Page 1 of 2

Laymen who attain arhantship must enter the Order or attain parinirvana

Posted: Thu Mar 28, 2019 10:03 am
by prsvrnc
I am reading the Milinda Panha, or, “The Debate of King Milinda”. Why do the below passages say that when a layman attains arhantship he must either enter the Order or pass away? How do liberated arhats living in this conventional world get by and survive (if not a trust fund)?

#20 “The Compassion of the Buddha” says:
[Nagasenda, Buddhist Sage says:] “If a layman attains arahantship, only two destinations await him; either he must enter the Order that very day or else he must attain parinibbàna. Immovable, O king, is the state of renunciation, glorious and most exalted the condition of being a member of the Order of the Blessed One.”

Also, #62 “The Lay Arhant” says the following:

[Bactrian King Milinda:] “You say that if a layman attains arahantship he must either enter the Order that very day or die and attain parinibbàna. Yet if he is unable to find a robe and bowl and preceptor then that exalted condition of arahantship is a waste, for destruction of life is involved in it.”

[Nagasenda:] “The fault does not lie with arahantship but with the state of a layman, because it is too weak to support arahantship. Just as, O king, although food protects the life of beings it will take away the life of one whose digestion is weak – so too, if a layman attains arahantship he must, because of the weakness of that condition, enter the Order that very day or die.”

Re: Laymen who attain arhantship must enter the Order or attain parinirvana

Posted: Thu Mar 28, 2019 12:08 pm
by haha
If one destroys the binding cause of existence, there will be nothing that will sustain the life-force. Only option is “holy cause”; taking ordination is unavoidable.
If one does not have sensual desire, she or he will not waste the time in sensual stimuli. If one is complete free from anger, she or he cannot live with angry companions.
Someone knows better will suggest you.

Re: Laymen who attain arhantship must enter the Order or attain parinirvana

Posted: Thu Mar 28, 2019 12:14 pm
by stevie
I think that a layman may attain arhantship only in a strongly supportive environment which then would prevent the early death of such an individual.

I recall a sutta in which a person after having been taught by the Buddha attains arhatship (?) - 'released from effluents through lack of clinging/sustenance' - and is then killed in an accident 'by a cow' ... which is open to interpretation. https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html
Tellingly this Bahiya 'was worshipped, revered, honored, venerated, and given homage — a recipient of robes, alms food, lodgings, & medicinal requisites for the sick.'

I would interpret the quotes in the OP above to be meant to stress the necessity of the order of monks for those who belong to the lineage of hearers.

Re: Laymen who attain arhantship must enter the Order or attain parinirvana

Posted: Thu Mar 28, 2019 1:50 pm
by Astus
prsvrnc wrote:
Thu Mar 28, 2019 10:03 am
when a layman attains arhantship he must either enter the Order or pass away? How do liberated arhats living in this conventional world get by and survive (if not a trust fund)?
The answer is found in your quote: 'The fault does not lie with arahantship but with the state of a layman'. Similarly, Kv 4.1 states: 'Now for the Arahant the lay-fetters are put away, cut off at the root, made as the stump of a palm tree, incapable of renewed life or of coming again to birth. Can you say that of a layman?" It should be clear that lay life is not simply the absence of ordination, but the whole system of living as a householder where one is bound by and engaged in various worldly duties and obligations.
Note: the above is the Theravada position on arhatship.

Re: Laymen who attain arhantship must enter the Order or attain parinirvana

Posted: Thu Mar 28, 2019 2:59 pm
by Simon E.
I would file that under "Mythologising that happens around spiritual events and is not to be taken too literally".

Re: Laymen who attain arhantship must enter the Order or attain parinirvana

Posted: Thu Mar 28, 2019 9:03 pm
by Aemilius
prsvrnc wrote:
Thu Mar 28, 2019 10:03 am
I am reading the Milinda Panha, or, “The Debate of King Milinda”. Why do the below passages say that when a layman attains arhantship he must either enter the Order or pass away? How do liberated arhats living in this conventional world get by and survive (if not a trust fund)?

