Printer Friendly

Is there a burden-bearer? The sanskrit Bharaharasutra and its scholastic interpretations.


Modem scholarly acquaintance with the "sutra of the burden-bearer" (Bharaharasatra) goes as far back as the Western academic "discovery" of Indian Buddhism, for it is none other than Bumouf himself who first drew attention to a fragmentary text which, according to him, "directly established [...] [t]he existence of a thinking subject." Burnouf's source was Yasomitra's partial quotation of the sutra in the Abhidharmakosavyakhya (AKVy). (1) A little less than sixty years later (1901, and especially 1902), La Vallee Poussin provided new source materials to supplement the AKVy fragment (the Sanskrit of which had been published by Minayeff in 18942), alluded to the recently published (1899) Pali recension of the sutra, and criticized Hardy's interpretation of the text.3 He showed clear awareness of the fact that the sutra belonged to the scriptures most consistently resorted to by the Buddhist Pudgalavadins ("Personalists"). (4) Half a century later (1956), Frauwallner provided one of the two Chinese versions of the sutra (that in T. 99) with a German translation, and emphasized the importance of this "well-known" document for the "polemics of the later schools" (5) --thus echoing a similar statement by Bareau. (6) As is evident from this brief history, the first modern glimpse of the sutra came from a Sanskrit version, and ample materials for a comprehensive evaluation of this text have long been available. In addition, in view of the fact that allusions to and/ or discussions of the Bharaharasutra recur in nearly all documents reflecting the pudgala ("person") controversy, a fundamental doctrinal issue both in intra-Buddhist polemics and in Buddhist debates with their non-Buddhist opponents, one can only express surprise that no study has yet been dedicated to either its non-Pali recensions (for it is one or more Sanskrit recension[s] of the sutra that underlie[s] the intersectarian polemics) or its various scholastic interpretations. The present essay is meant as a step in this direction.

This study is comprised of two parts: first, a presentation of what appears to be a/the (Mula)Sarvastivada version of the sutra, and second, an evaluation of the uses to which the sutra was put in both Buddhist inter-sectarian conflicts and in discussions with non-Buddhists.

The first portion below presents an attempt at reconstructing one Sanskrit recension of this small but influential text found now in the Samyuktagama. (7) Four complete versions of the Bhara(hara)sutra have come down to us:

1. the Pali of SN HI.25-26

2. the Chinese of T. 99 (H) 19a15--b1

3. the Chinese of T. 125 (H) 631c11-632a6

4. the Tibetan version of Samathadeva's in extenso quotation in the Upayika Abhi-dharmakosatika (hereafter Upayika Tika; D nu 85b4-86a4/P thu 132a7-b7).

Of these four recensions, the closest ones are certainly T. 99 and Samathadeva's quotation, both of which differ significantly from SN I11.25-26 and T 125 (which, again, exhibit important mutual divergencies) and are likely to go back to a homogeneous (Sanskrit?) prototype. The present Sanskrit reconstruction of the portions not quoted mainly relies on the Tibetan of the Upayika Tika and T 99. Like most sutras the Bharahara is composed of otherwise well-attested building blocks reorganized in order to fit a new didactic structure and purpose (What is the burden? What is the taking up of the burden? What is the laying down of the burden'? What is the bearer of the burden?). Of these building blocks, some are of a material/didactic nature and find exact parallels in sutras such as the Dharmacakrupravartana (a Sanskrit version of which is incorporated in the Catusparisatsutra [CPSu] and the Sramanyaphala (substantial fragments of which have been preserved in the Sanghabhedavastu [SBhV]; others are of a formal/rhetorical nature (nidana or "setting," prose-verses transition formula, etc.), and find exact parallels in other Sanskrit sutras from the Samyuktagama (and elsewhere).

The stanzas that are meant to summarize the (prose) teaching of the sutra recur in slightly different forms in Sanskrit in the Udanavarga (Uv), the CPSu, and the SBhV. However, the backbone of the Bharaharasutra has no known parallel in Buddhist sutra literature. Fortunately, several fragments (identified in the Turfan materials, the Abhidharmakosabhaya [AKBh], the AKVy, and the Tattvasangrahapanjika [TSP]) make its organizing structure easily recoverable. Although we cannot be sure, what seems most likely is that the Sanskrit recension that I propose to reconstruct here belonged to a (Mu1a)Sarvastivada milieu. This conclusion has been reached based on the sectarian identifications offered for T. 99 and the Upayika Tika, in the first place, and secondarily because it seems highly likely that the Turfan fragments also belong to this lineage. This conclusion is certainly not contradicted by the presence of quotations in the AKBh and AKVy. The present study is not primarily concerned with either the early history of the text or its Pali recension (or the very close T 125, both of whose readings are only marginally taken into consideration in the suggested reconstruction of the Sanskrit text). Thus, I am not in a position to explain when, how and why the important structural/compositional discrepancies observable between the Pali and the Sanskrit recensions came about.

The second part of this essay bears not on the sutra itself, but on its uses and interpretations in the framework of the scholastic controversy that opposed the Pudgalavadins (mainly affiliated with the Vatsiputriya and Sammitiya sects) and the "mainstream" Buddhist intellectuals (representatives of the Madhyamika, Yogacara, Sautrantika, and Vaibha[section]ika schools).(8) For whatever may have been the original intention of its "author(s)," and especially the meaning to be given to the words sycld vacaniyam in [section]2b4, (9) the sutra was liable to be, and indeed was, interpreted as claiming the existence of a person over and above the five constituents (and this seems to have been, mutatis mutandis, the interpretation of Burnouf, La Vallee Poussin, and Frauwallner). The mainstream Buddhist scholiasts evolved several strategies in order to dismiss such a literal understanding of the text. These strategies can be divided into three. Some (including the author of the Mahayanasautra1ankrabhasya [MSABh] and Sthiramati) held the teaching of the pudgala to be undergirded by pragmatic/linguistic presuppositions: in short, the word pudgala had been resorted to by the Buddha in order to refer to the various psychological, cognitive, and soteriological dispositions of a given mental stream. This is the "typological" interpretation. Others (including Candrakirti) opted for a "skill in means" interpretation: as the alayavijnana and the tathagatagarbha, the pudgala had been taught as a proselytic device in a purely provisional way. Finally, yet others (including Vasubandhu and Kamalasila) engaged in frontal exegetical polemics against the Pudgalavadins and emphasized the purely conventional nature of the pudgala referred to by the Buddha.


1.1. Tibetan version

Any attempt at reconstructing a/the Sanskrit Bharaharasutra is bound to start from T 99 and the Tibetan version of Samathadeva's quotation of the entire sutra in his Upayika Tika For in spite of discrepancies in the nidana and most "stock phrases" (which may or not reflect different sectarian recensions of the text), these versions of the sutra most certainly translate a fairly homogeneous Sanskrit text, a conclusion that is supported by the fact that these versions faithfully reflect the wording of the available Sanskrit fragments. Below is the sutra in the Tibetan version of Samathadeva's Upayika Tika (D nu 85b4-86a4/ P thu 132a7-b7):

[section]1. glen (a) gzi mnan du yod pa na 'o II

[section]2a1. dge slon dag khur dan I khur len pa dan / khur spon ba dan I khur khyer ba dag (b) bstan par bya ste /

[section]2a2. de legs par non la yid la zun zig (c) dan bsad par bya '0 II

[section]2b1. khur gan ze na I ne bar len pa 'i phun pa lna rnams so II lna gan ze na I gzugs ne bar len pa 'i phun po dan I tshor ba dan I 'du ses dan I 'du byed dan I rnam par ses pa ne bar len pa'i phun po'o II

[section]2b2. khur len pa gan ze na I dga' ba 'i 'dod chags dan lhan cig par gyur pa 'i sred pa yan srid par kun 'byun ba de dan de la (d) mnon par dga' ba 'o II

[section]2b3. khur spon ba gan ze na I gan gi tshe dga' ba 'i 'dod chags dan lhan cig par gyur pa 'i sred pa yan srid par kun 'byun ba de dan de la (e) mnon par dga' ba 'di nid ma lus par spans sin so sor 'gags pa dan I nub pa dan I zad pa dan I 'dod chags dan bral ba dan I 'gags pa dan I ne bar ze ba dan I mi snan ba 'a II

[section]2b4. khur khyer ba gan ze na I gan zag ces brjod par bya ste I tshe dan ldan pa min ni 'di lta bu I rus ni 'di lta bu I rigs ni 'di lta bu I kha zas ni 'di Ita bu I bde ba dan sdug bsnal ni 'di Ita bu dag myon zin tshe rin pa 'am thun nu 'di tsam zig tu gnas te I tshe 'i mtha' 'di tsam du gyur zes bya 'o (f) II

[section]2c. dge slon dag khur daft khur len pa dan khur spoil ba dan khur khyer ba dag bstan par bya 'o zes nas ji skad du bstan pa de rgyas par rab tu bsad do II

[section]3a. bcom ldan 'das kyis de skad ces bka' stsal cin I bde bar gs'egs pas de skad gsuns nas I ston pas gzan yah 'di skad ces bka' stsal to II

[section]3b1. sin tu lci ba 'i khur spans nas II slar yan khur dag len mi 'gyur II khur len pa ni sdug bsnal te I khur spans pa ni bde ba yin II

[section]3b2. sred pa thams cad rab spans sin II kun sbyor thams cad zad pa yis (g) / blan bya yons su ses pa na (h) II yan srid dag tu 'gro mi 'gyur II zes gsuits so II.(10)

1.2. Sanskrit reconstruction

On the basis of the testimony presented below ([section]1.4), a corresponding Sanskrit version of the sutra can be reconstructed as follows:

[section]1.(A) sravastyam nidanam / (A)

[section]2a1. (B, C) bharam ca vo bhikyavo desayisyami bharadanam ca bharaniksepanam ca bharaharam ca / (C)

[section]2a2. (D) tac chrnutu sadhu ca susthu ca manasikuruta bhasisye / (D)

[section]2b1. bharah katamah / pancopadanaskandhah / (B E, F) katame panca / (F) rupo (EG) padanaskandho vedanasanjna (GE) samskaravijnanaskandhah / (E)

[section]2b2. (H) bharadanam katamat / (I) trsna paunarbhaviki nandiragasahagata tatratatrabhi-nandini / (I)

[section]2b3. bharaniksepanam katamat / (J) yad asya eva trsnayah paunarbhavikya nandiragasa-hagatayas (K) tatratatrabhinandinya ate (K) saprahanam pratinihsargo vyantibhavah ksayo virago nirodho vyupasamo 'stangamah /(J)

[section]2b4. (L) bharaharah katamah / pudgala iti syad vacaniyam / (M) yo 'say ayusman (N) evannama evanjatya evangotra (N) evamahara evamsukhaduhkhapratisamvedi evandirghayur (L) evanci-rasthitika evamayusparyanta (O) itI (O) / (M, H)

[section]2c. (O)bharam ca vo bhiksavo desayisyami bharadanam ca bharaniksepanam ca (O) (P) bharaharam ce (Q) ti me ya (p) d uktam idam tat praty uktam / (Q)

[section]3a. (R) idam avocad bhagavan idam uktva sugato hy athaparam etad uvaca sasta / (R)

[section]3b1. (S) niksipya hi gurum bharam nadadyad bharam aparam / bharasya duhkham adanam bharaniksepanam sukham // (S)

[section]3b2. (T) sarvatrsnam viprahaya sarva (U) samyojanaksayat / sarvopadhim pa (U) rijnaya nagacchati punarbhavam // (T)

1.3. Translation

The setting is in Sravasti. "1 am going to teach you, 0 monks, the burden, the taking up of the burden, the laying down of the burden, and the bearer of the burden. Listen to it, pay attention carefully and well. I am going to speak. Of what does the burden consist? It consists of the five constituents to which one clings. Which five? The constituent to which one clings that consists of corporeality, [and] the [four] constituents to which one clings that consist of [affective] sensation, ideation, the conditioning factors, and cognition. Of what does the taking up of the burden consist? It consists of craving, which leads to rebirth [and] which, accompanied by desire for joys, takes delight here and there. Of what does the laying down of the burden consist? It is the total elimination, the abandonment, the removal, the exhaustion, the avoidance, the cessation, the extinction, and the disappearance of that very craving which leads to rebirth [and] which, accompanied by desire for joys, takes delight here and there. Of what does the bearer of the burden consist? One could say: 'A person,' i.e., that sir who has such a name, who has such an origin(/birth), who belongs to such a family(/lineage), who has such a livelihood, who experiences such pleasure and pain, who has such a long life span, who remains for such a long time, whose life has such an end. [I have thus] answered to what I [promised to] say, I I i.e., 'I am going to teach you, 0 monks, the burden, the taking up of the burden, the laying down of the burden, and the bearer of the burden." The Blessed One said this. Having said this, the Sugata, the Teacher, further said this: "Having laid down the heavy burden, one would not take up another one, [for] taking up the burden is suffering, [while] laying down the burden is bliss. Having, due to the exhaustion of all fetters, eliminated all craving [and] thoroughly known all substrates [of existence], one no [longer] falls into rebirth."

1.4. Testimony

REC = Reconstruction from the Tibetan

FRAG = Sanskrit fragment

PAR = Parallel text

(A) PAR Tripathi, Funfundzwanzig Sutra, 83 ([section]1.1), 86 ([section]2.1); see also Glass, Four Gandhart Sarpyuktagama Sutras, 138.

(B) FRAG AKVy 706,3-6 (bhararp ca vo bhikyavo desayisyami bharadanam ca bharaniksepaam ca bharaharam ca / tac chrnuta sadhu ca susthu ca manasikuruta bhasiyye 1 bharah katamah I partcopadeinaskandhah I).

(C) FRAG AKBhp,468,2-3/AKBh (LE) 88,1-2 (bharam ca vo bhiksavo desayisyami bharadanam ca bharaniksepanarp ca bha rahararp ca); TSP (K) 130,1-2/TSP (S) 117,20-21 (bhararp vo bhikyavo desayisyami bharadanam bharaniksepam bharaharam ca).

(D) PAR Tripathi, Funfundzwanzig Sutras, 147 ([section]14.1), 153 ([section]15.3), 157 ([section]16.1).

(E) REc.

(F) Cf. Pali SN III 25,20 (katame pafica).

(G) FRAG SHT IV.30 b verso 3 (p. 80) ([upaJdanaskandhah vedana sarpflia).

(H) FRAG AKVy 706,6-12 (bharadanam katamat / trsna paunarbhaviki nandiragasahagata tatratatrabhinandint I bharaniksepanam katamat / yad asya eva trsnayah paunarbhavikya nandiragasahagatayah tatratatrabhinandinyah asesaprahanam pratinihsargo vyan-dbhavah kayo virago nirodho vyupas'amo 'starigamah I bharaharah katamah I pudgala in syeid vacaniyam / yo 'sav ayusman evannama eyanjanya evarigotrah evameiha rah evam-sukhaduhkhapratisamvedi evandirghayur evancirasthitika evamayusmantah /).

