On a Hitherto Neglected Text Against Buddhist Personalism: Mahāyānasūtrālaṅkāra 18.92–103 and its Bhāṣya

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

The signless concentration aims at direct realization of the absolute calmness of the basis of this false belief.

“the signless concentration 36 (Ɨnimittasam-Ɨdhi) bears on and aims at the direct realization (sƗkżƗtkriyƗ) of the absolute calmness (atyantopaĞama) of the basis of this false belief.37”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

AKBh 9 has been translated into Western languages at least three times, besides partial translations.

“to the best of my knowledge, AKBh 9 (strictly speaking not a genuine chapter of the AKBh) 24 has been translated in Western languages no less than thrice, not to speak of its partial translations.25”

• cites Stcherbatsky 1970Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites KoĞa V.230-302Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites Duerlinger 1989b/Duerlinger 2003Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

May combine two claims.

The MSA devotes twelve stanzas (18.92-103) to explaining selflessness in order to demonstrate the selflessness of the pudgala.

“In order to demonstrate the selflessness [pertaining] to the pudgala, [the MSA now devotes] twelve stanzas [i.e., MSA 18.92-103] to the elucidation (vibhƗga) of selflessness:”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The MSA(Bh) 18.92-103 forms a coherent textual unit.

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

Sthiramati's introduction treats the entire passage as a refutation of non-Buddhist substantialist assumptions.

“his introductory statement interprets the whole passage as a refutation of the non-Buddhists' substantialist assumptions”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The Tibetan translation of Sthiramati's MSAVBh accurately represents the lost Sanskrit original.

May combine two claims.

MSA(Bh) 18.92-103 was translated into French by Lévi in 1911 and remained noticed until World War II.

“has been translated into French as early as 1911 by Lévi and did not go unnoticed until the Second World War.”

• cites Lévi, 1907-1911Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

The concentration on emptiness aims at thorough knowledge of the two selflessnesses, of person and of factors.

“centration on emptiness (ĞnjnyatƗsamƗdhi) bears on and aims at the thorough knowledge (parijñƗ) of the two kinds of selflessness, viz. the selflessness of the (pseudo-)person (pudgalanairƗtmya) and of the factors (dharmanairƗtmya);”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

According to MSABh 149,1-3, the first two dharmoddānas ground unfocused concentration, the third grounds emptiness concentration, and the fourth grounds signless concentration.

“According to the MSABh (149,1-3),”

• cites MSABh 149,1-3Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

MSA(Bh) and AKBh 9 quote the same scriptural sources.

“That the MSA(Bh) and AKBh 9 quote the same scriptural sources is, in itself, no argument in favour of the AKBh's indebtedness towards the MSA(Bh), since both had to counter the exegesis made of these loci by the PudgalavƗdins themselves, i.e., are very likely to have drawn on their opponents' treatises (as is made clear by the Sĝ).”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

Sthiramati occasionally refers to a Sāṃmitīya Buddhist opponent.

“Although Sthiramati alludes here and there to a SƗŪmitƯya Buddhist opponent, 47”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The Tibetan translation of Sthiramati's MSAVBh accurately represents the lost Sanskrit original.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

MSA 18.80ac says that four summary statements of doctrine were preached by buddhas to bodhisattvas as the basis of these three concentrations.

“four summary statements of doctrine have been preached [by the perfectly awakened buddhas] to the bodhisattvas as [being] the basis (upaniżad) of [these three] concentrations.”

• cites MSA 18.80acNot matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

The unfocused concentration aims at eliminating the basis of false belief in a self regarding these two selflessnesses, namely the five appropriated aggregates.

“the unfocused concentration (apraŮihitasamƗdhi) bears on and aims at ridding oneself (prahƗŮa) of the basis of the (false) belief in a self (ƗtmagrƗha) regarding these two selflessnesses, viz., the five constituents-of-(pseudo-)personality to which one clings (upƗdƗnaskandha);”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

TS(P) 336-349 was translated into German by Schayer in 1931.

“has been translated into German by Schayer as early as 1931.26”

• cites Schayer 1931-1932Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

Except for its concluding statement, MSA(Bh) 18 is devoted to demonstrating momentariness (18.82-91) and selflessness (18.92-103).