#20 “The Compassion of the Buddha” says:
[Nagasenda, Buddhist Sage says:] “If a layman attains arahantship, only two destinations await him; either he must enter the Order that very day or else he must attain parinibbàna. Immovable, O king, is the state of renunciation, glorious and most exalted the condition of being a member of the Order of the Blessed One.”

Also, #62 “The Lay Arhant” says the following:

[Bactrian King Milinda:] “You say that if a layman attains arahantship he must either enter the Order that very day or die and attain parinibbàna. Yet if he is unable to find a robe and bowl and preceptor then that exalted condition of arahantship is a waste, for destruction of life is involved in it.”
Etienne Lamotte says that there is also a chinese sutra about King Milinda, and only the first four chapters are similar to the theravadin Milinda Panha. Lamotte concludes that the rest, ie the bulk of it, has been composed and added later in Sri Lanka.
( History of Indian Buddhism, by Etienne Lamotte)

Re: Laymen who attain arhantship must enter the Order or attain parinirvana

Posted: Fri Mar 29, 2019 3:49 pm
by Caoimhghín
Aemilius wrote:
Thu Mar 28, 2019 9:03 pm
prsvrnc wrote:
Thu Mar 28, 2019 10:03 am
I am reading the Milinda Panha, or, “The Debate of King Milinda”. Why do the below passages say that when a layman attains arhantship he must either enter the Order or pass away? How do liberated arhats living in this conventional world get by and survive (if not a trust fund)?

#20 “The Compassion of the Buddha” says:
[Nagasenda, Buddhist Sage says:] “If a layman attains arahantship, only two destinations await him; either he must enter the Order that very day or else he must attain parinibbàna. Immovable, O king, is the state of renunciation, glorious and most exalted the condition of being a member of the Order of the Blessed One.”

Also, #62 “The Lay Arhant” says the following:

[Bactrian King Milinda:] “You say that if a layman attains arahantship he must either enter the Order that very day or die and attain parinibbàna. Yet if he is unable to find a robe and bowl and preceptor then that exalted condition of arahantship is a waste, for destruction of life is involved in it.”
Etienne Lamotte says that there is also a chinese sutra about King Milinda, and only the first four chapters are similar to the theravadin Milinda Panha. Lamotte concludes that the rest, ie the bulk of it, has been composed and added later in Sri Lanka.
( History of Indian Buddhism, by Etienne Lamotte)
Yes. It is called Nāgasenonāmabhikṣusūtra, or Nāgasenabhikṣusūtra, T1670b, translated ~300s AD.

https://www.academia.edu/3796565/Nagase ... ranslation

Re: Laymen who attain arhantship must enter the Order or attain parinirvana

Posted: Fri Mar 29, 2019 7:48 pm
by Seeker12
prsvrnc wrote:
Thu Mar 28, 2019 10:03 am
I am reading the Milinda Panha, or, “The Debate of King Milinda”. Why do the below passages say that when a layman attains arhantship he must either enter the Order or pass away...
I might suggest that ordination was not necessarily always what it is thought of today in general. If you're interested, you might check out "Perfect Conduct" by Dudjom Rinpoche, where he discusses how in the past, ordination was basically received instantaneously in various ways and did not need the elaborate process that is generally done today. In essence, I think it generally has to do with a full renunciation of samsara, essentially, and I am not sure that it necessarily means that one will sort of 'externally' become a monk as we would think of it today.

FWIW. Some thoughts.

Re: Laymen who attain arhantship must enter the Order or attain parinirvana

Posted: Fri Mar 29, 2019 11:57 pm
by SunWuKong
Simon E. wrote:
Thu Mar 28, 2019 2:59 pm
I would file that under "Mythologising that happens around spiritual events and is not to be taken too literally".
I cant express my thoughts within the guidelines of this forum. A non-order member certainly may, if they wish, live the holy life. End of story.

Re: Laymen who attain arhantship must enter the Order or attain parinirvana

Posted: Sat Mar 30, 2019 1:55 am
by Caoimhghín
SunWuKong wrote:
Fri Mar 29, 2019 11:57 pm
Simon E. wrote:
Thu Mar 28, 2019 2:59 pm
I would file that under "Mythologising that happens around spiritual events and is not to be taken too literally".
I cant express my thoughts within the guidelines of this forum. A non-order member certainly may, if they wish, live the holy life. End of story.
Oh I imagine some Mahāyānika venerable or another has put it down in nice quotable ink that this is a stipulation for śrāvakayāna, not bodhisattvayāna. It's just a matter of finding it. I mean, its obvious, isn't it?

