No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
XI. Buddhist Notes. The “Five Points” of Mahadeva and the Kathavatthu
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 15 March 2011
Extract
WHILE preparing an article on Buddhist Councils for Hastings' Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics, I came to identify the so-called “Five Points” of Mahādeva with some “heretical” tenets of the Kathāvatthu. If I am right in this identification, and I believe I am, the fact cannot be without importance, for it establishes a link, hitherto wanting, between the Cingalese tradition of the Third Council and the Northern traditions concerning councils and the origin of the Mahāsāṃghikas. I do not intend to draw the conclusions that can be derived therefrom, namely, as concerns the redaction of the Kathāvatthu: this book, one of the richest of Buddhist antiquity, has not yet been studied enough, and its interpretation is beset with many difficulties. Careful comparison with “Northern” documents on sects would prove very useful, and, to say the truth, much help will be derived from the forthcoming translation of the Kathāvatthu itself.
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Royal Asiatic Society 1910
References
page 413 note 1 The title is somewhat misleading; therefore Professor Franke, R. O. (“Buddhist Councils at Rājagaha and Vesālī”: JPTS., 1908)Google Scholar and myself (“Buddhist Councils”: Muséon and Indian Antiquary, 1908) may be excused for having ignored Mr. V. A. Smith's origina and persuasive views.
page 414 note 1 See Rockhill, , Life of Buddha, pp. 181 ffGoogle Scholar. I have used the “red” edition of Tandjur, Mdo, vol. xc.
page 414 note 2 Mañjughoṣahāasavajra's Siddhṣnta, the treatise quoted by Wassilieff, p. 260 (287), fol. 133b of my copy, a precious gift of M. de Stcherbatskoï.
page 414 note 3 See Smith, V. A., JRAS., 1901, p. 851Google Scholar. The Tibetan has “King Nanda and Mahãpadma”; but the remarks of Rockhill, , Life, p. 186Google Scholar, note, do not seem conclusive.
page 414 note 4 See Wassilieff, p. 223 (245) ff.
page 414 note 5 In the words of Mañjughoṣahāsavajra; Rockhill's translation seems to be inaccurate. On Mahādeva, see ProfessorDavids, Rhys, JRAS., 1892, p. 9Google Scholar.
page 415 note 1 “ In den chinesischen Memoiren Tschu-san-thsang-ki heisst es sogar dass die Anhänger Mahāadeva's sich Mahāsāṃghikas benannt hatten” (Wassilieff, , apud Tāranātha, p. 293Google Scholar).
page 416 note 1 Nanjio, No. 1263, a commentary on Jñānaprasthāna (see Takakusu, , JPTS., 1905, p. 129Google Scholar). See Watters, I, p. 267.
page 416 note 2 Arbeiten der Pekinger Mission, ii, p. 122, quoted apud Tāranātha, p. 293. As appears from (4), the source of Palladius is not the source of Watters.
page 417 note 1 See Wassilieff, p. 223 (245) ff. The Points are quoted—(1) As the origin of the Mahāsāṃghikas' schism; (2) as adhered to by the Mahāsāṃghikas: “In the Arhats, there is gzhan-gyis … ” 2 and 3 wanting; (3) as adhered to by the Bahuśrutīyas and the Haimavatas.
page 417 note 2 The Points are quoted by Bhavya (see Rockhill, , Lift, pp. 181 ff.Google Scholar) (1) as the origin of the schism; (2) as adhered to by the Ekavyavahārikas (with variants, a. dgra-bcom-pa-rnams kyaṅ gzhan-dag-gis bstan-pa bsgrub-par byed-do … e. sdug-bsṅal spon-baḥi lam yod-do); (3) on the Bahuśrutīyas: dgra-bcom-pa-rnams-la gzhan-gyis ñe-bar-bstan-pa bsgṙubpaḥo. yaṅ-dag-par bsgrags-paḥi lam yaṅ yod-do. mñam-par bzhag-pa-la yaṅ-dag-par ḥjug-pa-la(?) yod-do; (4) the “Pūrvasthaviras” deny the Five Points; the first one = dgra-bcom-pa-rnams-la gzhan-gyi[s] ston-śiṅ bsgrub-pa ni [med-do].
