Ontheway wrote: ↑Tue Oct 19, 2021 2:26 am
Vimuttimagga and Visuddhimagga are in many way different (even contradict) with each other, if read carefully.
Example:
Vimuttimagga:
1) Dhutanga can be unwholesome
2) Subscribed to the belief of guessing previous birth destination by observing characters
3) Only 38 meditation methods
4) Discouraging acceptance of almsfood from certain group of people such as eunuchs, nuns, widows.
5) Gives four ways of cultivating Anapanasati.
6) Stated that "When you meet a person belongs to a low caste while on Pindapata, cover the bowl with your hand".
7) Contains no discussion using Abhidhammabhajaniya method.
Visuddhimagga:
1) Explain and encourage the undertaking of Dhutanga practices
2) Mentioned the belief of guessing previous birth destination by observing characters from Vimuttimagga, but refused to accept it to be authority as Suttas never mention this belief.
3) There are 40 meditation methods given.
4) Almsfood is not to be taken only from a certain group of people.
5) Gives eight ways of cultivating Anapanasati.
6) Do not pay attention to class or caste.
7) Contains both Suttantabhajaniya method and Abhidhammabhajaniya method of exposition on Dhamma.
I don't think Vimuttimagga or Visuddhimagga superior over another in term of writing style. Both of them served different purpose. And one cannot accept both Vimuttimagga and Visuddhimagga at the same time, given that both of them contain different teachings.
Vimuttimagga was compiled earlier (its teachings traceable back to Abhayagiri sect) and it was a meditation manual. While Visuddhimagga was written by Bhandatacariya Buddhaghosa Thera as "resume" given to Mahaviharavasins and never intended to be a teaching material for monastics or lay followers. It was an exegesis of entire Pali Tipitaka, based on a single Gatha given from Samyutta Nikaya and written in a way that follows Rathavinita Suttanta method of exposition.
Would like to update my post with my latest thought:
Recently I read again the introduction of Vimuttimagga translation on Candala topic (sorry for copy paste with incorrect formatting, everyone can always read the original text in freely available pdf):
Stated that "When you meet a person belongs to a low caste while on Pindapata, cover the bowl with your hand".
I was told by a forum member here that it appears to be a mistranslation. Nevertheless, in the introduction:
What has largely prompted Prof. Bapat to protest seems to be the statement found in Chapter in dealing with the Austerities, and his objection runs thus:
"Let us note one peculiar fact about Upatissa. He seems to have some kind of contempt for, or low opinion of, a Canddla" (p. xlvi). Then on the same page he goes on to say the following, which are possibly the reasons for the statement mentioned above.
(1) "In one place, there is a reference to a Canddla where we are told in a simile that he has no desire for a princely throne" (p. xlvi). The relevant passage is, "As an outcast has no desire for a king's throne" (p. 25 of the present translation). The same idea is found in the Visuddhimagga too, namely, "Nirdso saddhamme canddlakwndrako viya rajje" (p. 54) — "He is desireless for the Good Law as a canddla (outcast) is for a kingdom". It is therefore not a statement peculiar to the Venerable Upatissa Thera.
(2) With regard to the next objection; "At another place, to see a Canddla on the way is considered to be a sufficient reason for the laxity in the observance of the practice of sapaddna-cdrikd (going from house to house in succession for begging one's food)" (p. xlvi). This is not quite what the text says, as will be seen later. There is no question of laxity. Then the next sentence continues, "Upatissa says that if a mendicant sees a Canddla on the way, he should cover his begging-bowl and may skip over some houses and go further. In the third place we find a lack of conscientiousness (ahirika) is compared to a Canddla" (pp. xlvi-xlvii). Further, at p. 23, "Even if he has taken up the practice of a sapaddnacdrika, he should avoid elephants or horses that may be coming in his way. Seeing a canddla, he should cover his begging-bowl. 'Following one's dcariya or upajjhdya' is also mentioned as an occasion for exception". Here is the relevant passage from the present translation (p. 36): "What is the teaching as regards expedience in the observance of 'regular almsround'? If a bhikkhu on seeing elephants or horses fighting or in rut, at the gate, avoids them, or on seeing an outcast (canddla, trans-literation) covers his bowl, or goes behind his preceptor, teacher or a visiting bhikkhu, and thus commits certain faults for expedience' sake, he does not fail in 'regular almsround' ".
Now let us consider why the expedience in regard to elephants and horses may be resorted to. It is plain that it is to avoid being hurt or even killed.
Regarding the preceptor or teacher — it is out of respect due to them. It is an offence not to do so. Again, covering the bowl on seeing a canddla is for self-protection. The society at that time was very much caste-conscious.
If the people objected to, or did not favour, the receiving of alms from one they considered an outcast, the support from the large majority of the people would be liable to be withdrawn and the life of the bhikkhu rendered difficult, to say the least. Here the story of the son and heir of the King Dutthagamani comes readily to mind. It is said that the people were prosperous and happy during his reign and that he had a son named Salirajakumara, concerning whom the following is recorded.
Introduction
Vimuttimagga translation by Ehara et al. (1961)
My comment on Vimuttimagga is wrong on this part:
4) Discouraging acceptance of almsfood from certain group of people such as eunuchs, nuns, widows.
as it is found in this passage instead
'Lawful resort' means lawful resort and unlawful resort. What is "unlawful resort' ? "A certain bhikkhu goes to a harlot's abode, a widow's abode, a virgin's abode, a eunuch's abode, a bhikkuni's abode, to liquor shops; he associates with kings, ministers, heretical monks, evil monks and with such fellows as have no heart of faith, never benefit the four classes and who are disliked by them (the four classes). This is called 'unlawful resort' ".x The Buddha has declared: "A bhikkhu transgresses (the precept against) impure unlawful resort. What is 'impure unlawful resort'? It is to go to a harlot's abode". 'Lawful resort' is obvious.