There are so many figures in the Mahāyāna sūtrāṇi who are enlightened but are not monks. Vimalakīrti AFAIK was never ordained for one particularly famous instance. Or am I wrong here?

Re: Laymen who attain arhantship must enter the Order or attain parinirvana

Posted: Sat Mar 30, 2019 9:39 am
by haha
If one talks about Mahayana, then one cannot separate it from Bodhicitta, which will make the whole story different. It is about the person who has generated bodhicitta. It means that one’s realization or enlightenment for the sake of other sentient beings, not for own liberation. Such person life-force does not exhaust due to bodhicitta. Whereas for Sharvaka what need to be done has already done.

If one has opportunity to check out other non-buddhist-indian-traditions, one may know some similar narratives.

Re: Laymen who attain arhantship must enter the Order or attain parinirvana

Posted: Tue Apr 02, 2019 9:21 am
by Aemilius
Coëmgenu wrote:
Sat Mar 30, 2019 1:55 am
SunWuKong wrote:
Fri Mar 29, 2019 11:57 pm
Simon E. wrote:
Thu Mar 28, 2019 2:59 pm
I would file that under "Mythologising that happens around spiritual events and is not to be taken too literally".
I cant express my thoughts within the guidelines of this forum. A non-order member certainly may, if they wish, live the holy life. End of story.
Oh I imagine some Mahāyānika venerable or another has put it down in nice quotable ink that this is a stipulation for śrāvakayāna, not bodhisattvayāna. It's just a matter of finding it. I mean, its obvious, isn't it?

There are so many figures in the Mahāyāna sūtrāṇi who are enlightened but are not monks. Vimalakīrti AFAIK was never ordained for one particularly famous instance. Or am I wrong here?

A Bodhisattva pratimoksha also exists or existed. See:
http://buddhism.lib.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT ... 117539.htm
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q ... gQ8kQ1lBNu

Re: Laymen who attain arhantship must enter the Order or attain parinirvana

Posted: Tue Apr 02, 2019 6:12 pm
by Bristollad
Aemilius wrote:
Tue Apr 02, 2019 9:21 am
Coëmgenu wrote:
Sat Mar 30, 2019 1:55 am
SunWuKong wrote:
Fri Mar 29, 2019 11:57 pm

I cant express my thoughts within the guidelines of this forum. A non-order member certainly may, if they wish, live the holy life. End of story.
Oh I imagine some Mahāyānika venerable or another has put it down in nice quotable ink that this is a stipulation for śrāvakayāna, not bodhisattvayāna. It's just a matter of finding it. I mean, its obvious, isn't it?

There are so many figures in the Mahāyāna sūtrāṇi who are enlightened but are not monks. Vimalakīrti AFAIK was never ordained for one particularly famous instance. Or am I wrong here?

A Bodhisattva pratimoksha also exists or existed. See:
http://buddhism.lib.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT ... 117539.htm
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q ... gQ8kQ1lBNu
I’m not convinced. If such a pratimoksha existed, why do none of the present Sangha who practise in the Mahayana tradition uphold it? All of the Vinayas I’m aware of go back to the 18 Schools, and only 3 Vinaya traditions are still practised in unbroken lineages: Dharmagupta, Mulasarvastivadin and Thervadin

Re: Laymen who attain arhantship must enter the Order or attain parinirvana

Posted: Tue Apr 02, 2019 10:16 pm
by jmlee369
Bristollad wrote:
Tue Apr 02, 2019 6:12 pm
Aemilius wrote:
Tue Apr 02, 2019 9:21 am
Coëmgenu wrote:
Sat Mar 30, 2019 1:55 am

Oh I imagine some Mahāyānika venerable or another has put it down in nice quotable ink that this is a stipulation for śrāvakayāna, not bodhisattvayāna. It's just a matter of finding it. I mean, its obvious, isn't it?

