Ветулла Питака

Автор Ассаджи, 17:10 17 сентября 2013

« назад - далее »


Доброго времени!

(В продолжение темы http://board.buddhist.ru/showthread.php?t=2516 )

В тхеравадинских текстах описано возникновение первых групп, добавлявших к Канону новые тексты, будто бы сказанные Буддой. Судя по упоминаниям, такие группы возникли на Шри Ланке в третьем веке нашей эры, и были разогнаны во время правления Тиссы. В шестом веке сторонники "Ветулла-вады" потерпели поражение от Тхеры Джотипалаки.

"Of great importance for the history of the Sinhalese Church is the reign of Vaṭṭagāmaṇi Abhaya who after being dethroned by Tamils recovered his kingdom and reigned for twelve years. He built a new monastery and dagoba known as Abhayagiri, which soon became the enemy of the Mahāvihāra and heterodox, if the latter is to be considered orthodox. The account of the schism given in the Mahāvaṃsa is obscure, but the dispute resulted in the Piṭakas, which had hitherto been preserved orally, being committed to writing. The council which defined and edited the scriptures was not attended by all the monasteries of Ceylon, but only by the monks of the Mahâvihâra, and the text which they wrote down was their special version and not universally accepted. It included the Parivāra, which was apparently a recent manual composed in Ceylon. The Mahāvaṃsa says no more about this schism, but the Nikâya-Sangraha says that the monks of the Abhayagiri monastery now embraced the doctrines of the Vajjiputta school (one of the seventeen branches of the Mahâsanghikas) which was known in Ceylon as the Dhammaruci school from an eminent teacher of that name. Many pious kings followed who built or repaired sacred edifices and Buddhism evidently flourished, but we also hear of heresy. In the third century A.D. King Voharaka Tissa suppressed the Vetulyas. This sect was connected with the Abhayagiri monastery, but, though it lasted until the twelfth century, I have found no Sinhalese account of its tenets. It is represented as the worst of heresies, which was suppressed by all orthodox kings but again and again revived, or was reintroduced from India. Though it always found a footing at the Abhayagiri it was not officially recognized as the creed of that Monastery which since the time of Vaṭṭagâmaṇi seems to have professed the relatively orthodox doctrine called Dhammaruci.

Mention is made in the Kathā-vatthu of heretics who held that the Buddha remained in the Tusita heaven and that the law was preached on earth not by him but by Ananda and the commentary ascribes these views to the Vetulyakas. The reticence of the Sinhalese chronicles makes it doubtful whether the Vetulyakas of Ceylon and these heretics are identical but probably the monks of the Abhayagiri, if not strictly speaking Mahayanist, were an off-shoot of an ancient sect which contained some germs of the Mahayana. Hsüan Chuang in his narrative states (probably from hearsay) that the monks of the Mahāvihāra were Hinayanists but that both vehicles were studied at the Abhayagiri.


Soon after the departure of Buddhaghosa Dhātusena came to the throne and "held like Dhammasoka a convocation about the three Piṭakas." This implies that there was still some doubt as to what was scripture and that the canon of the Mahāvihāra was not universally accepted. The Vetulyas, of whom we heard in the third century A.D., reappear in the seventh when they are said to have been supported by a provincial governor but not by the king Aggabodhi and still more explicitly in the reign of Parākrama Bāhu (c. 1160). He endeavoured to reconcile to the Mahāvihāra "the Abhayagiri brethren who separated themselves from the time of king Vaṭṭagāmaṇi Abhaya and the Jetavana brethren that had parted since the days of Mahāsena and taught the Vetulla Piṭaka and other writings as the words of Buddha, which indeed were not the words of Buddha[88]." So it appears that another recension of the canon was in existence for many centuries.

[88] Mahâvaṃsa LXXVIII. 21-23.


"3. The Abhayagiri-vasins were adherents of Vetullavada as is well known from the Sinhalese chronicles Dipavamsa and Mahavamsa and the commentary on the Kathavatthu. The reading vaitulya is found in place of valpulya in the Kashgar manuscript of the Saddharma-pundarika-sutra. The vulgate title Saddharma-pundarika-dharma-paryaya is Saddharma-pundarika-Maharatna-Vaitulya-sutra in the Kashgar manuscript and in one occurence the reading is vaitupulya (Kern 1907:3.99), a clear indication of the transition from vaitulya to vaipulya. Thus the Saddharma-pundarika (= SP) was an important sutra of the Vaitulyakas, and as such a scripture of the Abhayagirivasins. This is confirmed by the fact that they had a monastery dedicated to Padmapani in Indonesia."


