RE: salistambhasutra

Thank you, Lance, for the explanation, and thank you, Jim, for allowing passages like this to be brought up for discussion by the Pali Study Group.



With metta,

Bhikkhu Bodhi



From: palistudy@yahoogroups.com [mailto:palistudy@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of L.S. Cousins
Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2013 4:57 PM
To: palistudy@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [palistudy] salistambhasutra



  

Dear Ven. Bodhi,

I am not sure if it is allowed in this group, but anyway here is my
first try at a response.

> Dear Friends,
>
>
>
> Is it permissible in this Yahoo Group to pose questions about a Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit text that, in many ways, uses the terminology and doctrines of the Pali suttas? The text I have in mind is a Mahayana sūtra on dependent origination called Sālistambha Sūtra. Here is an excerpt of the passage where I have met problems. The style seems similar to what we find in the Pali vibhanga suttas:
>
>
>
> Tatra … vastuprativijñaptirvijñānam | vijñānasahabhuvaścatvāraḥ skandhā arūpiṇaḥ *upādānākhyāḥ, tannāmarūpaṁ* catvāri mahābhūtāni , tāni copādāya rūpam | tacca nāma rūpam | aikadhyamabhisaṁkṣipya tannāmarūpam … jātasya skandhasya paripāko jarā | jīrṇasya skandhasya vināśo maraṇamm |*mriyamāṇasya saṁmūḍhasya sābhiṣvaṅgasyāntardāhaḥ śokaḥ* |
I would take it as:

vijñānasahabhuvaś catvāraḥ skandhā. arūpiṇaḥ *upādānākhyāḥ, tan nāma. rūpaṁ* catvāri mahābhūtāni , tāni copādāya rūpam | tac ca nāmarūpam aikadhyam abhisaṁkṣipya tan nāmarūpam

"Four aggregates occur along with consciousness. The non-material ones
known as upādāna, that is nāma. Rūpa is the four mahābhūtas and the
materiality dependent upon them. But that is called materiality. And
combining together the nāmarūpa that is nāmarūpa."

In the digital version of Prasannapāda I have it is cited as:

vastuprativijñaptir vijñānam | vijñānasahabhuvaś catvāraḥ skandhā
arūpiṇa upādānākhyās tan nāma rūpaṃ tac ca nāma [tac ca rūpaṃ]
ekadhyam abhisaṃkṣipya tan nāmarūpam

That seems better, omitting the words in square brackets.
> I have blocked off with asterisks the phrases that I find puzzling. The first raises two questions. `
>
>
>
> 1a. “The four aggregates that are non-material, occurring along with consciousness, called upādāna, that is nāma.” In the Pali tradition, in the context of dependent origination viññāṇa is not included in nāma, but that is not the issue here. One problem is the compound upādānākhyāḥ used to describe the four mental aggregates. Surely the mental aggregates as such could not be considered aspects of upādāna, only components in the saṅkhārakkhandha.
I think it is a reference to upādānaskandhāḥ (as opposed to the simple
skandhas).
> 1b. What about tannāmarūpaṁ? Since this appears to be concluding a definition of nāma, could there be a copyist’s or editor’s error that should be corrected to read: tan nāmaṁ? This seems to me a feasible solution to the problem.
See above.
> 2. In the definition of śoka, what should we make of sābhiṣvaṅgasya? The rest of the definition is clear enough and might be rendered: “Sorrow is the inner burning of one who is dying, of one bewildered, of one sābhiṣvaṅga.” I’ve searched Monier-Williams and Edgerton for a solution, but I come away empty-handed.
It's in MW under abhiṣvaṅga 'intense attachment'.

Lance





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]