Difference between revisions of "Pudgalavada"
(Created page with "thumb|250px| <poem> The Pudgalavāda (Sanskrit; {{Wiki|Chinese}}: 補特伽羅論者; pinyin: Bǔtèjiāluō Lùnzhě) or "[[Persona...") |
|||
| (2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
[[File:BuddhaNew126.jpg|thumb|250px|]] | [[File:BuddhaNew126.jpg|thumb|250px|]] | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | |||
<poem> | <poem> | ||
| − | The [[Pudgalavāda]] ([[Sanskrit]]; {{Wiki|Chinese}}: [[補特伽羅論者]]; pinyin: [[Bǔtèjiāluō Lùnzhě]]) or "[[Personalist]]" school of [[Buddhism]] broke off from the orthodox [[Sthaviravāda]] ([[elders]]) school around 280 BCE. The [[Sthaviravādins]] interpreted the [[doctrine]] of [[anatta]] to mean that, since there is no true "[[self]]", all that we think of as a [[self]] (i.e., the [[subject]] of sentences, the [[being]] that transmigrates) is merely the aggregated [[skandhas]]. The [[Pudgalavādins]] asserted that, while there is no [[ātman]], there is a [[pudgala]] or "[[person]]", which is neither the same as nor different from the [[skandhas]]. The "[[person]]" was their method of accounting for [[karma]], [[rebirth]], and [[nirvana]]. Other schools held that the "[[person]]" [[exists]] only as a label, a nominal [[reality]]. | + | The [[Pudgalavāda]] ([[Sanskrit]]; {{Wiki|Chinese}}: [[補特伽羅論者]]; pinyin: [[Bǔtèjiāluō Lùnzhě]]) or "[[Personalist]]" school of [[Buddhism]] broke off from the [[orthodox]] [[Sthaviravāda]] ([[elders]]) school around 280 BCE. |
| + | |||
| + | The [[Sthaviravādins]] interpreted the [[doctrine]] of [[anatta]] to mean that, since there is no true "[[self]]", all that we think of as a [[self]] (i.e., the [[subject]] of sentences, the [[being]] that transmigrates) is merely the aggregated [[skandhas]]. | ||
| + | |||
| + | The [[Pudgalavādins]] asserted that, while there is no [[ātman]], there is a [[pudgala]] or "[[person]]", which is neither the same as nor different from the [[skandhas]]. | ||
| + | |||
| + | The "[[person]]" was their method of accounting for [[karma]], [[rebirth]], and [[nirvana]]. Other schools held that the "[[person]]" [[exists]] only as a label, a nominal [[reality]]. | ||
Criticisms of the [[pudgala]] {{Wiki|theory}} | Criticisms of the [[pudgala]] {{Wiki|theory}} | ||
| − | The [[Pudgalavādins]] were strongly criticized by the [[Theravadins]] (a record of a [[Theravadin]] attack on the [[pudgala]] is found in the [[Kathavatthu]]), [[Sarvastivadins]], and Madhyamakas. Peter Harvey agrees with criticisms levelled against the [[Pudgalavadins]] by [[Moggaliputta-Tissa]] and [[Vasubandhu]], and finds that there is no support in the [[Theravada]] [[nikayas]] for their "person"-concept. | + | The [[Pudgalavādins]] were strongly criticized by the [[Theravadins]] (a record of a [[Theravadin]] attack on the [[pudgala]] is found in the [[Kathavatthu]]), [[Sarvastivadins]], and [[Madhyamakas]]. |
| + | |||
| + | [[Peter Harvey]] agrees with {{Wiki|criticisms}} levelled against the [[Pudgalavadins]] by [[Moggaliputta-Tissa]] and [[Vasubandhu]], and finds that there is no support in the [[Theravada]] [[nikayas]] for their "person"-concept. | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
Relationship to the [[Sammitiya]] | Relationship to the [[Sammitiya]] | ||
| − | Among the most prominent of the [[Pudgalavādin]] schools were the [[Sammitiya]]. The distinguished [[Buddhologist]] {{Wiki|Etienne Lamotte}}, using the writings of the {{Wiki|Chinese}} traveler [[Xuanzang]], asserted that the [[Sammitiya]] were in all likelihood the most populous non-Mahayanist sect in [[India]], comprising double the number of the next largest sect, although [[scholar]] L. S. Cousins revised his estimate down to a quarter of all non-Mahayana [[monks]], still the largest overall. They continued to be a presence in [[India]] until the end of [[Indian Buddhism]], but, never having gained a foothold elsewhere, did not continue thereafter. | + | Among the most prominent of the [[Pudgalavādin]] schools were the [[Sammitiya]]. |
| + | |||
| + | The {{Wiki|distinguished}} [[Buddhologist]] {{Wiki|Etienne Lamotte}}, using the writings of the {{Wiki|Chinese}} traveler [[Xuanzang]], asserted that the [[Sammitiya]] were in all likelihood the most populous non-Mahayanist [[sect]] in [[India]], comprising double the number of the next largest [[sect]], although [[scholar]] [[L. S. Cousins]] revised his estimate down to a quarter of all non-Mahayana [[monks]], still the largest overall. | ||
| + | |||
| + | They continued to be a presence in [[India]] until the end of [[Indian Buddhism]], but, never having gained a foothold elsewhere, did not continue thereafter. | ||
</poem> | </poem> | ||
{{W}} | {{W}} | ||
[[Category:Buddhist Philosophy]] | [[Category:Buddhist Philosophy]] | ||
Latest revision as of 20:38, 4 April 2024
The Pudgalavāda (Sanskrit; Chinese: 補特伽羅論者; pinyin: Bǔtèjiāluō Lùnzhě) or "Personalist" school of Buddhism broke off from the orthodox Sthaviravāda (elders) school around 280 BCE.
The Sthaviravādins interpreted the doctrine of anatta to mean that, since there is no true "self", all that we think of as a self (i.e., the subject of sentences, the being that transmigrates) is merely the aggregated skandhas.
The Pudgalavādins asserted that, while there is no ātman, there is a pudgala or "person", which is neither the same as nor different from the skandhas.
The "person" was their method of accounting for karma, rebirth, and nirvana. Other schools held that the "person" exists only as a label, a nominal reality.
Criticisms of the pudgala theory
The Pudgalavādins were strongly criticized by the Theravadins (a record of a Theravadin attack on the pudgala is found in the Kathavatthu), Sarvastivadins, and Madhyamakas.
Peter Harvey agrees with criticisms levelled against the Pudgalavadins by Moggaliputta-Tissa and Vasubandhu, and finds that there is no support in the Theravada nikayas for their "person"-concept.
Relationship to the Sammitiya
Among the most prominent of the Pudgalavādin schools were the Sammitiya.
The distinguished Buddhologist Etienne Lamotte, using the writings of the Chinese traveler Xuanzang, asserted that the Sammitiya were in all likelihood the most populous non-Mahayanist sect in India, comprising double the number of the next largest sect, although scholar L. S. Cousins revised his estimate down to a quarter of all non-Mahayana monks, still the largest overall.
They continued to be a presence in India until the end of Indian Buddhism, but, never having gained a foothold elsewhere, did not continue thereafter.