“And except for its conclusive statement (MSA[Bh] 18.104/160,9), the rest of MSA(Bh) 18 is devoted to the demonstration (prasƗdhana) of momentariness (kżaŮikatva, MSA[Bh] 18.82-91/149,12-154,26) and selflessness (i.e., pudgalanairƗtmya, MSA[Bh] 18.92-103/154,27-160,6).43”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

MSA 18.92d1 asserts that the personalistic false view is a pollution.

“Because it is a pollution (saŪkleĞa) [MSA 18.92d 1 ].62”

• cites MSA 18.92d1Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The two extant Nepalese manuscripts of the MSABh (MS A/B) are reliable witnesses to the text.
• AssumptionRests on an assumption: Sylvain Lévi's editio princeps (1907) is a reliable edition of the MSABh.
• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The MSA(Bh) 18.92-103 forms a coherent textual unit.

May combine two claims.

In both MSA(Bh) 18 and BoBh 1.17, the factors (traditionally thirty-seven) are discussed in a sixteen-item list, whose last two items are three concentrations and four dharmoddānas.

“In both chapters, these factors (traditionally held to amount to thirty-seven), are discussed at length in a sixteen-item list.In both chapters again, the last two items consist of three concentrations (samƗdhi) and four summary statements of doctrine (dharmoddƗna).”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

MSA 18.77-81/MSABh 148,6-149,12 treats three concentrations, each with a specific domain and purpose.

“MSA 18.77-81/MSABh 148,6-149,12 deals with three kinds of concentration endowed each with a specific domain (gocara) and purpose (artha): 35 the con-”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

MSA 18.92c2 asserts that the pseudo-perception of the pudgala is nothing but a wrong notion.

“Because [the pseudo-perception of the pudgala] is [nothing but] a wrong notion (viparyƗsa) [MSA 18.92c 2 ]. 61”

• cites MSA 18.92c2Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The two extant Nepalese manuscripts of the MSABh (MS A/B) are reliable witnesses to the text.
• AssumptionRests on an assumption: Sylvain Lévi's editio princeps (1907) is a reliable edition of the MSABh.
• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The MSA(Bh) 18.92-103 forms a coherent textual unit.

Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

The pudgala must be said to exist as a mere designation, not as a real substance, because it is not perceived, because perception of it is a wrong notion, because it is pollution, and because the personalistic false view is the cause of the defiled.

“The pudgala must be said to exist as a [mere] designation (prajñaptyastitayƗ), but not as a [real] substance (dravyatas), because one does not perceive[it], because [our pseudo-perception of the pudgala] is [nothing but] a wrong notion (viparyƗsa), because it is a pollution (saŪkleĞa), because [the personalistic false view] is the cause of [that which is] defiled (kliżža).(MSA 18.92)”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

The pudgala cannot be said to be either identical with or distinct from the five skandhas, because of two faults that would ensue.

“This [pudgala] cannot be said to be either one [and the same] with or distinct from the [basis of its designation, i.e., from the five skandhas], because of the two faults [that would ensue]: for [if the skandhas and the pudgala were one and the same,] the skandhas would be”

May combine two claims. The quote only partly states this claim.

Both Sthiramati and Vairocanarakṣita refer to the Ekottarikāgama, but the passage has so far resisted all attempts at identification.

“Both Sthiramati (MSAVBh tsi D173b5-7/P204a8-b2: ñan thos kyi gĨuŬ gcig las brtsams pa daŬ / luŬ riŬ po Ĩes bya ba la sogs pa gĨuŬ maŬ du yod pa las luŬ riŬ po'i gĨuŬ gi naŬ nas chos gcig las brtsams pa daŬ / gñis las brtsams pa daŬ / gsum las brtsams pa daŬ / bĨi las brtsams pa daŬ / lŬa las brtsams pa'i char gyi naŬ nas (P: D las) lŬa lŬas las brtsams pa'i lŬa phrugs bĞad pa'i skabs su / gaŬ gi p”

• cites MSAVBh tsi D173b5-7/P204a8-b2Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites MS 42b4Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

In the absence of the conventional designation 'pudgala,' the differences concerning pollution, purification, state, cutting, activity, and mental series could not be indicated.

