Bhante Sujato on gandhabba = "semen"

[jankala]

Greetings, everyone.

Just thought I'd share this article here for those who may not have seen it. Bhante Sujato reasons out that gandhabba almost certainly was related to the ātman passed through the semen in the Brahminical tradition, and later Buddhists tried to rationalize it from the Buddha's conversation with Brahmins.

https://discourse.suttacentral.net/t/do ... emen/26734

Be well!
Mettā

[SarathW]

I sometimes wondered whether I was a semen before I became an embryo.
Perhaps the semen does not have consciousness even if it moves.
So I gave up that idea.
But we never know the exact process.

However, I can recall that I was a semen and fighting with other semen to conceive.
I am not sure if it was a dream though.
At the end of the day, these sorts of debates slow down your progress.

I am sure Buddha knew the connection between semen and conception.
Also should consider human cloning.
However, he must have given up that idea as you can't explain the conception of the Deva and Bahamas with that formula.

[Coëmgenu]

Greetings, everyone.

Just thought I'd share this article here for those who may not have seen it. Bhante Sujato reasons out that gandhabba almost certainly was related to the ātman passed through the semen in the Brahminical tradition, and later Buddhists tried to rationalize it from the Buddha's conversation with Brahmins.

https://discourse.suttacentral.net/t/do ... emen/26734

Be well!
Mettā

I think this has as much merit as his "the Buddha was intersex" argument.

This entire essay is about considering a hypothesis that Wijesekera does not argue in favour of precisely because it has no reasonable basis in traditional Buddhist literature. Ven Sujāto heartily disagrees and, even though there is no basis in Buddhist literature, runs with his fanfiction inspired by Wijesekera's essay.

Venerable Anālayo's "Rebirth and the Gandhabba" is a much more sober essay, much less speculative, that doesn't rely primarily upon what another scholar has rejected as having no basis.

EĀ and SĀ frame the antarābhāva as occurring in a "mind-made body." Both of the schools associated with these bodies of literature refer to this "mind-made body" as "the gandharva." They also both directly associate it with the death-consciousness and relinking-consciousness. The term "gandharva" is used like this in the suttas, the āgamasūtras, the Abhidharmaśāstras, and the traditional commentaries of both the Sarvāstivādins and Theravādins. Also, the gandharva is not associated with Brahmins in the literatures of other schools. Once in the Pāli Canon it is associated with Brahmins, once, and Ven Sujāto runs with this sole instance. The evidence is overwhelmingly against this modernist thesis that seeks to redefine this already-defined traditional term.

Also, note that he admits that this is all speculation in the essay in question. He admits that he does have the expertise or background to sufficiently address this issue. It's right there in the essay.

So he doesn't actually "reason out that gandhabba almost certainly was related to the ātman passed through the semen." He actually speculates and uses his speculation as a springboard to see if there is another on SuttaCentral who has sufficient background, presumably to confirm, reject, or otherwise comment on his speculation.

[Coëmgenu]

IMO, Ven Sujāto is spooked by the term "spirit" in Wijesekera's essay, thinking it to be a sneaky backdoor Ātman.

A "spirit," in this usage as much as Western usage, is simply "an airy being." A human being becomes a human being. A human becomes an ant. A human becomes a physical deity. A human becomes an immaterial deity. A human becomes an immaterial ghost. A human becomes an embodied asura. A human becomes an embodied or disembodied hell-dweller. A human becomes an airy spirit. They're all the same. None of the things that the human becomes are "the former human being," deceased or living.

The most scandalous Buddhisms, from POVs like the one Ven Sujato seems to project, frame the gandharva as a physical being comprised of airs and heat. The airs are the jīvitendriya and the heat is a rarified metabolism considered impossible by modern reckoning. To produce this heat, they consume "odours" as a person might consume physical food. Even this odour-consuming gandharva is not a transmigratory Ātman. It is simply "a spirit," here referring to "an airy being that is the consequence of a death."

In traditions with an immaterial gandharva, the "spirit" aspect of it is inasmuch as it is similarly "immaterial," like "air" is sometimes framed as.

Remember, "spirit" is fundamentally "breath." Hence we speak of aspiration. Hence we say "inspiration" and "expiration." Hence God "breaths" the Holy Spirit into Adam. In the other sense of "immaterial thing," hence we are "inspired" inasmuch as we've an immaterial (i.e. "mental") notion, and thus have inspiration.

[Ceisiwr]

…

[Ontheway]

Gandhabba is not semen. It simply means "a being to be reborn".

*Another meaning of it is "musician gods", but it is not relevant here.

[thomaslaw]

Semen (containing sperm) is a living being. Its sperm may become another form of a being.

[Attus]

Venerable Anālayo's "Rebirth and the Gandhabba" is a much more sober essay, much less speculative, that doesn't rely primarily upon what another scholar has rejected as having no basis.