(I) PAR CPSu II.160 ([section]14.7) (tryna paunarbhaviki nandiragasahagata ta[tratatra] bhin[andini]); AVSu 15,4-5 (trsna paunarbhaviki nandiragasahagata tatratatrabhi-nandini); LV 417,8-9 (trsna paunarbhaviki nandiragasahagata tatratatrabhinandini).

(J)PAR CPSu II.160 ([section]14.9) (asya eva trnzayah paunarbhavikya nandiragasahagataylis tatratatrab[hina]ndinya yad as'esarp praheitzarp pratinihsargo vyantibhavah ksayo [v] Wrath [rdirodha upaiamo 'stafigarnah); AVS1.115,7-9 (yad asytiva trytteiyah paunarbha-vikya nandiragasahagatiiyas tatratatrithhinandinya aie, vatatt praharjarp pratinitaargo vyantibhavah kyayo virago nirodho vyupasamo 'stangamah); see also LV 417,10-12.

(K) FRAG SHT IV.30 b recto 1 (p. 79) ([tatt]ra tattrabhinandinyah a[se]).

(L) FRAG TSP (K) 130,14-16/TSP (S) 117,30-32 (bharaharah katamah pudgala[h] [...] yo 'say ayusmann evannama evanjatir evangotra evamahara evarmsukhaduhkhapratisamvedy evandirghayuh).

(M) PAR SBhV II.249,12-14 and 29-30 (evannama evanjatya evangotra evamahara evam-sukhaduhkhapratisamvedi evandirghayuh evancirasthitika evamayusparyantah); BoBh (D) 173,21-23/BoBh (W) 253,25-254,1 (sa ayutsman evannama evanjatiya evangotra evamahara evamsukhaduhkhapratisamvedy evandirghayur evancirasthitika evamayusparyantah); cf. DBhSu 58,8-9 (evannama evangotra evanjatir evamahara evamayuhpramana evancira-sthitika evamsukhaduhkhapratisamvedi); MVa I.229,3-4 (evannamo evangotro evanjatyo evamaharo evamayuhparyanto evamsukhaduhkhapratisamvedi); MASu 34,23 ([evan]nama evanjatya evangotrah); cf. AKBh (Pr), 468.6-7/AKBh (LE) 88,10-11 (yo 'sav ayusman evannama yavad evancirasthitika eyamayuhparyantah).

(N) FRAG SHT IV.30 b recto 2 (p. 79) ([e](va)[m]nama evamjatyah evamgottrah).

(O) REC.

(P) FRAG SHT IV.30 b recto 3 (p. 79) (bharaharam ceti iti me ya).

(Q) PAR Tripathi, Funfundzwanzig Sutras, 157 ([section]15.13), 164 ([section]16.18); LASu 86,13-14; cf. Tripathi, Funfundzwanzig Sutras, 157 n. 1.

(R) PAR AS 174,1, 194,2 (all uktva); SP 203,3, 286,11, 357,9 (all vaditva); see Allon, Three Gandhari Ekottarikagama-Type Satras, 178-83, esp. 179 n. 89.

(S) PAR CPSu II.78 ([section]1.11) and III.435 ([section]11). (niksipya hi gurum bharam nadadyad apa[ram punah / bha] rasya duhkham adanam bharaniksepanam sukham //); Uv 30.32 (niksipya hi gurum bharam nadadyad bharam eva tu / bharadanam param duhkham* bharanikse-panam sukham // *Note Bernhard's n. ad 30.32: "P[elliot] St[ein] [fragment] 55: bharasya duhkham adanam"); SBhV I.122,5-6 (niksipya hi gurum bharam nadadita param punah / bharasya duhkham adanam bharaniksepanam sukham //).

(T) PAR CPSu II.78 ([section]1.12) ([sarvatrsna* viprahaya sarvasamyojanaksayat / sarvopadhi-parijnana]n nagacchanti punarbhavam // *Note Waldschmidt's n. 4 [CPSu II.78] mentioning the variant reading sarvam trsnam); CPSu III.435 ([section]12) ([sarvatrsna viprahaya sarvasamskarasamksayat / sarvopadhiparijna]nan nagacchanti punarbhavam //); Uv 30.33 (sarvatrsnam viprahaya sarvasamyojanaksayat / sarvopadhim parijnaya nagacchanti punarbhavam //): SBhV I.122,7-8 (sarvam trsnam viprahaya sarvasamskarasamksayat / sarvabhavaparijnan na gacchati* punar bhavam //. *Note Gnoli's n. 2 [SBhV I.122]: "[Ms] A reads sarvopadhin parijnanat gacchanti").

(U) FRAG SHT IV.30 b recto 4 (p. 79) ([sa]mskarasamksayat sarvvopatipa*). *Note n. 4, p. 79: "sarvvopadhi zu lesen?" According to Jin-il Chung (personal communication, Dec. 20, 2012), the reading of the manuscript is /// [sarvasa]mskarasamksayat sarvvovadhi[m] pa[rijnaya]///.

1.5. Discussion (12)

ad [section]1. The nidana can be easily reconstructed from parallels in extant Sanskrit Samyuktagama sutras (see Tripathi, Funfundzwanzig Sutras, 83 [[section]1.1] and 86 [[section]2.1:1; Waldschmidt, Ausgewahlte kleine Schriften, 160 [line 2 of the Sanskrit text] and 297; for a Gandhari equivalent, see Glass, Four Gandhari Samyuktagama Sutras, 138). Note that the sutra's nidana has the following wording in T 99, 19a14-16 which can be reconstructed as: evam maya srutam ekasmin samaye [ekasamayam? ekam samayam?] bhagavan sravastyam viharati sma jetavane 'nathapinda-dasyarame (see Tripathi, Funfundzwanzig Sutras, 94 [[section]5.1]). All extant versions of the sutra locate its preaching in sravasti (SN III.25,16: savatthiyam). Immediately after this, the Chinese version of the sutra (19a16:) exhibits the following stock phrase: tatra [atha? tena (khalu) samayenal?] bhagavan bhiksun amantrayate [amantrayati (sma)?] (cf. Tripathi, Funfundzwanzig Sutras, 83 [[section]1.2], 86 [[section]2.2], 121 [[section]9.1], 152 [[section]15.2]). In Frau-wallner's (Die Philosophie, 25) translation: "So habe ich gehort. Einmal weilte der Erhabene in sravasti, im Jetavana, dem Garten des Andthapindada. Da sprach der Erhabene zu den Monchen." SN III.25,16, at least as edited in the PTS edition, simply reads: tatra kho.

ad [section]2a1. Against the wording of both AKVy 706,3-6 and AKBh (Pr) 468,2-3/AKBh (LE) 88,1-2, TSP (K) 130,1-2/TSP (S) 117,20-21 has only one ed (after the last term of the list). The Tibetan version does not allow any clear decision as to whether the translated Sanskrit had four or only one ca. Note, however, that if the reading dan (see above, n. 10 (b)) should be preferred over dag, this might provide an indication that the translators maybe intended to emphasize a four-ca structure. This four-ca 'structure is also reflected in SN 111.25,17-18.

ad [section]2b1. Contrary to SN 111.25, 21-23, which repeats upadanakkhandha after each item, the Upayika Tika, T 99, 19a.18-19, and most probably SHT IV.30 b verso 3 (p. 80), reflect a version of the sutra mentioning upadanaskandha only twice, i.e., at the beginning (after rupa) and at the end (after vijnana) of the list, the items vedana, sanjna, samskara, and vijnana being very likely to form a dvandva compound.

ad [section]2b2. AKVy 706,6-12, AVS5 15,4-5, LV 417,8-9 read nandiraga, against CPSu. II.160 ([section]14.7) (the same is true in [section]2b3). On the BHS form nandi (instead of Skt. nandi), see BHSD 290 (a) and SWTF I11.8 (a). The Tibetan version does not allow any pronouncement as to whether the translated Sanskrit text read nandiraga or nandiraga.

ad [section]2b3. The initial yad (AKVy 706,6-12, AVSu 15,7-9) is not the only reading recorded in the parallels, which include asyaiva [...] tatratatrabhinandinya yad asesam prahanam [...] (CPSu II.160 [[section]14.9]) and yo 'syaiva [...] (LV 417, 10-12). The extant evidence makes it difficult to decide whether asesaprahsnam (AKVy 706,6-12) is the reading translated in the Tibetan version. Instead of restricting asesa- to prahanam alone, other materials provide this word with an at least possibly distributive meaning: asesam prahanam (CPSu II.160 [[section]14.9]) and asesatah prahanam (AVSu 15,17-9). The situation parallels the one observable between the Pali (SN 111.26,6: asesaviraganirodho cago patinissaggo mutti analayo) and LV 417,11 (aseso virago virodhah); note also Buddhaghosa's commentary (SaP 264,1819) on asesaviraganirodho: tam hi agamma tanha asesato virajjati nirujjhati cajiyati pati-nissajjiyati vimuccati. The Tibetan version does not help decide whether it translated Skt. vyupasama (AKVy 706,6-12, AVSu 15,7-9) or upasama (CPSu II.160 [[section]14.9]).

ad [section]2b4. Against evanjanya (AKVy 706,6-12), evanjatiya (BoBti (D), 173,21-23/BoBh (W) 253,25-254,1), and evanjatir (DBhSu 58,8-9, TSP (K) 130,14-16/TSP (S) 117,30-32), SBhV II.249,12-14 and 29-30, MVa 1.229,3-4, MASu 34,23, and SHT IV.30 b recto 2 (p. 79) read evanjatya. Here again, there is nothing to help us ascertain which original Sanskrit wording is reflected in the Tibetan version.

ad [section]2c. The Turfan fragment (SHT IV.30 b recto 3 [p. 79]: bharam ceti me ya) seems to point here to another stock phrase, viz., iti me yad uktam idam tat praty uktam (cf. Tripathi, Funfundzwanzig Sutras, 157 n. 1: see also Tripathi, Funfundzwanzig Sutras, [section][section]15.13 and 16.18). Note, however, that a slightly different wording of this sentence is also attested (see Tripathi, Ekottaragama-Fragmente, 174, 178, 189): iti me yad uktam idarn me tat praty uktam (according to Tripathi [Ekottaragama-Fragmente, 32], the presence or the absence of the second me might hint at different sectarian affiliations/recensions). The Tibetan rendering of the Upayika Tika (zes nas ji skad du bstan pa de rgyas par rab tu bsad do) pleads, though not decisively, for the first option. Note that the Tibetan version and the parallel Sanskrit phrases exhibit important discrepancies in wording: Tib. rgyas par (*vistarena?) has no equivalent in the parallels of which I am aware. (13) Moreover, Tib. rab tu bsad do is more likely to reflect *proktam than praty uktam. As for my reconstruction of what precedes iti me [...], it is based on the following assumption: in extant Samyuktagama Sanskrit parallels, what precedes iti me [...] coincides exactly with the sentence preceding tac chrnuta sadhu ca susthu ca manasikuruta bhasiye at the beginning of the sutra. E.g., the first phrase of a sutra edited by Tripathi (Ekottaragama-Fragmente, 180) runs as follows: adharmikim ca vah parsadam desayisyami dharmikim ca. Now, the prose section of the sutra ends with the following statement: adharmikim ca vah parsadam desayisyami dharmikim ceti me yad uktam idam me tat praty uktam. Note that T. 99, 19a24-25 reflects a different reading of this section: "Das nennt man die Last, das Aufnehmen der Last, das Ablegen der Last und den Trager der Last." (tr. Frauwallner, Die Philosophie, 25). The Pali recension of the sutra has no equivalent for this.

ad [section]3a. On the sentence idam avocad bhagavan idam uktva sugato hy athaparam etad uvaca sasta, see Allon's detailed discussion in Three Gandhari Ekottarikagama-Type Sutras, 178-83. According to Allon (p. 183), "this metrical prose phrase seems to have had the important function in Buddhist texts of connecting the (nonmetrical) prose speech of the Buddha with the following verses uttered by him, which usually summarize the ideas of the prose passage." For further examples, see Allon (p. 179 n. 89). This reading is closely paralleled by the Pali recension of the sutra (SN III.26,8-9: idam avoca bhagava idam vatvana sugato athaparam etad avoca sattha). Note that T. 99, 19a25 reflects another type of introduction to the stanzas, viz., (atha bhagavams) tasyam velayam gatham babhase (CPSu II.76 [[section]1.6], 100 [[section]6.6], 104 [[section]7.5], 114 [[section]8.10], 118 [[section]8.16], 128 [[section]10.3]), or equivalent ([atha khalu bhagavams] tasyam velayam imam gatham abhasata, LASu 79,10).

ad [section]3b1-2. Even a superficial glimpse at the concluding stanzas as they appear in the Pali and the "Sanskrit" (i.e., T. 99, Upayika, Uv, SBhV, CPSu, SHT) reveals a striking dissimilarity: while the first Pali stanza provides a straightforward summary of the prose teaching, nothing similar can be said of the Sanskrit. Here are the Pali stanzas (SN III.26,10-17): bhara have pancakkhandha bharaharo ca puggalo / bharadanm duhkham loke bharanikkhepanam sukham // nikkhipitva garum bharam annam bharam anadiya / samulam tanham abbhuyha nicchato parinibbuto //. "The five constituents are truly burdens, the burden-carrier is the person. Taking up the burden is suffering in the world, laying the burden down is blissful. Having laid the heavy burden down without taking up another burden, having drawn out craving with its root, one is free from hunger, fully quenched" (tr. Bodhi, The Connected Discourses, 872, slightly modified). As one can see, stanza one summarizes the prose part of the sutta. But as one can also see, substituting padas 2ab for padas lab makes stanza one a satisfactory Pali equivalent of the first Sanskrit stanza. Could it be that, at an indefinite point in time, earlier Pali stanzas (hypothetically similar to the extant Sanskrit ones, and perhaps also in a linguistic form pre-dating Pali as we know it) were reworked in order to have them fit the teaching of the sutta? The only way to make it a likely hypothesis would of course be to trace, elsewhere in Pali or Middle Indic literature, an equivalent of the Sanskrit stanza. Having failed to find such a stanza, I prefer to leave the field of speculation and turn to the Sanskrit stanzas.

