The Buddhist forum

Abstract

The present publication, the second volume in the Buddhist Forum series, contains a selection of the papers presented for discussion at the SOAS Buddhist Forum seminars during the past two academic years, namely, 1988–89 and 1989–90. The seminars which are held once a month during term time are open to everyone who has an interest in Buddhism and cover a whole range of topics relating to the various areas of Buddhist studies such as philosophy, doctrines, philology, history, art and other relevant subjects. The seminars are in progress and it is hoped that further volumes will appear in future years. The rather enigmatic title of the first paper only becomes clear on a full reading, but its subject matter could more or less be summed up as “Buddhahood for the non-sentient: an encounter between Buddhist and Taoist traditions”. Professor Barrett’s main concerns in this paper are not the doctrinal issues involved in the interpretation of Buddhahood with regard to inanimate things, but rather certain historical and religious interactions between the Buddhists and the Taoists in China between the fourth and the eighth centuries. At the outset the paper establishes that so far as Taoism is concerned, the nature of the Tao, the ultimate and inherent Way, as being present in all inanimate things, was already formulated several centuries before the common era, a considerable time before the advent of Buddhism in China. Apart from quoting a conversation attributed to Chuang-tzu, the author also refers to several other Tao philosophers, including Kuo P’u. It is through Kuo P’u that a connecting link is made to Kuei-ku-tzu, the Master of Devil’s Valley, a place which is difficult to locate. So far as Buddhism is concerned, although there may be some indications in the canonical texts, the Indian tradition has never taken much interest in the question of Buddhahood for non-sentient things. But in China this matter was widely discussed and various opinions were expressed. It seems that a clear formulation of this doctrine developed in China as part of a much larger discussion which was concerned with the sudden attainment of Buddhahood. The theme of the attainment of Buddhahood by the non-sentient was given a most prominent place in Japanese Nō plays of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. However, as already mentioned, the major part of Professor Barrett’s paper focuses not on doctrinal issues but on the mutual influences and interactions between the Buddhists and the Taoists in connection with this concept. Thus on the whole this is a paper that falls within the category of comparative religion. Those who are specifically interested in the question of Buddhahood for the non-sentient or its treatment in the Nō plays should refer to the sources provided in Professor Barrett’s informative annotations. The second paper, also by Professor Barrett, is similar in nature to the first, but this time deals with the origin of city gods. Like the preceding contribution this is an excellent study that takes into account not only the religious elements but also the socio-cultural factors that might have influenced the emergence of the cult of city gods within the Taoist tradition. Here the concern is to trace the adaptations made within Taoism to accommodate and justify a new group of minor deities. A long and learned paper by Lance Cousins discusses the formulation and nature of the five propositions attributed to Mahādeva. His detailed treatment of the ‘Five Points’ is not restricted to doctrinal matters but covers a wide range of issues such as the historical background, the validity of the available sources and the formulation of the Kathāvattu. Among the historical considerations are included the dates of the early Buddhist councils, the origin of the school, the accession of Aśoka and the chronology of events after the Buddha’s final demise. The author attaches more importance and validity to the Theravāda sources than to the material preserved in Chinese and Tibetan. However, in treating his subject he makes use of all the available sources. An examination of the historical formulation and of the doctrinal content of the Kathāvatthu leads him to suggest a new logical sequence for the ‘Five Points’. In doing so Cousins seeks to demonstrate that there were certain complex developments that influenced their nature and interpretation, something that is reflected in the three formative phases of the Kathāvatthu. Apart from exploring the original sources Cousins also expresses his opinion on certain important contributions written in Western languages, such as those by Louis de La Vallée Poussin, Etienne Lamotte and others. While Lance Cousins attaches great importance to the Pāli sources and follows meticulously the classical path of intepreting historical events and doctrinal issues, the paper by Professor Charles Hallisey of Loyola University, Chicago, offers a new approach to the study and interpretation of the Buddhist councils. Its specific concern is more with the functional role of the Buddhist councils in the Theravāda tradition and rather less with establishing historical facts. Professor Hallisey suggests two possibilities or orientations which taken together can be helpful in enhancing or even rectifying our understanding of the Buddhist councils and of the Theravāda tradition as such. One orientation is referred to as ‘event’ and the other as ‘idea’, the former being more rooted in history and the latter more in anthropology. It is argued that past events, whether truly or allegedly historical, in this case the Buddhist councils, provide inspiration for certain conceptual formulations that derive their authority from those events and in turn inspire or sanction new events; or to put it differently, the idealized past validates present actions. When applied to the Theravāda, this general model can provide new insights into the pattern in which the Theravāda developed, justified and validated its own internal evolution. The concept of ‘events’ and ‘ideas’ as such is not introduced here as something entirely new. However, Professor Hallisey makes excellent use of it to demonstrate how the history of phenomena with a dual character as events and ideas can help us to understand the Theravāda as it actually evolved Roy Norman’s paper, like those by Cousins and Hallisey, is also related to the Theravāda tradition and is concerned with Buddhist terminology. It has been argued by some scholars in the past that Buddhism was merely an offshoot of Hinduism. There were also scholars who tended to assume that there were no traces of Hinduism in Buddhism. However, these two extremely opposed approaches to the understanding of Buddhism are hardly tenable in the light of the vast number of studies produced by modern scholarship. It is difficult to see how Buddhism could exist in isolation and produce a whole body of complex doctrines without employing or making adaptations of the already existing religious and philosophical terminology. Modern comparative studies demonstrate beyond any reasonable doubt that