http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/auth ... #section-1
He was a willing and diligent pupil and was able to attain the fruit of stream-entry already during his first rains retreat (Cv VII.1).
Leo Rivers wrote:But WHY are they identicle? The Lotus is (wholesome) propagaganda for two important very Mahayana concepts, the single vehicle and the limitlessness of Buddha in space and time, referring to the (technical) process of emptiness only twice and the Asta is a emptiness meditation rapsody that in the earliest attested versions are likely sastra on the cusp of Mahayana. Its hard seeing these two out of the same mindset.
Treatise on the Lotus Sutra, The
[法華論・法華経論] (Skt Saddharma-pundarika-upadesha; Chin Fa-hua-lun or Fa-hua-ching-lun; Jpn Hokke-ron or Hokekyoron )
A Chinese translation of Vasubandhu's commentary on the Sanskrit Lotus Sutra, Saddharma-pundarika-sutra. The full title is The Treatise on the Lotus Sutra of the Wonderful Law. The Sanskrit text of Vasubandhu's treatise no longer exists, but two Chinese versions are extant, one by Bodhiruchi and T'an-lin, and the other by Ratnamati and Senglang. Both were produced in the sixth century. According to tradition, Ratnamati, who was from central India, went to Lo-yang, China, in 508 and translated the Saddharma-pundarika-upadesha with the assistance of Senglang. Bodhiruchi, a native of northern India, went to Lo-yang in the same year and produced another Chinese version at Yung-ning-ssu temple with the assistance of T'an-lin.
In this work, Vasubandhu asserts the superiority of the Lotus Sutra over all the other sutras based on three aspects of its content, which he terms the seven parables, the three equalities, and the ten peerlessnesses. The seven parables are the parables related in the Lotus Sutra to illustrate the superiority of the sutra's teaching. The three equalities are: (1) The equality of the vehicle. The one supreme vehicle is given equally to all people, and the Lotus Sutra unites the three vehicles into the one supreme vehicle. (2) The equality of the world and nirvana. There is no fundamental distinction between the world of delusion and nirvana, or enlightenment. (3) The equality of the body. "Body" here refers to the body of the Buddha. Although the Buddha assumes various forms (or bodies) to lead people to enlightenment, the state of Buddhahood equally pervades them all. Vasubandhu established these three viewpoints to show that the Lotus Sutra is a teaching of absolute equality. The ten peerlessnesses are ten viewpoints from which Vasubandhu asserted the superiority of the Lotus Sutra over all other sutras. One of them, for example, is that the seeds of enlightenment imparted by the Lotus Sutra are without peer. Chi-tsang, Dengyo, and Chishowrote commentaries on this work. According to Paramartha's account, more than fifty scholars wrote commentaries on the Lotus Sutra in India, but only Vasubandhu's was brought to China and translated into Chinese. For this reason, The Treatise on the Lotus Sutra was regarded in China as the primary text for the study of the Lotus Sutra. Some scholars today maintain that the Lotus Sutra referred to in the Chinese versions of Vasubandhu's work is different in many respects from the sutra that Kumarajiva translated under the title Lotus Sutra of the Wonderful Law, and bears similarity to a Sanskrit text of the Lotus Sutra found in Nepal. See also seven parables; ten peerlessnesses.
cdpatton wrote:I don't think it has that much to do with the topics of the two sutras. The description of the arhats is a stock passage that was cut-and-pasted wherever it seemed appropriate...
Much more interesting, I think,.... is why bodhisattvas are mentioned among the audience of the early version of the Asta but not in the later version.
Much more interesting, I think,.... is why bodhisattvas are mentioned among the audience of the early version of the Asta but not in the later version
Leo Rivers wrote:The trouble is the same as putting humans down stream of austrailiopiticines... we are downstream... but maybe not of the same limb of branching. What one inherits may come from a different initial set. I honestly think the fragments of records make making too much sense of this may be futile.
Leo Rivers wrote:BIG MISTAKE cough, cough
as regardsMuch more interesting, I think,.... is why bodhisattvas are mentioned among the audience of the early version of the Asta but not in the later version
I think my cutting off the quote created that impression!
Leo Rivers wrote:But my point holds in general anyway.
devadatta wrote:cdpatton wrote:I don't think it has that much to do with the topics of the two sutras. The description of the arhats is a stock passage that was cut-and-pasted wherever it seemed appropriate...
I would also point out that the opening of the 'Daoxing' (道行 T224), which is earliest translation of the Asta, is completely different from the extant Sanskrit version.
It just mentions:
"a great sangha of innumerable bhiksus, Sariputra and Subhhti, etc." (摩訶比丘僧不可計，諸弟子舍利弗、須菩提等 )
"countless mahasattva-bodhisattvas, Maitreya, Manjushri etc." (摩訶薩菩薩無央數，彌勒菩薩、文殊師利菩薩等)
and that's it.
Much more interesting, I think, than the question of why the opening of the (late) Sanskrit version of the Asta is the same as that of the (also late) Sanskrit version of the Saddharma is why bodhisattvas are mentioned among the audience of the early version of the Asta but not in the later version.
Users browsing this forum: Urgyen Dorje and 9 guests