The Pitfalls of Western analysis of "Dharmic Traditions"

[deepbluehum]

FWIW, according to the Theravāda Paṭisambhidāmagga a buddha has the following knowledges and abilities not shared by arhat disciples:

• knowledge of the penetration of other beings' faculties
• knowledge of other beings' biases and underlying tendancies
• knowledge of the twin miracle*
• knowledge of the attainment of great compassion
• omniscience & unobstructed knowledge

The Theravāda commentaries also differentiate between sammāsambodhi, paccekabodhi, and sāvakabodhi. Accordingly, a mahābodhisatta develops the perfections, etc., to a greater degree in order to realize sammāsambodhi.


*i.e. the ability to produce fire and water from various parts of the body, as well as walk amid an aura of colors while a created image of his body sits or lies down, etc.

The suttas that Tiltbilings cites in his thread refutes these commentarial threads.

[Malcolm]

FWIW, according to the Theravāda Paṭisambhidāmagga a buddha has the following knowledges and abilities not shared by arhat disciples:

• knowledge of the penetration of other beings' faculties
• knowledge of other beings' biases and underlying tendancies
• knowledge of the twin miracle*
• knowledge of the attainment of great compassion
• omniscience & unobstructed knowledge

The Theravāda commentaries also differentiate between sammāsambodhi, paccekabodhi, and sāvakabodhi. Accordingly, a mahābodhisatta develops the perfections, etc., to a greater degree in order to realize sammāsambodhi.


*i.e. the ability to produce fire and water from various parts of the body, as well as walk amid an aura of colors while a created image of his body sits or lies down, etc.

The suttas that Tiltbilings cites in his thread refutes these commentarial threads.

No, actually they don't.

If so, then you have to ask why the Arhat Mogallana was forced to ask the Buddha where his mother had taken rebirth, since his "divine" eye was insufficiently strong to see where she had gone.

[deepbluehum]

deepbluehum,

You did not get my point of questioning your definition of "Kshatriyas", so I will make it more clear here. Were "Kshatriyas" Indo-Aryans(Caucasians) or Native Dravidians and Austro-Asiatics? Besides, you are only taking the "Brahmanic" definition of these caste terms, which is really absurd considering that their influence in India was only limited to the North Western region. A Brahmin would only call an Indo-Aryan king as "Kshatriy" which is why Greek, Chinese or Persian kings are not called "Kshatriyas". And this is the same reason why the Nandas, Mauryas, Palas, are recorded as "Shudras" by them. When even Ashoka is recorded as "Shudra", by these minority groups who had no real influence during his time, how can you take this perception and standard of social classes (of the Indo-Aryans) as a basis to explain Buddhist social dynamics especially when the vast majority of Indians did not have any castes? I have visited many famous Buddhist caves and the are inscriptions usually in most caves about the laymen and women who donated for the construction of the caves. You would be surprised that no caste of the lay men or women is mentioned with the only exception of "Brahmin"!

Clearly, there where Kshatriyas and Brahmins in Buddha's world and he commented about it a lot. What you are describing is power and influence the Kshatriya and Brahmin had regarding birthright. The issue is bringing Vedism into the mix. It's fine they want to leave behind the manifold of that heritage. It has no business in buddha-dharma.

[pueraeternus]

The suttas that Tiltbilings cites in his thread refutes these commentarial threads.

Tilt cites only the suttas that suit his cause. He basically cut and paste various portions of the long e-sangha discussion he had with me, but only his replies, and not my refutations from other more relevant Pali suttas.

[Malcolm]

The suttas that Tiltbilings cites in his thread refutes these commentarial threads.

Tilt cites only the suttas that suit his cause.

Yes, like most one-sided polemicists.

[deepbluehum]

What you guys are willfully ignoring is that the bodhi for an arahant is the same as a buddha, an arahant is an arahant sammasambuddha. The Buddha clearly refutes any cognitive obscuration.

[deepbluehum]

No, actually they don't.

If so, then you have to ask why the Arhat Mogallana was forced to ask the Buddha where his mother had taken rebirth, since his "divine" eye was insufficiently strong to see where she had gone.

