Debates on Time in the Kathavatthu
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Buddhist Studies Review 13, 2 (1996) (SesavatT:) DEBATES ON TIME IN THE KATHAVATTHU 'How it came to be possessed by me, this mansion with its flocks of herons, peacocks and partridges, and frequented by heavenly water-fowl and royal geese; resounding with the cries of birds, of 1 ducks and koels . I INTRODUCTION Containing divers varieties of creepers, flowers and trees; with the relations The aim of this paper is to give an account of trumpet-flower, rose-apple and asoka trees. Now how this theories and between the Kathavatthu discussions of time and the mansion came to be possessed by me I will tell you. Listen, I arguments of the Sarvastivada. On the basis of this account, venerable sir. intellectual context in shall make some suggestions about the Kvu) was composed, and about In the eastern region of the excellent (country of) Magadha there which the Kathavatthu (abbrev. operation within the context. As it is my opinion that is a village called Nalaka, venerable sir. There I was formerly a its mode of 1 had a much better understanding of the daughter-in-law and they knew me there as SesavatT. the composers of Kvu of the Kvu early controversies about time than did the composers Scattering flower blossoms joyfully, I honoured him skilled in 2 to examine Kvu in its own terms. Commentary , I shall attempt deeds and worshipped by gods amd men, the great Upatissa2 who of interpretation will therefore be very different from that 3 My has attained the immeasurable quenching . the PTS translators. 3 early part of Kvu, Having worshipped him who had gone to the ultimate bourn, the As Lance Cousins says it seems that the century BCE) eminent seer bearing his last body, on leaving my human shape I composed around the time of Asoka (third be given went to (the heaven of) the thirty(-three) and here inhabit the describes a three-way debate. The pro:agonists can that the dif- place.' sectarian names, though it need not be assumed of Buddhists who (Vimanavatthu, vv.642-53) ferent positions belonged at that time to groups theories had formally separated. The Sthaviras disagreed with the with the theories of the Pudgalavadins about the person, and have about time of the Sarvastivadins. The Sarvastivadins seem to I tr. S.Z. Aung and C.A.F. Rhys Davids, PTS 1 PTS 1979; Points of Controversy, 1 The word koel is to be found in the Concise Oxford Dictionary, 9th ed., as 1960. the name (derived from Hindi) for the Indian cuckoo; Skt and Pali: hokila. Commentary, tr. B.C. 2 Kathavatthupakarana-atthakatha, PTS 1979; The Debates 2 The personal name of Sariputta who, according to tradition, came from the Law, PTS 1989. village of Nalaka. of the Buddhist schools', in 3 L.S. Cousins. 'The «Five Points» and the origins 3 nibbuta. II, London 1991, p.35. T. Skorupski ed., The Buddhist Forum SOAS, 108 109 " Bastow — Kathavatthu Debates on Time Buddhist Studies Review 13, 2 (1996) What is the relation of Kvu to all this? been with the Sthaviras in their opposition to Pudgaiavada. The The position I shall argue for is as follows: place of Kvu in the debates about time can best be understood by 1.6 is a set piece 1. In the first chapter (vagga) of Kvu, katha comparing the Kvu with what is known about the Sarvastivadin Sthavira and Sarvastivada. It is concerned with an position from other sources. debate between early version of the theory [Bj. It does not mention the arguments Sarvastivada ideas about time developed gradually, over the put forward by the Vijnanakaya. many hundred years of the tradition's existence. Their charac- 2. In the rest of Kvu there are several further k at has concerned teristic belief, in fact the one that gave them their name, was that with time; these are recognisably related to the arguments [A] of there is a sense in which past and future exist, are real. In relation 6 Vijhanakaya . to this belief, their thinking developed in two different ways. the with They gradually put together [A] a collection of philosophical Before I look in detail at those parts of Kvu concerned arguments, which claimed in different ways to prove that past time, I wish to make some observations about the format of Kvu, and future (or rather past and future objects, dharmas) must exist. as the understanding of this format is crucial to ari understanding They also constructed [B] an ontological theory — an extension to of the philosophical debates which take place within it. dharma-theory — to show in what way past and future exist Our — (a) The identification of the protagonists in the debates. of their thinking about time comes from three dif- knowledge Those who are familiar with the PTS translation should note that ferent sources, three different periods in their history. One of the text of Kvu nowhere identifies the protagonists in the debates iheir Abhidharma texts was the Vijhanakaya; this was composed 7 the rival sects whose it reports . Not only does Kvu not identify in the third to second century BCE, so probably within a few views are, according to the Commentary, being 'purged' but no- decades of the early part of Kvu. It contains versions of three where are we told for any particular question and answer who is 4 arguments [A] , but no elaboration of the theory [Bj. The Maha- the questioner and who is giving the replies. Everything has to be vibhasa (first century CE) gives another argument, simple and 5 profound , and sets out a fairly complete account of theory [B]. In the fifth century CE Vasubandhu, in his Abhidharmakosa, described and attacked what he saw to be central points of the 6 In his introduction to his translation of the first two chapters of the Sarvastivada position. In response to this, new versions of [A] and l le Vijhanakaya', Vijnanakaya ( La controverse du temps el du pudgala dans Bj were developed, in particular by Samghabhadra. Etudes Asiatiques, Paris 1925, p.345; repr. in H.S. Prasad, Essays on Time in Buddhism, Delhi 1991, pp. 79-112), Louis de La Vallee Poussin says 'Le Kathavatthu et le Vijhanakaya representeni el lont triompher deux doctrines contradictoires; ils ne se rencontrent pas'. I shall try to show that this is far too simple a view of the relation between the two texts. is in 'The first 4 The first of these arguments discussed in detail my paper 7 Mrs Rhys Davids, in her 'Prefatory Notes' to Point r of Controversy, p.xxxii, for Sarvastivada', Asian Philosophy 5, 2, 1995. argument speaks with justifiable caution of the 'sects or groups . on whom the opinions arguments for Sarvastivada', Philosophy 5 Sue my paper 'Maha-vibhasa East debated about are fathered by the Commentary'. and Wr.sl A A, 3. 1994. 111 110 *.'"- -5**^ r i~ i ...J .i 7**?. t.-.-JJWJJI ,ii..HI.«.- I-Ui.l UH HHHIM^iPJU'F'U" TT \.U..P . ^^TT^^^.^j . L. jvjn. Buddhist Studies Review 13, 2 (1996) Bastow — Kathavatthu Debates on Time first gathered from the content. So the identification, in the translation, 8 is fully articulated only in the matrix . The detailed matrix - translation). There it is of the main protagonists in each section (katha) is due to the subsection of katha 1.1 (Llj DO] in the between 'the person Commentary; but often the latter does not analyse the discussion meant to exhibit an alleged contradiction real and ultimate fact', and in detail, and the attribution of particular questions and answers (puggald) is known in the sense of a translators often, itato) as are [other] real to specific protagonists has been done by the — Tuggalo is not known in :he same way (p.lii), intended to govern the as Mrs Rhys Davids admits with considerable difficulty. and ultimate facts'. If this matrix were pair of answers givsn by the op- (b) The question of what is meant by a 'protagonist' in this whole of Kvu, then in each be revealed as inconsistent with context. — It should be noted that unlike the translation the text ponent the second answer would in 1.1 the matrix is still in operation, does not in its format indicate for each katha a 'controverted the first. In the rest of katha incoherence in the opponent's point'. The format of the translation implies that for each katha that in each subsection the (alleged) example [138]: 'Acknowledge the there is such a point, a question on which the participants take position is made explicit. (For is t:ue, you should also, good opposing sides, and which the ensuing discussion aims to resolve; refutation: if the former proposition .'.) rest of Kvu the . But in the but there is no such implication in the text. When we look at the sir, have admitted the latter only in the use of '-/><?-', as in [1] of content of the debates, we see that sometimes (notably in 1.6) matrix survives, if it does, questions is 'Does everything there are opposed positions; but sometimes the 'protagonists' are katha 1.6, where the final pair of to say that everything rather to be seen as participants contributing in their different exist. Yes. Does the view «that it is wrong '-pe-' presumably refers back to ways to a discussion on a topic which is controversial or puzzling. exists* itself exist?' No -pe-\ Here given contain a the matrix, and so means 'the answers you have (c) The logic of the Kvu debates. — The impression given demonstrate that contradiction'.