I've heard that Sāriputta is mentioned in the Jain scriptures. I have yet to track down the exact citation. It would be fascinating to know how they perceived him.
(1) Could you point us to some Mahāyāna texts that spoke poorly of Sāriputta. (hopefully on-line).
(2) It was fun to see that even the Susīma Sutta that complimented him, managed to call those who disagree with their assessment "stupid, wicked, confused or mentally deranged." Do we know (or can we comfortably speculate) if this text was written as a retort to those who were belittling Sāriputta?
(3) When you speak of "formalistic Buddhism", does that mean Buddhist groups who emphasize rituals and rules to the extent that the criticizers feel that the spirit of the teachings are lost? Or, without my clumsy phrasing, could you tell us what that points to. I noticed that Sangharakshita uses the category several times in his "A Survey of Buddhism".
(4) I tried to look up the word "devaputta" which you italized but did not explain. I figured it must be understood by those who read Suttas often and thus left untranslated. I found: (i) A city in India, who, in Asoka's time had a king by that name. (ii) Used as the title of the second section of the Samyutta Nikaya. (iii) As your comment says, "putta" means "sons". So "Devaputta" means "son of a god". I see in Rhys-Davids dictionary it translated as "angel". (iv) In this passage, it looks like a word used interchangably for the monks (Bhikkhu) at the gathering.
Thank you (I hope my questions seem a bit more thought out)
2. The current consensus on the relative dates of the Pāli Canon and the Sanskrit Mahāyāna Canon is that the Pāli must precede most if not all of the Sanskrit. But not everyone agrees. My sense is that this sutta is not in response to the Mahāyāna criticism, but a response to other criticisms - Sāriputta was successful and popular, and a close friend of the Buddha, so he was a target for disgruntled people. There's a story about someone insulting him in my JBE article about confession.
3. Yes. Formalism, as I understand it, emphasises form over content. I don't much care about Buddhist forms - the dress codes, and specific rituals and ceremonies - but focus on the content of what we think and do as Buddhists. I picked up disdain for formalism from Sangharakshita but I think it fitted with my preconceptions about the world anyway. So many people are only going through the motions of their lives!
4. Yes. Busted! Devaputta is a difficult word to find a single English language term for. As I understand it the devaputta referred to here is specifically a human who has been reborn in the deva realm.The literal translation would be "son of a god", though this doesn't convey the concept. Angel is jut wrong. Anyway I copped out and hoped that no one would catch me doing it. And you caught me :-) My apologies for creating confusion. My original translation used the literal rending 'godson' but this was obviously hopeless and conveys nothing. Maybe I should just call him a god, and add a note about devaputta.
Sabio these are excellent questions. Thanks for taking the time to read carefully - and see by doing so you caught me being careless and cutting corners!
I'll have to edit the post to make it more comprehensible.
Thank you Jayarava -- that was most helpful. I will be reading further.
In the meanwhile, pursuing this text's use of "devaputta": You said, "A devaputta is a human being who has been reborn in the devaloka i.e. the realms of devas." In light of that, my further question is:
From your experience, do you then imagine that the intended Suttas readers in those days were suppose to:
(a) visualize a glowing apparitions taking form in our own realm (thus perhaps the "angel" mistranslation). And thus the reader was to really imagine a retinue of fuzzy creatures hanging around the Buddha.
(b) imagine that some of the actual students of the Buddha were incarnations from the devaloka.
(c) understand this as a literary device to tell a story and not think deeper
(d) understand the term as a complimentary in-house term to merely refer to the accomplished bhikkhus who were with the Buddha. Much like we may say, "His excellency" when we aren't thinking of anything particularly excellent about the person.
Or did I miss one, or is it some complex combination that most modernists just can't understand? And am I accurate in imagining that among present day Buddhists, perhaps there exists these differences in how they understand devaputtas in these sort of passages -- perhaps differences that didn't exist on the original telling? (pure speculation, I know) Thanks.
I think the answer is that we do not know for sure how ancient Buddhists thought about the immaterial beings. Some texts seem to treat devas and other such denizens as real entities, some treat them as symbols, and some treat them as fairy tale characters. All of the above I suppose except that we don't see them applied to human beings with the single exception of sometimes addressing Kings as "deva".
I don't know any more about this subject. If you're interested to find out more you'll have to do some research for yourself.
No word can be enough to praise Elder Ven. Sariputra. His wisdom exceeds to the level of Lord Buddha. Lord Buddha offered the title of "General of Dhamma " to praise his wisdom and his preaching of Dharma.