There are so many figures in the Mahāyāna sūtrāṇi who are enlightened but are not monks. Vimalakīrti AFAIK was never ordained for one particularly famous instance. Or am I wrong here?

A Bodhisattva pratimoksha also exists or existed. See:
http://buddhism.lib.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT ... 117539.htm
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q ... gQ8kQ1lBNu
I’m not convinced. If such a pratimoksha existed, why do none of the present Sangha who practise in the Mahayana tradition uphold it? All of the Vinayas I’m aware of go back to the 18 Schools, and only 3 Vinaya traditions are still practised in unbroken lineages: Dharmagupta, Mulasarvastivadin and Thervadin
The tradition continues in the bodhisattva precept transmissions of East Asia. The bodhisattva precept ceremonies are very much based on the model of Pratimoksha ordination, and the upholders of the precepts gather twice a month to recite the precepts like during the monastic uposatha recitation of the pratimoksha. This is, of course, irrelevant to the question of the OP, since arhats, whether lay or monastic, would not be interested in taking bodhisattva precepts.

Re: Laymen who attain arhantship must enter the Order or attain parinirvana

Posted: Fri Apr 05, 2019 6:04 pm
by Bristollad
jmlee369 wrote:
Tue Apr 02, 2019 10:16 pm
Bristollad wrote:
Tue Apr 02, 2019 6:12 pm
Aemilius wrote:
Tue Apr 02, 2019 9:21 am


A Bodhisattva pratimoksha also exists or existed. See:
http://buddhism.lib.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT ... 117539.htm
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q ... gQ8kQ1lBNu
I’m not convinced. If such a pratimoksha existed, why do none of the present Sangha who practise in the Mahayana tradition uphold it? All of the Vinayas I’m aware of go back to the 18 Schools, and only 3 Vinaya traditions are still practised in unbroken lineages: Dharmagupta, Mulasarvastivadin and Thervadin
The tradition continues in the bodhisattva precept transmissions of East Asia. The bodhisattva precept ceremonies are very much based on the model of Pratimoksha ordination, and the upholders of the precepts gather twice a month to recite the precepts like during the monastic uposatha recitation of the pratimoksha. This is, of course, irrelevant to the question of the OP, since arhats, whether lay or monastic, would not be interested in taking bodhisattva precepts.
Of course I accept that bodhisattva precepts are still given in East Asia - it's the description of those, even when their practise includes a fortnightly recitation, as a Pratimoksha that I find problematical.

Re: Laymen who attain arhantship must enter the Order or attain parinirvana

Posted: Sat Apr 06, 2019 10:59 am
by Aemilius
Bristollad wrote:
Fri Apr 05, 2019 6:04 pm
[quote=jmlee369 post_id=488731 time=1554239811 user_id=1281
The tradition continues in the bodhisattva precept transmissions of East Asia. The bodhisattva precept ceremonies are very much based on the model of Pratimoksha ordination, and the upholders of the precepts gather twice a month to recite the precepts like during the monastic uposatha recitation of the pratimoksha. This is, of course, irrelevant to the question of the OP, since arhats, whether lay or monastic, would not be interested in taking bodhisattva precepts.
Of course I accept that bodhisattva precepts are still given in East Asia - it's the description of those, even when their practise includes a fortnightly recitation, as a Pratimoksha that I find problematical.
[/quote]

What is the problem ? The problem is purely imaginary. Vasubandhu writes about pratimoksha, lay and monastic, in the Abhidharmakosha, it is very illuminating. There is also the pratimoksha of Dhyana, says Vasubandhu, it starts when you attain the state of Dhyana. It exists mentally or spiritually.

