[Buddha-l] Dharmapala

[Dan Lusthaus]

Andy and Joanne,

> Dan, do I have to split your head into seven pieces to get you to
> see that this is a figurative threat?  I will use my flaming club
> of Unobtainium, if that is any consolation.
>Andy
> ____________
>
> Not only the splitting of a head into 7 pieces, but the asking of
> an ascetic three times--both are conventional figures of Indian
> speech about dealings with ascetics. The Buddha's refusal to
> reply until after the third time says nothing (contra Dan) about
> his mental state at that moment--the story simply has him
> observing a convention.
> JK

Two issues: figurative vs literal language, and how to read literary 
devices.

Andy, surely it seems self-evident in the 21st century western world that 
things like devas, yaksas, pretas, etc. must be figurative since who would 
be naive or primitive enough to believe is such silly mytho-stuff? All those 
Brahma-lokas much be figurative, not literal. Maitreya in Tusita Heaven 
awaiting his turn to descend to Earth must be figurative, symbolic, maybe 
psychological stuff, not something anyone should be silly enough to take 
literally.

So let's put the question bluntly. Do you (or anyone on the list) think that 
Buddha believed such things as Brahmas, devas, yaksas, etc. exist, i.e., 
that they are part of the cosmos we experience and that they can interact 
with us on occasion under certain circumstances? (and not just as games our 
unconscious plays on us... autonomous entities)

If you are sworn materialist like Prof. Hayes who doesn't even believe in 
rebirth, the Buddha you want to believe in wouldn't be the one who held such 
ideas.

How about the early Buddhist communities? Did they believe in pretas, devas, 
yaksas, tree spirits, nagas, etc.? Do Sri Lankan Buddhists today believe in 
them? (answer: many do).

So, when the texts say that Buddha and the person he is conversing with both 
see the yaksa, is that supposed to be merely metaphoric, or does the story 
intend for us to think that he really sees them?

As for the literary device of asking three times -- true enough, this is a 
ubiquitous device. One is given three chances to respond, or to change one's 
mind (generously offered by Buddha when one is holding a wrong view, etc.), 
or for Julius Caesar to display his modesty and reluctance to accept the 
title of Caesar. This occurs again and again in Buddhist literature and 
elsewhere. But the version of the ask-three-times formula that is used in 
this context is special, in that it includes a special proviso: To refuse to 
answer a Tathagata when he asks a proper question for the third time will 
result in your head splitting into 7 pieces, something which on the two 
occasions we've discussed in the Digha and Majjhima (as canonical as one can 
get) is backed up by nasty yaksa named Vajrapani who is eager to make sure 
it really happens. Vajrapani's story and role in Buddhism expands over time, 
but this is the seed of those later developments, some of which Joanna has 
indicated in Gandharan art. On one level, it's all "story," it's all "art." 
But for us sophisticated moderns, the whole thing -- the Buddha constructed 
in the Nikayas, Mahayana Sutras, Tantras; the iconic and anaconic figures; 
etc. -- is "story" and "art," better or worse constructed, to be embraced or 
explained away according to our current sensibilities and preferences.

It is probably very difficult for us to read and experience these stories as 
they were heard and understood many centuries ago. Similarly we sometimes 
need reminding that great Buddhist statues and murals were not created to 
adorn museum walls and showrooms -- isolated from their original niches and 
contexts -- as merely aesthetic items to study for their display of 
historical influences.

The "story" says person X takes refuge in the Buddha because a yaksa 
threatened to smash his skull and he was "terrified and unnerved, his hairs 
stood on end." Someone caught at a disadvantage in a debate may feel 
embarrassed, trapped, defeated, etc. -- not "terrified and unnerved, hairs 
standing on end." It means what it means.

Dan