"The Abhayagiri-vasins were assailed by orthodox Theravada sects but remained unperturbed and unshaken (na samkampitah). They went on progressing into the ever-evolving world of Buddhism, from the Vedalla/Vetulla/Vepulla sutras into Vajrayana, The Nikaya-sangraha explicitly states that their Vetulla-pitaka had texts of all shades of the spectrum of Vetullavada from early Mahayana to Ratnakuta and finally to the Tantras. Samgudhartha-vicarana-vara-nadi-vegaih samapyayitam refers to the spread of esoteric (sanigudha) texts of the various tantras in Srilankas. This brings us to the consideration of the denominational system or systems prevalent among the adherents of Abhayagiri who went to Indonesia.

13. In the reign of Voharika Tissa (A,D. 209-301) the Abhayagiri-vasins who "had earlier received a body of Vajjiputta monks from Pallarama in India led by their teacher Dhammaruci, are reported to have adopted some views belonging to the Vetulya-vada" (Zeyst 1961:25). "In the time of Silakala (518-531) a Vaipulya Sutta (Mahayana text) known as Dhammadhātu was brought from India by a merchant of Kāśi, named Purna. This text was readily accepted by Abhayagiri and was honoured in the palace". In the ninth century a follower of the "Vajraparvata sect in India came to reside in Abhayagiri from where he spread his secret teachings" (ibid.26) "The Abhayagiri monks seem to have kept up constant contact with various Buddhist sects and new movements in India, from which they derived inspiration and strength. The Dhammarucikas of Abhayagiri are supposed to have accepted the Vetulya-pitaka. The Vetulyas or adherents of Vetulla-vada are well known by name both in the Sinhalese chronicles and in the commentary to the Kathavatthu (ibid.27). In Pali vetulla/vetulya occurs as a dissenting sect in vetulla-vāda (Mahavamsa 36,41, Dipavamsa 22,45) and in vetulla-vādin. Davids /Stede say that the "Pali form is not clear; it probably rests on dialectical translation of a later term". Vaitulya is a derivative of vitula 'incomparable', vi  'not', tula 'comparable', like atula. In Pali, which preserves an earlier  tradition, the form vepulla does not occur as a variant for vetullas.

14. The word vetulla is vaitulya in Sanskrit. In the Kashgar manuscript of the Saddharnia-pundanka, the title is constantly  sūtram mahāvaitulyaṃ bodhisattvotpādam (Kern 1909, Preface ix, 65  B.I) instead of the Nepalese sutrāntaṃ mahāvaipulyam bodhisattvā-vavādam. In the Central Asian manuscript of the Mahaparinirvana-sutra written iu Upright Gupta script we get sarvamahayana-sutra vaitulya-param-amrta-saddharma (Hoernk 1916:95,8). Siksasamuccaya (ed. Bendall 354.6, 415) cites from the Candrapradipa-sūtras (= Samadhiraja): vaitulya-śikṣitah, where Tibetan has rab-rgyas-dag-gis bslabs which is a translation of vaipulya and dag-gis is instrumental plural. The Samadhiraja-sutra is also a Vaipulya-sutra (Mudiyanse 167:18). In later manuscripts vaitulya has beeu replaced by vaipulya.


18. The Abhayagiri-vasins followed the same tradition of accepting the entire evolution of Buddhism over the centuries. Hsuau-tsang says that the Abhayagiri-vasins "studied both vehicles, and widely diffused the Tripitakas" (Beal 188-2.247), which shows their ecumenical approach. The Nikaya-saṅgraha (p.20) records that in the reign of Sena I (846-866) vājiriya-vāda was introduced to the virāṅkura monastery by a monk of the Vajraparvata-nikaya of India, and the king accepted these doctrines (Mudiyanse 1967:8 ). In a prior context the Nikaya-samgraha (p. 9-10, Mudiyanse 1967:17) enumerates the titles of 34 works of different divisions of tantras:

(1) Varna-pitaka of the Hemavatas

(2) Angulimala-pitaka of the Rajagirikas

(3) Gudha-Vessantara of the Siddharthakas

(4) Rastrapala-garjjita of the Purvasaillyas
(5) Alavaka-garjjita of the Aparasaillyas

Works of Vajraparvatavasins (6-34)

(6) Gudha-Vinaya

(7) Mayajala-tantra



Аналогичное описание приводится в Абхидхарма-самуччае:

"What is a development (vaipulya)? It consists of accounts contained in the Canon of the Bodhisattvas (bodhisattva-piṭaka). Whatever is called vaipulya is also called vaidalya or vaitulya.