Re: Laymen who attain arhantship must enter the Order or attain parinirvana

Posted: Sun Apr 07, 2019 4:54 am
by Caoimhghín
Aemilius wrote:
Sat Apr 06, 2019 10:59 am
Bristollad wrote:
Fri Apr 05, 2019 6:04 pm
jmlee369 wrote:
Tue Apr 02, 2019 10:16 pm
The tradition continues in the bodhisattva precept transmissions of East Asia. The bodhisattva precept ceremonies are very much based on the model of Pratimoksha ordination, and the upholders of the precepts gather twice a month to recite the precepts like during the monastic uposatha recitation of the pratimoksha. This is, of course, irrelevant to the question of the OP, since arhats, whether lay or monastic, would not be interested in taking bodhisattva precepts.
Of course I accept that bodhisattva precepts are still given in East Asia - it's the description of those, even when their practise includes a fortnightly recitation, as a Pratimoksha that I find problematical.
What is the problem ? The problem is purely imaginary. Vasubandhu writes about pratimoksha, lay and monastic, in the Abhidharmakosha, it is very illuminating. There is also the pratimoksha of Dhyana, says Vasubandhu, it starts when you attain the state of Dhyana. It exists mentally or spiritually.
While I agree with @Aemilius vis-a-vis points he brings up with respect to Ven Vasubandhu, prātimokṣa of dhyāna &c., I also think that @jmlee369 is picking up on something in practical bodhisattvayāna that goes back further than bans on vinaya observance in certain East Asian societies (i.e. Japan at one point) or even the various waves of Buddhist persecution and crack-downs on monastics that have happened in East Asia at various historical periods that would have perhaps disrupted vinaya/prātimokṣa observance among Dharmaguptaka practitioners for some time. I think what this something that @jmlee369 picks up on can be found going back to fairly elderly Mahāyāna tradition, but before I go into that, I would like to post the passage of Abhidharmakośakārikā I think @Aemilius was referring to:
aṣṭadhā prātimokṣākhyaḥ dravyatastu caturvidhaḥ|
liṅgato nāmasaṁcārāt pṛthak te cāvirodhinaḥ||14||
The prātimokṣa is of eight types. In substance however, the prātimokṣa is of four types. The name changes with the gender. [The disciplines exist] separately. But they do not contradict one another.

pañcāṣṭadaśasarvebhyo varjyebhyo viratigrahāt|
upāsakopavāsasthaśramaṇoddeśabhikṣutā||15||
By undertaking the renouncing of the five things to avoid, of the eight, the ten, of all the things to avoid, one obtains the quality of upāsaka, upavāsastha, śrāmaṇera, and bhikṣu.

śīlaṁ sucaritaṁ karma saṁvaraścocyate punaḥ|
ādye vijñaptyavijñapto prātimokṣakriyāpathaḥ||16||
Morality, good conduct, action and discipline. The prātimokṣa is the first vijñapti and the first avijñapti; these are courses of action (karmapatha).

prātimokṣānvitā aṣṭau dhyānajena tadanvitaḥ|
anāsraveṇāryasattvāḥ antyau cittānuvartinau||17||
Eight persons possess the prātimokṣa. He who possesses dhyāna possesses the discipline which arises from dhyāna. The āryans possess pure discipline. The last two disciplines are concomitants of the mind.

anāgamye prahāṇākhyau tāvānantaryamārgajau|
saṁprajñānasmṛtī dve tu manaindriyasaṁvarau||18||
Arising in the ānantaryamārgas, in anāgamya, they are called “abandoning”. Discipline of the mind and discipline of the organs are, each of them, two things: attentive consciousness and mindfulness.

prātimokṣasthito nityamatyāgā dvartamānayā|
avijñaptyā'nvitaḥ pūrvāt kṣaṇādūrdhvamatītayā||19||
He who is in prātimokṣa always possesses avijñapti of the present moment, as long as he does not reject the avijñapti. After the first moment, he also possesses avijñapti.
(Ven Vasubandhu, Abhidharmakośakārikā caturthaṁ kośasthānam (Ch 4 on Karma), transl. de la Vallée Poussin/Ven Gelong Lodrö Sangpo)

Consider this compared to the way that prātimokṣa is framed in the root downfalls of the bodhisattva:
9. To cause the ones who tread the path of prātimokṣa to leave it for the Mahāyāna;
10. To hold, and to lead others to believe that on the path of Hīnayāna learning craving and the like cannot be overcome
(Ven Khenchen Kunzang Pelden’s jam dbyangs bla ma’i zhal lung bdud rtsi’i thig pa, “The Nectar of Mañjuśrī’s Speech,” pg. 141-2, commentary on Śāntideva's Bodhisattvacharyāvatāra quoting Śikṣāsamuccaya LXI quoting T407 虛空藏菩薩神呪經 *Ākāśagarbhabodhisattvadhāraṇīpadasūtra a.k.a. Ākāśagarbhasūtra)