Then you have to ask how come buddha had to ask where had all his students gone after he came out of his cave retreat, when he didn't know they had killed themselves.

You can ask a lot of questions.

[deepbluehum]

The suttas that Tiltbilings cites in his thread refutes these commentarial threads.

Tilt cites only the suttas that suit his cause. He basically cut and paste various portions of the long e-sangha discussion he had with me, but only his replies, and not my refutations from other more relevant Pali suttas.

I'm waiting.

[deepbluehum]

The suttas that Tiltbilings cites in his thread refutes these commentarial threads.

Tilt cites only the suttas that suit his cause.

Yes, like most one-sided polemicists.

That's what you are, Mr. Dzogchen.

[Malcolm]

What you guys are willfully ignoring is that the bodhi for an arahant is the same as a buddha, an arahant is an arahant sammasambuddha. The Buddha clearly refutes any cognitive obscuration.

No, I understand that that is how it may seem to be defined in the Nikāyas and the Agamas depending on how one chooses to read things, but the Śravaka canon is not definitive for me [though it may be for you] and then there is the fact that in general the Nikāya schools do not comment on things in this way indicates that Tilt's POV is a modernist revisionism.

In short, all samyaksaṃbuddhas are arhats, but not all arhats are saṃyaksaṃbuddhas.

Śravaka-bodhi is not the same thing as the bodhi of an bodhisattva or that of a buddha. Please see the Abhisamaya-alaṃkara.

[Malcolm]

Yes, like most one-sided polemicists.

That's what you are, Mr. Dzogchen.

Unlike you, I am not pursuing a polemical agenda. I am happy to let people practice whatever the hell they want without telling them they are wrong, or screwed up, etc. If people want to believe that Arhats are omniscient, that's ok with me. I just don't believe it, and I don't think their citations or reasonings are sound. But I sure am not really that interested in arguing about it, I have better things to do with my time.

M

[pueraeternus]

What you guys are willfully ignoring is that the bodhi for an arahant is the same as a buddha, an arahant is an arahant sammasambuddha. The Buddha clearly refutes any cognitive obscuration.

What you and Tilt are willfully ignoring is that not even Shariputra comes close to the vast range of the Buddha's omniscience, and he acknowledges it himself. If even the Chief Disciple Foremost in Wisdom can't match the Buddha in wisdom, how can anyone say that Arhats comes close to a Buddha's range? The Buddha even chided Shariputra once for not realizing that a dying upasika could have been brought into the noble path (Shariputra just guided him to the Brahma realms for rebirth).

What Tilt refers to as bodhi is really just the fact that both Arhats and Buddhas are released from samsara forever.

[Malcolm]

No, actually they don't.

If so, then you have to ask why the Arhat Mogallana was forced to ask the Buddha where his mother had taken rebirth, since his "divine" eye was insufficiently strong to see where she had gone.

Then you have to ask how come buddha had to ask where had all his students gone after he came out of his cave retreat, when he didn't know they had killed themselves.

You can ask a lot of questions.

It is quite simple. According to the Nikaya tradition, the Buddha's omniscience is only operative when he chooses to direct his attention towards a given phenomena -- a Buddha is not omniscient 24/7, according to the Nikayas. Nevertheless, the Buddha's six abhijñās are completely unobstructed and fully developed. The development of the six abhijñās are not necessary for an Arhat, and even then, never can develop to the full extent of a Buddhas. Why? They lack the requisite past-life training as a bodhisattva.

[pueraeternus]

The suttas that Tiltbilings cites in his thread refutes these commentarial threads.

Tilt cites only the suttas that suit his cause. He basically cut and paste various portions of the long e-sangha discussion he had with me, but only his replies, and not my refutations from other more relevant Pali suttas.

I'm waiting.

You really just need 1 sutta - read the Sampasadaniya Sutta. It seems only the Rhys version is available online, and it's a little archaic. If you have Bhikkhu Bodhi's Digha Nikaya (you ought to, since the Nikaya teachings agree with you), that version is much better.