Padas la (niksipya hi gurum bharam) and 1d (bharaniksepanam sukham) raise no problem at all; besides exhibiting no variant readings in Uv, CPSu, and SBhV, they perfectly match the Tibetan version (sin tu lci ba 'i khur spans nas [...] khur spans pa ni bde ba yin). (14) Pada lc is known to us in two forms: bharasya duhkham adanam (CPSu, SBhV) and bharadanam param duhkham (Uv); the first reading is clearly the one reflected in the Tibetan version (khur len pa ni sdug bsnai te). Pada lb is more problematic. Besides an apparent optative (len mi 'gyur), its Tibetan version exhibits an adverb (slar yan, presumably *punar or *aparam) and a *bharam. Unfortunately, none of the extant Sanskrit parallels exhibits all three features simultaneously: nadadyad aparam punah (CPSu), nadadita param punah. (SBhV), nadadyad bharam eva tu. (15) Basing oneself on the metrical structure of Uv (a na-vipula in pada b!), one may propose: *nadadyad bharam aparam. The reconstruction of the second stanza is more uncertain. Pada 2a raises no big difficulty: Tib. sred pa thams cad rab spans in may translate either sarvam trsnam viprahaya (CPSu [var.], SBhV) or sarvatrsnam viprahaya (CPSu, Uv)-a ra-vipula. (16) Pada 2b (Tib. kun sbyor thams cad zad pa vis) reflects the Sanskrit sarvasamyojanakyayat ([CPSu,] Uv), not sarvasamskarasamkyayat (SBhV, SHT, but also T. 99, 19a28:) . Pada 2c (Tib. Nan bya yons su ses pa naem!niDp) is by far the most difficult. Unless one emends pa nalni into pas nilna (if not pa las!), the Tibetan is more likely to reflect the absolutive parijnaya (Uv[, SHT]) than the ablative-parijnanat (CPSu, SBhV). On this hypothesis, one would read sarvopadhim parijnaya, but Tib. Nati bya not only has no equivalent for sarva-, but also is not a usual rendering of upadhi (generally Tib. phun po; Tib. blan bya often translates Sanskrit upadeya). Although upadeyam parijnaya would provide a more straightforward reconstruction of the Tibetan than sarvopadhim parijnaya, the latter seems to better fit the doctrinal context (as well as T. 99, 19a29:) besides being attested, though with slight differences, in all Sanskrit versions of the pada. Finally, pada 2d (Tib. yan srid dag tu 'gro mi 'gyur) is very likely to reflect the Sanskrit nagacchanti punarbhavam (CPSu, Uv), though the singular nagacchati (unattested, but see SBhV Ms A ante correctionem) better fits the nadadyatlnadadita of stanza one (provided the subject remains the same throughout, which is far from certain).

1.6 Interpretation

At the surface level at least, the sutra can be interpreted as a variation on the topic of the four noble(s') truths. Indeed, the definitions provided for the burden (bhara), the taking up of the burden (bharadana), and the laying down of the burden (bharaniksepana) coincide, though in slightly abridged form, with those of the truths of suffering (duhkhasatya), of the origin of suffering (17) (samudayasatya), and of the cessation of suffering (18) (nirodhasatya), (19) Only the definition of the burden-bearer (bharahara) does not match that of the truth of the path (margasatya), (20) and in this alone lies the originality of the sutra as well as its potential for exegetical controversies: instead of listing a fourth bhara-item and defining it along the line of the fourth truth, the author(s) of the sutra bring(s) into play the notion of a burden-bearer (bharahara) defined as a/the "person" (pudgala) and characterized by means of the same stereotyped terms as those used in the context of an ascetic's recollection of his previous (transmigrational) dwellings (purvanivasanusmrti). This description of the burdenbearer makes any pronouncement as to the original intention underlying the sutra pointless. For if the reference to the pudgala can certainly be interpreted in nearly substantialist terms (as the Pudgalavadins and several modern interpreters did), the ambiguous way in which this reference is introduced (iti sydd vacaniyam (21)) as well as the recourse to the parvanivasnusmrti formula can no less certainly be taken as a warning against such an interpretation and as emphasizing the very conventionality of the pudgala alluded to (as the "mainstream" Buddhist scholars did). (22)

The sutra possibly draws its inspiration from descriptions of the arhat and the true brahmin as "having laid down the burden" (ohitabhara, pannabhara), a metaphor that seems to have been of a fairly widespread use in early "canonical" literature. The link between one's having laid down the burden and having rid oneself of the fetters, a prerequisite of liberation, appears in a stanza that is common to the DhP and the Sn: "Whoever in this very world understands the destruction of his own misery, with burden laid down, unfettered, him I call a brahman." (23) That laying down the burden is tantamount to liberation is also made clear in Sn 914: "He is one without association in respect of all mental phenomena, whatever is seen or heard, or thought. That sage with burden laid down, completely freed, is without figments, not abstaining, [and] not desiring." (24) But the (by far) most common use of the metaphor is part of a stock description of the arhat (and the true brahmin) that recurs throughout the canon. Here, the Buddhist saints are said to have destroyed the influxes/cankers (khinasava), lived the life (vusitavant), done what was to be done (katakaraniya), laid down the burden (ohitabhara), attained their own goal (anuppattasadattha), completely destroyed the fetter of (re-)existence (parikkhinabhavasamyojana), and liberated themselves by profound knowledge (sammadannavimutta). (25) These statements could easily be interpreted as pointing to the fact that arhats have rid themselves of the constituents to which one clings (upadana)--the very definition of the first noble(s') truth, and hence the burden itself, for it is of course duhkha, hence the five upadanaskandhas, that the arhats get rid of. Moreover, the didactic (and supposedly summarizing) stanzas appended to the sutra may possibly have been already known to its author(s). If the taking up the burden brings about suffering while its laying down amounts to bliss (an idea that is common to the l',11li and the "Sanskrit" versions), an interpretation along the line of the second and third noble(s') truths was, again, easy to arrive at: the taking up of the burden could be identified with the cause of suffering, i.e., craving, while the laying down of the burden could be seen as an equivalent to, or a metaphorical description of, the cessation of suffering, i.e., nirvana. These stanzas' claim that laying down the burden as well as thoroughly knowing the remaining substrate of existence (upadhi) coincide with the end of painful transmigration could only reinforce this inclination.

How did later Buddhist scholars interpret this description of the upadanaskandhas in terms of a burden? Two traditional interpretations are available to us. According to Buddha-ghosa, the five constituents to which one clings are called a "burden" "in the sense of having to be borne through maintenance. For their maintenance--by being moved about, seated, laid to rest, bathed, adorned, fed, and nourished, etc.--is something to be borne; thus they are called a burden in the sense of having to be borne through maintenance."(26) In other words, Buddhaghosa interprets bhara in terms of parihara ("attendance, care, maintenance"), an explanation which allows him to provide what looks like an etymology or a pun on hara ("bearer"). Explaining bharahara, Buddhaghosa further says: "For it is the person who takes up the burden of the constituents at the moment of rebirth (patisandhi), maintains the burden of the constituents as long as life [lasts]--ten years, twenty years, hundred years--by bathing, feeding, seating, and laying them down on comfortable (mudusamphassa) couches and chairs, leaves [it] at the moment of death (cuti), and again takes a new burden of constituents at the moment of rebirth. Therefore [the person is] like the bearer of a burden."(27) Interestingly enough, the latter part of Buddhaghosa's explanation comes very close--one is tempted to say "dangerously close"--to the Pudgalavalin's, for whom the pudgala takes up new skandhas at birth and abandons them at death. (28) Vasubandhu opts for an altogether different explanation: "And since it is the constituents that are instrumental in the harm of the constituents, the preceding ones [being instrumental in the harm] of the subsequent ones, [the Blessed One] presents [them] as both the burden and the burden-bearer, for 'burden' has the meaning of 'harming.' "(29) According to Yasomitra's interpretation, past skandhas (acting as causes) are a burden in that they give rise to new ones, while the new ones (as effects) are a burden-bearer in that they come into painful existence, (30) and this is precisely what Kamalanla has in mind while commenting on TS 349ab: "Therefore, those very previous constituents which are instrumental in the rise of another constituent are the ones called 'burden,' but those which arise [as] being [the former ones] effects are said to be the bearer of the burden." (31)

The two concluding stanzas do not add much to the teaching of the prose section, stanza I raises no other exegetical difficulty than assessing the value of the optative (na) adadyat (ladadita). Taking for granted that the stanzas as a whole concern the arhat, I am inclined to understand the optative in the sense of "he cannot/could/would not take up (a new burden)." For as the satra itself makes abundantly clear, the laying down of the burden can only refer to the cessation of suffering, i.e., nirvana, more precisely to the sopadhisesa type of nirvana. There is no need to read stanza 1 against the background of the polemics about the (im)possibility, for an arhat, to fall from arhatship.(32) For padas I cd provide a sufficient justification for this impossibility: that taking up the burden is suffering (entanglement in samsara) while laying it down is bliss(ful liberation from samsara) makes it clear enough that no one ever could or would abandon nirviitia and return to painful existence. As for stanza 2, it is best interpreted as a description of the liberated state reached by the arhat: having rid himself of craving, the cause of suffering, and being fully acquainted with the residual substrate of his continued existence (especially the five constituents as no longer subject to clinging), the arhat has reached his last existence and will never be (re)born again. But how to interpret pada 2b, sarvasamyojanaksayat? According to Prajfnavarman's commentary on the parallel stanza Uv 30.33, (33) eliminating all craving amounts to, but also presupposes, the eradication (*unmulana?) of the fetter(s) consisting in desire (*anunaya, *anuraga?) belonging to the three realms (*traidhatuka) of desire (kamadhatu), corporeality (rupadhatu), and uncorporeality (arupyadhatu). And indeed, the root (*mula) of craving consists in the two types of fetters, those binding to lower states of existence (*avarabhagiya), viz., the realm of desire, and those binding to upper states of existence (*urdhvabhagiya), viz., the realms of corporeality and uncorporeality. (34) Craving is, in turn, the root (and the seed, *bija) of both rebirth in samsara and all "impure things" (*sasravavastu?)--Prajnavarman' s understanding of upa-dhi ("Grundlage [irdischer Existenz]," Tib. phut po). (35) As a consequence, the eradication of the fetters results in the removal of craving, which in turn amounts to the final destruction of rebirth and suffering.


It is well known that a significant portion of our information concerning the Buddhist Personalists derives from their mainstream opponents' often caricatured depictions and arguments. Mutatis mutandis, the same is true of our knowledge of the uses and interpretations of the Bharaharasutra. For apart from two concise allusions in the SNS, (36) all we know stems from anti-Pudgalavada sources, nearly all of which have their Personalist opponent mentioning the sCara as providing canonical support for the existence of the pudgala: if the self or the person does not exist, how is one to account for the fact that the Buddha referred to it in various scriptures? In short, he who denies the existence of the pudgala makes himself guilty of agamavirodha, "contradiction with scripture." The argument must have been so famous (or, at least, so obvious) to Indian intellectuals that it made its way into the work of the fiercely anti-Buddhist philosopher Uddyotakara:
  Furthermore, [the Buddhist] who does not accept the
  self cannot make sense of the doctrinal system
  (darsana) of the Tathagata. And a [canonical] statement
  [to this effect] is not nonexistent, for [so] it is
  said in the Sarvabhisamayasutra. Therefore, he who
  thus claims that there is no self opposes the
  [Buddhist] doctrine (siddhanta) [which he is supposed
  to admit. For] so [says] a sutra: "I am going to
  teach you, 0 monks, the burden as well as the
  burden-bearer. The burden consists of the five
  constituents. As for the burden-bearer. it is the
  person." And [also]: "He who says that there is no
  self has an erroneous view.-37

Besides developing reasoned arguments (yukti) against their Personalist opponents, the mainstream Buddhists were compelled to evolve exegetical strategies in order to demonstrate that, far from affirming the existence of a self over and above the five constituents, the Buddha intended to stress the mere conventionality (or: "designationality," prajnaptisatta) of the self and the person while claiming for these expressions' proselytic, didactic, and linguistic usefulness.

2.1. The Typological Explanation Strangely enough, the earliest extant anti-Pudgalavada sources, the Kathavatthu and the *Vijnanakaya (T. 1539 [XXVI]), never allude to the Bharaharasutra in spite of their sustained exegetical discussions on canonical loci. (38) The MSABh (fourth century C.E.?) is likely to be the oldest polemical source mentioning the Bharaharasatra. Here, the Pudgalavadin opponent raises the following objection: "[The Pudgalavadin:] But the person has also been taught by the Blessed One in such and such [sutras] through the classification of [various sorts of] persons such as the one who knows thoroughly, the bearer of the burden, and the one who follows faith. Therefore, if [the person] does not exist as a 'real] substance, why [has it been] taught [by the Blessed One]?" (39) The Pudgalavadin's argument relies on the Buddha's alleged mention of several types of pudgalas: our burden-bearer of course (here the "person who bears the burden," bharaharapudgala), the parijnatavin of the Parijnasutra (see below), and various classifications of religious types according to the stage which they have reached along the path or their basic cognitive-psychological dispositions. (40) What did the Buddha refer to if the person does not exist? The MSA's and the MSABh's answer to the objection is as follows:
  [Answer:] Because by [resorting to the verbal designation
  of] "person," one [can, as did the Blessed One,] indicate
  differences in addiction and [mental] streams concerning
  defilement and purification, which vary [each] according
  to degree and party [= MSA 18.1021. For in the absence of
  a [verbal] designation [such as that] of "person," one
  could not, with regard to pollution and purification,
  [both of] which differ according to degree and party,
  point to the differences in the addiction to them as well
  as to the differences in the [mental] stream. In this
  [connection], in the Parijnasutra, the factors that are
  to be known are the pollution, [whereas] the knowledge
  is the purification.4I In the Bha raharasutra, the burden
  and the taking up of the burden [belong to] pollution,
  [whereas] the laying down of the burden [belongs to]
  purification. In the absence of the [verbal] designations
  of persons [such as] the parijnatavin and the bharahara,
  it would be impossible to point to their different
  addictions and different [mental] series [...] This is
  to be known as the reason why [the Blessed One] has
  taught the person although lit] does not exist as a
  [real] substance. (42)

