[Buddha-l] Ariyapariyesana

[Dan Lusthaus]

Lance,

> Five messages is a bit more than I have time for. So I'll just make a
> few points.

I also have some pressing deadlines, so this will be brief.

>> As we know, the preferred term in non-Theravada works became (skt)
>> āgantuka-kleśa, typically translated "adventitious defilements."
>
> Actually, that is quite rare. Plain kleśa is quite common in the
> abhidharma works.

Maybe I read too much Yogacara and Mahayana, but āgantuka-kleśa is the term 
of choice.

>>uddhacca-kukkucca),

> I understand that the intention is to refer to the tendency of the mind
> to cycle  between excitement and depression.

That's an interesting take, similar to what other texts discuss in terms of 
what samatha is designed to fix. Not what the base words themselves seem to 
mean, and not the way they are usually translated that way, however.

>>> In fact, it seems more likly to be a pre-Buddhist term. It
>>> probably has its original meaning of 'affliction' or 'disturbance'. The
>>> metaphor is probably that of a pool which is disturbed so that you can't
>>> see clearly. Later the metaphor of a pool which has become dirty is
>>> common.
>> The Kilesa sutta of the Samyutta Nikaya, which I cited in the first 
>> message,
>> treats the term as something that infuses itself into something, spoiling
>> it, so that that original thing -- gold, the mind -- loses its natural
>> abilities and capacities. Since that is closer to "the metaphor of a pool
>> which has become dirty," would that entail that the Kilesa sutta is a 
>> later
>> text, reflecting a later development?
> Yes, I think so.

Then the cloth sutta, which becomes the prototype for all the later vasana 
discussions, is also late? Note, however, in the long excerpts from 
Analayo's book, that different versions of that sutta interpret the analogy 
of dirty cloth differently! Can we decide which are earlier and which later 
on the basis of whether 'disturbed' or 'infiltrated' better fits?

No time to explain now, but one of the differences between the versions of 
Sthiramati's commentary on Vasubandhu's Pancaskandha-prakarana preserved in 
Chinese vs Tibetan is precisely those pool metaphors -- each embraces a 
different explanation (in the service of explaining prasAda in 
rUpa-prasAda). In that case the difference between them is probably not due 
to earlier/later, but some other ideological conflict or contrast.

>> **4. After the bathing, Ananda suggests to Buddha that they go visit the
>> Brahman, since he's a nice guy who likes the Dhamma. Buddha agrees to the
>> suggestion by remaining silent. Ananda does NOT tell him that there'll be 
>> a
>> bunch of monks there eagerly awaiting his presence and a chance to talk 
>> to
>> him.
> He specifically asks him to go anukampaṃ upādāya i.e. out of compassion.
> So he is being asked to go and teach.

He specifically neglects to mention that there will be a house full of monks 
that he has arranged to be there. Buddha thinks they are going to visit the 
Brahman, not a pack of monks from back in camp that he seems to have been 
avoiding for whatever reason.

>> There are several accounts of that intervention in the Pali texts, and I
>> would argue that the implication that Buddha was ready to just slip away 
>> is
>> a fair reading of them, and one which, in any event, does not originate 
>> with
>> me.
>
> You will have to produce such passages to convince me. I don''t believe
> there is any such idea in the Pali texts.

Didn't Tillman Vetter publish an analysis of this story? I can't find the 
reference at the moment, but I think he discusses that aspect as part of his 
analysis.

> I would be happy to conclude that the introduction of the more standard
> attribution of supernormal powers is surely a later development. There
> is no mention of abhidharma texts here. The general principle of maxim
> lectio difficilior potior applies.

But you are doing so to preserve the idea of the Pali text's primacy. 
Analayo's book frequently puts that in question. Tersely put, a very few 
suttas have no significant variants across alternate versions (and sometimes 
there are half-dozen or even more variants preserved in Chinese, Skt, or 
elsewhere in the Pali lit.); some one could argue in least in part seem to 
show primacy with the Pali; some strongly suggest that the Pali version is a 
mishmashed version better preserved in one or more of the alternates; some 
have significant and numerous differences, and one might mount arguments for 
primacy in any direction. After awhile, primacy becomes less the issue, and 
the richness and variability of the alternatives becomes the story. But the 
notion that the Pali always contains the oldest and soundest reading becomes 
untenable. More often than many would suspect, that simply becomes an 
untenable option.

> I would translate this differently again. The usage of abhi- here in a
> prepositional compound in the locative was pointed out long ago (by
> Geiger, I think).

One only has to go to such lengths because we have an historical sense of 
the canon-history that the authors, redactors, editors and scribes of the 
texts did not.

Dan