“conventional expression (*vyavahƗra) of”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

The reading dvayaṃ pratītya is adopted at L157,3, following manuscripts A and B and MSAVBh, against L155,3 and MSABh tib.

“L157,3, MS A 156a3, MS B 142a7 and MSAVBh tsi D169a5/P199a2 (gñis la brten nas) read: dvayaŪ pratƯtya, against L155,3 (dvaye sati ca) and MSABh tib P268a7-8 (gñis yod [*dvaye sati ca]). I have read: dvayaŪ pratƯtya.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

The reading vipākaḥ is adopted at L158,21, following manuscripts A and B and MSAVBh, against MSABh tib's karmavipākaḥ.

“L158,21, MS A 157b7, MS B 143b5 and MSAVBh tsi D173b7/P204b2 (rnam par smin pa) read: vipƗkaŜ, against MSABh tib P263b1 (las kyi rnam par smin pa [*karmavipƗkaŜ]). Read: vipƗkaŜ.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

The reading anutpādyā is adopted at L159,15, correcting anūtpādyā.

“L159,15 reads: annjtpƗdyƗ. Read: anutpƗdyƗ.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

If the ātman really exists, then due to the notion of 'I' and 'mine,' craving for the self and other defilements caused by this view of self will necessarily arise.

“And if the Ɨtman [really] exists, [then,] due to the notion of”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

The passage shows a striking phraseological similarity with AN III.246.

“As pointed out by La Vallée Poussin (KoĞa V.250-251n.3), however, the passage presents a striking phraseological similarity with AN III.246 (CC, 5, and passim, PañcakanipƗta”

• cites La Vallée Poussin (KoĞa V.250-251n.3)Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites AN III.246Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

Nor was the Buddha's teaching of the pudgala aimed at cultivating the view of a self, because cultivation of that view is beginningless.

“Nor was it aimed at [allowing the living beings to] cultivate this [already existing but not yet cultivated view of a self], for of [this] view of a self, [their] cultivation is beginningless [MSA 18.103b].”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

MSA 18.99 asserts that neither a pudgala that always remains as it is nor a perishable pudgala can be the causal condition of the exertion aimed at producing seeing, etc., for three reasons: because this exertion does not exist before, hence cannot be due to a permanent cause; because this pudgala would ipso facto be impermanent; and because there is no third hypothesis.

“Neither a [pudgala] that [always] remains as it is nor a perishable [pudgala] can be the [causal] condition [of the exertion aimed at producing seeing, etc., and this for three reasons:] because [this exertion] does not exist before[, hence cannot be due to a permanent cause]; because [this pudgala] would [ipso facto] be impermanent; and because there is no third hypothesis [i.e., the hypothesis”

• cites MSA 18.99Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The two extant Nepalese manuscripts of the MSABh (MS A/B) are reliable witnesses to the text.
• AssumptionRests on an assumption: Sylvain Lévi's editio princeps (1907) is a reliable edition of the MSABh.
• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The MSA(Bh) 18.92-103 forms a coherent textual unit.

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

MSA 18.94ab asserts that if the pudgala exists as a real substance and cannot be said to be either one with or distinct from the skandhas, then one must state the reason for this.

“If [your pudgala] exists as a [real] substance and [at the same time] cannot be said [to be either one and the same with or distinct from the skandhas, then you] have to state the reason (prayojana) [for this] [MSA 18.94ab].74”

• cites MSA 18.94abNot matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The two extant Nepalese manuscripts of the MSABh (MS A/B) are reliable witnesses to the text.
• AssumptionRests on an assumption: Sylvain Lévi's editio princeps (1907) is a reliable edition of the MSABh.
• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The MSA(Bh) 18.92-103 forms a coherent textual unit.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

The reading nopalabdhā in L155,25 is rejected in favor of nopalabdho, following manuscripts A and B.