According to Sthiramati's explanation, (43) if the name (*nama) and the conventional expression (*vyavahara) of "person" were not available, the differences pertaining to pollution (sariklela), purification (vyavadana), degree (avastha), "party" (cheda), addiction (vrtti), and stream (santana) could not be pointed out. The one who is endowed with factors belonging to pollution (*sanklefadharma) will be called "a person endowed with pollution" (*sariklefavan pudgalah), whereas the one who is endowed with factors belonging to purification (*vyavadanadharma) will be called "a person endowed with purification" (*vyavadanavan pudgalah). But pollution and purification entail in turn several degrees: those abiding in little, moderate, or great pollution will be called "persons of little, moderate, or great desire (*raga)," while those abiding in little, moderate or great purification will be called "persons having obtained a little, moderate, or great path (*margaprapta)." Those who engage in bad actions only (*ekantakus'alakarmakarin) will be called "inclined towards, siding with pollution (*sankles'apaksapatita)." whereas those who engage in good actions only (*ekantakus'alakarmakarin) will be called "inclined towards, siding with purification (*vyavadanapaksapatita)." In the same way, those who are addicted to pollution and to purification will respectively be called "persons given up to pollution" and "persons given up to purification." Or, one may say, concerning those who abide in pollution or purification: "This person has a polluted mental series," "This person has a purified mental series." In short, resorting to the notion of pudgala allows one to evolve a typology of psychophysical streams or series in terms of their moral, cognitive, and soteriological parameters. Needless to say, such a typological grid is purely conventional and merely focuses on specific dispositions and/or "chrono-soteriological" sequences of the constituents. How then does the Bharaharasutra fit into this exegetical frame? Here again is Sthiramati's explanation:
  In the Bharahdrasutra as well, the persons [referred to]
  as "the person who bears the burden" (*blitiraharapudgala)
  and "the person who lays down the burden"
  (*bharaniksepakapudgala?) are described as twofold. In
  this context (*tatra), what is called "the burden" refers
  to the truth of suffering (*duhkhasatya). [and] what is
  called either "the bearer of the burden" or "the taking
  up of the burden" refers to the truth of the origin [of
  suffering] (*samudayasatya). Both of them belong to (/side
  with) pollution (*sankleiasarigrhita?). And the laying
  down of the burden is twofold as well[, answering these
  two questions]: when (*kada) the burden is laid down,
  and by means of what (*kena?) the burden is laid down.
  Among them, when is the burden laid down? The burden is
  laid down at the time of the cessation (*nirodhakale)
  [of suffering, i.e., of nirvana. And] by means of what
  is the burden laid down? The burden is laid down by
  means of the truth of the path [leading to the cessation
  of suffering] (*margasatya). Here, both [aspects] belong
  to(/side with) purification (*vyavadanasangrhita?). In
  this context, the persons who have not [yet] abandoned
  suffering and the origin [of suffering] are referred to
  as "engaged in the bearing of the burden"
  (*bharaharapravrtta?) and "having a mental stream
  possessed with a burden" (*sabharacittasantana[vatr).
  [As for] the two persons who have obtained the truth of
  the cessation [of suffering] and the truth of the path
  [leading to the cessation of suffering], they are
  referred to as "[having] engaged in the laying down
  of the burden" (*bharaniksepanapravrtta?) and "having
  a mental stream possessed with the property of having
  laid down the burden"
  (*bharaniksepanadharma[ka]cittasantana[vat]?). (44)

Let it be recalled that in the Bharaharasutra the first three questions (what is the burden? what is the taking up of the burden? what is the laying down of the burden?) are answered in exactly the same way as the first three questions of the Dharmacakrapravartanasutra (what is the truth of suffering? what is the truth of the origin of suffering? what is the truth of the cessation of suffering?). If the burden, the taking up of the burden, and the laying down of the burden are defined in the same way as the first three noble(s') truths, then the burden is suffering, the taking up of the burden is the cause of suffering, i.e., craving, and the laying down of the burden is the cessation of suffering, i.e., nirvana. What about the fourth noble(s') truth, the truth of the path leading to the cessation of suffering, if, as we have seen, the burden-bearer is not defined in the same way as the path? Here Sthiramati's strategy is to split the third item (the laying down of the burden) into two, so that the truth of the cessation of suffering properly speaking coincides with the time where one rids oneself of the burden, and the truth of the path leading to the cessation of suffering coincides with the means by which one lays down the burden.45 Now of course, the truths of suffering and the origin of suffering, i.e., the five constituents that are clung to and craving that is responsible for their reexis-tence, side with pollution, while the truths of the cessation of suffering and the path leading to the cessation of suffering, i.e., nirvana and the eightfold path, side with purification. Turning back to the typological device: a psychophysical stream beset by suffering, clinging, and defilements can be referred to as a "person who bears the burden," while one engaged on the path or reaching salvation can be described as a person laying down the burden.

2.2. The "Skill in Means" Explanation

This explanation shares an important feature with the "typological" explanation: its insistence on the pragmatic usefulness of the pudgala dispensation. But while the MSABh and the MSAVBh understood the didactic function of the pudgala as being strictly descriptive--pointing to existing psychological facts in a metaphorical and hypostasized way--Candrakirti interprets it in terms of proselytic and catechetic expediency. In other words, this teaching is provisional and intentional (abhiprayika), and testifies to the Buddha's skill in means (upayakausalya)--a ubiquitous Mahayanist hermeneutic device. In his MA, (46) Candrakirti quotes a lengthy section of the LASid in which the Buddha answers the following question of Mahamati concerning the buddha-nature: "In which sense, 0 Blessed One, does the doctrine of the tathagatagarbha differ from the outsiders' doctrine(s) of the self? [Ford 0 Blessed One, the outsiders too teach (a) doctrine(s) of the self [which present(s) it] as an agent [that is] permanent, devoid of qualities, all-pervading, [and] imperishable." (47) In his answer, the Buddha declares that ordinary persons and outsiders alike stick to erroneous conceptions of the self and are at odds with the apparently nihilistic doctrine of selflessness. Both in order to alleviate their fear of selflessness and to attract them to (Mahayana) Buddhism, the bud-dhas teach the purposedly substantialist doctrine of the tathagatagarbha. (48) In other words, the tathagatagarbha dispensation is nothing but a rhetorical device reflecting skill in means and designed primarily to proselytize (iikarsatja) the non-Buddhists. Madhyamikas such as Bhaviveka and Candrakirti share the LASu's views on the provisionality of the bucldha-nature dispensation. 49 Now, Candralcirti deals with the pudgala along the same line of argument. According to him, the Buddha only preached scriptures such as the Bharahara (but also those revealing the alayavijnana and the existence of the mere constituents), in order to proselytize ordinary living beings who, due to ignorance and/or the influence of substan-tialist non-Buddhist teachings, are beset with the false view of a self. In other words, these preliminary and merely provisional teachings are meant to offer a transition between the adhesion to worldly beliefs and the intuition of universal emptiness. Candrakirti spells this out as follows:
  One should know (*veditavya) that with the word
  "store-consciousness" (*alayavijnanasabda), it is
  nothing but emptiness (*sunyata) that has been taught
  [by the Blessed One] so that one [may] penetrate
  (*anupravesa?) the nature (*svabhava) of all things
  (*vastu). Not only [has] the store-consciousness [been
  taught] to exist, but also the person (*pudgala),
  [and this] in order to please (*anugraha?) the persons
  to be converted (*vaineyajana?) by teaching them that
  it exists, as [when it is] said "0 monks. the five
  constituents that are clung to (*upadanaskandha) are
  the burden (*bhara). As for the burden-bearer
  (*bharahara), it is the person." To certain [beings],
  the constituents (*skandha) alone have been taught [...]
  [But] all these [teachings] have been presented with
  an intention (*abhipraya). Which is the intention
  here? The teaching that the store-consciousness
  exists, that the person exists, and that the
  constituents alone exist [was meant] for him who
  does not know the most profound things in this way.
  The [persons] to be converted are not able to penetrate
  the profound (*gambhira) nature [of things] (*dharmata)
  due to their having cultivated (*BH[U.sub.caus];
  *abhyAS?) the false views (*drsti) of the outsiders
  (*tirthika) for a long time; [so I when they hear
  about the nature [of things] as it is taught, i.e.,
  that there is no self, [or that] there is no arising,
  they are frightened (*uttrasta?), and thinking from
  the beginning that the teaching of emptiness is similar
  to a pit, they turn their back to it [and] hence no
  great benefit (*artha) can accrue [to them]. [But]
  thanks to the initial (ches thog mar) teaching of
  the store-consciousness, [the person,] etc., they
  [come to] dismiss the doctrines (*mata?) of the
  outsiders, [thus] drawing a great benefit from
  these [preliminary teachings]; and then, knowing
  correctly the [proper] meaning of the [Blessed
  One's] word (*pravacana), they come to reject
  these [preliminary teachings] by themselves
  (*svayam?). Therefore, there are only [desirable]
  qualities (*guna) [in these teachings], but no
  defects (*daya). (50)

2.3. The Conventionalist Explanation

To the best of my knowledge, neither Vasubandhu (the Kosakara) nor Kamalasila ever interpreted the Bharaharasutra in terms of skill in means. They opted rather for a frontal attack on Pudgalavada exegetics by pointing to the fact that, in adding the clause evannama evanjatya evangotra [...] to his first answer (pudgala iti syad vacaniyam), the Buddha had very explicitly emphasized the conventional or "designational" nature of the pudgala. (51) Let us consider first the following passage of the AKBh:
  [The Pudgalavadin:] And you only accept the [five]
  constituents belonging to the three times [i.e., to
  the present, past, and future], not the person.
  [But] if the person is nothing but the [five]
  constituents, why did [the Blessed One] say this:
  "I am going to teach you, 0 monks, the burden, the
  taking up of the burden, the laying down of the
  burden, and the bearer of the burden." [Vasubandhu:]
  Why should it not be said? [The Pudgalavadin:] For
  the bearer of the burden cannot be the burden itself!
  [Vasubandhu:] Why? [The Pudgalavadin:] For one does
  not observe [that it is] so. [Vasubandhu:] Nor can
  [the person] be inexpressible! [The Pudgalavadin:]
  Why? [Vasubandhu:] For one does not observe [that
  it is so]. And because it would follow that the
  taking up of the burden would not be comprehended
  in the constituents either. [And] it is for this
  purpose that the Blessed One has presented the
  bearer of the burden [the way he did, i.e.:]
  "The venerable sir who has such a name," up to
  "who has such a life expectancy, such a life
  end"; [for such a purpose. i.e.,] so that one
  may understand how it is, [and] that one does
  not understand that it is permanent, or
  inexpressible[, or substantially real]. And since
  it is the constituents that are conducive to the
  harm of the constituents, the preceding ones
  [being conducive to the harm] of the subsequent
  ones, [the Blessed One] presents [them] by making
  [them] both the burden and the bearer of the
  burden, for "burden" has the meaning of "harming."

The gist of the argument can be made explicit as follows. According to the Pudgalavadin, the pudgala (answer to question no. 1) must be something over and above the five constituents (answer to question no. 4) because it is stated separately. Moreover, claiming that the burden and the burden-bearer are one and the same thing is counter-intuitive and violates commonsensical judgement. But--Vasubandhu answers--if a separate statement were the criterion for existing independently of the five constituents, then the taking up of the burden, i.e., craving (answer to question no. 2), would also be something different from them, a proposition which nobody familiar with the fundamentals of Buddhist doctrine would ever admit: craving belongs to the conditioning factors (sanisktira), the fourth constituent. As for the argument of commonsense, Vasubandhu sends it back to the Pudgalavadin: claiming that something exists as a substantial entity but cannot be described (aviicya, avaktavya) as being either A or non-A. i.e., as being either identical (tattva) to or different (anyatva) from the constituents, runs counter to ordinary conceptions of what it is to be a real entity. (53) As it turns out, "person" is but a conventional designation of the constituents themselves, something made abundantly clear by the specification (visesana) of the pudgala through "having such and such a name, having such and such a birth(/origin), belonging to such and such a family," etc. (54) As Yagomitra puts it, "if the person existed as a substantial entity, then no more than this would be said in this sutra: 'Of what does the bearer of the burden consist? One should say: [It consists of] the person.' [And] this would not have to be supplemented by another statement, i.e.: 'The venerable sir', etc., [and this] up to: '[laying such a] life end.' For this specification by another [statement is made] so that one knows that the person exists as a [mere] designation. Such is the intention." (55)

Kamalasila provides an expanded version of Vasubandhu's argument. Here too the Pudgalavadin opponent resorts to commonsense in order to deny the identity between the burden and burden-bearer, and thus to reject the mainstream Buddhist's reduction of the person to the constituents. Commenting on Santaraksita's half-verse (TS 349ab), Kamalagila explains that the Buddha's mention of the person in the Bharasatra referred to nothing but the five constituents considered either as a collection (samudilya; in the synchrony of a totality) or as a stream (santana: in the diachrony of causality)--such is, besides, the ordinary world's understanding of "person." In other words, pudgala is a conventional designation (prajnapii) of the constituents alone, an intention which the Buddha makes explicit while specifying pudgala through evannamii evailjatya evangotra, etc. At this point, Kamalasila reiterates Vasubandhu's rebuttal of the Pudgalavadin's objection: the person (the burden-bearer) is no more independent from the constituents (the burden) than is craving (the taking up of the burden). Finally, Kamalasila resorts to Vasubandhu's explanation of "burden": it is because the former constituents (the burden), the causes, torment the next ones (the burden-bearers), their effects, that they are thus called. Here is Kamalasila's commentary on IS 349ab:
  But in the [sutra] which has been proclaimed [by the
  Blessed One, i.e.:] " I am going to teach you, O monks,
  the burden, the taking up of the burden, the laying
  down of the burden, and the bearer of the burden,"
  the burden is the five constituents which are clung
  to, the taking up of the burden is craving, the
  laying down of the burden is liberation, [and] the
  bearer of the burden is the person. How is this to
  be interpreted [according to you]? For the bearer
  of the burden cannot be the burden itself! In order
  to meet [this objection, Santaraksita] says the
  following: "[As for] the [Blessed One's] teaching
  of the bearer of the burden, etc., [it has been
  made] with a collection, etc., in mind." Here it
  is the constituents belonging to [one and] the same
  [moment of] time that have the designation of
  "collection" when one wishes to describe [them]
  as a totality; it is these [constituents] being
  causes and effects that are designated as a "series"
  when they do not occur at one and the same time;
  and insofar as they are the causes of a uniform
  judgement, they are stated by the two words
  "possessing a series" and "possessing a
  collection." Therefore, the [Blessed One's] teaching
  of the bearer of the burden [has been made] with a
  collection, etc., in mind [i.e.,] while intending a
  collection, etc. "Is not contradictory" is to be
  supplied [in the stanza]. The first word "etc."
  includes the series, etc.; [as for] the second, [it
  includes] the burden, etc. In this context, these
  very constituents are designated as the person who
  bears the burden when one wishes to describe [them]
  in the form of a collection, a series, etc., because
  it is these very [constituents] that are named "person"
  in the [ordinary world]. This is the reason why the
  Blessed One, having said: "Of what does the bearer of
  the burden consist? It consists of the person," [then]
  explains the person with "the venerable sir who has
  such a name, who has such an origin, who has such a
  family (/lineage), who has such a livelihood, who
  experiences such pleasure and pain, who has such a
   long life," etc. [And this he did] in order to show
  in which way (yatha) this [person] thus (/this very
  [person]) defined as the collection of the constituents
  should be understood as existing as a [mere]
  designation, [but] should not be understood [as
  something] else, [viz.,] the permanent [and]
  substantially existing [thing that is] postulated
  by the adversary. And it must necessarily be
  understood this way, [for] otherwise the taking
  up of the burden as well, since it is stated
  separately from the constituents, would not be
  included among the constituents, just as the
  person. Therefore, those very previous constituents
  which are instrumental in the rise of another
  constituent are the ones called "burden," but
  those that arise [as] being [the former ones']
  effects are said to be the bearer of the burden.
  [So] this [interpretation of the sutra] is
  inconclusive (/does not make known [its true
  meaning]) (?ajnapaka). (56)


A-Astedhyayi (Panini). See MBh II.

AK[(Bh)]-Abhidharmakosabhasyam of Vasubandhu, ed. Prahlad Pradhan. Tibetan Sanskrit Works Series, vol. 8. Patna: Kashi Prasad Jayaswal Research Institute, 1975 (1967 (1)).