For now, refer to this:
http://dharmafarer.org/wordpress/wp-con ... 8-piya.pdf

The important point:

sariputtalionroar.jpg (82.46 KiB) Viewed 726 times

So as you can see, Shariputra acknowledges that he only gets the Drift of the Dhamma and that he does not comprehend the mind of the Buddha at all, and that no one surpasses the Buddha. So do you now, get the drift?

[pueraeternus]

The suttas that Tiltbilings cites in his thread refutes these commentarial threads.

Tilt cites only the suttas that suit his cause.

Yes, like most one-sided polemicists.

I remembered some of the Theras at E-Sangha took him to task for his views. One of them was a moderator (Dhamma-something).

[deepbluehum]

Yes, like most one-sided polemicists.

That's what you are, Mr. Dzogchen.

Unlike you, I am not pursuing a polemical agenda. I am happy to let people practice whatever the hell they want without telling them they are wrong, or screwed up, etc. If people want to believe that Arhats are omniscient, that's ok with me. I just don't believe it, and I don't think their citations or reasonings are sound. But I sure am not really that interested in arguing about it, I have better things to do with my time.

M

All you do is argue online.

[deepbluehum]

What you and Tilt are willfully ignoring is that not even Shariputra comes close to the vast range of the Buddha's omniscience, and he acknowledges it himself.

The Buddha is peerless. That's true. But the bodhi is the same. That's a crucial point that the Buddha mentions. There's no cognitive obscuration. The Buddha has developed great powers. That's something else. There's no one in history that matches Buddha.

[deepbluehum]

For now, refer to this:
http://dharmafarer.org/wordpress/wp-con ... 8-piya.pdf

The important point:

sariputtalionroar.jpg

So as you can see, Shariputra acknowledges that he only gets the Drift of the Dhamma and that he does not comprehend the mind of the Buddha at all, and that no one surpasses the Buddha. So do you now, get the drift?

This is interesting, but doesn't really prove your point, because Sariputta did not have developed psychic powers. Maha-moggallana did. This is about the question of those who liberated through understanding vs. those who are liberated through jhana and understanding. Sariputtas shortcomings do not establish all Arahants were deficient or had shortcomings. Maha-moggallana travelled with the Buddha all over the universe.

[pueraeternus]

But the bodhi is the same. That's a crucial point that the Buddha mentions. There's no cognitive obscuration. The Buddha has developed great powers. That's something else. There's no one in history that matches Buddha.

This is just useless word play. When people express the hope to attain Buddhahood, they really mean to be like the Buddha in every aspect, especially his matchless ability to turn the Dharma. People like Tilt keeps talking about this Bodhi, in order to avoid the real topic at hand when people compare the fruit of a Buddha and an Arhat.

It's like when people compare the cooks in a diner and cooks in a top class restaurant, and then someone says the crucial thing is to be able to cook. Yes, we all know that both cooks in a diner and cooks in a top class restaurant can cook, but that is not the point.

[pueraeternus]

For now, refer to this:
http://dharmafarer.org/wordpress/wp-con ... 8-piya.pdf

The important point:

sariputtalionroar.jpg

So as you can see, Shariputra acknowledges that he only gets the Drift of the Dhamma and that he does not comprehend the mind of the Buddha at all, and that no one surpasses the Buddha. So do you now, get the drift?

This is interesting, but doesn't really prove your point, because Sariputta did not have developed psychic powers. Maha-moggallana did. This is about the question of those who liberated through understanding vs. those who are liberated through jhana and understanding. Sariputtas shortcomings do not establish all Arahants were deficient or had shortcomings. Maha-moggallana travelled with the Buddha all over the universe.

Both Shariputra and Maudgalyayana are ubhayatobhagavimukta-Arhats. That is why when Sariputta encountered that group of Arhats who freed themselves through dry insight, upon scanning their minds he was curious that they didn't have the higher knowledges and asked them how they did it. If he is one of them, he wouldn't (and can't anyway) have to do that.

You really should brush up more on the Theravada teachings if you want to discuss them here. After a while, you will realize that a lot of the modern revisionist nonsense out there have no merit.