discourse I am referring to is one that demeaningly demotes Arhats.
>   

Lamotte's fantasy.

>> But there are no texts of this kind which can be proven to be earlier
>> than the third century A.D.
>>     
>
> See the quote from Lamotte, above.
>
>   
I reiterate. There are no such texts.

Lance