AKB[h.sub.LE]-Abhidharmakosabhasyam of Vasubandhu. Chapter IX: Atmavadapratisedha, ed. Jong Cheol

Lee. With Critical Notes by the Late Prof. Yasunori Ejima. Bibliotheca Indologica and Buddho-logica, vol. 11. Tokyo: The Sankibo Press, 2005.

Aks-Aicsayamatinirdesautra, ed. Jens Braarvig. 2 vols. Oslo: Solum Forlag, 1993.

AKVy-Sphutartha Abhidharmakosavyakhya, the Work of Yasomitra, ed. Unrai Wogihara. Tokyo: Sankibo Buddhist Book Store, 1989 (1936 (1)).

AN I-The Anguttara-Nikaya, ed. Richard Morris. Vol. 1. London: Pali Text Society, Luzac & Company, 1961 (1885 (1)).

AS--Avadanasataka: A Century of Edifying Tales Belonging to the Hinayana, ed. J. S. Speyer. Indo-Iranian Reprints, vol. 3. The Hague: Mouton & Co, 1958 (1906-1909 (1)).

AVSu(N)-The Arthaviniscaya-Sutra & Its Commentary (Nibandhana), Written by Bhiksu Viryaridatta of Sri-Nalandavihara, ed. N.H. Samtani. Tibetan Sanskrit Works Series, vol. 13. Patna: Kashi Prasad Jayaswal Research Institute, 1971.

BCAP-Bodhicaryavatara of Arya Santideva with the Commentary Panjika of Shri Praffiakaramati & Hindi Translation, ed. Swami Dwarika Das Shastri. Bauddha Bharati Series, vol. 21. Varanasi: Bauddha Bharati, 1988.

BHSG-Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit Grammar and Dictionary, vol. I: Grammar, by Franklin Edgerton. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1970 (1953 (1)).

BoB[h.sub.D]-Bodhisattvabhamih (Being the XVth section of Asangapada's Yogacarabhamih), ed. Nalinak-sha Dutt. Tibetan Sanskrit Works Series, vol. 7. Patna: Kashi Prasad Jayaswal Research Institute, 1978.

BoB[h.sub.w]--Bodhisattvabhumi: A Statement of Whole Course of the Bodhisattva (Being Fifteenth Section of Yogacarabhumi), ed. Unrai Wogihara. Tokyo: 1930-1936.

CPSu-Das Catusparisatsutra: Eine kanonische Lehrschrift fiber die Begriindung der buddhistischen Gemeinde [...] Auf Grunt von Turfan-Handschriften herausgegeben und bearbeitet, ed. Ernst Wald-schmidt. 3 vols. Abhandlungen der Deutschen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin. Berlin: Akad-emie-Verlag, 1952,1957,1962.

D-sDe dge Tibetan Tripitaka bsTan. 'gyur Preserved at the Faculty of Letters. University of Tokyo, ed. Jikido Takasaki, Zuiho Yamaguchi, and Noriaki Hakamaya. Tokyo: 1977-1981.

DBhSu-Dasabhumiivaro nama Mahayanasatram, ed. Kondo Ryuko. Kyoto: 1936. (Rpt. Rinsen Buddhist Text Series, vol. 2. Kyoto: Rinsen Book Company, 1986.)

DhP-Dhammapada, ed. 0. von Hiniiber and K. R. Norman. Oxford: Pali Text Society, 1995.

DN III-The Digha Nikaya, ed. J. Estlin Carpenter. Vol. [II. London: Pali Text Society, Luzac & Company, 1960 (1911 (1)).

LV-Lalita Vistara: Leben und Lehre des Cakya-Buddha, ed. S. Lefman. Halle: Verlag der Buchhand-lung des Waisenhauses, 1902.

LASu-The Larikavatara Sutra, ed. Bunyiu Nanjio. Bibliotheca Otaniensis, vol. 1. Kyoto: Otani Univ. Press, 1923.

MA-Madhyarnaketvatara par Candrakirti: Traduction tibitaine, ed. Louis de La Vallee Poussin. Bibliotheca Buddhica, vol. 9. Saint-Petersbourg: Imprimerie de l'Academie Imperiale des Sciences, 1912.

MASu-The Mahavadanasutra: A New Edition Based on Manuscripts Discovered in Northern Turkestan, ed. Takamichi Fukita. Sanskrit-Worterbuch der buddhistischen Texte aus den Turfan-Funden, Beiheft 10. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2003.

MBh II-The Vyakarana-Mahabhasya of Patanjali, ed. Franz Kielhorn. Vol II. Bombay: Government Central Book Depot, 1883.

MN I-The Majjhima-Nikaya, ed. V. Trenckner. Vol. I. London: Pali Text Society, 1948 (1888 (1)).

MP-The Milindapaiiho: Being Dialogues between King Milinda and the Buddhist Sage Nagasena, ed. V. Trenckner. London: Pali Text Society, 1986 (1880 (1)).

MSABh-Asanga: Mahliyana-Satralanzkara. Expose de la doctrine du Grand Whicule, ed. Sylvain Levi. Bibliotheque de l'Ecole des Hautes Etudes, Sciences historiques et philologiques, vol. 159. Paris: Librairie Honore Champion, 1907.

MSAVBh-(Mahetyana)s-fitralankaravrttibh4ya (Sthiramati). D no. 4034, mi 1-tsi 266a7/P no. 5531, mi 1-tsi 308a8.

MVa-Mahiivastu Avadanam. Le Mahavastu: Texte sanscrit publie pour la premiere fois et accompa-gni d'introductions et d'un commentaire, ed. Emile Senart. Parts II and III. Societe asiatique, Collection d'ouvrages orientaux, seconde serie. Paris: Imprimerie nationale, 1890 and 1897.

NV-Nyayabhegyavarttika of Bharadvaja Uddyotakara, ed. Anantalal Thakur. Nyayacaturgranthika, vol. 2. New Delhi: Indian Council of Philosophical Research, 1997.

NVTT-Nyliyaviirttikateitparyatikei of Vacaspati Milra, ed. Anantalal Thakur. Nyayacaturgranthika, vol. 3. New Delhi: Indian Council of Philosophical Research, 1996.

P-The Tibetan Tripitaka, Peking Edition, Kept in the Library of the Otani University, Kyoto, ed. Daisetz T Suzuki. Tokyo: Tibetan Tripitaka Research Institute, 1957.

PVV-PrarnCuravcIrttikavrtti (Manorathanandin). See Safikrtyayana, "Dharmalcirti's Pramariavarttika.-SaP-ScIrattha-Ppaktisini: Buddhaghosa's Commentary on the Sagyuna-Nikaya, ed. F. L. Woodward. Vol. II. London: Pali Text Society, Humphrey Milford, 1932.

SBhV-The Gilgit Manuscript of the Satighabhedavastu: Being the 171h and Last Section of the Vina-ya of the MCilasarvastivadin, ed. Raniero Gnoli. 2 vols. Serie Orientale Roma 49/1-2. Rome: Istituto Italiano per il Medio ed Estremo Oriente, 1977-1978.

SHT IV-Sanskrit Handschriften aus den Turfanfunden, pt. IV, by Lore Sander and Ernst Waldschmidt. Verzeichnis der orientalischen Handschriften in Deutschland, vol. X.4. Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag, 1980.

Sn-Suttanipata, ed. Dines Andersen and Helmer Smith. Oxford: Pali Text Society, 1948 (1913 (1)).

SN III-Sarnyutta-Nikelya, ed. Leon Feer. Vol. III. London: Pali Text Society, Luzac & Company, 1960 (18901).

SNA-*Sammimitiyanikeiyathstra. T. 1649 (XXXII), 462a-473a. See also Venkataramanan, "Sni-mitiyanikaya Sastra."

SP-Saddharmapumlarika, ed. Hendrik Kern and Bunyiu Nanjio. Bibliotheca Buddhica, vol. 10. Saint-Pdtersbourg: Imprimerie de l'Academie Imperiale des Sciences, 1912.

Subhafitasarigraha--Subhiqitasamgraha, ed. Cecil Bendall. Le Musdon: 4-5 (1905): 1-100.

SWTF I-III-Sanskrit-WOrterbuch der buddhistischen Texte aus den Turfan-Funden und der kan-onischen Literatur der Sarvastiviida-Schule. Vols. I-111 (a-mleccha). Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1994,2003,2008.

T-Taisho shinshu daizokyo, ed. Junjiro Takakusu and Kaikyoku Watanabe. Tokyo: Taisho Issaikyo Kankokai, 1924-1932.

ThIG-The Thera- and Theri-Glithli (Stanzas Ascribed to Elders of the Buddhist Order of Recluses), ed. Hermann Oldenberg and Richard Pischel. 2nd edition with appendices by K. R. Norman and L. Alsdorf. London: Pali Text Society, Luzac & Company, 1966 (1883 (1)).

TJ-(Madhyamakahrdaya)tarkajvalci (Bhaviveka). P no. 5256, dza 43b7-381a8.

TSPK-Tattvasatigraha of kintaraktsita with the Commentary of Kamalasfila, ed. Embar Krishnam-acharya. 2 vols. Baroda: Oriental Institute, 1984 (1926 (1)).

TSP-The Tattvasafigraha of Aciirya Santarakyita with the Paiijika Commentary of Acarya Kamalasila, ed. Swami Dwarikadasstri. 2 vols. Bauddha Bharati Series, vol. 1. Varanasi: Baud-dha Bharati, 2006 (1981 (1)).

TS[P.sub.Tib]-Tattvasafigrahapaiifika (Kamalagila), Tibetan version. D no. 4267, ze 133b1-'e 331a7.

Uv-Sanskrittexte aus den Turfanfunden X: Udanavarga, ed. Franz Bernhard. Vol. I. Abhandlungen der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Gottingen, Philologisch-Historische Klasse, Dritte Folge, 54.

Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1965.

UvV--Prajnavarman's Udanavargavivarava: Transliteration of Its Tibetan Version (Based on the Xylographs of Chone/Derge and Peking), ed. Michael Balk. 2 vols. Bonn: Indica et Tibetica, 1984.

Vairocanaraksita MS--Photographs taken in Nor by G. Tucci and R. Siinkrtyayana of a palm leaf manuscript (47 folios, Proto-Bengali-cum-Proto-Maithili script) containing six works by Vairocanaraksita, including a *Sutralankaravivrti (folios 17a5-42a2), and kept respectively in Rome (Istituto Italiano per l'Africa e l'Oriente, MS 21/R) and Gottingen (Niedersachsische Staats- und Universitiitsbiblio-thek, Xc14/34a). See K. Kano, "Two Short Glosses."

Vin I--The Vinaya Pifakam: One of the Principal Buddhist Holy Scriptures in the Pali Language, ed. Hermann Oldenberg. London: Pali Text Society, Luzac & Company, 1964 (1879 (1)).

Vism--The Visuddhi-magga of Buddhaghosa, ed. C. A. E Rhys Davids. London: Pali Text Society, 1975 (1920-1921 (1)).

VP--Bhartrharis Vakyapadiya: Versuch einer vollstandigen deutschen Ubersetzung nach der kritischen Edition der Mala-Karikas, ed. Wilhelm Rau. Herausgegeben von Oskar von Hinuber. Mainz: Akad-emie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur, Franz Steiner Verlag, 2002.


Allon, Mark. Three Gandhari Ekottarikagama-Type Sutras: British Library Kharaythi Fragments 12 and 14. Gandharan Buddhist Texts, vol. 2. Seattle: Univ. of Washington Press, 2001.

Bareau, Andre. Les sectes bouddhiques du Petit Vehicule. Publications de l'Ecole francaise d'Extreme-Orient, vol. 38. Paris: Ecole francaise d'Extreme-Orient, 1955.

--. "Les controverses relatives a la nature de l'Arhant dans le bouddhisme ancien." Indo-Iranian Journal 1 (1957): 241-50.

Bodhi, Bhikkhu. The Connected Discourses of the Buddha: A Translation of the Samyutta Nikaya. The Teachings of the Buddha. Boston: Wisdom Publications, 2000.

Bronkhorst, Johannes. "L'Inde classique et le dialogue des religions." Etudes Asiatiques/Asiatische Studien 50/4 (1996): 779-96.

--. "Literacy and Rationality in Ancient India." Etudes Asiatiques/Asiatische Studien 56/4 (2002): 797-831.

Burnouf, Eugene. Introduction a l'histoire du Buddhisme indien. Paris: Imprimerie Royale, 1844.

--. Introduction to the History of Indian Buddhism, tr. Katia Buffetrille and Donald S. Lopez, Jr. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 2010.

Chau, Thich Thien. "Les reponses des Pudgalavadin aux critiques des ecoles bouddhiques." Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies 10/1(1987): 33-53.

--. "The Literature of the Pudgalavadins." Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies 711 (1984): 7-16.

Chung, Jin-il. A Survey of the Sanskrit Fragments Corresponding to the Chinese Samyuktagama [Zoagonkyo soto bonbun danpen ichiran] [??]. Tokyo: Sankibo Busshorin [??], 2008.

Collins, Steven. Selfless Persons: Imagery and Thought in Theravada Buddhism. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1982.

Duerlinger, James. Indian Buddhist Theories of Persons: Vasubandhu's Refutation of the Theory of a Self' London: CurzonRoutledge, 2003.

Eltschinger, Vincent. "On a Hitherto Neglected Text Against Buddhist Personalism: Mahayana-sutralankara 18.93-102 and Bhasya." Etudes Asiatiques/Asiatische Studien 64/2 (2010): 291-340.

Eltschinger, Vincent, and Isabelle Ratie. "Dharmakirti against the pudgala." Indogaku Chibettogaku Kenkyu (Journal of Indian and Tibetan Studies) 15 (2010): 1-31.

--. Self No-Self and Salvation: Dharmakirti's Critique of the Notions of Self and Person. Beitrage zur Kultur- und Geistesgeschichte Asiens, vol. 75. Vienna: Verlag der Osterreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2013. Enomoto, Fumio. A Comprehensive Study of the Chinese Samyukttigama: Indic Texts Corresponding to the Chinese Samyuktiigama as Found in the Sarvastiveida-Mulasarvastivada Literature, pt. 1: * Samgitanipata. Kyoto: the author, n.d.

Frauwallner, Erich. Die Philosophie des Buddhistnus. Philosophische Studientexte, Texte der indischen Philosophic, vol. 2. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1956.

Glass, Andrew. Four Gandhari Samyuktagama Sutras: Senior Kharosthi Fragment 5. Gandharan Buddhist Texts, vol. 4. Seattle: Univ. of Washington Press, 2007.

Hardy, Edmund. "The Sutra of the Burden-bearer." Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society 1901: 573-74.

Hinuber, Oskar von. Das altere Mittelindisch im Uberblick. 2nd ed. Veroffentlichungen der Kommission fur Sprachen und Kulturen Suclasiens, vol. 20. Vienna: Verlag der Osterreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2001.

Horner, [saline Blew. Milinda's Questions, vol. I. London: Pali Text Society, Luzac & Company, 1969 (1963 (1)).

