[Buddha-l] Dharmapala

[andy]

Jenkins piece in the volume is the one I found most disturbing.   He says:

>The violence of Satyavaca's situation is typical and shows how dangerous the 
world of the Indian ascetics was imagined to be.  Those who lost debates were 
often described as being swallowed up by the earth, drowning in the Ganga, or 
spitting up blood and dying. It was not uncommon for the stakes to be death or 
conversion.  (Buddhist Warfare, p. 62)

If we were looking for a Buddhist Fundamentalism, I think we may have found a 
good candidate.  The shift from "imagined" and "described" to an actual 
historical state of affairs really sounds to me like scriptural literalism.   
Jenkins continues:

>If legend and scripture are any indication, the violence of the Indian 
Buddhists' imagination, and probably the violence of their world, was extreme.  
It is no wonder that in Tibet debate has evolved into a highly physical, 
intellectual martial art.  (p. 63)

I an not very knowledgeable about Tibetan debate, but this sounds more like 
Nichiren to me.  But on to some comments on Dan's post. 

On Thursday 15 July 2010 01:11:21 am Dan Lusthaus wrote:
> Lance, et al.,
> 
> In case the Mahayana sutra discussed by Jenkins (and Zimmerman, et al.),
>  the _Ārya-Bodhisattva-gocara-upāyaviṣaya-vikurvaṇa-nirdeśa Sūtra_, sounded
>  like something out of left field, incommensurate with "original" Buddhism,
>  or the Pali canon, Jenkins points out that it does have some precedent in
>  the Pali canon. The sutra has a dialogue between a king and someone named
>  Satyavaca Nirgranthaputra, i.e., the "Truth-speaker, son of a Jain." Two
>  suttas of the Majjhima Nikaya concern him (suttas 35 and 36). Sutta 35 in
>  particular, Cūḷasaccaka sutta, gives some glimpses of what gets further
>  developed in the Mahayana version.
> 
> Saccaka the Nigantha's son (as Nanamoli and Bodhi render his name --
>  Saccaka nigaṇṭhaputta in Pali) is a proud debater, claiming he can make
>  anyone tremble with his arguments, and, after inviting a large group of
>  Licchavi's to witness the slaughter, seeks out Buddha under a tree and
>  challenges him. Part of Buddha's response includes this question to
>  Saccaka:
>  
> [PTS Page 231] Taṃ kiṃ maññasi aggivessana, vatteyya rañño khattiyassa
> muddhāvasittassa1 sakasmiṃ vijite vaso: ghātetāyaṃ vā ghātetuṃ, jāpetāyaṃ
>  vā jāpetuṃ, pabbājetāyaṃ vā pabbājetuṃ- seyyathāpi rañño pasenadissa
>  kosalassa, seyyathāpi vā pana rañño māgadhassa ajātasattussa
>  vedehiputtassāti?
>
> "Would a head-anointed noble king -- for example, King Pasenadi of Kosala
>  or King Ajātasattu Vedehiputta of Magadha -- exercise the power in his own
>  realm to execute those who should be executed, to fine those that should
>  be fined, and to banish those that should be banished?" [Nanamoli / Bodhi
>  tr.]
> 
> This Buddha accepts capital punishment. The passage also gives some sense
>  of what the Pali Buddha considers a king's job to include.
> 

