The Personalists.

Textual analysis and comparative discussion on early Buddhist sects and texts.
vinasp
Posts: 1675
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2009 7:49 pm
Location: Bristol. United Kingdom.

The Personalists.

Post by vinasp » Tue Feb 14, 2012 8:22 pm

Hi everyone,

"Personalism (Pudgalavada) was a remarkable and durable aspect of an
important part of early Buddhism. For more than ten centuries it was
taught and defended by several schools and had numerous followers but
was strongly criticised by other Buddhist schools."

From: The Literature of the Personalists of Early Buddhism by
Bhikshu Thich Thien Chau, Motilal Banarsidass, Delhi 1999.

This thread is for discussion of the Personalist School and their
interpretation of SN 22.22 The Burden - from the Theravada standpoint
of course!

Regards, Vincent.

SamBodhi
Posts: 199
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2011 6:38 pm
Contact:

Re: The Personalists.

Post by SamBodhi » Tue Feb 14, 2012 8:37 pm

I looked up SN 22.22 on accesstoinsight.com and Thanissaro Bhikkhu's note at the end of the page might be relevant.
...in MN 72, where he refuses to get involved in questions of whether a person has a live essence separate from or identical to his/her body, or of whether after death there is something of an arahant that exists or not. In other words, the questions aren't worth asking. Nothing is accomplished by assuming or denying an ultimate reality behind what we think of as a person. Instead, the strategy of the practice is to comprehend the burden that we each are carrying and to throw it off.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

with Metta,
pung S
"An inward-staying
unentangled knowing,
All outward-going knowing
cast aside."
--Upasika Kee Nanayon

User avatar
cooran
Posts: 8504
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2009 11:32 pm
Location: Queensland, Australia

Re: The Personalists.

Post by cooran » Tue Feb 14, 2012 8:40 pm

Hello Vinasp, all,

This might be of interest:

Pudgalavāda Buddhist Philosophy
http://www.iep.utm.edu/pudgalav/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

with metta
Chris
---The trouble is that you think you have time---
---Worry is the Interest, paid in advance, on a debt you may never owe---
---It's not what happens to you in life that is important ~ it's what you do with it ---

vinasp
Posts: 1675
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2009 7:49 pm
Location: Bristol. United Kingdom.

Re: The Personalists.

Post by vinasp » Wed Feb 15, 2012 12:15 am

Hi everyone,

A question for those who have more knowledge of non-Theravada schools
than I have.

Is the distinction between the five aggregates and the five aggregates of
clinging, found only in the Theravada teachings?

Regards, Vincent.

User avatar
cooran
Posts: 8504
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2009 11:32 pm
Location: Queensland, Australia

Re: The Personalists.

Post by cooran » Wed Feb 15, 2012 7:36 am

Hello Vinasp, all,

This has already been discussed on Dhamma Wheel in this thread:
The 5 Aggregates and the 5 Clinging Aggregates
http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=6867" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

with metta
Chris
---The trouble is that you think you have time---
---Worry is the Interest, paid in advance, on a debt you may never owe---
---It's not what happens to you in life that is important ~ it's what you do with it ---

vinasp
Posts: 1675
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2009 7:49 pm
Location: Bristol. United Kingdom.

Re: The Personalists.

Post by vinasp » Fri Feb 17, 2012 9:49 pm

Hi everyone,

It seems that the traditional Theravada interpretation of the Buddha's use
of the term "person" (puggala) in SN 22.22, is that it was merely a lapse
into the use of conventional speech.

On the other hand, the Personalists taught that this puggala was neither
true in the ultimate sense nor just conventional speech. Also, that this
puggala was neither identical with, nor different from, the five aggregates.

The term "person" (puggala) is frequently used in the Sutta Pitaka, including
when refering to an arahant. I assume that all such references are understood
to be merely conventional speech, in line with the orthodox interpretation.

However, the Tathagata is not included in the eight noble persons.

Turning now to SN 22.22, I do not regard the use of the term "person" as a
problem, but I am puzzled by two things:

1. Why has there been so much debate over this discourse?

2. Why does the main text say that the burden is the five clinging
aggregates, while the verse at the end says that the burden is
the five aggregates?

Regards, Vincent.

User avatar
daverupa
Posts: 5980
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 6:58 pm

Re: The Personalists.

Post by daverupa » Fri Feb 17, 2012 10:00 pm

vinasp wrote: 2. Why does the main text say that the burden is the five clinging
aggregates, while the verse at the end says that the burden is
the five aggregates?
Probably metri causa, which is Latin for "for the sake of the meter" - in other words, the poem's format required a syllable count for which pancakkhandha fit, while pancupadanakkhandha did not.
  • "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.

    "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.

- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]

User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 16302
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: The Personalists.