And again, there are three kinds of 'lawful resort': lawful resort as close reliance,2 lawful resort as protection,3 lawful resort as a bond.
page 19 Vimuttimagga translation by Ehara et al. (1961)
sorry my comment was wrong and I apologize for that.
1) Dhutanga can be unwholesome
this is found in this sense:
'Which of the three persons observe the austerities' ? The man of greed and the man of delusion observe the austerities. The man of hate cannot observe the austerities. The man of greed and the man of delusion can observe the austerities. The man of greed accomplishes needfulness through attachment.
If he becomes heedless, he overcomes greed. Delusion is non-doubting. By means of the austerities a bhikkhu can fulfil needfulness. If he is heedful, he can overcome delusion well. That is why the man of greed and the man of delusion observe the austerities.
Heedless men suffer and do evil. A heedless man should not observe (because if he does, he will increase his sufferings), just as a person afflicted with a disease of phlegm worsens on taking hot drinks.
page 38
2) Subscribed to the belief of guessing previous birth destination by observing characters
it is found in this passage:
CAUSES OF BEHAVIOUR
Q. What are the causes of these three kinds of behaviour? How may it be known that this man is a walker in passion, that man is a walker in hate and yet another is a walker in infatuation?1 How may they be distinguished through robes, food, bedding, resort and postures?
A. Deeds done in the past are causes of behaviour. The elements are causes of behaviour. The cardinal humours2 are causes of behaviour.
How do deeds done in the past become causes of behaviour?
One who had accumulated good actions, in past existences, through lovable means, becomes a walker in passion, and also one who passing away from a heavenly mansion is reborn here.
One who (in past existences) had perpetrated inimical deeds of killing, maiming and capturing, becomes a walker in hate, and also one who passing away from a hell or a serpent-state, is reborn here.
One who (in past existences) had partaken freely of intoxicating drink and was devoid (of learning and conversation) becomes a walker in infatuation, and also one who passing away from a bestial state is reborn here. Thus deeds done in the past become causes of behaviour.......
page 57
3) Only 38 meditation methods
page 63
Gives four ways of cultivating Anapanasati.
Vimuttimagga translation stated this:
And again, certain predecessors4 taught four ways of practising mindful-ness of respiration. They are counting, connection, contacting and fixing.5 Q. What is counting? A. A new yogin counts the breaths from one to ten, beginning with the outgoing breath and ending with the incoming breath.
He does not count beyond ten. Again, it is taught that he counts from one to five but does not count beyond five. He does not miss. At that time (i.e., when he misses) he should count (the next) or stop that count. Thus he dwells in mindfulness of respiration, attending to the object. Thus should counting be understood.
page 159
7) Contains no discussion using Abhidhammabhajaniya method.
There is no description of 89 consciousnesses and cittavithi in details.
Vimuttimagga was compiled earlier (its teachings traceable back to Abhayagiri sect)
It was from here and arguments present:
Since the Introduction had already been sent to the Printers by the time the 'Encyclopaedia of Buddhism' (1961 Government of Ceylon, Fascicule A-Aca) was out, the following is included here. In his article, Abhidharma Literature, Dr. Kogen Jvlizuno makes three statements on page 78 of the Encyclopaedia regarding the Vimuttiniagga: (1) that the Vimuttimagga (along with the Dhammapada, the Atthakavagga of the Suttanipdta etc.) "probably belonged to the Abhayagiri sect and not to the Mahavihara sect" (paragraphs continued from the previous page); (2) that "He (i. e., the Venerable Buddhaghosa Thera) evidently studied the Vimuttimagga, which was a manual of the Abhayagirivihara sect" (paragraph c); and (3) "That the Vimutti-magga, was Upatissa's work and belonged to the Abhayagirivihara sect is mentioned in the tika (sub-commentary, i.e., Dhammapala's Paramattha-man]lisa) of the Visuddhimagga'" (paragraph c).
The first statement, (1) above, says that the Vimuttimagga "probably belonged to the Abhayagiri sect", while the second, (2) above, says "Vimutti-magga, which was a manuel of the Abhayagirivihara sect". How, precisely, did probability in paragraph B became certainty in paragraph c? As for the third statement, (3) above, the Paramatthamahjusd does not say that the Vimuttimagga "belonged to the Abhayagirivihara sect" as is claimed here.
What it says is that the Vimuttimagga is the work of the Venerable Upatissa Thera. The fact that certain teachings are common to both the Abhayagiri-vihara and the Vimuttimagga does not prove that the latter belonged to the Abhayagirivihara sect. For details see Introduction pp. xxxvi, xxxvn and n. 2, p. 57 of the present translation.
Preface XXXIII
Furthermore,
Regarding the view that the Vimuttimagga was a work written at the Abhayagiri Monastery, the late Venerable Nanamoli Thera rightly says, "That it (the Vimuttimagga) contains some minor points accepted by the Abhayagiri Monastery does not necessarily imply that it had any special connection with that centre. The sources may have been common to both. The disputed points are not schismatical. Bhadantacariya Buddhaghosa himself never mentions it" (Introduction, xxvm).
Again, everyone can discover more by reading the texts by themselves.