RE: salistambhasutra

Bhante,

Most interesting work, thank you.  Please share your findings with us when
you have completed the study :-)

Anjali,

Yuttadhammo
On Apr 2, 2013 7:14 PM, "Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi" <venbodhi@...>
wrote:

> **
>
>
> Dear Lance,
>
> Further down in the passage I cited from the Śālistamba Sūtra (as quoted
> in Prasannapadā) we find:
>
> nāmarūpamiti vedanādayo'rūpiṇaścatvāraḥ skandhās tatra tatra bhave
> nāmayantīti nāma | saharūpaskandhena ca nāma rūpaṁ ceti nāmarūpamucyate |
>
> This sutra understands nāma to comprise the four non-material aggregates,
> even in the context of dependent origination, where nāmarūpa is conditioned
> by vijñāna. The Prasannapadā shares this interpretation. See earlier in the
> same chapter of Prasannapadā, where we find the verse:
>
> catvāro'rūpiṇaḥ skandhā nāmeti vyapadiśyate |
> rūpyata iti rūpam | bādhyata ityarthaḥ |
>
> In the passage I cited earlier, in the line, vijñānasahabhuvaścatvāraḥ
> skandhā arūpiṇaḥ upādānākhyāḥ, tannāma |, it seems possible that “the four
> aggregates occurring along with vijñāna” are the four non-material
> aggregates, not all four non- vijñāna aggregates. Even though this does not
> agree with the Pali Abhidhamma system—within which consciousness that not
> occur as a condition for itself—the Sarvāstivāda Abhidharma system does
> include vijñāna among the constituents of nāmarūpa that are conditioned by
> vijñāna, thus allowing this redundancy. Perhaps the Śālistamba Sūtra shared
> this feature of Sarvāstivādin thought.
>
> In the Pali Abhidhamma system (Dhammasaṅgaṇī, Nikkhepakaṇḍa), the
> cittasahabhuno dhammā are enumerated in a way that excludes the
> rūpakkhandha, with the exception of the two viññattis—but in various other
> ways, too, the viññattis behave like mavericks in the rūpakkhandha. So here
> in Dhs, it is only arūpino dhammas plus the two viññattis that count as
> cittasahabhuno:
>
> 1203. Katame dhammā cittasahabhuno? Vedanākkhandho, saññākkhandho,
> saṅkhārakkhandho, kāyaviññatti, vacīviññatti – ime dhammā cittasahabhuno.
>
> 1204. Katame dhammā no cittasahabhuno? Cittañca, avasesañca rūpaṃ,
> asaṅkhatā ca dhātu – ime dhammā no cittasahabhuno.
>
> (VRI 263; Ee 211)
>
> Assuming the concept of cittasahabhū (= vijñānasahabhū) had already
> acquired a technical sense across the Buddhist schools, it is possible the
> Śālistamba Sūtra intends the term to include only the mental aggregates. In
> that case, the four that run alongside vijñāna will not include the
> rūpaskandha.
>
> I’ve been trying to see how the twelvefold formula of pratitya samutpada
> was interpreted by different early Buddhist schools. My original aim was to
> lay to rest an idea that has gained widespread popularity among western
> Dhamma teachers, namely, that the three-life interpretation of PS was
> introduced by Buddhaghosa as an attempt to smuggle brahmanic ideas into
> Buddhism. I am finding that the three-life interpretation was shared across
> the Buddhist schools long before the time of Buddhaghosa. Indeed the fact
> that it is common property of the Buddhist schools (though with minor
> differences in details) suggests that it goes back to a period that
> preceded the rise of the Buddhist schools.
>
> 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]
>
> 
>


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