Tuesday, June 30, 2015
[Image]SĀRIPUTTA WAS ONE OF THE TWO chief disciples of Gotama the Buddha. He was born a Brahmin and wandered with his companion Moggallāna in search of the deathless. A chance meeting with Assajī lead to his breakthrough insight and becoming a Buddhist. He was held in extremely high esteem by all who knew him, including the Buddha.
Later however Sāriputta was identified with a brand of formalistic Buddhism, and several texts were composed in which he is portrayed as stiff and rather stupid. Of course Buddhists have always portrayed their enemies this way in texts, but it is particularly infelicitous that such a great figure should become the butt of jokes for the purpose of sectarian pissing contests. One of the things that turned me off Mahāyāna Buddhism was precisely the derogatory attitude towards, and denigration of, Sāriputta. So I offer this translation of the Susīma Sutta where Sāriputta gets his due.
Susīma Sutta
SN ii.29 S i.63
Connected with Sāvatthī. Then indeed Ānanda approached the Blessed One, saluted him and sat to one side. The Blessed One asked him “are you pleased with Sāriputta?”
Could Sāriputta not be pleasing to anyone who is not stupid, wicked, confused or mentally deranged? The Elder Sāriputta is wise, Sir. He has great wisdom, precise wisdom, joyful wisdom, swift wisdom, piercing wisdom. Sāriputta is contented, satisfied, [enjoys] seclusion, living alone, energetically resolute, a speaker [of truth], gently spoken, he exhorts, he censures evil. Could Sāriputta not be pleasing to him who is not stupid, wicked, confused or mentally deranged?
Quite right Ānanda, I agree with everything you’ve said.
Once these virtues of the Elder Sāriputta were spoken Susīma the deva [1], surrounded by a great retinue of devas, approached the Blessed One, saluted him, stood to one side and said:
It is just as you say Blessed One, just so Excellence. I totally agree with you.
Whichever company of devas I approached, I hear this very same full report [in praise of Sāriputta].
Then indeed the deva-company of the deva Susīma, at the telling of the qualities of Sāriputta were pleased and delighted.
Just like a beautiful, excellent, perfectly symmetrical crystal of beryl, artfully arranged on a saffron cloth, shining, glittering, and scintillating
Just like a nugget of gold from the Jambu River, skilfully refined in the furnace by clever goldsmith from a family of smiths, artfully arranged on a saffron cloth, shining, glittering, and scintillating.
Just as in the morning star appears in the sky towards dawn on an cloud free autumnal evening shining, glittering, and scintillating.
Just as the autumnal sun, rising above the morning mists into a cloud free sky, dispels the darkness of the heavens, shining, glittering, and scintillating.
Then indeed Susīma the deva spoke these verses with reference to the Elder Sāriputta in the presence of the Blessed One:Known as wise,
Sāriputta is loving;
Content, humble, restrained,
a sage conveyed by the teachers praiseThen indeed the Blessed One replied in verse to Susīma the deva regarding Sāriputta:
Known as wise,
Sāriputta is loving;
Content, humble, restrained,
biding his time well restrained and developed.~~oOo~~
Note
Thanks to Sabio Lentz for pointing out a confusion in my translation. Susīma is a devaputta, and I had left the term untranslated at first. A devaputta is a human being who has been reborn in the devaloka i.e. the realms of devas. The word literally means "son of a deva" - just as Sāriputta is the "son of (his mother) Sārī". They often seem to retain a sense of connection to the manussaloka or realm of human beings. There is no obvious single English word that conveys this concept that is unique to India. PED suggests "angel" but this is so wrong as to be laughable. Still unable to choose a better translation I've opted to use 'deva' which should be more straight-forward, and at least does not introduce foreign ideas into the discourse.
Image: a Sri Lankan monk from Scribner's magazine. 1891. I imagine Sāriputta would have looked a bit like this.
9 Comments
Close this window Jump to comment formI've heard that Sāriputta is mentioned in the Jain scriptures. I have yet to track down the exact citation. It would be fascinating to know how they perceived him.
Sunday, October 02, 2011
Hi Swanditch,
If they did know him and not another man known as the Son of Mrs Sārī...
Jayarava
Monday, October 03, 2011
(1) Could you point us to some Mahāyāna texts that spoke poorly of Sāriputta. (hopefully on-line).
(2) It was fun to see that even the Susīma Sutta that complimented him, managed to call those who disagree with their assessment "stupid, wicked, confused or mentally deranged."
Do we know (or can we comfortably speculate) if this text was written as a retort to those who were belittling Sāriputta?
(3) When you speak of "formalistic Buddhism", does that mean Buddhist groups who emphasize rituals and rules to the extent that the criticizers feel that the spirit of the teachings are lost? Or, without my clumsy phrasing, could you tell us what that points to.
I noticed that Sangharakshita uses the category several times in his "A Survey of Buddhism".
(4) I tried to look up the word "devaputta" which you italized but did not explain. I figured it must be understood by those who read Suttas often and thus left untranslated. I found:
(i) A city in India, who, in Asoka's time had a king by that name.
(ii) Used as the title of the second section of the Samyutta Nikaya.
(iii) As your comment says, "putta" means "sons". So "Devaputta" means "son of a god". I see in Rhys-Davids dictionary it translated as "angel".
(iv) In this passage, it looks like a word used interchangably for the monks (Bhikkhu) at the gathering.
Thank you (I hope my questions seem a bit more thought out)
Wednesday, October 05, 2011
Hi Sabio
1. One of the main sūtras to look at is the Vimalakirti Nirdeśa.
2. The current consensus on the relative dates of the Pāli Canon and the Sanskrit Mahāyāna Canon is that the Pāli must precede most if not all of the Sanskrit. But not everyone agrees. My sense is that this sutta is not in response to the Mahāyāna criticism, but a response to other criticisms - Sāriputta was successful and popular, and a close friend of the Buddha, so he was a target for disgruntled people. There's a story about someone insulting him in my JBE article about confession.
3. Yes. Formalism, as I understand it, emphasises form over content. I don't much care about Buddhist forms - the dress codes, and specific rituals and ceremonies - but focus on the content of what we think and do as Buddhists. I picked up disdain for formalism from Sangharakshita but I think it fitted with my preconceptions about the world anyway. So many people are only going through the motions of their lives!
4. Yes. Busted! Devaputta is a difficult word to find a single English language term for. As I understand it the devaputta referred to here is specifically a human who has been reborn in the deva realm.The literal translation would be "son of a god", though this doesn't convey the concept. Angel is jut wrong. Anyway I copped out and hoped that no one would catch me doing it. And you caught me :-) My apologies for creating confusion. My original translation used the literal rending 'godson' but this was obviously hopeless and conveys nothing. Maybe I should just call him a god, and add a note about devaputta.
Sabio these are excellent questions. Thanks for taking the time to read carefully - and see by doing so you caught me being careless and cutting corners!
I'll have to edit the post to make it more comprehensible.
Wednesday, October 05, 2011
Thank you Jayarava -- that was most helpful. I will be reading further.
In the meanwhile, pursuing this text's use of "devaputta": You said, "A devaputta is a human being who has been reborn in the devaloka i.e. the realms of devas." In light of that, my further question is:
From your experience, do you then imagine that the intended Suttas readers in those days were suppose to:
(a) visualize a glowing apparitions taking form in our own realm (thus perhaps the "angel" mistranslation). And thus the reader was to really imagine a retinue of fuzzy creatures hanging around the Buddha.
(b) imagine that some of the actual students of the Buddha were incarnations from the devaloka.
(c) understand this as a literary device to tell a story and not think deeper
(d) understand the term as a complimentary in-house term to merely refer to the accomplished bhikkhus who were with the Buddha. Much like we may say, "His excellency" when we aren't thinking of anything particularly excellent about the person.
Or did I miss one, or is it some complex combination that most modernists just can't understand? And am I accurate in imagining that among present day Buddhists, perhaps there exists these differences in how they understand devaputtas in these sort of passages -- perhaps differences that didn't exist on the original telling? (pure speculation, I know) Thanks.
Wednesday, October 05, 2011
Hi Sabio
I think the answer is that we do not know for sure how ancient Buddhists thought about the immaterial beings. Some texts seem to treat devas and other such denizens as real entities, some treat them as symbols, and some treat them as fairy tale characters. All of the above I suppose except that we don't see them applied to human beings with the single exception of sometimes addressing Kings as "deva".
I don't know any more about this subject. If you're interested to find out more you'll have to do some research for yourself.
Thursday, October 06, 2011
Great, thank you for sharing that much!
Thursday, October 06, 2011
Hi,
In Jain Isibhasiyaimsuttaim 38, there's a chapter taught by Sātiputta Buddha (sātiputteṇa buddheṇa arahatā isiṇā buitaṃ).
If anyone get interested in this Sutra, here's the webpage:
http://www.jaingranths.com/Manuscript.asp?id=858&i=292
Thursday, October 13, 2011
No word can be enough to praise Elder Ven. Sariputra.
His wisdom exceeds to the level of Lord Buddha. Lord Buddha offered the title of "General of Dhamma " to praise his wisdom and his preaching of Dharma.
Tuesday, June 30, 2015