[Buddha-l] Dharmapala

[L.S. Cousins]

Dan Lusthaus wrote:

> Lance responded to my response:
>
>>> Right or wrong, the MA redactors -- prone to hyperbole in this 
>>> profile --
>>> saw an opportunity to read -putta here as "son."
>>>
>>
>> They are writing at a different time and place and don't understand this
>> usage.
>>
>
> And then:
>
>>> Walshe -- rightly or wrongly -- takes Vajirapāṇī as the name of the
>>> yakkha.
>>>
>>
>> He is following the commentary.
>>
>
> So Vajirapāṇī is or isn't a proper name of a yakkha depending on 
> whether one
> is reading the comm. to the Digha passage or the Majjhima passage. Ok.
> Inconsistent, but ok.
>
No, both commentaries are taking it as a personal name (of a yakkha whom 
they identify with the yakkha Sakka = Indra). That's because in the 
fifth century A.D. (and earlier) this is the natural reading. Vajirapāṇi 
is known as a name of this kind by then and so it seems obvious to take 
it that way. Just as it seems obvious to take it that way to those who 
have been reading Mahāyāna literature. But in fact it is anachronistic.

Lance