Re: salistambhasutra

Dear Ven. Bodhi,

Probably we need to remember that the Sarvāstivādins taught that
conditioned arising is to be understood in a number of ways. One of
these is kṣaṇika: so Abhidh-k-bh III 25 has: vijñānasahabhuvaś catvāraḥ
(4) skandhā nāmarūpam. I understand then that when approaching the
matter from a strict abhidharma viewpoint the Sarvāstivādin view is the
same as in the Theriya tradition.

Alternatively they can understand the twelve links or most of them as
names for the five aggregates at different stages. So ignorance is seen
as the five aggregates with ignorance predominating (pradhāna) and so
on. This is possibly a Suttanta-based interpretation.

The Pali sources do not seem to preserve such a Suttanta-based
understanding, although you do hear such ideas from time to time. I
think they must have had one at some point. In fact before it gives a
momentary interpretation the Vimuttimagga has: "Name and form means the
mental properties which arise together with the continuity of mind and
the embryo (kalala)." (Trsl. p. 259f.) This seems to take name and form
as all five aggregates.

I agree that the 'three lives interpretation' is far older than
Buddhaghosa. It is already presented in the Paṭisambhidāmagga.

Lance

> 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
>   
>
> 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