“L155,25 reads: nopalabdhƗ, against MS A 154b3 (nopalabdho) and MS B 141a5 (nopalabdho). Read: nopalabdho (see already Lévi 1911:261n. 1).”

• cites Lévi 1911:261n. 1Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

Sthiramati's commentary (MSAVBh) is preserved only in its Tibetan translation.

“Sthiramati's massive commentary (MSAVBh, preserved in its Tibetan translation only).”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The Tibetan translation of Sthiramati's MSAVBh accurately represents the lost Sanskrit original.

Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

If the Buddha taught the pudgala for liberation through vision of the self, it follows that there is simply no liberation.

“Or, it results that there is simply no liberation [MSA 18.103d”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

The Blessed One taught the pudgala although it does not exist as a real substance; otherwise the teaching would be pointless.

“Blessed One] has taught the pudgala although [it] does not exist as a [real] substance.Otherwise, 114 the [Blessed One's] teaching of the pudgala [would] indeed be pointless.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

MSA 18.102-103 asserts that the Blessed One did not have to teach the pudgala, because the view of a self is not to be generated anew in the living beings, because their cultivation of it is beginningless and therefore does not need to be taught, and because if salvation presupposed the knowledge of the pudgala, all living beings could achieve liberation without effort; there is either no liber

“[The Blessed One did not have to teach the pudgala, because] the view of a self is not to be generated [anew in the living beings], [because their] cultivation [of it] is beginningless [and therefore does not need to be taught], [and because if salvation presupposed the knowledge of the pudgala,] all [living beings could] achieve liberation without effort.”

• cites MSA 18.103Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The two extant Nepalese manuscripts of the MSABh (MS A/B) are reliable witnesses to the text.
• AssumptionRests on an assumption: Sylvain Lévi's editio princeps (1907) is a reliable edition of the MSABh.
• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The MSA(Bh) 18.92-103 forms a coherent textual unit.

Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

If the Buddha taught the pudgala because one achieves liberation through the vision of the self, then all living beings could achieve liberation without effort, since all who have not yet seen the truths have the false view of a self.

“liberation through the vision of the self, 118 then [it would mean that] all [living beings could] achieve liberation without effort [MSA 18.103c], for all those who have not [yet] seen the [noble] truths have the [false] view of a self.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

The reading yathā pūrvaṃ is adopted at L160,2, correcting yathāpūrvaṃ.

“L160,2 reads: yathƗpnjrvaŪ. Read: yathƗ pnjrvaŪ.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

These four summaries encapsulate at least impermanence and selflessness, two characteristic doctrinal commitments of the Law.

“Indeed, these summaries of the Law encapsulate at least two among the latter's most characteristic doctrinal commitments, viz.impermanence and selflessness.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

The Vātsīputrīya school separated from the Sthavira branch of early Buddhism in the first half of the third century BCE.

“According to Bareau, the VƗtsƯputrƯya sect branched off from the Sthavira group of early Buddhism some time during the first half of the 3 rd century BCE.”

• cites Bareau 1955:33 and 114Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

Both parties rely on supposedly canonical literature, making scriptural argumentation complicated.

“As for scriptural argumentation, it is made a rather complicated issue insofar as both parties rely on (supposedly) canonical literature in order to make their point.33”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S1 (asserted). May combine two claims.

The pudgala designated with reference to bases appropriates and sustains the body, acts as agent of perceptual awareness, feeling, and ideation, grounds recollection and knowledge, and possesses serial continuity.

“The pudgala as designated with reference to these bases is that which appropriates (upƗ¥dƗ-) and sustains the body, serves as an agent of perceptual awareness (vijñƗna), 18 affective sensation (vedanƗ) and ideation (saŪjñƗ), provides the basis for recollection and knowledge, is the possessor of serial continuity (santƗna).”

• cites Bareau 1955:118Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

The relationship between MSA(Bh) and AKBh is complicated by uncertainty over whether their authors were the same person.

“The issue of the relationship between the two texts is made still more complicated by the question whether the author of the (MSA)Bh and the author of the AKBh were or not one and the same person.32”

• cites Franco/Preisendanz 2010:XV-XVIINot matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

May combine two claims. The quote only partly states this claim.