Jaini, Padmanabh S. "On the Ignorance of the Arhat." In Collected Papers on Buddhist Studies. Pp. 167-79. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 2001.

Kano, Kazuo. "Two Short Glosses on Yogacara Texts by Vairocanaraksita: Vimsikatikavivrti and * Dharmadharmatavibhagavivrti." In Manuscripta Buddhica I: Sanskrit Texts from Giuseppe Tucci's Collection, pt. I, ed. Francesco Sferra. Pp. 343-80. Rome: Istituto Italiano per l'Af-rica e l'Oriente, 2008.

Kloppenborg, Ria. The Sutra on the Foundation of the Buddhist Order (Catusparisatsutra), Relating the Events front the Bodhisattva 's Enlightenment up to the Conversion of Upat4ya (Sariputra) and Kolita (Maudgalyayana.). Religious Texts Translation Series Nisaba, vol. 1. Leiden: Brill, 1973.

La Vallee Poussin, Louis de. "Buddhist Sutras Quoted by Brahmin Authors." Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland 2 (April, 1901): 307-8.

--. "Dogmatique bouddhique: La negation de l'ame et la doctrine de l'acte." Journal asiatique 20/5 (9th Series) (1902): 237-306.

--. "Madhyamakavatara: Introduction au traite du milieu par l'Acarya Candrakirti avec le commentaire de l'auteur traduit d'apres la version tibetaine." Le Museon 8 (1907): 249-317; 11/3-4 (1910): 272-358; 12/4 (1911): 236-317.

--. L'Abhidhannakaa de Vasubandhu, vols. IV and V. Paris: Paul Geuthner, J.-B. Istas, 1925.

Lusthaus, Dan. "Pudgalavada Doctrines of the Person." In Buddhist Philosophy: Essential Readings, ed. William Edelglass and Jay L. Garfield. Pp. 275-85. New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 2009.

Minayeff, Igor Pavlovitch. Recherches sur le bouddhisme, tr. R. H. Assier de Pompignan. Paris: Ernest Leroux Editeur, 1894.

Norman, K. R. The Group of Discourses (Sutta-Nipata), vol. II. Oxford: Pali Text Society, 1992.

Oberlies, Thomas. "Ein bibliographischer Oberblick Uber die kanonischen Texte der Sravakayana-Schulen des Buddhismus (ausgenommen der des Mahavihara-Theravada)." Wiener Zeitschrift fur die Kunde Sudasiens 47 (2003): 37-84.

Okada, Kensho, and Sayaka Kishi. "The Texts Quoted by Asvabhava and Sthiramati in Their Commentaries on the Bodhipalcsadhikara Chapter of the Mahayanasutralamkara (II)." (Japanese.) Tsukuba Journal of Religious Studies and Comparative Thought 9 (March 2008): 61-103.

Priestley, Leonard C. D. C. Pudgalavada Buddhism: The Reality of the Indeterminate Self South Asian Studies Papers, no. 12, monograph no. 1. Toronto: Centre of South Asian Studies, 1999.

Renou, Louis. Grammaire sanscrite. Paris: Librairie d'Amerique et d'Orient, Adrien Maisonneuve, 1984.

Ruegg, David Seyfort. Jordan. Lectures 1987. Buddha-nature, Mind and the Problem of Gradualism in a Comparative Perspective: On the Transmission and Reception of Buddhism in India and Tibet. Jordan Lectures in Comparative Religion, vol. 13. London: School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, 1989.

Sankrtyayana, Rahula. "Dharmakirti's Pramanavarttika with Commentary by Manorathanandin." Published as an appendix of the Journal of the Bihar and Orissa Research Society 24-26 (1938-1940). Schmithausen, Lambert. Der Nirvema-Abschnitt in der Vinikayasamgrahwji der Yogacarabhumih. Veroffentlichungen der Kommission fur Sprachen und Kulturen Sud- und Ostasiens, vol. 8. Vienna: Hermann Bohlaus Nachf., Kommissionsverlag der Osterreichichen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1969.

Tripathi, Chandrabhal. FiinfUndzwanzig Sutras des Nidanasamyukta. Sanskrittexte aus den Thrfanfun-den, vol. 8. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1962.

--. Ekottaragama-Fragmente der Gilgit-Handschriften. Studien zur Indologie und Iranistik. Monographie 2. Reinbek: Dr. Inge Wezler Verlag ftir Orientalistische Fachpublikationen, 1995.

Venkataramanan, Krishniah. "Sammitiyanikaya Sastra." Visva-Bharati Annals 5 (1953): 155-243.

Waldschmidt, Ernst. Ausgewahlte kleine Schriften, ed. Heinz Bechert and Petra Kieffer-Pillz. Glasenapp-Stiftung, vol. 29. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 1989.

Warren, Henry Clarke. Buddhism in Translations: Passages Selected from the Buddhist Sacred Books and Translated from the Original Pali into English. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press, 1896.

Most sincere thanks are due to Maria Piera Candotti, Jin-il Chung, Jens-Uwe Hartmann, Helmut Krasser, Isabelle Ratie, and Vincenzo Vergiani. I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my friend Jonathan Silk, who convinced me to reconstruct the Bharaharasutra and generously guided my first steps into Sanskrit sutra literature, its sources, its methods, and its problems. We had initially (Fall 2011) planned to write this essay together. The constraints of academic life have unfortunately decided otherwise.

1. E. Burnout, Introduction a l'histoire du Buddhisme indien, 467 (p. 508 of English tr.). According to La Vallee Poussin ("Dogmatique bouddhique," 267 n. I), Burnout's manuscript of the AKVy at least twice read bhava 'existence' instead of bhara 'burden'. Burnout translates bhavalbhara by 'existence' throughout, and the original wording of Burnout's statement is "existence du sujet pensant," i.e., "existence of the thinking subject."

2. See Minayeff, Recherches sur le bouddhisme, 225 n. 2. Burnout published only his French translation of the passage. 3. See La Vallee Poussin, "Dogmatique bouddhique," 266-69. Besides the Pah text (SN III.25-26), La Vallee Poussin briefly refers to Uddyotakara's NV (see below. n. 37) and Prajnakaramati's BCAP (see below, n. 53). Contrary to Hardy, La Vallee Poussin holds the sutra to be "h premiere vue, decisif en faveur du pudgala." About twenty years later, in volume V of his L'Abhidharmakaa de Vasuhandhu (pp. 256-57), La Vallee Poussin adds references to Candrakirti's MA (see below, n. 50), the MSABh (see below, nn. 39 and 42), the BoBh (see below, n. 51), and Safighabhadra's Nyayanusiira (for references, see La Vallee Poussin, L'Ahhidharmakos'a, vol. V. 256 n. 1). On both occasions, La Vallee Poussin refers to discussions and/or translations by Warren (Buddhism in Translations, 159), Minayeff (Recherches, 225), Hardy ("The Sutra of the Burden-bearer"), and himself ("Buddhist auras Quoted by Brahmin Authors," 308). Several other bibliographical items are referred to in La Vallee Poussin, "Buddhist Sutras."

308 n. 2.

(4). Note also La Vallee Poussin, "Buddhist Sutras," 308: "The sutra of the 'burden and the burden-bearer,' as well known from the Abhidharmakosa, the Bodhicaryavatarat[ika], and the Tibetan authorities, was one of the most decisive authorities referred to by the Pudgalavadins.'"

(5.) See Frauwallner, Die Philosophic des Buddhismus, 24-26.

(6.) See Bareau, Les sectes bouddhiques du Petit Vehicule, 115.

(7.) For an overview and bibliographical informations on the Sanskrit remains of the Sarvastivada and Mu1asarvastivada Samyuktagama, see Oberlies, "Ein bibliographischer Uberblick," 53-54 ([section]4.2.2) and 67-68 ([section]5.2.2); for Gandhari fragments of the (Dharmaguptaka?)Samyuktagatna, see Glass, Four Gandhari Samgyuktagama Sutras. See also Enomoto, A Comprehensive Study, and Chung, A Survey of the Sanskrit Fragments.

(8.) On Pudgalavada Buddhism and the pudgala controversy, see, e.g., Priestley, Pudgalavada Buddhism, Duer-linger, Indian Buddhist Theories of Persons, Lusthaus. "Pudgalavada Doctrines of the Person," Eltschinger, "On a Hitherto Neglected Text," Eltschinger/Ratie, "Dharmakirti against the pudgala," and Eltschinger/Ratie, Self No-Self and Salvation, 64-115.

(9.) Not to mention the meaning of the compound bharahara itself, which, according to Collins (Selfless Persons, 165), can be an agent noun neither in Pali nor in Sanskrit. Collins (ibid.) translates the term as "the bearing of the burden" and comments: "The idea, then, is that the 'person' is a state created by the act of 'picking up' the burden of the khandha, through desire, a state which simply consists in the act of 'bearing the burden.--Against this interpretation, see Bodhi, The Connected Discourses, 1050 n. 35. As regards Paninian Sanskrit. see especially Renou, Grammaire sanscrite, 214 ([section]169), and MBh II.94,10 (on vartika 3 ad A. 3.2.1), where bharahara is explicitly taken as an example. A. 3.2.1 (karmany an) indicates that primary derivatives with suffix "a can be formed as second terms of compounds when the first term denotes the direct object (e.g., kumbhakara). The rule is supposed to apply only to two types of objects, that which is to be produced (nirvartya) and that which is to be transformed (vilcarya). but to exclude the third type of object, that which is to be attained (prapya) (on these three types of karnwn, see VP 111.7.45-53): no such formation is allowed from adityam papa, itimavantam arnoti, gramatn gacchati (MBh 11.94,2-3). Usage. however, admits such formations in the case of prapyakarman for roots such as hr- (bharahara), grah- (kamandalugraha), ni-(ustrapranaya), and vah- (bharavaha)(vartika 3 and MBh II.94,10-11). Note also that according to A. 3.4.67 (kartari krt), any Igt (primary) suffix denotes the agent (kartr) unless otherwise specified by a rule. To sum up these technical statements, Paniniyas would, then, definitely interpret hara- in bharahara as an agent noun.

(10.) a P glen: glin D. (b) D dug: dan P. (c) p zig: sig D. (d) la em.: las DP. (e) la em.: las DP. (f) P bya'o: bya ba'o D. (g) yis em.: yi DP. (h) na em.: ni DP.

(11.) Cf. Tripathi, Funfundzwanzig Sutras, 157 and 168: "Das Versprechen, dis ich (vorher) gegeben habe, mit den Worten [...] ist erfullt

(12.) The present discussion only takes SN 111.25-26 and T. 125 into consideration when their readings are relevant to the reconstruction.

(13.) vistarena occurs in other, but unrelated, Samyuktagama formulae, e.g. (Waldschmidt, Ausgewahlte kleine Schriften, 215 n. 3) evam aham bhadanta asya bhagavatah sanksiptena bhasyavibhaktasya vistarenartham ajanami ("So. Herr, verstehe ich unter voller Ausfuhrung den Sinn dieses in konzentrierter Form von dem Erha-benen unzergliedert Verkundeten." tr. Waldschmidt, 215), and (Waldschmidt, 215 n. 4) sadhu sadhu malakyamata sadhu khalu tvam: nalakyamata mamasya sanksiptena bhasitasyavibhaktasya vistarenartham ajanasi ("Bravo, bravo, Malakyamata, ausgezeichnet verstehst du unter voller Ausfiuhrung den Sinn dieses in konzentrierter Form von mir unzergliedert Verkundeten," tr. Waldschmidt, 215).

(14.) Note that the Chinese version of padas lc and d (T 99, 19a27) twice has "Die schwere Last bringt groBes Leid, das Ablegen der Last bringt groBe Freude" (tr. Frauwallner, Die Philosophie, 26).

(15.) The same can be said of T. 99, 19a26:"[...] darf man sic nicht wieder neuerlich aufnehmen" (tr. Frauwallner, Die Philosophie. 26).

(16.) Note T. 99, 19a28:. "Man muB allen Durst vernichten" (tr. Frauwallner, Die Philosophie, 26).

(17.) Note that the Pali recension of the sutra adds, after yayam tanha ponobhavika nandiragasahagata tatratatrabhinandini (SN III.26,2-3), seyyathdam kamatanha bhavatanha vibhavatanha (SN III.26,3-4), which is without equivalent in the Upayika Tika, T. 99, and the Sanskrit fragments. This matches the parallel discrepancy in the wording of the second of the noble(s') truths in the Pali and Sanskrit versions of the Dharmacakrapravartanasutra. Compare Vin 1.10 (p20): idam kho pana bhikkhave dukkhasamudayam ariyasaccam, yayam tanha ponobhavika nandiragasahagata tatratatrabhinandini. seyyath'idam: kamatanha bhavatanha vibhavatanha. CPSu.160 ([section][section]14.67): du(hkhasa)muda(ya a)ryasatycam katarat / trsna paunarbhaviki nandiragasahagata ta(tratatra)bhin(andini). AVSu 15,4-6: duhkhasamudaya aryasatyam katamat I tadyatha--tryha paunarbhaviki, nandiragasahagatii, tatratatrabhinandini I &am ucyate duhkhasamucktya aryasatyam /. LV 417,7-9: tatra katamo duhkhasanzudayah / yeyam trsna paunarhhaviki nandiragasahagata tatratatrabhinandiny ayam ucyate duhkhasamudayah /. For explanations of ponobhavika, nandiragasahagata. and tatratatrabhinandini in the framework of the Bharasutta, see SAP 264,7-11. See also Viryasridatta's detailed commentary in AVSuN 162,6-163,9.

(18.) For explanations of asesaviraganirodha, see SaP' 264,17-20: asesaviraganirodho ti adi sabbam nibbanass' eva vevacanam. tam hi agamma tanha asesato virajjati, nirujjhati, cajiyati, patinissailiyati. vimuccati. n'atthi c 'ettha kamalayo va ditthaayo va ri nibbanam etani namani labhati. "'Complete avoidance and cessation,' etc., all [this] is synonymous with nibbana. For when one has attained it, craving is completely avoided, destroyed, abandoned. given up, gotten rid of. And since there is no clinging to desire or views, nibbana receives these names." See also Viryasridatta's detailed commentary in AVSuN 166,9-168,10.

(19.) This is especially true of the sutra as it is reflected in Yasomitra's quotation, T. 99, and the Upayika Tika, which list the first three items according to the truths sequence. But this is not reflected in SN 111.25, which presents the bhara-items in the following order: bhara. bharahara, bharadana. bharanikkhepana.

(20.) For an attempt to have the bhara-items fit into the scheme of the four noble(s') truths, see Sthiramati's MSAVBh tsi D176a2-6/P207a2-7 and Buddhaghosa's Vism 512,4-6 below, nn. 44 and 45.

