Meditation According to the Abhidharma Mahāvibhāṣa Śāstra

Textual analysis and comparative discussion on early Buddhist sects and scriptures.
User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 8151
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:55 pm
Location: Whitby, Canada

Re: Meditation According to the Abhidharma Mahāvibhāṣa Śāstra

Post by Coëmgenu »

Ceisiwr wrote: Sat May 15, 2021 4:03 pmin the jhānesu
I hate to do this to you, but "in the jhānesu" is a word choice from the Department of Redundancy Department. "Jhānesu" already has a sense of "in." If you want to use both the native declension and also the particles of analytic grammar (as opposed to inflected grammar), you would arguably have to say "[...] no 5 sense experience jhānesu."

Basically, they are arguing with Venerable Vasubadhu, who could be wrong. Ven Saṃghabhadra had serious disagreements with his principle Abhidharma treatise, but I have no clue the breadth of his disagreements. Similarly, I have read conflicting information that Ven Saṃghabhadra was either 1) vexed by errors in Abhidharmakośakārikā, or 2) vexed by Sautrāntika heresies in the Bhāṣya. I have heard the matter explained both ways, and am basically waiting for a translation of Ven Saṃghabhadra's refutation text, Abhidharmapradīpika, to see what the actual meat of the matter was. Ven Vasubadhu argues this, Abhidharmakośakārikā vol 4 p. 1240, and this is supposed to be the Vaibhāṣika view:
abhidharmakosavol4.1240.JPG
Ven Vasubandhu has manas-exclusivity starting in the second dhyāna according to the Vaibhāṣikas. If Ven Vasubandhu is wrong, we can imagine Ven Saṃghabhadra will have something to say concerning the matter, if his voluminous treatises defending Vaibhāṣika orthodoxy are ever translated.
What is the Uncreated?
Sublime & free, what is that obscured Eternity?
It is the Undying, the Bright, the Isle.
It is an Ocean, a Secret: Reality.
Both life and oblivion, it is Nirvāṇa.
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22409
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: Meditation According to the Abhidharma Mahāvibhāṣa Śāstra

Post by Ceisiwr »

Coëmgenu wrote: Sat May 15, 2021 4:25 pm
I hate to do this to you, but "in the jhānesu" is a word choice from the Department of Redundancy Department. "Jhānesu" already has a sense of "in." If you want to use both the native declension and also the particles of analytic grammar (as opposed to inflected grammar), you would arguably have to say "[...] no 5 sense experience jhānesu."
No need to feel bad for pointing out a mistake. Duly noted.
Basically, they are arguing with Venerable Vasubadhu, who could be wrong. Ven Saṃghabhadra had serious disagreements with his principle Abhidharma treatise, but I have no clue the breadth of his disagreements. Similarly, I have read conflicting information that Ven Saṃghabhadra was either 1) vexed by errors in Abhidharmakośakārikā, or 2) vexed by Sautrāntika heresies in the Bhāṣya. I have heard the matter explained both ways, and am basically waiting for a translation of Ven Saṃghabhadra's refutation text, Abhidharmapradīpika, to see what the actual meat of the matter was. Ven Vasubadhu argues this, Abhidharmakośakārikā vol 4 p. 1240, and this is supposed to be the Vaibhāṣika view:
Great. Thanks.
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 8151
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:55 pm
Location: Whitby, Canada

Re: Meditation According to the Abhidharma Mahāvibhāṣa Śāstra

Post by Coëmgenu »

Ceisiwr wrote: Sat May 15, 2021 4:03 pmPage 296

How accurate is this?
So now that I've actually looked at the citation in the paper, it looks like we have a case of Kośakārikā vs Kośakārikā. I'll have to trace down where in the source text the quote comes from and who is ascribed the position in the text. When I first read the passage with the lettered items versus the numbered items, I had assumed source text and commentary, which would make the lettered items Sautrāntika, but then questioned this when other passages would say "According to the Sautrāntikas" and things like that. Maybe my initial reading was right in making that assumption.

EDIT: It's a tricky text to read. I found it. It's vol. 4 p. 1231 in the Pruden translation. It's actually right before where I was cutting and pasting from.

I am not sure who is supposed to be asking the question that starts this section, "Why do you say that the happiness of the Third Dhyāna constitutes a separate thing?" I am not sure whose inquiry that is supposed to be. The Sautrāntika?

I think Ven Vasubandhu might be commenting on the root text, perhaps arguing that the non-Dārṣṭāntika view is incoherent. The context is in introducing the Dārṣṭāntika-Vaibhāṣika debate, particularly on whether sukha in the third dhyāna is bodily, praśrabdhisukha being understood as bodily and vedanāsukha being seen as of manas-alone by the Vaibhāṣika, unless I'm misreading things.
What is the Uncreated?
Sublime & free, what is that obscured Eternity?
It is the Undying, the Bright, the Isle.
It is an Ocean, a Secret: Reality.
Both life and oblivion, it is Nirvāṇa.
Post Reply