page 417 note 3 Nikāyabhedopadeśanā nāma saṃgraha (?), fol. 188a (Tandjur, Mdo, xc)—doctrine of the Lokottaravādins.
page 418 note 1 See below, p. 421.
page 418 note 2 These figures refer to the sections in Kathāvatthuppakaraṇa (PTS., 1894–7); the Atthakathā (JPTS., 1889) differs, 2, 3, and 4 forming § 2. The reader will, of course, compare ProfessorDavids', Rhys article, “Schools of Buddhist Belief,” JRAS., 1893Google Scholar.
page 419 note 1 Kathāvatthu: “Atthi arahato asucisukkavisaṭṭhīti ” (ii, 1, 1) … “Handa hi Mārakāyikā devatā arahato asucisukkavisaṭṭhim upasaṃharanti” (ii, 1, 3) … “Atthi arahato parūpahāro ti” (ii, 1, 23). In the words of Professor Rhys Davids, “Can an arahat be guilty (unwittingly and through the action of Māra) of indecency ?” Succubus deities are here intended. The Kathāvatthu denies, against the Seliyas (comm.), the possibility of such an event, and refers to a formal assertion—too formal!—of Buddha himself (ii, 1, 21); it admits parūpahāra in this sense only that “others” (pare) may “take away” (upasaṃhareyyum) the robe of an arahat, etc. (ii, 1, 23).
page 419 note 2 Addition (?) of bstan-pa and stoṅ-śin (see p. 417, n. 2: Arhantaḥ parair (or pareṇa) deśitāḥ sādhyanti).
page 419 note 3 Compare Milinda, pp. 266–7 (Rhys Davids' translation, ii, p. 100). Ignorance concerning such trivial matters even in a Buddha, see the rather heretical assertion, JRAS., 1894, p. 372, n. 2.
page 419 note 4 One may refer to ProfessorDavids', Rhys excellent article on Arhat in Hastings Encyclopœdia, I, p. 774Google Scholar (quoting Majjhima, III, p. 100; see also Aṅguttara, V, pp. 155, 162), and to the delicious Psalms of the Early Buddhists (Sisters), PTS., 1909. The history of Ānanda clearly shows that a clever man is well aware of his spiritual deficiencies (Culla, xi, 1, 6), but it may be said that Ānanda is not an ordinary “ ordinary man” (pṛihagjana) (Aṅguttara, I,.p. 225).
page 420 note 1 Above, p. 417, under 5.
page 420 note 2 Vyāharoti is the phrase used in Pāli for “declaring” one's spiritual progress (aññā) (Aṅguttara, V, p. 155, etc.).
page 421 note 1 But, again, the “crossing over” may refer to doubt: vitiṇṇakankha is a well-known phrase, see Childers.
page 421 note 2 See above, p. 418.
page 421 note 3 Arhats, are visuddhidevas, kings sammatidevas, and gods uppattidevas, in Vibhaṅnga (PTS., 1904), p. 422Google Scholar.
page 421 note 4 See above, p. 417, n. 1.
page 422 note 1 Also cikits, “to cure.”
page 422 note 2 “Mñam-par bzhag-pa yaṅ tshig smraho.”
page 422 note 3 “Med ces kyaṅ mi gsuṅs te rtag-tu mñam-par bzhag-pa ñid-kyi phyir.” On that doctrine of the “silence of Bhagavat”, see JRAS., 1902, April, p. 374, and my Bouddhisme (1909), p. 253.
page 423 note 1 The exclamation “Suffering!” does not always imply the notion of the Noble Truth of suffering; in the same way, one may realize the notion “space (ākāśa) is infinite” without being a saint. On the importance of such exclamations, see MrsDavids', RhysBuddhist Psychology, p. 71Google Scholar, note. Compare Kathāvatthu, ix, 9; xi, 4; xviii, 8.
page 423 note 2 Compare, JRAS., 1909, p. 577, n. 1.