Post by mikenz66 » Fri Feb 17, 2012 10:21 pm

Excellent point, Dave, and it is worth bearing in mind for any suttas done in verse (such as in the entire Sutta Nipata and Dhammapada) that the words may have had to be manipulated a bit to get the metre correct. And that some translators "fancy themselves as poets" (as Ven Dhammanando sometimes said) and give rather less than literal translations. Translating verse is tough. Bhikkhu Bodhi comments in his SN translation that he left Volume I to the end, because he was afraid if he started there he'd give up...

:anjali:
Mike

vinasp
Posts: 1675
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2009 7:49 pm
Location: Bristol. United Kingdom.

Re: The Personalists.

Post by vinasp » Fri Feb 17, 2012 11:16 pm

Hi Dave, Mike, All,

I am not sure what you are saying.

1. Are you saying that the main text is correct, but the verse is incorrect?

2. Are you saying that they are both correct?

From my reading to date, the Personalists always seem to quote the verse.

Regards, Vincent.

User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6623
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: The Personalists.

Post by Cittasanto » Fri Feb 17, 2012 11:23 pm

vinasp wrote: However, the Tathagata is not included in the eight noble persons.
isn[t he?
I believe arahant is an epithet also!
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill

User avatar
retrofuturist
Site Admin
Posts: 19968
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: The Personalists.

Post by retrofuturist » Sat Feb 18, 2012 1:46 am

Greetings,
Cittasanto wrote:I believe arahant is an epithet also!
:thumbsup:

:buddha2:

Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa.
Vincent wrote:I am not sure what you are saying.

1. Are you saying that the main text is correct, but the verse is incorrect?

2. Are you saying that they are both correct?
It sounds more like the point being made is verse must juggle both meter/timing and Dhammic accuracy.

Metta,
Retro. :)
"Do not force others, including children, by any means whatsoever, to adopt your views, whether by authority, threat, money, propaganda, or even education." - Ven. Thich Nhat Hanh

"The uprooting of identity is seen by the noble ones as pleasurable; but this contradicts what the whole world sees." (Snp 3.12)

"One discerns wrong view as wrong view, and right view as right view. This is one's right view." (MN 117)

User avatar
Dan74
Posts: 3012
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 11:12 pm

Re: The Personalists.

Post by Dan74 » Sat Feb 18, 2012 2:00 am

vinasp wrote:Hi everyone,

A question for those who have more knowledge of non-Theravada schools
than I have.

Is the distinction between the five aggregates and the five aggregates of
clinging, found only in the Theravada teachings?

Regards, Vincent.
I don't know if this answers your question (you are probably interested in other early schools), but in Mahayana (as far as I know) the emphasis is on the emptiness of the five aggregates, rather than on clinging. It amounts to much the same thing, if you ask me - insight that they are empty, ie insubstantial, changing, leads to the release of clinging, identification, reification, etc.

Heart Sutra wrote:"He Perceived That All Five Skandhas Are Empty.

"Thus He Overcame All Ills and Suffering."
_/|\_

vinasp
Posts: 1675
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2009 7:49 pm
Location: Bristol. United Kingdom.

Re: The Personalists.

Post by vinasp » Sat Feb 18, 2012 2:49 am

Hi Dan74,

Thank you, that was very interesting. It is not a complete answer but was
most helpful.

Regards, Vincent.

Virgo
Posts: 1424
Joined: Sun Feb 14, 2010 10:52 pm

Re: The Personalists.

Post by Virgo » Sat Feb 18, 2012 6:09 am

vinasp wrote:Hi everyone,

It seems that the traditional Theravada interpretation of the Buddha's use
of the term "person" (puggala) in SN 22.22, is that it was merely a lapse
into the use of conventional speech.

On the other hand, the Personalists taught that this puggala was neither
true in the ultimate sense nor just conventional speech. Also, that this
puggala was neither identical with, nor different from, the five aggregates.

The term "person" (puggala) is frequently used in the Sutta Pitaka, including
when refering to an arahant. I assume that all such references are understood
to be merely conventional speech, in line with the orthodox interpretation.
Theravadins would just write off the idea of a puggala which is not separate from but not different than the 5 aggregates as a mere concept, nothing other than mere concept, just like all other concepts. Nama and rupa arise, not-self, conditioned along by 24 paccaya (conditions). This would explain how the "puggala" goes from life to life and so on. However, the Puggalavadins, not following such an Abhidhamma scheme which is meant to explain such things while having a person keep right view, imo, felt the need to explain things away with this kind of proliferation that actually makes much less sense than the Theravada explanation does, imo. Past and future doesn't exist, so why the need to explain away realities that arose in the past or may arise in the future, just need to know those at this exact moment and the conditions that keep them arising again and again in a sequence.

Kevin

User avatar
Zom
Posts: 2094
Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 6:38 pm
Location: Russia, Saint-Petersburg
Contact:

Re: The Personalists.

Post by Zom » Mon Feb 20, 2012 7:30 am

1. Why has there been so much debate over this discourse?
Because this was a self-view (that is - Wrong View).

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests