Study/The Debate Between Mipham and Pari Rabsel: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 15:37, 22 April 2024

Viehbeck 2014 p.99-210

@@ Line 397: / Line 397: @@
 ''nyon mongs med kyang de dag la''// ''las kyi nus pa mthong ba yin''//<ref>BCA (P, fol. 37a3–4; D, fol. 32b3).</ref>
 }}
-Śāntideva argues that, even though the ''kleśas'' are abandoned, there is still "a capacity, a potential (''śākti''), that brings forward a[nother] fruit."<ref>BCAP 438.16–17: ''sāmarthyaṃ phaladānaṃ prati śaktiḥ''/.</ref> Hence, as ''karman'' is not completely extinguished, this cannot be true liberation. For whom is this the case? Which state of mind does Śāntideva refer to exactly? According to his commentator Prajñakaramati, this refers to people who are devoid of ''kleśas'', and, specifically, to Arhats, such as Maudgalyāyana or Aṅgulīmāla.<ref>BCAP 438.15–16: ''teṣu prahīṇakleśeṣu'' [''prahīṇaklaśeṣu'']/ ''āryamaudgalyāyanāryāṅgulīmālaprabhṛteṣu''/.</ref> As will be seen later, the Dge lugs tradition strongly objects to relating this passage to Arhats, and the question of to whom Śāntideva is referring in his explanations can be seen as the key problem in the controversies between Mi pham and Rab gsal. The following verses in the BCA dwell further on the issue of whether liberation is possible for those people who have abandoned ''kleśas'' – be they true Arhats according to the understanding of Prajñākaramati and later Mi pham, or be they Arhats in name only, as understood in the Dge lugs tradition. BCA IX.47ab addresses a possible objection:
+Śāntideva argues that, even though the ''kleśas'' are abandoned, there is still "a capacity, a potential (''śākti''), that brings forward a[nother] fruit."<ref>BCAP 438.16–17: ''sāmarthyaṃ phaladānaṃ prati śaktiḥ''/.</ref> Hence, as ''karman'' is not completely extinguished, this cannot be true liberation. For whom is this the case? Which state of mind does Śāntideva refer to exactly? According to his commentator Prajñakaramati, this refers to people who are devoid of ''kleśas'', and, specifically, to Arhats, such as Maudgalyāyana or Aṅgulīmāla.<ref>BCAP 438.15–16: ''teṣu prahīṇakleśeṣu'' [''prahīṇaklaśeṣu'']/ ''āryamaudgalyāyanāryāṅgulīmālaprabhṛteṣu''/.</ref> As will be seen later, the Dge lugs tradition strongly objects to relating this passage to Arhats, and the question of to whom Śāntideva is referring in his explanations can be seen as the key problem in the controversies between Mi pham and Rab gsal.
+The following verses in the BCA dwell further on the issue of whether liberation is possible for those people who have abandoned ''kleśas'' – be they true Arhats according to the understanding of Prajñākaramati and later Mi pham, or be they Arhats in name only, as understood in the Dge lugs tradition. BCA IX.47ab addresses a possible objection:
 {{QuoteCite
 		|quote-text=Objection: It is ascertained that desire, the cause, does not exist at that time.