"Why is the Vaipulya [Development, Extension] called the Canon of perfections (pāramitāpiṭaka) of the Bodhisattvas? Because it describes the number of the perfections (pāramitā-saṃkhyānirdeśa), their characteristics (lakṣaṇa), order (krama), explanations (nirulti), cultivation (bhāvanā), divisions (prabheda), groupings (saṃgraha), opposites (vipakṣa), the eulogies of their virtues (guṇavarṇana), and also their mutual determining (anyonyaviniścaya).

Why do certain beings not esteem the excellence and profundity of the Vaipulya and are afraid of it? Because of their separation from the dharma-nature, because of their lack of cultivation of good roots, and because of the influence of bad friends."


Я так точно отделен от дхарма-природы, поэтому и не ценю великолепие Вайпулья-сутр:)



Отдельные Вайтулья-сутры составлялись отдельными группами:

According to the Theravādin Nikāyasaṅgraha, the Ratnakūṭa Sūtra was composed by the "Andhakas", meaning the Mahāsāṃghika Caitika schools of the Āndhra region.[4][5]


Со временем из этих групп (и составленных ими текстов Ветулла Питаки) сложилась "Бодхисаттва-яна", а затем распространилось название "Махаяна":

According to Jan Nattier, the term Mahāyāna ("Great Vehicle") was originally an honorary synonym for Bodhisattvayāna ("Bodhisattva Vehicle")[6] — the vehicle of a bodhisattva seeking buddhahood for the benefit of all sentient beings.[4] The term Mahāyāna was therefore formed independently at an early date as a synonym for the path and the teachings of the bodhisattvas. Since it was simply an honorary term for Bodhisattvayāna, the creation of the term Mahāyāna and its application to Bodhisattvayāna did not represent a significant turning point in the development of a Mahāyāna tradition.[6]



Mahāyāna and Vaipulya: Focusing on the proof of the authenticity of the Mahāyāna
Arising in the later history on Buddhism, the Mahāyāna was criticized for not being
the Buddha's teachings from the outset. Mahāyānist, thereafter, tried to defend and
prove the authenticity of the Mahāyāna in various ways. One of the ways of their
proof was to identify the Mahāyāna with vaipulya, a member of the dvādaśāṅgadharmapravacana
or "twelvefold teaching of the Buddha." This argument is found
in the Abhidharmasamuccaya, Abhidharmasamuccyabhāṣya, Vyākhyāyukti, and the
Mahāyānāvatāra. In the course of proof, interpreting vaipulya as having the same
meaning with vaitulya and vaidalya, the above treatises tried to show that these
terms certainly refer to Mahāyāna. This argument will also shed light on solving the
question: what was Mahāyāna.
Inquiring into what vaipulya, vaidalya and vaitulya mean, this paper examines how
the self-styled Mahāyāna scriptures were regarded as the Buddha's teachings as a
member of the dvādaśāṅgadharmapravacana or a part of the "Three Baskets"



Интересное утверждение.. и что это доказывает? Что Махаяна это наследие Ветулла..а Ветулла Питака получается пестрит текстами неизвестного происхождения. А что это за "twelvefold teaching of the Buddha."?


Происхождение можно установить, - например, Стивен Ходж делает вывод, что Махапаринирвана сутра была составлена в Деккане во втором веке:

"[T]here are strong grounds based on textual evidence that the MPNS (Mahāyāna Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra), or a major portion of it, together with related texts were compiled in the Deccan during the second half of the 2nd century CE, in a Mahāsāṃghika environment, probably in one of their centres along the western coastal region such as Karli, or perhaps, though less likely, the Amaravatī-Dhanyakaṭaka region."


Двенадцать частей, описанных в Агамах, сохранившихся в китайском каноне:

dvādaśāṅga-dharma-pravacana: The twelve-fold classification of the 'Words of [Buddha] Dharma': 1. sūtra, 2. geya, 3. vyākaraṇa, 4. gāthā, 5. udāna, 6. nidāna, 7. avadāna, 8. itivṛttaka/ityuktaka, 9. jātaka, 10. vaipulya, 11. adbhuta-dharma, 12. upadeśa.