Not what the job includes, but what most people would consider as the power of 
a king, and the point is an analogy to Satyavaca claiming the authority to 
consider his material form to be his self.  As the argument goes on, it is 
clear he does not, and the threat to split his head is more an accusation of 
inconsistency. 
<snip>
> Returning to the Cūḷasaccaka sutta, Buddha's continuing counterattack is so
> effective that Saccaka becomes speechless, unable to answer a further
> question. Buddha then presses him: 
> 
> "For the second time Saccaka the son of Nigantha became silent. Then the
> Blessed One said, 'explain it, Aggivessana. It is not the time for you to
>  be silent. If someone does not reply to a reasonable question asked by the
>  Tathagata up to the third time, his head splits into seven pieces.' "
>
> Now enters Vajrapāṇi (Pali: Vajirapāṇī), who will become a key deity
> associated with Buddhist violence, defending the Dharma, etc., until the
> present day:
>  
> "At that moment Vajrapāṇi the yakkha (Skt: yakṣa), a thunderbolt-wielding
> spirit holding an iron thunderbolt that burned, blazed, and glowed,
>  appeared in the air above Saccaka the Nigantha's son, thinking: 'If this
>  Saccaka the Nigantha's son, when asked a reasonable question up to the
>  third time by the Blessed One, still does not answer, I shall split his
>  head into seven pieces here and now.' The Blessed One saw the
>  thunderbold-wielding spirit and so did Saccaka the Nigantha's son. Then
>  Saccaka the Nigantha's son was frightened, alarmed, and terrified. Seeking
>  his shelter, asylum, and refuge in the Blessed One, he said: 'Ask me,
>  Master Gotama, I will answer.' " [Nanamoli / Bodhi, modified]
> 
> 
> 
> Tena kho pana samaye vajirapāṇī yakkho āyasaṃ vajiraṃ ādāya ādittaṃ
> sampajjalitaṃ sajotibhūtaṃ saccakassa nigaṇṭhaputtassa uparivehāsaṃ ṭhito
> hoti: " sacāyaṃ saccako nigaṇṭhaputto bhagavatā yāvatatiyaṃ sahadhammikaṃ
> pañhaṃ puṭṭho na byākarissati. Etthevassa sattadhā muddhaṃ phālessāmī"ti.
> 
> Taṃ kho pana vajirapāṇiṃ yakkhaṃ bhagavā ceva passati, saccako ca
> nigaṇṭhaputto. Atha kho saccako nigaṇṭhaputto bhīto saṃviggo lomahaṭṭhajāto
> [PTS Page 232] bhagavantaṃyeva tāṇaṃ gavesī, bhagavantaṃ etadavoca:
>  pucchatu maṃ bhavaṃ gotamo, byākarissāmīti
> 
> 
> 
> For some reason Nanamoli and Bodhi do not treat Taṃ kho pana vajirapāṇiṃ
> yakkhaṃ bhagavā ceva passati, saccako ca nigaṇṭhaputto. Atha kho saccako
> nigaṇṭhaputto bhīto saṃviggo lomahaṭṭhajāto [PTS Page 232] [\q 232/]
> bhagavantaṃyeva tāṇaṃ gavesī, bhagavantaṃ etadavoca: pucchatu maṃ bhavaṃ
> gotamo, byākarissāmītiname as a name, and instead translate it as
> "thunderbold-wielding"; yakkha they render "spirit." In their annotation,
> they point out that the Pali commentary identifies this yakkha as Sakka --
> perhaps that being the reason they "hide" the name. In the Skt version,
> Vajrapāṇi is Buddha's bodyguard, and ultimately considered a manifestation
> of Buddha himself.
> 
> 
> 
> This is the Pali prototype of a guardian of the Dharma (albeit a gnomish
> sprite) threatening to make good on Buddha's own death threat (heads split
> into seven parts usually result in more permanent injuries than headaches).
> He is not bluffing -- unless Saccaka speaks up on being asked a third time,
> he will smite him. The death threat is real. Saccaka realizes that, and
>  that realization results in Saccaka taking refuge, i.e., converting to
> Buddhism -- forced conversion of a sort.
> 
As above, I don't think a charge of inconsistency is an actual death threat, 
although it can be devastating in a debate.  And I don't see any sign of a 
"forced conversion."  Losing a debate means admitting your position is 
incorrect, and even if you are forced to. it is by what Habermass calls the 
"forceless force of reason."  To take the metaphorical violence of a debate 
literally strikes me as a lack of imagination.  And it further deepens my 
confusion over what "defending the dharma"  could possibly mean. 
> 
> I think Lance might agree that it makes little difference in terms of Pali
> canon formation and Theravada ideology whether this event actually took
> place as recorded. Certainly pacifists will like to think their Buddha
> wouldn't get involved in this sort of nonsense -- I can hear the word
> "interpolation," and the word "later" anxious to be affixed to these
> passages, and perhaps the whole sutta. But there it is, in the Majjhima.
>  For the canon and its faithful followers, it makes no difference whether
>  this actually happened (most moderns would be eager to explain away
>  Vajrapāṇi (whether as name, or type of yakkha) in anything but a literal
>  meaning. It makes no difference whether this actually happened especially
>  in terms of illustrating some of the early community's views on violence
>  and Dhamma. Like the Huineng-having-to-flee story, this sort of stuff has
>  been under our noses, ignored or overlooked for a variety of reasons. But
>  there it is.
> 
> Dan
> 
I can't see that this has been ignored, just that most people take it as 
figurative language.  This means it does matter whether Vajrapāṇi actually 
appeared, whether the sutta can be read as claiming that, or whether we 
interpret this "spirit" as being the realization that Satyavaca  has lost his 
debate over the nature of the self with Gotama.  So is the conspiracy only a 
difference between a metaphorical and literalist interepretation of Buddhist 
scripture?  
> 
> P.S. Before anyone attacks me for bringing this to our attention (actually
> Jenkins does that), please remember that I am neither the author nor
> redactor of the Majjhima Nikaya, nor am I Vajrapāṇi's press agent.

You might look into it.  If George Lucas gets on board, I can see a long 
series of "spiritual combat" films set in ancient India! 

-- 
James Andy Stroble, PhD
Lecturer in Philosophy
Department of Arts & Humanities
Leeward Community College
University of Hawaii

Adjunct Faculty 
Diplomatic and Military Studies
Hawaii Pacific University 

_________________

"The amount of violence at the disposal of any given country may soon not be a 
reliable indication of the country's strength or a reliable guarantee against 
destruction by a substantially smaller and weaker power."  --Hannah Arendt