Buddhism has always interacted with other contemporary religious traditions of India. Some scholars refer to this interaction between Buddhism and the other traditions as drawing from the common repository of India’s religious and philosophical wealth, while others tend to stress borrowing on the part of Buddhism. Norman does not accept that Buddhism can be seen as an offshoot of Hinduism nor as being without any trace of Hinduism. His paper demonstrates that Buddhism remains indebted to Brahmanical Hinduism, in particular insofar as terminolody is concerned. Taking into account the vast body of Buddhist terminology, this is rather a succinct paper. Nevertheless it offers a full enough coverage of a number of important Brahmanical terms to demonstrate how they were adapted, reinterpreted or modified within the context of the Buddha’s teachings. There is no doubt that more studies of this kind are needed to unravel the complexities of Buddhist terminology; they would also enhance our understanding of Buddhist thought as a whole.The papers by Gyurme Dorje and Shenpen Hookham relate to Tibetan Buddhism. Gyurme Dorje’s paper is based on two of his substantial works, namely, his doctoral thesis “The Guhyagarbha-tantra and its Commentary”, and his forthcoming annotated translation of bDud-’joms Rin-po-che’s history of the rNyingma school. His doctoral thesis, over one thousand pages long, consists of an English translation and a critical study of the Guhyagarbha-tantra and its fourteenth-century commentary, entitled Phyogs-bcu mun-sel. This work, unfortunately still unpublished, and the forthcoming translation of bDud-’joms Rin-po-che’s text constitute an important contribution to the study of Tibetan Buddhism. The seminar paper itself represents a scholarly assessment and interpretation of vows and commitments as found in the rNying-ma tantras. Since the notion of vows and commitments is considered within the context of the Nine Vehicles, one learns about their interpretation across the whole spectrum of Buddhist traditions; but of course through the rNying-ma approach. The fierce and at times violent controversy which evolved in Tibet between the Buddhist thinkers who upheld the view of self-emptiness and those who defended the view of other-emptiness is well known to scholars of Tibetan Buddhism. What is interesting about Dr Hookham’s papers is the connection she makes between these two controversial interpretations of the notion of emptiness and two distinct trends within Buddhism as a whole with regard to the nature of man and the path to spiritual perfection. It is possible to argue that within Buddhism, right from the outset, or at least from the time of the early schools, there emerged two very broadly defined orientations with regard to doctrinal formulations and spiritual practices: one stressing the weaknesses of human nature and the importance of spiritual purification and elimination of impediments on the path to liberation; and one placing more emphasis on the positive aspects of man, such as the view of mind as being pure by nature although temporarily obscured by adventitious impurities. The doctrine of Buddha-nature as being present in all living beings can be comfortably accommodated into the second category. It is interesting to follow Hookham’s argument and see how she divides Buddhism into these two doctrinal orientations and relates them to particular schools of Tibetan Buddhism. However, she does not limit herself to doctrinal considerations alone but takes a step further to apply her findings to the structure and functioning of Tibetan society. Charlotte Freeman, a SOAS Ph D student, has for the past five or more years been working under the supervision of Dr Piatigorsky on the -sūtra and its commentary by Vasubandhu. The material contained in her paper represents a small part of her extensive researches. Although and other concepts discussed in the paper have been fairly well explored in Indian sources and in the writings of Western scholars, Freeman’s particular style and her persuasive presentation of Vasubandhu’s interpretation add a fresh and further dimension to our knowledge of those concepts. The papers by David Gellner and Rob Mayer, while dealing with different topics, have in common the challenge they offer to earlier scholarship in their specific fields. David Gellner’s main concern is to correct certain approaches to the treatment of Newar Buddhism and to provide a new and positive method for its interpretation. He makes an opening assertion to the effect that some scholars in the past and contemporary Westerners educated by modern Western means have failed to understand Newar Buddhism because of certain preconceptions which they had or have about Buddhism as such. In order to remedy this situation, he proposes a different approach which would justify and validate the nature of Newar Buddhism. He makes use of certain anthropological insights which he relates to historical developments within Buddhism in order to explain the pattern on which Newar Buddhism evolved and crystalized into a unique religious and socio-cultural entity. The main aim of the paper is to disprove the views of Newar Buddhism as anything like a remnant of Indian Buddhism or its decadent descendant, and to demonstrate that when understood on its own terms and within its own context it represents a perfectly valid form of Buddhism.Rob Mayer’s paper deals with the origin, history and symbolism of the ritual implement known as kīla in Sanskrit and phur-ba in Tibetan. This is the second longest paper in this volume and it covers a wide range of issues connected with the nature and use of the kīla. He surveys and assesses not only the material produced in Western languages but also refers to sources in Sanskrit, Tibetan, and even Chinese; his survey of Indian literary material includes both Buddhist and Hindu sources. A number of secondary issues apart, the main aim of the paper is to demonstrate that the kīla had a long and complex history in India and that it was not a Tibetan invention. Philip Denwood, apart from being specialist teacher of Tibetan language and culture, takes a keen and professional interest in art and architecture. In this particular paper, he aims to demonstrate that certain architectural elements present in Iran and developed in connection with the concept of universal sovereignty had some inspirational influence on the design of the Buddhist . He also makes similar observations with regard to the position of images in architectural constructions such as the . Finally, I would like to express my gratitude to those who helped me in bringing out this volume. Apart from the people who gave me their moral support and encouragement, I wish to thank Susan Madigan for typing the majority of the papers, Martin Daly for his administrative help and advice, Diana Matias for her professional editorial help, and to Anne Glazier for reading the proofs. Words of gratitude are also due to the School of Oriental and African Studies for accepting responsibility for the cost and distribution of this second volume of the Buddhist Forum.