[Buddha-l] Dharmapala

[L.S. Cousins]

Dan,
No-one who has studied as much Yogācāra as you can be unaware of the 
sophistication of traditional Buddhist understandings of these things. 
So why this black-and-white dichotomy ?

> 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)
>

I am sure he did.

But the interaction between the accounts of meditative states and 
accounts of heavens, etc. is built in. So it is not as simple as you are 
trying to make it.


> 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).
>

Many certainly do. But not all. And many describe their experiences of 
interactions with such entities. So they are certainly real as experiences.

>
> 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?
>

He has that experience. It is not stated that others saw the yakkha.

> 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,
>

Your analysis basically trivializes the early Buddhist scriptures. I am 
reminded of the missionary attack on the Buddhist scriptures in 19th 
century Ceylon which led eventually to the Panadura debate where the 
Buddhists tuned the tables by applying the same kind of analysis to the 
Bible.

But this is a literary theme of a general Indian kind, not something 
particularly Buddhist.

> 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.
>

This unique and very unusual pericope is found on only the two occasions 
in a very large literature. So you are blowing it up out of all 
proportion. It looks to me that the head-splitting theme is the norm. On 
just these two occasions a deity has been added. This fits the common 
pattern of pairing a psychological description (dhammādhiṭṭhāna) with a 
description in terms of a deity (puggalādhiṭṭhāna). So it is a fairly 
natural development.

We might want to give this a psychological interpretation: guilt and 
internal conflict generates the vision of a hostile entity. Whether 
mental states correspond to something out there is a whole other issue.

> Vajrapani's story and role in Buddhism expands over time,
>
Only in some forms of Buddhism. He has no significant role in later 
Southern Buddhism.

> 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.
>

The story is much more than this.

Saccaka is a talented but rather proud young debater. He declares in a 
public assembly that he can defeat anyone in debate: "Even if I were to 
undertake a debate with a mindless post, that post ... would shake, 
thoroughly shake and quiver — let alone a human being". Later he summons 
500 nobles to hear him debating with the Buddha, promising to make 
mince-meat of the Buddha in debate (literally 'drag him all over the 
place' just as a strong man might drag a long-haired ram all over the 
place by his long hair). Vesāli is a city state; there is no king. The 
nobles are the ruling group taking the place of a king.

So Saccaka goes with the 500 (i.e. a large number) nobles to the Buddha. 
They eventually find him meditating under a tree in the Jungle. Saccaka 
asks his question as to how the Buddha teaches his disciples. The Buddha 
replies that he trains his disciples that the five aggregates are 
impermanent and not self.

Saccaka responds with a simile: trees and plants grow in dependence upon 
the earth. Similarly the five aggregates are each self and based upon 
that self good or bad actions are performed.

The Buddha asks if this is not simply saying that the five aggregates 
are each self.

Saccaka replies that this is what he asserts. And so does this great crowd.

The Buddha rejects this appeal to communis opinio as irrelevant.

Then the Buddha refers to the authority (vasa) of a great king or of the 
nobles in a city state and asks if Saccaka has any such authority over 
his own body. Saccaka remains silent. The Buddha asks the question a 
second time and Saccaka again remains silent.

Of course, having challenged to a public debate and initiated the topic, 
it is hardly proper behaviour to remain silent in this way. So this is 
the stage at which the Buddha points out that it is not the time to be 
silent. Whoever is asked a sahadhammika question up to a third time by 
an enlightened being and remains silent, his head splits into seven 
pieces. A sahadhammika question must either be a question on dhamma or 
it may mean 'with good reason'.

This is the point at which the yakkha with a vajira to hand appears.

[Interestingly Dhammapāla's subcommentary asks: "Why is Vajirapāṇi 
standing there ? Feeling compassion like the Lord, he has fashioned a 
large and fearful body and stands in the air in front of Saccaka holding 
a vajira, thinking that he will scare Saccaka and dispel this wrong 
view. He has no desire to split Saccaka's head; for no-one can be harmed 
in  front of the Lord."]

The terrified Saccaka seeks protection from the Lord and declares that 
he will answer the question. Although the word saraṇa is found, it is 
used in its general sense with two synonyms for a locus of protection. 
There is no conversion and no taking of refuges or becoming a disciple.

The debate continues and Saccaka is further humbled. Eventually he asks 
the Buddha for further teachings. Finally he acknowledges that he had 
been bold and impudent in challenging the Buddha to debate.

The discourse does not conclude with Saccaka becoming a disciple or 
taking refuge. However, he does invite the Buddha and his monks to a 
public meal and invites the nobles to participate. So Saccaka respects 
the Buddha after the debate but remains a Jain.

The issue here then is the overcoming of pride and dogmatic views. This 
is done in a forcible manner, but there is no conversion.

Lance Cousins