(21.) The only traditional explanation of syad vacaniyam (Pali assa vacaniyam) that 1 am aware of is Buddhaghosa's (SaP 263,18-19: [.. .] iti assa vacaniyam. evam vattabham bhaveyya a attho), which cannot be said to add much to our understanding. Note that in the Pali recension of the sutra, the answer to the first question (katamo bhikkhave bharo, SN 111.25,19) is also introduced in this way: pancupadanakkhandha a ssa vacaniyam (SN III.25,20).

(22.) See below, [section]2.3 and n. 51.

(23.) DhP 402 = Sn 626: yo dukkhassa pajanati idh'eva khayam attano / pannabharam visannuttam tam aham brumi brahmanam // (tr. Norman, The Group of Discourses. 71, slightly modified). To be compared with Uv 33.27 (with vitaragam instead of pannabharam!).

(24.) Sn 914: sa sabbadhammesu visenibhuto. yam kinci dittham va sutam mutam va, sa pannabharo muni vipayutto na kappiyo nuparato na patthiyo (tr. Norman, The Group of Discourses, 105).

(25.) See Vin 1.183,23-25 (arhat), DN 111.83,14-20 (true brahmin), MN 1.4,35-37 (and passim). See also MP 104,15-19 (with additional epithets). In ThiG 223, the elder Kisagotami also portrays herself as ohitabhara. For the Sanskrit formula, see, e.g., SBhV 1.231,8-10 = CPR! III.324 ([section]27a1): sarvais carhadbhih ksinasravaih krtakrtyaih krtakaranyair avahrtabharair anupraptasvakarthaih pariksinabhavasamyojanaih samyagajfnaya suvimuktacittaih [...]. "And [together] with all arhats, their evil influences destroyed, who had done what was to be done, who had performed their duties, who had cast off [their] burdens, who had obtained their own welfare, who had destroyed all bonds with existence, their minds being well released by means of correct liberating insight" (tr. Kloppenborg, The Sutra on the Foundation, 75, slightly modified).

(26.) SIP 263.21-24: pariharabhariy' atthena. etesam hi gamananisidapananipajjapananahapanamanakhadapanabhuiVapanadipariharo bhariyo ti: pariharabhariy' atthena bharo ti vuccati (tr. Bodhi, The Connected Discourses, 1051).

(27.) SP 263,27-264.6: puggalo hi patisandhikkhane yeva imam khandhabharam ukkhipitva dasa pi vassani visati pi vassasatam pi ti yavajivam imam khandhabharam nahapento bhojento nzudusamphassamalicapithesu nisidapento nipajjapento pariharetva, cutikkhane chaddetva, puna patisandhikkhane aparam khandhabharam adiyazi. tasma bharaharo ti jato.

(28.) See E1tschinger/Ratie, Self No-Self and Salvation, 76-77 n. 100.

(29.) For the Sanskrit text, see below. n. 52.

(30.) AKVy 706,24-25: tatra ye upaghataya samvartante duhkhahetaval, skandhah / te bhara iti krtroktah / uttare ye pidyante / te bharahara iti krtvokta iit! /. "Among them, those constituents which are instrumental in harming [and thus] causes of suffering are called 'burden.' Those 'subsequent] ones which are [thus] tormented are called 'the burden-bearer.'"

(31.) For the Sanskrit text, see below, n. 56.

(32.) On the question whether an arhat can be subject to retrogression, see Bareau, "Les controverses relatives a La nature de l'Arhant" and Jaini, "On the Ignorance of the Arhat."

(33.) See UvV 884,32-885,25. Note that Prajnavarman (UvV 884,12-13) explicitly connects Uv 30.32-33 to the Bharaharasutra: dge slon dog khyed la khur baud par bya'o zes rgya cher gsuns te I tshigs su bead pa gnis gsuns so

(34.) According to AKB[] 310,2-4 (on A[]), 5.43a), the five avarabhagiya fetters are the personalistic false view (satkayadrsti), the attachement to (non-Buddhist) practices and observances (silavrataparamarsa), doubt (vicikitsa), desire for lusts (kamacchanda), and malice (vyapada); they are so called because they are instrumental (hita, anuguna) in rebirth in the kamadhatu (due to desire for lusts and malice, one does not go beyond the kamadhatu; because of the two false views and doubt, one returns to it even if one had previously gone beyond it [AICEthp,. 310,7-9; or one remains a prthagjana. an ordinary person]). As for the five urdhvabhagiya fetters, they consist (A[] 5.45ac) in desire (raga) born in the realms of corporeality and uncorporeality, frivolity (auddhatya), (self-)conceit (mana), and bewilderment (moha);

failing to eliminate them amounts to the incapacity to go beyond the two upper spheres of existence (AKB[] 311,13)--i.e., to be liberated. See La Vallee Poussin, L'Abhidharmakosa de Vasubandhu, vol. IV, 84-87.

(35.) On upadhi see Schmithausen, Der Nirvana-Abschnitt, 79-81.

(36.) See Venkataramanan, "Sammitiyanikaya sastra," 170-71 and 178-79.

(37.) NW 321,21-322,3: na catmanam anabhyupagacchata tathagatadarsanam arthavattayam vyavasthapa-yitum sakyam / na cedam vacanam nasti sarvabhisamayasutre 'bhidhanat / tasman nasty atmety evam bruvanah siddhantam badhata iti / tatha ca bharam ca vo bhiksavo desayisyami bharaharam ca / blzarad ca paiicaskandha bharaharal ca pudgala UI I yad canna nastiti braviti sa mithyadrstiko bhavatiti siitram /. Note that commenting on this section, Vacaspatimisra (NVTT 456,18-19) says: so 'yam vatsiputranam (sic) vaibhasikanam siddhantah / tena virodha ity arthah /. This remark gives weight to Manorathanandin's (PVV 80,17-19) -ascription of Pudgalaviida to the Vaibhfisikas (see Eltschinger/Ratie, Seff. No-Self and Salvation, Ill n. 205). On Uddyotakara's quotation, see already La Vallee Poussin, "Buddhist Sritras Quoted by Brahmin Authors"; see also Bronkhorst, "L'Inde classique et le dialogue des religions." 786-87, and Bronkhorst, "Literacy and Rationality in Ancient India," 820.

(38.) Another exception is Dharmakirti, who, contrary to the Kathavatthu and the *Vijnanakaya, never addresses exegetical questions. On Dharmakirti's critique of Pudgalavada, see Eltschinger/Ratie, "Dharmakirti against the pudgala," and Eltschinger/Ratie, Self No-Self and Salvation, 87-115.

(39.) MSABh 158,26-159,2: pudgalo 'pi hi bhagavata tatra tatra desitah / parijnatavi bharaharah sraddhanu-saryadipudgalavyavasthanata ity asati dravyato 'stitve kasmad claim /.

(40.) MSAVBh tsi D174b2-4/P205a7-b2 also mentions the dharmanuseiripudgala. On the form parijnatavin, see BHSG [section]22.51; on sraddhanusarin, dhannanusarin, and the classification (vyavasthana, AICB[], 353,12) of other types of pudgalas in whose mental series the noble path has arisen (tapannaryamarga), see AKpr 6.29ab and AKBhp, 353,12-18. Among the canonical loci most often quoted by the Pudgalavadin, one at least pertained to the various pudgalas alluded to by the Buddha (see Bareau, Les sectes bouddhiques du Petit Vdhicule, 115); see MSAVBh (Si. D163a1-4/P191b2-6: 'di ltar bcom ldan 'das kyis kyait so so'i skye bo 'i gan zag dari I rgyun du tugs pa'i gar) zag dart I lan cig phyir 'on ha 'i gait zag dart I phyir mi 'oh ha 'i gar) zag clan I dgra bcom pa'i gar) zag dar) I byan chub serns dpa'i gan zag dan I gait zag gcig 'jig rten du 'byur) ha na 'jig rten kun la phan pa dart bde bar byed pa ste I 'di lair de ban giegs pa'i gait zag go 7:es gsuris lci I. "The Blessed One (*bilagavat) has said: The [good] ordinary person (*prthagjanapudgala), the person who has entered the stream (*srotapannapudgala), the person who returns [only] once [to the sphere of desire] (*sakrdagamipudgala), the person who does not return [any longer to the sphere of desire] (*anagamipudgala), the person who is a saint (*arhatpudgala), the person who is a bodhisattva (*bodhi-sattvapudgala), and the one (*eka) person who, when he appears in the world, causes welfare (*hita) and happiness (*sukha), i.e., the person who is a tathagata (*tathagatapudgala)." To be compared with Alq 118,26-33 (see also Okada/Kishi, "The Texts Quoted by Asvabhava and Sthiramati," 93, and Braarvig, Akyayamatinirdeaasiitra, vol. H, 452-53, for a translation); parts of the sutra (?) are also quoted in AKBhp, 468,16/AKBhu 90,9 (ekah pudgalo loka utpadyamana utpadyata iti), TSPK 126.6-7/TSPg 160,12-13. and SN g (463a14 and 463c28 according to AKBhLE 90 n. 343 [see Venkataramanan, "SammitiyanikayagAstra," 170 and 173] with further references to T. 2, 561a18, T. 2, 569b24, AN 1.22). The list of the pudgalas in the A4 further includes the person following his faith (fraddhanusari pudgalah), the person following religious teaching (dharmanuseiri pudgalah), the person on the eighth stage (astamakah pudgalah), the person being an isolated buddha (pratyekabuddhah pudgalah: on the original meaning of pratyekabuddha, see Hintiber, Das altere Mittelindisch im Oberblick, 193 [[section]248D. For definitions of these pudgalas, see Braarvig, Akyayamatinirdegaseitra, vol. II, 453-54 n. 1. On the PudgalavAdins' original views regarding the different pudgalas engaged on the path, see Chau, "Les reponses des Pudgalavadin," 13-15; Chau, "The Literature of the Pudgalavalins," 46-48; and Venkataramanan. "SAmmitlyanikaya a-stra," 205-11,

(41.) According to MSAVBh tsi D175b5-176a2/P206b5-207a2, in the Parijiiasatra (yons su des pa'i mdo sde), the factors that are to be known (*parijneyadharrna) and the knowledge (*pariliia) are twofold each: the truth of suffering (*dulikhasatya) and the truth of origin (*samudayasatya) are the factors that are to be known; they side with pollution (kun nas non mons pa'i phyogs su bsdu = saitkledapakesasarigrhita?). As for the truth of destruction (*nirodhasatya) and the truth of the path (*margasatya), they are the knowledge itself, and side with purification (rnam par byan ha 'i phyogs su bsdu = vyavadanapaksasangrhita?). In the absence of the designation "pudgala," it would be impossible to indicate the different addictions (*vrtti) and (mental) series (*santana) of those who are said to be persons who are (still) to be taught the things to be known (?yons su ies par bya ba'i gait zag) and persons who know thoroughly (volts sur fes par byed pa'i gar) zag = parijiiiitavipudgala?). Among them, the persons who are (still) to be taught the things to be known, whose mental series is endowed with dharmas belonging to pollution, are engaged on the side of pollution (kun nas non mons pa'i phyogs la zfugs pa = sanklaapaksapravrtta?); as for the person who knows thoroughly, whose mental series is endowed with dharmas belonging to purification, he is engaged in the dharmas belonging to purification (*vyavadanadharmapravrtra). For the Pali Pariiirlasutta, see SN 111.26 (= no. XXII.23). The sutra begins thus: pariiirleye ea bhikkhave dhamme desissami parinnanca I. Here, the parijneyadharmas consist of corporeality (rupa), affective sensation (vedana), ideation (sanna = sanjna). conditioned factors (sankhara = samskara), and direct awareness (vinnana = vijnana), whereas parijna consists of the destruction of desire (ragakkhaya = ragaksaya). the destruction of defilements (dosakkhaya = dosaksaya), and the destruction of error (mohakkhaya = mohaksaya).

(42.) MSABh 159,3-12: sanklese vyavademe ca avasthacchedabhinnake / vrttisantiinabhedo hi pudgalenopa, darsltah II avasthabhinne hi sanklelavyavadane chedabhinne ea / pudgalapraffiaptim antarena tadvrttibhedah santanabhedaf ca dadayitunz na fakyah. / tatra parijiiasihre parifileya dharrnah sanklefah parjn vyavadanam I bharahdrasatre bluiro bhiiradeinam ca sanklefah I bharaniksepaham vyavadanam / taw," vrttibhedah santanabhedas" elintarena parifilatiivibheiraharapudgalaprafilaptim na fakyeta dariayitum / /.../ yenasati dravyato 'stitve pudgalo dedita hy ayam atra nayo veditavyah /.

(43.) See MSAVBh rsi DI 74b4-175b1/P205b2-206a8, Vairocanaralc*ita MS 46b5-6 (yah pudgala ekiin-takuialakari sa sarikleiacchedabheda[ka]h I yai eaikantavyavadiinakarmakeirt sa vyavademacchedabhedakah I), and MSAVBh tsi D 75b1-5/P206a8-b5.

(44.) MSAVBh tsi D176a2-6/P207a2-7 (on MSABh 159,7-8): khur khyer ba 'i mdo sde'i nari nas kyan) khur khyer ba 'i gan) zag dan khur bor ba 'i gar) zag zes (a) gan zag rnam pa gnis su bsad do II do // sdug bsnal gyi bden pa La ni khur zes bya ba 'o // kun 'byun gi bden pa la ni khur khyer ba 'am khur len pa zes bya sic de gills ni kun nas non mons pa 'i phyogs su gtogs so // khur bor ba la yan rnam pa gills le gar) du khur bar ba dal) gari gis khur bor ba 'o II de la gait du khur bor Le no I 'gog pa '1 dos su khur hor ro II gar) gis khur bor z:e na I lam gi bden pas khur bor te I 'dir gnus ni rnam par byari ba 'i phyogs su gtogs so II de la gari gis sdug bsrial dart kun 'hyuri ma spans pa 'i gar) zag trams ni khur khyer ha la 'jug cirt khur dah sems kyi rgyud Man pa zfes bya 'a II gait gis 'gag pa 'i bden pa dart lam gyi bden pa thoh pa 'i gan) zag gnis la ni khur bor ba la 'jug cin khur bor ba 'I chos dart sems kyi rgyud ldan zes bya ste /. [(a) Les em.: cis DP.]

(45.) Sthiramati's strategy for having the sutra fit into the scheme of the four noble(s') truths is strikingly similar to Buddhaghosa's (Vism 512.4-6): bharo viya hi dukkhasaccam datthabbam, bharadanam iva samudayasaccam, bharanikkhepanam iva nirodhasaccarm, bharanikkhepanupayo via maggasaccam / "The truth of suffering is to be seen as a burden, the truth of the origin [of suffering] as the taking up of the burden, the truth of the cessation [of suffering] as the laying down of the burden, the truth of the path as the means by which the burden is laid down."

(46.) See MA 197,5-198,10 (quoting parts of LASu 77,13-79,9) and Eltschinger/Ratie, Self, No-Self and Salva-tion, 45-46.

