[Buddha-l] Dharmapala

[L.S. Cousins]

On 16/07/2010 11:17, Artur Karp wrote:

> Three things.
>
>
> A general remark. Am I justified to think that you believe your way of
> reading the text is free from European ideas? As far as I am concerned
> I believe I do have the right to read the text as one of its potential
> - and late - addressees/recipients. My not being a Buddhist
> notwithstanding.
>
I doubt that any European can read an Asian text without importing some 
level of interpretation from his own background, but obviously a 
knowledge of the background ideas of the Southern Buddhist tradition is 
essential to get some idea of the author's intention and how he would be 
understood at the time.


My objection at this point was to a large amount of comment by many 
people (not you in particular) and some features of Geiger's (in many 
ways good) translation which tend to mislead.

> Now, the question of guilt. The text weighs up two kinds of guilt:
> one, entirely unjustified, ensuing from the king's participation in
> mass-killing, and the second, very much justified, resulting from not
> sharing food - one pepper-pod (ekaṃ maricavaṭṭikaṃ) - with the local
> monastic community.
>
I don't think there is any suggestion that participation in mass-killing 
is faultless. The issue that is being discussed is the degree of fault. 
Is it of that ultimate kind that would exclude the king from rebirth in 
heaven or even from enlightenment ? If one expressed this in terms of 
the nearest equivalent in European religious thought, it would be: is 
the  king excluded from all possibility of salvation as a result of his 
deeds ?

Let me re-emphasize. The death of thousands of cattle would not be a 
minor matter for a Sri Lankan Buddhist monk.

Leaving aside the earlier discussion of Phussadeva's guilt, the story 
here of the Pepper-pod is the lead in to the story of Duṭṭhagāmaṇi's 
construction of the Pepper-pod Monastery which is the subject of the 
next chapter.

My suspicion would be that the sources used by the author of Mhv had 
only this episode leading into the account of the king's marvellous 
works. The king's (minor) guilt suggested to the author the topic of 
guilt and so he has raised the possibility of guilt over the deaths 
which occurred when he was victorious in battle. If it is the author's 
own introduction, that would explain why we do not find it in other sources.

>
> 114
> Adatvā bhikkhusaṅghassa bhuttaṃ atthi nu kho iti
> Addasa pātarāsamhi ekaṃ maricavaṭṭikaṃ
>
> [Geiger]"Have I ever eaten anything whatsoever without giving to the
> brotherhood of bhikkhus?' Then he saw that he had, all unthinkingly,
> eaten pepper in the pod,"
>
> 115
> Saṅghassa aṭṭhapetvāca paribhuttaṃ satiṃ vinā
> Tadatthaṃ daṇḍakammaṃ me kattabbaṃti ca cintayi.
>
> [Geiger] "at the morning meal, leaving none for the brotherhood; and
> he thought: 'For this I must do penance."
>
>
> Sorry, but as a late reader I am reminded of a widely circulated story
> about this general involved in some mass-killings, but judged, in
> accordance with the current law, for not paying a traffic ticket on
> time.
>
Of course, Duṭṭhagāmaṇi simply fought a battle. There is no suggestion 
of mass killings here.
>
> Finally. When the text (XXV, 116-117) says:
>
> 116
> Ete te nekakoṭī idha manujagaṇe ghātite cintayitvā
> Kāmānaṃ hetu etaṃ manasi ca kayirā sādhu ādīnavaṃ taṃ;
>
> [Geiger] "Should a man think on the hosts of human beings murdered for
> greed in countless myriads, and should he carefully keep in mind the
> evil (arising from that),"
>
I translate:

Thinking on the many myriads that have been slain here,
one should carefully pay attention to this danger due to sense pleasures


> Sabbesaṃ ghātaniṃ taṃ manasi ca kayirā 'niccataṃ sādhu sādhu
> Evaṃ dukkhā pamokkhaṃ subhagatimathavā pāpuṇeyyā 'cirenāti
>
> [Geiger] "and should he also very carefully keep in mind the mortality
> as being the murderer of all, then will he, in this way, shortly win
> freedom from suffering and a happy condition."
>
I translate:

and very carefully pay attention to impermanence which slays all.
In this way one would before long attain freedom from suffering or a
pleasant rebirth.


The meaning of course is that meditation on impermanence can lead to 
enlightenment.

> I am reminded, strongly, of the Bhagavadgita XI, 32-34, where the text
> attempts to absolve mass-killers of guilt.
>
> [...] ṛte 'pi tvā na bhaviṣyanti sarve
> ye 'vasthitāḥ pratyanīkeṣu yodhāḥ ||32||
>
> tasmāt tvam uttiṣṭha yaśo labhasva
> jitvā śatrūn bhuṅkṣva rājyaṃ samṛddham |
> mayaivaite nihatāḥ pūrvam eva [...] ||33||
>
> [...] mayā hatāṃs tvaṃ jahi mā vyathiṣṭhā
> yudhyasva jetāsi raṇe sapatnān ||34||
>
> SBE Vol. 8, 1882:
>
> <<[..] Even without you, the warriors standing in the adverse hosts,
> shall all cease to be. Therefore, be up, obtain glory, and vanquishing
> (your) foes, enjoy a prosperous kingdom. All these have been already
> killed by me. [...] whom I have killed, do you kill. Be not alarmed.
> Do fight. And in the battle you will conquer your foes.>>
>
I don't see a parallel here at all. Moreover, the Gītā is a religious 
text of some authority. The Mahāvaṃsa is a poetic history which has no 
special moral authority for Buddhists.  Or, if it has some today, it 
certainly didn't in ancient Ceylon.
>
>
> To my mind, this parallel documents a concern regarding moral
> responsibility for organized violence. As it seems, it's not enough to
> clothe it in the garb of "just war" (dharma-yuddha). Justifications
> for it are sought in much broader ideological frameworks, allowing for
> the use of such relativizing terms as "man's mortality-as-a-murderer"
> or "God's will".
>
In Pali sources the concept of a dhammayuddha does not occur in the 
sense you mean. In fact, it is only found in the Kevaṭṭajātaka where it 
has a very different meaning. [A kind of spiritual conflict is 
substituted for an actual battle.]

Lance Cousins