The Sĝ insists that the pudgala always has some skandhas until final nirvāṇa without remainder, which is why the Pudgalavādins advocated intermediate existence.

“However, as the Sĝ strongly insists upon, the pudgala is never (until the nirupadhiĞeżanirvƗŮa) without a set of skandhas, and this is the”

• cites Bareau 1955:119Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites Bareau 1955:124Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites Venkata Ramanan 1953:187Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

If the pudgala were identical with the skandhas, it would be conditioned and momentary, and recollection, continuity, and moral responsibility could not be explained.

“For if the pudgala is the same as the skandhas, it will be as conditioned (saŪskǶta) and hence momentary (kżaŮika) as they are, and one can no longer account for recollection, continuity and moral responsibility.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based). May combine two claims.

Buddhist scriptures are full of allusions to the pudgala, from which Buddhist doctors developed a systematic doctrine with claims to legitimacy and salvational efficacy.

“the Buddhist scriptures are replete with allusions to the pudgala, allusions out of which fellow Buddhist doctors have developed a systematic doctrine with its own”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

Dharmakīrti's PVSV 147,2-148,5 develops an entirely new line of argument.

“and where DharmakƯrti develops an entirely new line of argument.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S1 (asserted). May combine two claims.

The Pudgalavādins' main thesis, according to nearly all doxographies, was that the person is perceived as evident reality, is neither identical with nor different from the aggregates, and exists neither in nor outside them.

“La personne (pudgala) est perçue (upalabhyate) comme une réalité évidente (sƗkżƗtkǶtaparamƗrthena).La personne n'est ni identique (sama) aux agrégats (skandha) ni différente (viżama) d'eux.Elle n'existe ni dans les agrégats ni en dehors d'eux.”

• cites Bareau 1955:115Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

The personalists held that the pudgala cannot be said to be either the same as or distinct from the five aggregates.

“This seems at least to be the meaning of the personalists' statement to the effect that the pudgala cannot be said (avaktavya) to be either the same as or distinct from the five aggregates.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

The pudgala designated by transmigration underlies the Buddha's rebirth stories and passes from one existence to another.

“As for the pudgala as designated by transmigration, it refers to that which underlies the rebirth stories (jƗtaka) of the (future) Buddha and passes from one existence to another.20”

• cites Lusthaus 2009:284Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites Bareau 1955:116Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

If the pudgala exists as the Pudgalavādin claims, then the claim that it is neither same nor distinct from the skandhas is false; if it does not exist, the Buddha's silence in the Vatsagotrasūtra is justified.

“In other words, either the pudgala exists (as the PudgalavƗdin pretends), and then the claim that it is neither the same as nor distinct from the skandhas is false, or it does not exist, and the silence of the Buddha in teachings such as the Vatsagotrasnjtra finds its justification.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

The personalists developed a system in which the pudgala exists as a designation (prajñaptisat), not as a substantial entity.

“To claim that the pudgala does not exist as a substantial entity is tantamount to saying that it exists as a designation (prajñaptisat).15 This is indeed what the personalists did while developing a sophisticated system supposed to account for the pudgala as a designation.16”

• cites Lusthaus 2009:276-278Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites Chau 1984:9-11Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

May combine two claims. The quote only partly states this claim.

By claiming their pudgala was neither eternal/independent nor impermanent/reducible, the Pudgalavādins intended to give the middle way a doctrinal foundation and to explain the Buddha's silence on whether the soul is identical with or different from the body.

“By claiming that their pudgala was neither an eternal and independent entity nor an impermanent entity reducible to the psycho-physical constituents, the PudgalavƗdins expected not only to provide the middle way with a doctrinal foundation, but also to disclose the rationale”

• cites TDS 19c35Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites Chau 1987:40Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

According to the personalists, the pudgala is subject to three designations: by basis, by transmigration, and by cessation.

“According to them, the pudgala is liable to three prajñaptis: the pudgala as designated by the basis/bases (*ƗĞrayaprajñaptapudgala), the pudgala as designated by transmigration (*saŪkramaprajñaptapudgala), and the pudgala as designated by cessation.17”

• cites Chau 1984:9-11Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites Chau 1987:35-39Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites Venkata Ramanan 1953: 182-195Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

The pudgala with its three designations is ineffable, avoids annihilation and eternity, acts as agent of knowledge, memory, rebirth, and karmic ripening, and after removing obstacles dwells in beatitude.