The above is Ven Khenchen Kunzang Pelden's (hereafter Ven KKP's) presentation of numbers 9 & 10 of the 18 root downfalls of the bodhisattva from the Āryākāśa­garbha­nāma­mahā­yāna­sūtra. There is a different rendering of these same 18 vows in the transmission of them attributed to Ven Nāgārjuna himself, the Padmakara Translation Group who is also responsible for the translation above has one of the above downfalls rendered thus, from Bodhisattvacharyāvatāra itself as rendered here:
Turning self or others away from individual liberation or prātimokṣa; to join the greater vehicle having rejected the prātimokṣa vows.
(Bodhicitta vows from the lineage of Nāgārjuna)

Going back the sūtra in question:
“Furthermore, beginner bodhisattvas may say to some, ‘Oh! What is the use of practicing the vinaya of individual liberation, ethical discipline, and good conduct? You should swiftly bring forth the mind that strives for unsurpassable, perfectly complete enlightenment and study the Mahāyāna. Then even the tiniest unwholesome deeds you have committed with your body, speech, and mind due to the afflictions will be purified, and they will not come to maturation.’ Saying these words is the third root transgression for beginner bodhisattvas.

[...]

“Furthermore, son of noble family, beginner bodhisattvas may say to some, ‘Son of noble family, eschew the discourses of the śrāvaka vehicle! Do not listen to them, do not read them, and do not teach them to others. Son of noble family, eschew the discourses of the śrāvaka vehicle! They are the reason why you cannot obtain the great result, why you are not able to eradicate the afflictions. Therefore, have faith in the discourses of the Mahāyāna. Listen to the Mahāyāna, study the Mahāyāna, and teach it to others. Thus you will not go to the lower realms, you will not enter any path leading to the lower realms, and swiftly you will manifestly and completely awaken to unsurpassable, perfectly complete enlightenment.’ If these words are spoken and the listener acts accordingly and adopts a similar view, then both actions incur a root transgression. This is the fourth root transgression of beginner bodhisattvas.

[...]

Son of noble family, due to this root transgression, they will forfeit the entirety of their previously generated roots of virtue. [...] If the beginner wins someone over to a false view of the kind expressed in these words, they both undergo a root downfall. This is the fourth root downfall of a beginner bodhisattva.
(Ākāśagarbhasūtra T407)

Note these passages giving account of (beginner?) bodhisattvayāna practitioners at least occasionally considering their practice as something particularly distinct from prātimokṣa and/or vinaya observance.

This "(beginner?)" in parentheses is important because interestingly enough Ven KKP presents these 18 root downfalls as of the bodhisattva-in-general (i.e. sarvabodhisattvāḥ), whereas the original buddhavacana underlying all of this, T407, has these as the downfalls of particularly the beginner bodhisattva, perhaps exclusively. I don't know where this apparent discrepancy comes from, whether it is an incorrect reading of Ven KKP or of the sūtra. For final context this is how the Padmakara Translation Group renders how Ven KKP explains this:
When the root text says that Bodhisattvas "strive to never transgress" the disciplines of bodhicitta, this implies that it is pointless just to pretend to be learned and to make eloquent disquisitions tricked out with all sorts of examples concerning the Bodhisattva Precepts, ocean-vast as they are. The important thing is to have a general knowledge of what the Bodhisattva Precepts are and, in particular, to have a grasp of the crucial essence of these precepts. Regarding these precepts, one speaks, once gain, in terms og things to be avoided and things to be undertaken.

In the first place, the things to be avoided comprise the eighteen root or fundamental downfalls, together with the two downfalls of giving up bodhicitta in intention and bodhicitta in action. The eighteen downfalls mentioned in the Ākāśagarbhasūtra are summarized in verse in Śāntideva's Śikṣāsamuccaya:

[Here is omitted an account of the 18 root downfalls.]

