[Buddha-l] "Western Self, Asian Other"

[Dan Lusthaus]

Not wanting to put anyone on the spot, or start the New Year with a boring 
recitation of grammatical complexities, let me point out that a somewhat 
detailed discussion can be found in Alexander Studholme - The Origins of Om 
Manipadme Hum: A Study of the Karandavyuha Sutra, which, with a little 
googling, you should be able to find in pdf format for a free download (not 
sure of the copyright status, so I won't complicitly provide any links). 
There, he addresses both of my questions, which were:

>Two questions: Who says mani
> padme has to be read as a compound [it is a mantra, after all]? If it must
> be a compound, what recommends it be read as a bahuvrihi instead of a
> tatpurusa?

First, an explanation by the Dalai Lama that completely avoids the 
grammatical question (but tends to align itself with the "mani in the padma" 
approach, i.e., mani = upaya, padma = prajna.
http://www.circle-of-light.com/Mantras/om-mantra.html

Now that we got that out of the way, Studholme, putting aside the fact that 
it is a mantra and thus not susceptible to regular Skt rules, tries to 
tackle the four inner syllables as grammatical, doctrinal, and semantic 
issues.
To the first question he insists mani padme must be a compound because mani 
(without -ḥ, i.e., maniḥ) is not an acceptable nominative, ergo it must be 
treated as stem, ergo mani padme must be a compound manipadme. If one 
ignores the caveat of being a mantra, that makes sense.

He states:
"It has been popularly understood to refer to “the jewel (mani-) in the 
lotus (-padme),” a phrase that has been taken, predominantly, as symbolic 
of the conjunction of the Buddhist coefficients of wisdom and compassion, of 
the union of male and female, and the appearance of a buddha (or 
bodhisattva) in the mind (or heart). But though padme may be correctly 
parsed as a masculine or neuter locative (the noun may be either gender), 
there appears to be no grammatical precedent for reading mani here as the 
nominative form, which would normally be mani˙. according to the laws of 
classical Sanskrit, mani- is the stem form, making manipadme a compound 
noun." (p. 110)

Next question, what sort of compound? Remarking that it is sufficiently 
ambiguous to have allowed a variety of interpretations to emerge, he 
examines several of them. One is precisely the option Lopez prefers. This is 
what he says:

"A more promising approach might appear to consist in treating manipadme as 
a bahuvrihi, or “exocentric,” compound, in which, as in the English 
expressions “redhead,” or “paperback,” the characteristics of a person 
or object can also be used as means of referring to the person or thing 
itself. Manipadme, here, could describe a “jewel-lotus” (a “lotus made of 
jewels”) or a “jewel and lotus,” in the sense of someone or something who 
is, in some way, a “jewel-lotus” or a “jewel and lotus.” Interpretations 
of this sort have tended to view the compound as a vocative, directed 
towards a person who has the attributes of a “jewel and a lotus.” This, 
occasionally, has been understood to be a means of addressing Avalokitesvara 
himself. However, that would be to treat manipadme as a masculine vocative, 
an extremely heterodox reading. In classical Sanskrit, the -e ending denotes 
the vocative only of nominal stems of all genders ending in -i or of 
feminine stems ending in -å. Manipadme might, then, be a mode of address to 
a female person Manipadmå, who bears the attributes of a “jewel and lotus” 
or, even possibly, a “jewel-lotus.” Who, then, might that person be?

Manipadmå, it is argued, is the name of a female partner of Avalokitesvara. 
She might, it seems, be the personification of the six-syllable formula 
itself..." (pp. 110-111)

After some further exploration into this possibility, rejecting on various 
grounds (historical, doctrinal, etc.), he considers the meaning and specific 
usages of lotus in early Mahayana literature. He says:

"All these different connotations may be said to inform what is perhaps the 
most central usage of the symbol of the lotus in the Mahåyåna, the doctrine 
that the mode of entry into the pure lands of the buddhas is to appear 
seated in such a flower. In the Vimalakirtinirdesa Sutra, for instance, when 
Sakyamuni transforms this world into a buddhafield by touching the ground 
with his big toe, everyone in his assembly is said to be filled with wonder, 
“each perceiving himself seated on a throne of jewelled lotuses 
(ratnapadmavyuhåsana).”82 The Saddharmapundarika states: “And in the 
buddhafield where he is to be born, he shall appear by metamorphosis on a 
lotus of seven precious substances (saptaratnamaye padme), face-to-face with 
the tathågata."

This is padme as locative.

But it's not a compound. We are then treated to several pages of uses, 
terms, phrases and compounds with lotus/padma. Eventually we come to this:

"Finally, on two separate occasions, the Kårandavyuha describes the goal of 
reaching Sukhåvatƒ in terms of being born or being seated “in a lotus.” 
Those who bring to mind the name (nåmadheyamanusmaranti) of Avalokitesvara 
are, at one point, said to go to Amitåbha’s pure land. There, they are said 
not to remember the suffering of dwelling in the womb (garbhåvåsadu˙kham), 
for they are born “in that lotus” (tasminneva padme jåyante). Next, Bali 
is told by Avalokitesvara that he will go to Sukhåvati, where, a “lotus 
throne made of the seven jewels” (saptaratnamayaµ padmåsanaµ) will be 
produced for him. Then, seating himself “in the jewel lotus” (ratnapadme) 
in the presence of Amitåbha, he will listen to the Kårandavyuha Sutra." (pp. 
115-116)

ratna, like mani, means jewel. Here we have the compound ratnapadme 
with -padme clearly locative (*in* the jewel lotus), though it is not the 
jewel (ratna) in the lotus, but a seat which is a jewel lotus. It is we, 
ourselves, who get to sit in it when and if... With some further discussion, 
he finally concludes:

"The cumulative effect of all these examples is to show that the 
significance of the four middle syllables of the six-syllable mahåvidyå 
would have been quite obvious to anyone remotely familiar with the idiom of 
the Mahåyåna. The use of manipadme connects the paramahrdaya of 
Avalokitesvara with one of the central symbols of the Mahåyåna vision, the 
“jewel-lotus,” or “lotus made of jewels.” The expression should be 
parsed as a tatpurusa, or “determinative,”
compound in the (masculine or neuter) locative case, meaning “in the 
jewel-lotus,” referring to the manner in which buddhas and bodhisattvas are 
said to be seated in these marvelous blooms and, in particular, to the 
manner in which more mundane beings are believed to appear in the pure land 
of the buddhas. Given the predominance, in the Kårandavyuha and in the 
Mahåyåna in general, of the religious goal of the pure land of Amitåbha, it 
may be safely assumed that manipadme would have been quite naturally 
associated with the mode of the rebirth of human beings there."


So manipadme is a tatpurusa after all. I guess we should start a list of 7 
things Lopez doesn't know about Tibet, and make this item #1.

Dan