On 15/07/2010 12:11, Dan Lusthaus wrote:
> 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.
>This Mahāyāna sūtra certainly has earlier sources in Pali and
Sanskrit.
It is still entirely incompatible with them, with early Buddhism and, if
taken literally, with much later Buddhism too.
What by the way is a 'left field' ? An agricultural plot belonging to a
Communist peasant ?
> The sutra has a dialogue between a king and someone named Satyavaca
> Nirgranthaputra, i.e., the "Truth-speaker, son of a Jain."
>The name has been deliberately altered. The usual Sanskrit form of
Saccaka's name (e.g. in the Dīrghāgama) is Sātyaki. And,
incidentally,
-putra in this kind of context doesn't mean 'son'; it means something
like 'community member'. So a nigaṇṭhaputta is a 'member of the Jain
monastic community' - they probably didn't have sons , being celibate !
> "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.]
>Note that the translation by 'should' here inadvertently introduces a
value judgement. The original simply says 'have the power (vasa) to have
executed those to be executed' and so on. [Technical detail: the
translators have misinterpreted the commentaries' explanation with
araha- of the future passive participle in -tāya.] Similarly later on
(p.231), we should render: [the king] would exercise <that power> and he
is able to exercise it. The point of the simile is not whether a Self
should wield power, but whether it can.
>>> This Buddha accepts capital punishment. The passage also gives some
> sense of
> what the Pali Buddha considers a king's job to include.
>1. The issue of Buddhist attitudes to capital punishment is an entirely
different one to the issue of Buddhist attitudes to warfare.
2. Subsuming the two things under the heading of 'violence' (as some are
doing now) seems to me to be an attempt to confuse people and conceal
the reality of the very strong rejection of violent warfare in early
Buddhism.
3. This is a simile. It cannot be used to imply that the Buddha does or
doesn't approve of royal behaviour. The point is to discuss the nature
of the various things claimed to be a Self (atta) i.e. do they exercise
authority in the way that the two great rulers of the Buddha's time did.
4. I doubt that this can be parleyed into 'what the Pali Buddha
considers a king's job to include'. The Buddha (who is portrayed fairly
consistently in early Pali, Sanskrit and Gāndhārī texts) is
simply
describing what they do. There is no implication as to what they should do.
> "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.'
"
>A similar passage is found in the Ambaṭṭhasutta (D I 94f.) and
in the
corresponding Sanskrit of the Dīrghāgama. cp. also AN IV 378 (without
the yakkha).
>> Now enters Vajrapāṇi (Pali: Vajirapāṇī),
who will become a key deity
> associated with Buddhist violence, defending the Dharma, etc., until
the
> present day:
>He may be such a deity in the Buddhist traditions derived from Ancient
Pakistan, but he has no such role in Southern Buddhism.
The translators are surely correct to suppose that vajirapāṇi here is
an
epithet. The occurrence of this passage in these two suttas (and no
doubt in others which are lost) is rather the source from which a deity
named Vajrapāṇi is eventually hypostatized. This must have occurred
in
the Gandhāra region where Vajrapāṇi rapidly becomes an important
and
separate deity, probably because of the presence of a local
thunderbolt-wielding deity.
> "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]
>>> 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.
>See above.
>> In the Skt version,
> Vajrapāṇi is Buddha's bodyguard, and ultimately
considered a
> manifestation
> of Buddha himself.
>He has no such role in the Sanskrit
Aṃvāṣṭhasūtra.
> 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.
>
I understand this as a folk theme, connected to Indian traditions
associated with religious debate.
And with behaviour towards a holy man.
> 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.
>Well, but I don't see it as having anything to do with early Buddhist
attitudes to warfare or to violence in the usual sense.
If you take it literally, then the Buddha is acting to prevent harm to
the individuals involved. That harm is due to their behaviour towards a
holy man. It is not something the Buddha approves of or creates. It is
just the law of things. And the harm is actually avoided.
If you take it less literally, then the head splitting into seven is
perhaps some kind of metaphor or representation of the psychological
self-destruction involved in rejecting the spiritual. Experiencing that
as a vision of a hostile yakkha is an alternative way of presenting the
same thing. Compare the consequences of harming a Buddha, killing an
arahat, patricide, matricide and the like.
So for me this is no example of Buddhist approval even of violence, let
alone of war.
The kind of idea involved here seems to me to be typical of the
Marxist-influenced Old Guard writing in the 1970s. See for example:
Trevor Ling, _Buddhism, Imperialism and War_, George Allen & Unwin,
London, 1979. The attempt to somehow associate Buddhism with war and
violence seems now to have spread to other forms of annihilationist
religious commitment, but I think it still preserves much of its Marxist
roots.
Lance