В суттах говорится о девяти частях (наванга):

Navanga-Buddha (or satthu)-sāsana, the nine-fold Dispensation of the Buddha (or the Master) consists of

    suttas (sutta),
    mixed prose (geyya),
    exegesis (veyyākarana),
    verses (gāthā),
    solemn utterances (udāna),
    sayings of the Blessed One (itivuttaka),
    birth stories (jātaka),
    extraordinary things (abbhutadhamma), and
    analysis (vedalla).

This classification is often found in the suttas (e.g. M.22).



Еще про "Вайпулья" - во второй части статьи Девида Друса:



От палийской дхаммакаи до трикаи: пять основных этапов эволюции концепции «природы будды»



Из книги:

Buddhism in Sri Lanka: A Short History
By H. R. Perera

20 The Growth of Dissentient Schools

About two centuries after the formation of the Dhammaruci sect at the Abhayagiri-vihara, in the days of King Voharika Tissa (214–36 CE), the monks of the Abhayagiri-vihara adopted the Vaitulyavada. Thereupon the monks of the Mahavihara, having compared it with their own texts, rejected the Vaitulya doctrines as being opposed to traditional doctrine. The king, who had them examined by a learned minister named Kapila, burnt them and suppressed the Vaitulyavadins.

Despite the suppression by Voharika Tissa, the Vaitulyavadins began to assert themselves again and a few years later, in the time of King Gothabhaya (Meghavanna Abhaya, 253–266 CE), the Dhammaruci monks of Abhayagiri again accepted Vaitulyavada. When this happened, about three hundred monks justify the Abhayagiri-vihara to reside at the Dakkhinavihara, founding a new sect known as Sagaliya. The king, having assembled the bhikkhus of the five great monasteries of the Theriya Nikaya (Mahavihara Nikaya), had the Vaitulya books examined, ordered the books to be destroyed, and expelled the Vaitulya monks. Sixty of them left for the Chola country in South India.

The struggle did not end here, for the adherents of the new doctrine were firmly established in South India and they planned to undermine the Mahavihara Nikaya in Sri Lanka. With this object a very learned monk by the name of Sanghamitra came to Sri Lanka and obtained the post of tutor to the king's two sons. Sanghamitra gained considerable influence over the young pupil, Mahasena, and was able to instil into him the new doctrine and make him a follower of his views. When Mahasena ascended the throne, the opportunity looked forward to by the Vaitulyans came. The new king became a great supporter of his tutor and as such persecuted the Mahavihara monks. The king, at the instigation of Sanghamitra Thera, ordered that no one should give food to the monks of the Mahavihara. The Mahavihara, as a result, had to be abandoned for nine years. The supporters of Sanghamitra destroyed the buildings of the Mahavihara and carried away their material to construct new buildings for the Abhayagiri-vihara.

Two persons, a minister and a queen, came forward this time to suppress Vaitulyavada and save the Mahavihara. The minister, Meghavannabhaya by name, managed to persuade the king to rebuild the Mahavihara. The queen caused Sanghamitra to be put to death and burned the Vaitulya books.

But the king, who was yet favourable towards the followers of Sanghamitra, built and gave the Jetavana-vihara to a monk named Tissa. Tissa, who was later charged by the Mahavihara monks of a grave offence, was expelled from the Order. The monks of the Sagaliya sect at Dakkhina-vihara then came to reside in the Jetavana-vihara. In the reign of Silakala (522–35) a Vaitulyan book called the Dharmadhatu, which was brought to Sri Lanka from India, was kept at the Jetavana-vihara and venerated. Thus from this time the monks of Jetavana-vihara too became adherents of Vaitulyavada.

In the reign of King Aggabodhi I (575–608) a great monk and teacher named Jotipala, coming from India, so exposed the fallacies of the Vaitulya doctrines that in his day they fell into disrepute and disappeared from Sri Lanka. Since that time the monks of the Abhayagiri and Jetavana viharas who adhered to Vaitulyan doctrines, abandoned their pride and lived in submission to the monks of the Mahavihara.

Intercourse with India was so frequent that from time to time other unorthodox doctrines occasionally found favour with certain monks, but these had no marked effect on the general progress or the stability of the Mahavihara Nikaya.