“Thus the pudgala, with its three designations, is an ineffable (avaktavya) that avoids the two extremes: annihilation (uccheda) and eternity (ĞƗĞvata).The pudgala is the agent of knowledge, memory, the rebirth process, the ripening of actions (karmavipƗka), and, after eliminating its obstacles, dwells in beatitude.”

• cites Chau 1984:11Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

The philosophical quarrel becomes exegetical because the Buddha often used the notion of pudgala.

“The philosophical quarrel then turns to an exegetical one, for the Buddha, no one would dare to contend, has often made use of the notion of pudgala.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

The Pudgalavādin claims that the pudgala cannot be said to be either identical with or different from the skandhas.

“As we have seen, the PudgalavƗdin claims that the pudgala cannot be said to be either identical to or different from the skandhas.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

The opponent forces a choice: either the pudgala exists as a substantial entity and must be same as or distinct from the skandhas, or it exists only as a designation and can be neither.

“His adversary summons him to make a choice: either does the pudgala exist as a substantial entity (dravyasat), and then it must be either the same as or distinct”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

Around the beginning of the Common Era, the Vātsīputrīya movement produced four sub-sects: Bhadrayānīyas, Dharmottarīyas, Ṣaṇḍagarikas, and Sāṃmitīyas.

“Around the turn of the Common Era, the VƗtsƯputrƯya movement gave rise to four sub-sects: the BhadrayƗnƯyas, the DharmottarƯyas, the ŻaŮŮagarikas (or: ŻaŮŚagirikas) and the SƗŪmitƯyas (or: SƗŪmatƯyas).3”

• cites Bareau 1955:122-123Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites Lusthaus 2009:285Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

This polemical effort belongs to the cintāmayī level.

“But this polemical endeavour does not cease to belong to the cintƗmayƯ level: the Buddhist scriptures are replete with allusions to the pudgala, allusions out of which fellow Buddhist doctors have developed a systematic doctrine with its own”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

Sthiramati's explanations were almost certainly intended for an untrained audience (bālas).

“It is fair to say that Sthiramati's explanations were almost certainly meant for an untrained audience -for bƗlas.49”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The Tibetan translation of Sthiramati's MSAVBh accurately represents the lost Sanskrit original.

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

According to the Buddhist personalists, the pudgala and its psychophysical basis relate like fire and fuel, neither identical nor distinct.

“And according to the Buddhist personalists, the relationship between the pudgala and the psychophysical basis is the same as that between fire and fuel, which are neither identical nor distinct.19”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

The pudgala designated by cessation refers to the end of appropriation and aims to show that the Tathāgata or arahant after nirvāṇa without remainder is the liberated person par excellence, dwelling in beatitude.

“to demonstrate that the Ta-thƗgata or an arahant after attaining the nirvƗŮa without remainder (nirupadhi-ĞeżanirvƗŮa) (…) is the liberated person par excellence [referred to as uttama° or paramapuriso], dwelling in beatitude.”

• cites Chau 1984:11Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

This interpretation reflects a major shift around the turn of the 6th century CE in the goals and targets of Buddhist intellectuals.

“thus mirroring the deep shift that took place at the turn of the 6 th century CE in the aims and the targets of the Buddhist intellectuals.48”

• cites Eltschinger forthcoming 2Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

Rational argumentation and philosophy in this context aim to give soteriologically relevant dogmas and meditative practices indisputable, supposedly value-free foundations.

“As we can see, rational argumentation and philosophy are first and foremost aimed at providing soteriologically relevant dogmas and the subsequent meditative practices with indisputable, supposedly value-free foundations.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

According to most extant Vātsīputrīya/Sāṃmitīya sources, the pudgala doctrine aimed to present Buddhism as a middle way between eternalism and annihilationism.

