Hello again gandhabba fans,


On the 'Mahayana' nature of the antarabhava:


it seems that this issue is

> > important and may help to understand where the Mahayana concept

of the

> > antarabhava came from. So, I hope this helps.
>
> Why the assumption that it is a only a Mahayana concept ? I think

that

> several of the 18 Schools also held this opinion.

For sure. Wijesekera notes in this connections the Sammitiyas (=
Vatsiputriyas), some of the notorious 'Puggalavada' schools; also
the Pubbaseliyas, and Sarvastivadins (incl. Vaibhasikas). On the
other hand, the Mahasanghikas, Ekavyaharikas, Lokuttaravadins and
Kukkutikas (as well as the Theravadins, of course) opposed the idea.
I am sure there are more complete lists of the opinions of the
schools on this matter.

It is also discussed at

> length in the Mahaavibhaa.sa and the Abhidharmako`sa.

and the Amarakosa. It is clear that this issue was one of the main
controversies in the schools from the early days (cf the
Kathavatthu).

On another point that was made by Yuttadhammo re the etymology of
gandhabba, it is well known that the 'etymologies' offered by the
commentaries (and i think in Indian tradition generally) are not
strictly speaking etymologies as accepted today. Sometimes they are
called 'edifying etymologies', that is, puns or plays on words that
illustrate the religious meaning of the term at hand for the
commentator. Of course, these puns sometimes involve the true
historical roots of the word, but often they don't. So any
commentarial gloss can only be used as a first suggestion as to what
the etymology might be (regardless of how reliable they may be in
Dhamma terms).

In this kind of case, where we are clearly dealing with a very old
term, the etymology or the history of the word must be traced
through the texts older than the Nikayas, primarily the Vedas: this
tells us where the word is coming from (and as i mentioned, in this
case this is an exceedingly interesting story). Here the connection
is obviously with Vedic gandharva, and any etymology based on gam-,
etc., is spurious. The commentarial explanations tell us only where
the word is going. That has its interest, in that it shows us how
the schools fitted Vedic, pre-rational, mythic concepts into a
rationalist Buddhist understanding of rebirth.

yours in Dhamma

Bhante Sujato