(47.) LASu 78,1-4: tat katharn ayam bhagavams tirthakaratmavadatulyas tathagatagarbhavado na blzavati / tirthakara api bhagavan nityah karta nirguno vibhur avyaya fry atmavadopadarsanam kurvanti /. On the substan-tialist leanings of the tathagatagarbha tradition, see Eltschingerf/Ratie, Self No-Self, and Salvation, 39-63.

(48.) Kamalasila (TSPK 129,18-20/TSPg 117,5-8) resorts to a similar explanation while interpreting the avyiikrtavastus and the Buddha's unwillingness to categorically negate the existence of the jiva = pudgala = atman: prajiiaptisato 'py abhavabhiniveiapariharartham sunyatadeianayam abhavyavineyajanaiayapeksaya nastily eva noktam I yathoktam--drstidamstravabhedama ca bhrarndam capeksyah karmaham I defa), anti jina dharmanz vyaghripotapaharavadc iti I. Pi dr, cfidargyfraVabhedaM TSP Iati42aI6, AKBhp, 470,7, TSPTit, (Ito ba 'i mche has smas pa): damstridamstravabhedam TSPK, drstidrastavyabhedeup TSP. b capeksya em. (AKBhp, 470,7, TSPTit, hos nas): caveksya TSPmg PAlan 42aI6, TSPK& c = AKBhp, 470,7-8.] "[If in this context, the Blessed One has] not declared that [the soul] does not exist, [it is] by considering the dispositions of converts who are not [yet] ready for the teaching of emptiness, in order to reject [any] adhesion [of theirs] to the nonexistence even of [something] existing as a [mere] designation. As [it has been] said: 'The Victorious Ones teach the law by considering both the wound [made] by the tusk of false views and the destruction of actions, as the tigress's [way of] carrying Iheri cub [in her mouth, which is neither too cruel nor too gentle]." Here of course, "false views" refers to eternalism (thivatavada) while the "destruction of actions" would follow from annihilationism (ucchedavada).

(49.) See TJ dza P169a7-b6, MA 198.13-16. and Seyfort Ruegg, Buddha-nature, Mind and the Problem of Gradualism, 27-28 and 40.

(50.) MA 131,17-133,3: dnos pa thams kyi ran bzin rjes su zugs pa 'i phyir stop) pa hid kho na kun gzi'i rnam par ses pa 'i sgras bstan par rig par bya'o // kun gzi'i rnam par ses pa 'ba' zig yod par ma zad kyi gan zag kyan yod do // des 'dul ba 'i skye bo la de yod pa hid du bstan pas rjes su 'dzin pa 'i phyir ro // ji skad du dge slon dag phun po lna ni khur ro // khur khyer (a) ba ni gan zag go zes gsuns pa lta bu'o // kha cig la ni phun po tsam zig bstan par mdzad de / I[...]'di dag thams cad ni dgons pa 'i dban gis gsuns yin no // 'dir dgons pa gan zig yin ze na / kun bzi yod cin gan zag nid yod la // phun: po 'di dag 'ba' zig hid yod ces // bstan pa 'di ni de ltar ches zab don // rig par mi 'gyur gun yin de la'o // (b) gdul bya gat) dug yun rin par mu stegs kyi lta ba la goms par byas pas chos nid zab ma la 'jug par mi nus sin bdag med do 'byun bar mi 'gyur ro zes ji skad bstan pa 'i chos hid thos nas skrag pa thog ma kho nar ston pa 'i ne bar bstan pa la gyan sa dan 'dra bar sems pa de dag de la rgyab kyis phyogs pas don chen pa bsgrubs par mi 'gyur ro // ches thog mar kun gzi'i rnam par ses pa la sogs pa bstan pas ni mu stegs kyi lugs bsal nas de dag gi don chen po 'dren par 'gyur zin / phyi nas gsun rab kyi don phyin ci ma log par rig pa moms ran hid kyis de dag spon par 'gyur bas yon tan kho na' byun gi skyon ni ma yin no II. [(a) khyer em.: khur Ed. (b) = Subhasitasangraha 19,25-20,2 (La Vallee Poussin, Madhyamakavatara, 322, n. 2): man hi gambhirataran padarthan na vetti yas tam prati desaneyam / asty alayah pudgala eva casti skandha ime va khalu dhatavas ca //.]

(51.) The sense of conventionality (sanjna, vyavahara, as in Sthiramati's explanation above) conveyed by these expressions is emphasized in B0B[h.sub.D] 173,21-23/BoB[h.sub.w] 253,22-254,2: tatra ya sanjnatma Va sattvo veti sanjnamatram evaitat / tatra yo vyavahara ity api sa ayusman evannama evanjjatiya evangotra evamahara evamsukhadulikhapratisatrivedy evandirghayur, evancirasthitika evamayusparyanta iti vyavaharamatram evaitad iti yathabhutam prajanati /. "[A bodhisattva] knows as it really is that in this [world] a notion [such as] 'self' or '[substantial] living being' is nothing but a mere notion, that in this [world] what is named a conventional expression too is nothing but a conventional expression[, such as] 'This venerable sir who has such a name, who has such an origin, who has such a family(/lineage), who has such a livelihood, who experiences such pleasure and pain, who has such a long life, who has such a life expectancy, who has such an end of life." Note the connection to the issue of self. Let us be reminded here of MP 25: atha kho milindo raja ayasmantam nagasenam etad avoca: katham bhadanto nayati, kinnamo Si bhante ti.--nagaseno ti kho aham maharaja nayami, neigaseno ii mean maharaja sabrahmacari samudacaranti. api ca matapitaro namam karonti nagaseno ti vet suraseno ti va viraseno ti va sihaseno ti va. api ca kho maharaja sankha samanna pannatti voharo namamattam yad idam nagaseno ti, na h'ettha puggalo upalabbhatiti. "Then King Milinda spoke thus to the venerable NAgasena: How is the revered one known? What is your name, revered sir? Sire, I am known as Nagasena; fellow Brahma-farers address me, sire, as Nagasena. But though (my) parents gave (me) the name of Nagasena or Surasena or Virasena or SThasena, yet it is but a denotation, appellation, designation, a current usage, for Nagasena is only a name since no person is got at here." Translation Horner, Milinda's Questions, 34.

(52.) AKB[] 468,1-9/AKB[h.sub.LE] 86,6-48,14 (AKEI[h.sub.Tib] P nu 100a2-7): skandha eva ca traiyudhvika isyante na pudgalo (a) yusmabhih / yadi skandha eva pudgalabh(b) kasmad idam aha--bharam ca vo bhiksavo desayiyyami bharadanam ca bharaniksepanam ca bharaharam ceti I kasmad idam na vaktavyam syat I na hi bhara eva bharaharo yuktah / kim karanam / na hy evan drsyata iti / avaktavyo 'pi na yuktalr / kim karanam / na hy evam drsyate / bharadanasyapi skandhasangrahaprasangac ca / ityartham eva (c) bharaharam nirdidesa bhagavan--yo 'sav ayuyman evannama yavad evancirasthitika evamyuhparyantah sa eva (d) yatha vijilayeta manyatha vijaayi tzityo vavaktavyoe veti / skandha eva ca skandhanam upaghataya samvartante parvakil uttare.yam iti Marton ca bharaharam krtvoktahg / upaghatartho hi bhara iti /. [(a) AKB[h.sub.LE] pudgalo: AKB[] pudgala (b): AKB[h.sub.LE] pudgalah (c) Note AKVy 706,17 (pratika): ityartham eva ca. (d) AKB[h.sub.LE], AKB[h.sub.Tib] P nu 100a6 eva: AKB[h.sub.pir]. ea. (e) AKB[h.sub.LE] va'vaktavyo: AKB[] va'vaktavyam.[f] Note AKVy 706,23 (pradka): nityo vii'vaktavyo va dravyasat-pudgala hi; AKB[h.sub.Tib], P nu 100a6: rtag pa 'am gan zag. (g) To be read hi krtvoktah? (h) upaghatartho hi bhara hi has no equivalent in the Tibetan and Chinese versions and is not commented upon by Yagomitra]

(53.) This is made clear in another passage referring to the Bharaharasutra, Prajnakaramati's BCAP (340,1620, which is clearly indebted to TS[P.sub.K] 126,10-127,19/T[S.sub.P] 114,16-115.19): pudgalavadibhis (a) tattvanyatvapra-tisedhapakylibhyupagamat svayam eva vastutvum pratiyiddham / vastuno hi tattvanyatvaptylkaranatikramat / parasparaparlharavator ekapratisedhaparavidhinantariyakatvat / bharaharadisatram api samarthitam atrarthe / tasmad abhiprilyikitp bhugavato desanatn ajanadbhih parikalpito 'sau no vastusan / vastutvabhyupagame navaeyalvam (b) iti [...], [(a) pudgalavadibhis em. (Ed., n. 1: gan zag tu smra ha de rnams kyis): pudgalatadvadibhis Ed. (b) navacyatvam em. (TS[P.sub.K] I27,17-18/TS[P.sub.s] 115.15-16: evam tavad avacyatvabhyupagame prajiiaptisattvam pudgalasya praptam iti pratipaditam / idanim vastutvabhyupagame va pudgalasyavacyantam ayuktam [...]): nanyatvam Ed.] "By admitting the thesis of the negation of both identity and otherness [between the constituents and the pudgala], the Pudgalavadins themselves negate [the pudgala's] being a [real] entity, for a [real] entity does not escape the aspects of identity or otherness [with regard to another. This is] because two [entities standing] in mutual exclusion imply the affirmation of the one when the other is negated. And a sutra like the Bharahara has [already] been interpreted in this [very] sense [by coreligionists. such as Vasubandhu and Kamalasila]. Therefore, the fpudgalal is [simply] imagined by [persons] who are ignorant of the [fact that the] Blessed One's teaching [is] intentional, [but] it does not exist as a [real] entity. [And] if one accepts that I the pudgala] is a [real] entity, [then it] is not inexpressible [as being either identical to or other than the constituents]."

(54.) Explaining SN III.25,24 (evamnamo). Buddhaghosa says (SaP 263,25-27) evamnamo n nsso aano n adinamo. evamgotto ti, katthayano vacchityano ti adigotto. iti voharamattasiddham puggalam bharahro ti katva dasseti. "'Of such a name.' i.e., a name such as Tissa or Datta. Of such an origin(/lineage),' i.e., a lineage such as Kanhayana or VacchAyana. Thus he points to a person established as a mere convention as a 'burden-bearer." On the connection between conventionality and the purvanivasanusmrti formula, see Collins, Selfless Persons, 162-65.

(55.) AKVy 706,18-22: yadi dravyasan syat pudgalo bharaharah katamah pudgala iti syad vacaniyam ity etavad evoktam syat tatra sutre / parena sa na vibhaktavyah syat / yo sav ayusman iti vistarena yavad ayuhparyanta iti / I prajnaptisatpudgalapratipattyartham hy etat paretic, visesanam ity abhiprayah /.

(56.) TS[P.sub.K] 130,1-21/TS[P.sub.s] 117,19-118,4 (TS[P.sub.Tib] D ze 22461-225a1): yat tarhidam uktam--bharam vo bhiksavo desayisyami bharadanam bharaniksepam bharaharam ca / tatra bharah pancopadeinaskandhah / bharadanarp trsnaa / I bharaniksepo moksah / bharaharah pudgalab iti / tad etat lcathanz niyate / na hi bhara eva bizaraharo yukta ity aha--samudayadityadi / samudayadicittena bharaharadideaanet lc tetra sametnakalalt skandha eva samastyena vivakyitah scunudayavyapades'abhajalt / ta eva hetuphalabhatai cetyugapatkalabhavinahd santana iii vyapadifyame / elcakaraparamariahetavad ca sambhavantal; santanisamuclayidabdabhyanz nirdifyanta it ata: samudayadicittena samudaytidyabhiprayena bharaharadidesfana / na virudhyata iti s'eyah / prathamenadis'abdena santanadiparigrahalt / dvitiyenac bharadeh / tatra ta eva skandhalt satnudayasantanadiraperta vivaksitah pudgalo biter' rahara iti ca vyapadifyante / tatraiva loke pudgalabhidhanat / ata eva bhagavatii bheiraha rah katamah pudgala ity uktva yo 'say aytismanf evannama evailjatir evarigotra evamahara evantsukhaduldchapratisanzvedy evandirghayur ityadina pudgalo vyakhyatalt / sa eyarpg slamdhasamudayalakyarzalt praftiaptisanh yathiii vifrlayeta treaty) nityo dravyasani paraparikalpito vijilayeteti pradarianarthamk / avaiyarp caiyam vijiieyam / anyatha bharadanamI api skandhebhyalt prthagdefitatyat pudgalavat skandhanantargatarp tat syat / tasmat ta eva skandha yem skandhantarasyotpadaya vartante parvikete te bhara iti krtvokteth / ye tapeyyante phalabhatas te bharaharaP ity ukta ity ajiiiipakam etat /. [a TSP, TSP mg irtSa: TSPK trptilt. b TSPmg pao 42b4 pudgala (pudgalah): TSPKis pudgala. c = TS 349ab. an 42b4 d cayttgapatkalabhavinah (or: ca yugapatkalabhavinah) conj. (< TSPrit, cig car mi 'byun ba): TSPKA/MS Pkan 42b6 ca yugapatkalabhavinah. TSPK, TSPmg Pawn 42b7 dvitiyena: TSP8 dvitiye. f ayuyntein em. (parallel passages): TSPK, MS Non 42b9 414*Ymann. g TSPK, /ms Pfilan 421310 sa evarp:TSPrit, *sa eva (de iiid). h TSP g prajliaptisan: TSPK, TSPms PAtan 42b10 PraPiaPrili san (santz) [equally acceptable]. I TSP, TSPms Pron 42blib TSPTib (ci nas &van) yatha: TSPK an_yatha. i TSP. TSPMS Non 42b10 dravyasan: TSPK dray am san [equally acceptable]. k TSP 8 pradarkinartham: TSPK pradadartham (pradegana rthalt?), TSPMS 42b1 prada(r) fartharp. TSP mg Paw, 42b 1 1' TSPTib (khur len pa) Non blza radematp: TSPK, bharadin am. m TSPK, TSPms Non 42h12-13(TSPrib, although with no equivalent of ye) skand10 ye: TSP g om. skandha ye. " TSPms palm 42b12 Parvikets: TSPK's parvakas.SP/ 6 - Ka/MS Plihtn 42b12 tapesyante: to be read tatpadyante (TSPTib skye ba)? P TSPmg papa 42b12 bharahara: TSP Kis bha raltetra.]

COPYRIGHT 2014 American Oriental Society
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2014 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:Eltschinger, Vincent
Publication:The Journal of the American Oriental Society
Article Type:Report
Geographic Code:9INDI
Date:Jul 1, 2014
Previous Article:Early Islamic History Reimagined: the Biography of Umar ibn Abd a1-Aziz in Ibn Asdkir's Tarikh madinat Dimashq.
Next Article:Old, older, and oldest Dharmasastra: the manuscript tradition of the Manu Sastra, the original text of the Manu Sastra, and the first dharmasutras.

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2021 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters |