Page 1 of 2

The Personalists.

Posted: Tue Feb 14, 2012 8:22 pm
by vinasp
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.

Re: The Personalists.

Posted: Tue Feb 14, 2012 8:37 pm
by SamBodhi
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

Re: The Personalists.

Posted: Tue Feb 14, 2012 8:40 pm
by cooran
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

Re: The Personalists.

Posted: Wed Feb 15, 2012 12:15 am
by vinasp
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.

Re: The Personalists.

Posted: Wed Feb 15, 2012 7:36 am
by cooran
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

Re: The Personalists.

Posted: Fri Feb 17, 2012 9:49 pm
by vinasp
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.

Re: The Personalists.

Posted: Fri Feb 17, 2012 10:00 pm
by daverupa
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.

Re: The Personalists.

Posted: Fri Feb 17, 2012 10:21 pm
by mikenz66
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

Re: The Personalists.

Posted: Fri Feb 17, 2012 11:16 pm
by vinasp
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.

Re: The Personalists.

Posted: Fri Feb 17, 2012 11:23 pm
by Cittasanto
vinasp wrote: However, the Tathagata is not included in the eight noble persons.
isn[t he?
I believe arahant is an epithet also!

Re: The Personalists.

Posted: Sat Feb 18, 2012 1:46 am
by retrofuturist
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. :)

Re: The Personalists.

Posted: Sat Feb 18, 2012 2:00 am
by Dan74
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."

Re: The Personalists.

Posted: Sat Feb 18, 2012 2:49 am
by vinasp
Hi Dan74,

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

Regards, Vincent.

Re: The Personalists.

Posted: Sat Feb 18, 2012 6:09 am
by Virgo
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

Re: The Personalists.

Posted: Mon Feb 20, 2012 7:30 am
by Zom
1. Why has there been so much debate over this discourse?
Because this was a self-view (that is - Wrong View).