“According to most of the rare extant VƗtsƯputrƯya/SƗŪmitƯya sources, 12 the doctrine of the pudgala was meant to provide a satisfactory account of Buddhism as a middle way (madhyamƗ pratipad) between the extremes of eternalism (ĞƗĞvatavƗda) and annihilationism (ucchedavƗda).”

• cites Venkata Ramanan 1953Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites Bareau 1955:115 and 122Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites Chau 1984:7-8Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

In the doctrine alluded to by Sthiramati, the three basic constituents of matter have been substituted for the older three factors, so that one may interpret this threefold bondage as the soul's entanglement in matter and its processes.

“In the doctrine alluded to by Sthiramati, the three basic constituents of matter have been substituted for the older three factors, so that one may interpret this threefold bondage as the soul's entanglement in matter and its processes (see Frauwallner 1953:374-380).”

• cites Frauwallner 1953:374-380Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

The compound tadyatnapratyaya- is better not interpreted as a bahuvrīhi.

“Moreover (and contrary to MSABh 157,19: tatpratyayaŜ), the compound tadyatnapratyaya-is better not interpreted as a bahuvrƯhi.”

• cites MSABh 157,19Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

May combine two claims.

The Vātsīputrīya/Sāṃmatīya of AKBh 466,17-24 does not accept this locus as a scriptural authority because it is not read in their sect, it is not the word of the Buddha, and it is not the word of the Buddha because they do not read it.

“Interestingly enough, the VƗtsƯputrƯya/SƗŪmatƯya of AKBh 466,17-24/LE78,1-12 (KoĞa V.251-252) does not accept this locus as a scriptural authority (pramƗŮa) on the grounds that”

• cites AKBh 466,17-24/LE78,1-12Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites KoĞa V.251-252Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

The translation is based on Sylvain Lévi's editio princeps (1907), the two extant Nepalese manuscripts of the MSABh, the Tibetan version of the text, and Sthiramati's commentary (MSAVBh, preserved only in Tibetan translation).

“My translation is based on Sylvain Lévi's editio princeps (1907, L), on the two extant Nepalese manuscripts of the MSABh (MS A/B), on the Tibetan version of the text (MSABh tib ) and on Sthiramati's massive commentary (MSAVBh, preserved in its Tibetan translation only).”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The Tibetan translation of Sthiramati's MSAVBh accurately represents the lost Sanskrit original.
• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The two extant Nepalese manuscripts of the MSABh (MS A/B) are reliable witnesses to the text.
• AssumptionRests on an assumption: Sylvain Lévi's editio princeps (1907) is a reliable edition of the MSABh.

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

According to Vasubandhu, dharmasaṃketa amounts to nothing but dependent origination.

“with a very useful remark to the effect that, according to Vasubandhu, dharmasaŬketa amounts to nothing but dependent origination:”

• cites AKBh 468,24-26/LE92,8-10Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

May combine two claims.

The reconstructed reading agrees perfectly with Sthiramati's commentary, which reflects a dvandva analysis of °karmalakṣaṇam.

“Such a reading is perfectly consonant with Sthiramati's commentary (see above, n. 88), which reflects a dvandva analysis of °karmalakżaŮam.”

May combine two claims.

MSABh 157,22 tad° cannot be taken to refer to pudgala, an interpretation shared by the Tibetan translations.

“At least as far as the soundness of the argument is concerned, MSABh 157,22 tad° cannot be taken to refer to pudgala, an interpretation shared by the Tibetan translations (MSABh tib P262b8 and MSAVBh tsi D171a7/P201b3: byed pa de'i rkyen [can MSABhtib ]).”

• cites MSABh 157,22Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites MSABh tib P262b8Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites MSAVBh tsi D171a7/P201b3Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

The Tibetan 'chiṅ ba may render an original Sanskrit bandha.

“Tib.'chiŬ ba may render an original Skt.bandha (see Frauwallner 1953:338);”

• cites Frauwallner 1953:338Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

One should rather not accept that the pudgala exists, for if it exists, all the aforementioned evils necessarily follow.

“One should rather not (na vƗ) accept that the pudgala [MSA 18.103d exists, for if it exists, [all] the [afore- mentioned] evils [will] necessarily follow.”