EĀ and SĀ frame the antarābhāva as occurring in a "mind-made body." Both of the schools associated with these bodies of literature refer to this "mind-made body" as "the gandharva." They also both directly associate it with the death-consciousness and relinking-consciousness. The term "gandharva" is used like this in the suttas, the āgamasūtras, the Abhidharmaśāstras, and the traditional commentaries of both the Sarvāstivādins and Theravādins. Also, the gandharva is not associated with Brahmins in the literatures of other schools. Once in the Pāli Canon it is associated with Brahmins, once, and Ven Sujāto runs with this sole instance. The evidence is overwhelmingly against this modernist thesis that seeks to redefine this already-defined traditional term.

Obviously the Sujato thesis based on past historical uses of gandharva is more realistic than Anālayo's thesis based on the future historical use of gandharva. Sujato's thesis isn't exactly anything original. It has been presented before by many scholars & is the most logical. If MN 38 is actually read, MN 38 says the process of Dependent Origination starts when the faculties of the child mature. MN 38 does not include gandhabba in Dependent Origination.

[Pulsar]

Coemgenu wrote

The most scandalous Buddhisms, from POVs like the one Ven Sujato seems to project,

are you sure V. Sujato is projecting anything like this? Can you support your statement by what V. Sujato says elsewhere? What does "seems to project" mean? Are you referring to your "own projection" of what V. Sujato "seems to project?" based on the teachings of Amitabha Buddha?
And the following

frame the gandharva as a physical being comprised of airs and heat. The airs are the jīvitendriya and the heat is a rarified metabolism considered impossible by modern reckoning. To produce this heat, they consume "odours" as a person might consume physical food. Even this odour-consuming gandharva is not a transmigratory Ātman. It is simply "a spirit," here referring to "an airy being that is the consequence of a death."

Is there any sutta in Samyukta agama that supports this?
You wrote

In traditions with an immaterial gandharva, the "spirit" aspect of it is inasmuch as it is similarly "immaterial," like "air" is sometimes framed as.

Remember, "spirit" is fundamentally "breath." Hence we speak of aspiration. Hence we say "inspiration" and "expiration." Hence God "breaths" the Holy Spirit into Adam. In the other sense of "immaterial thing," hence we are "inspired" inasmuch as we've an immaterial (i.e. "mental") notion, and thus have inspiration.

Is this something stated by Amitabha Buddha Or Gotama Buddha?
Regards

[Coëmgenu]

Coemgenu wrote

The most scandalous Buddhisms, from POVs like the one Ven Sujato seems to project,

are you sure V. Sujato is projecting anything like this? Can you support your statement by what V. Sujato says elsewhere? What does "seems to project" mean? Are you referring to your "own projection" of what V. Sujato "seems to project?" based on the teachings of Amitabha Buddha?

Please do not speak to me, especially if it's to bring up sectarian nonsense about me supposedly worshipping Amitābha or confusing Pure Land sūtras with EBTs.

I don't play with trolls.

The POV Ven Sujāto seems to project is one that would be scandalized by the late Ābhidharmika model of the gandharva that I outlined. You could have easily asked that without the incessant trolling.

Do not respond to me again in this thread.

[Pulsar]

Jankala wrote 

Bhante Sujato reasons out that gandhabba almost certainly was related to the ātman passed through the semen in the Brahminical tradition, and later Buddhists tried to rationalize it from the Buddha's conversation with Brahmins.

This is brilliant. I am eternally grateful to V. Sujato. His comments on Satipatthana sutta have helped me sort out the true meaning of Sati. But this is not related to the current thread.
In fact I posted at Sutta central, five days ago, my sentiments regarding Paticca samuppada, and Gandhabba.
V. Sujato responded

 Foundation of Paticca Samuppada was not a Gandhabba for sure.

This is a good point, and I have not fully addressed it

Subsequently it led to a very helpful lively conversation, where Thomaslaw pointed out

According to Choong Mun-keat:“Nāga Saṃyutta (no. 29 “Connected with Nāgas”), Supaṇṇa Saṃyutta (no. 30 “Connected with Supaṇṇas”), Gandhabba Saṃyutta (no. 31 “Connected with Gandhabbas”), and Valāhaka1 Saṃyutta(no. 32 “Connected with Valāhakas”) in the Saṃyutta-nikāya are a group of sequential collections about early Buddhist adaptations of Vedic mythical beliefs regarding nāgas “mythical dragons/snakes”, supaṇṇas “mythical birds”, gandhabbas “fragrant plant devas”, and valāhakas “cloud devas”.”

I am grateful to Retro for bringing this thread to my attention, elsewhere.
Love to everyone who helps me on the way.
PS On sutta central Pulsar is identified as Bird of Paradise.