For nearly three centuries after the time of Aggabodhi I the chronicles make no mention of the Vaitulyavada or any other heretical teaching, until in the reign of King Sena I (833–53) a monk of the Vajraparvata Nikaya came to Sri Lanka from India and introduced Vajiriyavada, converting the king to his doctrines. It was at this time that teachings like the Ratnakuta-sutra were also introduced to Sri Lanka and another heresy called Nilapata-darsana appeared. Sena II (853–87), who succeeded Sena I, managed to suppress these new doctrines. From his time until the Chola conquest in the early eleventh century there is no mention of any heretical sect in Sri Lanka. However, a survey of the religious monuments of that period clearly shows that their teachings survived side by side with the teachings of the Theravada.
21 The Nature of the New Doctrines

It is opportune here to enquire about the nature of the new doctrines that were mentioned in the previous chapter as having been introduced into Sri Lanka from time to time since the first century CE. It was the monks of the Vajjiputra sect in India who were the first to introduce a new teaching. The Vajjiputra sect is mentioned in the Sri Lanka chronicles as one of the groups that parted from the Theriya Nikaya after the Second Buddhist Council to form a new sect. They thus evidently held some views different from those of the orthodox teachings. Buddhaghosa mentions in the Pali commentaries that the Vajjiputrakas held the view that there is a persistent personal entity, which is opposed to the accepted theory of anatta of the Theravada teachings. They also believed that Arahants may fall away from their attainment.

These followers of the Vajjiputraka doctrines, residing at the Abhayagiri-vihara, became adherents of the Vaitulya doctrines about two centuries afterwards, and until the beginning of the seventh century Vaitulyavada became closely associated with Abhayagiri-vihara and Jetavana-vihara.

Like the Vajjiputra sect the Vaitulyavada is mentioned in the Nikaya Sangraha as one of the sects that arose in India after the Second Buddhist Council. The Nikaya Sangraha also states that the Vaitulya Pitaka was composed by heretic brahmins called Vaitulyas who entered the Order in the time of King Asoka to destroy Buddhism. It has been noticed that the terms Vaitulya, Vaipulya and Vaidalya are commonly used as a designation for Mahayana sutras and hence the term Vaitulyavada is used in the Sri Lanka chronicles to denote Mahayanism in general without having a particular Buddhist school in view.

The Vaitulyavadins were considered even more heretical than the Vajjiputrakas. The Pali commentaries mention some of their heretical views. They held the view that the Buddha, having been born in the Tusita heaven, lived there and never came down to earth and it was only a created form that appeared among men. This created form and Ananda, who learned from it, preached the doctrine. They also held that nothing whatever given to the Order bears fruit, for the Sangha, which in the ultimate sense of the term meant only the path and fruitions, does not accept anything. According to them any human pair may enter upon sexual intercourse by mutual consent. The Dipavamsa used the term Vitandavada in place of Vaitulyavada and the Pali commentaries mention them as holding unorthodox views regarding the subtle points in the Dhamma, particularly the Abhidhamma.

Buddhaghosa also refers to the Vaitulyavadins as Mahasuññavadins. The philosophy of the Mahayana as expounded by the great Mahayana teacher Nagarjuna was Sunyavada. Thus the fact that the first appearance of Vaitulyavada in Sri Lanka took place shortly after Nagarjuna's teachings spread in South India, and that Vaitulyavada is also identified with Sunyavada of Nagarjuna, suggests that it was the teaching of Nagarjuna that was received by the monks of Abhayagiri-vihara in the days of Voharika Tissa.

The book called Dharmadhatu, which was brought to Lanka in the reign of Silakala, is described in the chronicles as a Vaitulyan book. The monks of the Abhayagiri-vihara and the Jetavana-vihara are connected with the honours paid to it. It has become evident that a book named Dharmadhatu was known and held in high esteem in the tenth century in Lanka and it is quite probable that this book was a Mahayanistic treatise dealing with the doctrine of the three bodies of the Buddha found among the teachings of the Mahayana.

Vajiriyavada was introduced in the reign of King Sena I by a monk of the Vajraparvata Nikaya. Scholars have pointed out that the Vajiriyavadins are identical with the Vajrayanists, a school of Buddhism which flourished in eastern India about this time and which was an exponent of the worst phases of Tantrism. The Nikaya Sangraha describes their writings as "secret teachings" and the Gudhavinaya, i.e. the "secret Vinaya," is one of the compositions of the Vajrayanists.

The Nikaya Sangraha mentions that about this time the Ratnakuta-sutra was introduced to Sri Lanka. In the Chinese Canon the second of the seven classes of the Mahayana-sutras is called the Ratnakuta. The Nilapata-darsana, which was also introduced about this time, was also an extreme form of Tantrism. Blue has been a colour often favoured by Tantrists.