It is thus that the eighteen downfalls (the five downfalls liable to be committed by a king, the five liable to be committed by a minister, and the eight associated with ordinary people) are expounded, together with a method of confessing for them.
(Ven KKP, The Nectar of Mañjurśrī's Speech, 141-2)

At the end of the above, Ven KKP appears to break down these 18 root downfalls in a 5, 5, 8 manner. If we assume they are assigned linearly, downfalls 9 & 10 in question would be downfalls associated with ministerial position, so maybe that are not assigned linearly and are instead the downfalls associated with "ordinary people (who are practitioners of the Mahāyāna)," which might explain the apparent discrepancy.

Re: Laymen who attain arhantship must enter the Order or attain parinirvana

Posted: Sun Apr 07, 2019 6:01 am
by Caoimhghín
Coëmgenu wrote:
Sun Apr 07, 2019 4:54 am
The above is Ven Khenchen Kunzang Pelden's (hereafter Ven KKP's) presentation of numbers 9 & 10 of the 18 root downfalls of the bodhisattva from the Āryākāśa­garbha­nāma­mahā­yāna­sūtra. There is a different rendering of these same 18 vows in the transmission of them attributed to Ven Nāgārjuna himself, the Padmakara Translation Group who is also responsible for the translation above has one of the above downfalls rendered thus, from Bodhisattvacharyāvatāra itself as rendered here:
Turning self or others away from individual liberation or prātimokṣa; to join the greater vehicle having rejected the prātimokṣa vows.
(Bodhicitta vows from the lineage of Nāgārjuna)
A little bit of a typo in the above,
There is a different rendering of these same 18 vows in the transmission of them attributed to Ven Nāgārjuna himself, the Padmakara Translation Group who is also responsible for the translation above has one of the above downfalls rendered thus, from Bodhisattvacharyāvatāra itself as rendered here:
[...]
(Bodhicitta vows from the lineage of Nāgārjuna)
This should read:
There is a different rendering of these same 18 downfalls in the transmission of them attributed to Ven Nāgārjuna himself, the Padmakara Translation Group who is also responsible for the translation above has one of the above downfalls rendered thus, from Bodhisattvacharyāvatāra itself as rendered here:
[...]
(Bodhicitta vows from the lineage of Nāgārjuna)
They are downfalls, not vows. No one vows to turn themselves or others away from individual liberation or prātimokṣa; to join the greater vehicle having rejected the prātimokṣa vows.

:spy: :shrug:

Re: Laymen who attain arhantship must enter the Order or attain parinirvana

Posted: Sun Apr 07, 2019 5:04 pm
by Aemilius
Thank You very much for the information!

Re: Laymen who attain arhantship must enter the Order or attain parinirvana

Posted: Mon Apr 08, 2019 6:25 am
by jmlee369
Bristollad wrote:
Fri Apr 05, 2019 6:04 pm
jmlee369 wrote:
Tue Apr 02, 2019 10:16 pm
Bristollad wrote:
Tue Apr 02, 2019 6:12 pm

I’m not convinced. If such a pratimoksha existed, why do none of the present Sangha who practise in the Mahayana tradition uphold it? All of the Vinayas I’m aware of go back to the 18 Schools, and only 3 Vinaya traditions are still practised in unbroken lineages: Dharmagupta, Mulasarvastivadin and Thervadin
The tradition continues in the bodhisattva precept transmissions of East Asia. The bodhisattva precept ceremonies are very much based on the model of Pratimoksha ordination, and the upholders of the precepts gather twice a month to recite the precepts like during the monastic uposatha recitation of the pratimoksha. This is, of course, irrelevant to the question of the OP, since arhats, whether lay or monastic, would not be interested in taking bodhisattva precepts.
Of course I accept that bodhisattva precepts are still given in East Asia - it's the description of those, even when their practise includes a fortnightly recitation, as a Pratimoksha that I find problematical.
The notion of a bodhisattva pitaka with bodhisattva precepts as a pratimoksha has roots in the Indian tradition,, for example Asanga refers to it in his Bodhisattvabhumi.