selwyn at ntlworld.com
Thu Nov 10 01:16:33 MST 2011
Dan Lusthaus wrote:
> Maybe I read too much Yogacara and Mahayana, but āgantuka-kleśa is the
> term of choice.
I think that perhaps you do. I cannot find the term in any immediately
accessible source in any non-Mahāyāna text preserved in Sanskrit. Of
course, the notion that upakkilesā are adventitious is found in Pali,
but never the compound āgantukakilesa.
> 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?
I will have to see that to comment.
> 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.
The recently found Sanskrit text is being edited here in Oxford at the
moment by Dr Kramer from Vienna, but I don't know whether it will have
any bearing on this issue.
>>> **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
>>> bunch of monks there eagerly awaiting his presence and a chance to talk
>> 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.
Actually, Ānanda doesn't propose visiting the brahmin at all. He
suggests going to the brahmin's ashrama (assamo) and points out that it
is an attractive spot. This is a place provided by the brahmin for
mendicants, perhaps specifically for Buddhist monks. There is no
expectation that the brahmin will actually be there.
All this is polite Indic languge to provide a lead in to the discourse.
>> 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.
You are putting something into my mouth. I don't hold the view that the
Pali text is always the oldest. I wouldn't doubt that the linguistic
form of the Pali texts is closer to the form in which the texts were
originally written down than the highly Sanskritized versions of the
so-called Mūlasarvāstivāda. The issue is more complex with the Recension
One texts from Central Asia, not to mention the material in Gāndhārī. I
would also suspect that the content of some of the other texts (e.g. the
Ekottarika) is later, as in this case.
In general we have a rich literature which represents what must have
been a complex oral tradition.
In regard to Analayo's earlier work, I tended to think he over-favours
the Chinese. He seems to use a principle of evaluation which I would
call 'primacy of the plebeian' — if there is anything complex or subtle
in the Pali, it must be a corruption or later addition. Since I suspect
that the Chinese translators also tended to simplify, I suspect that
distorts the situation.
>> 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.
I don't understand what you mean here.
More information about the buddha-l