The Pitfalls of Western analysis of "Dharmic Traditions"

[dharmagoat]

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.

If being a cook in a diner precludes one from ever cooking in a top class restaurant, then I agree that anyone considering a career as a cook needs to carefully consider what path they are to take. If not, does it really matter? The important thing is to learn the basics first, like boiling an egg just right.

[pueraeternus]

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.

If being a cook in a diner precludes one from ever cooking in a top class restaurant, then I agree that anyone considering a career as a cook needs to carefully consider what path they are to take. If not, does it really matter? The important thing is to learn the basics first, like boiling an egg just right.

It does not matter if all one wants to do is simple cooking. But that is totally different to saying that a chef at a Michellin star restaurant is the same as the cook at Brooklyn Diner around the corner. That is the point.

[dharmagoat]

It does not matter if all one wants to do is simple cooking. But that is totally different to saying that a chef at a Michellin star restaurant is the same as the cook at Brooklyn Diner around the corner. That is the point.

Both are qualified to cook the food they serve.

[deepbluehum]

matchless ability to turn the Dharma...

It is matchless. Whatever skills Buddha had, they were had by developing the same faculty of wisdom. There's nothing missing in the teachings. So it's not useless word play if you haven't established your point.

[pueraeternus]

It does not matter if all one wants to do is simple cooking. But that is totally different to saying that a chef at a Michellin star restaurant is the same as the cook at Brooklyn Diner around the corner. That is the point.

Both are qualified to cook the food they serve.

Yes, and the quality is the key here. The quality is different.

[deepbluehum]

It does not matter if all one wants to do is simple cooking. But that is totally different to saying that a chef at a Michellin star restaurant is the same as the cook at Brooklyn Diner around the corner. That is the point.

This is a bad analogy. The Arahant is working at the Michellin star joint.

[dharmagoat]

Yes, and the quality is the key here. The quality is different.

But that is irrelevant. Are we restaurant critics or aspiring cooks?

[pueraeternus]

matchless ability to turn the Dharma...

It is matchless. Whatever skills Buddha had, they were had by developing the same faculty of wisdom.

Buddhas develop the faculty to a depth that no Arhats can match. And since Arhats reach the stage of no more learning before they even get further, their various faculties are inferior to the Buddhas. The only thing they have in common is that they are freed from samsaric rebirth.

There's nothing missing in the teachings. So it's not useless word play if you haven't established your point.

You talk just like Tilt and block off all other information. There is nothing more I can say to you if you refuse to even come up with a proper counter.

[pueraeternus]

It does not matter if all one wants to do is simple cooking. But that is totally different to saying that a chef at a Michellin star restaurant is the same as the cook at Brooklyn Diner around the corner. That is the point.

This is a bad analogy. The Arahant is working at the Michellin star joint.

That is what you think. All I and others here have said can be simply drawn from the Pali suttas.

[pueraeternus]

Yes, and the quality is the key here. The quality is different.

But that is irrelevant. Are we restaurant critics or aspiring cooks?

It is relevant if one is comparing the two.

[deepbluehum]

Buddhas develop the faculty to a depth that no Arhats can match. And since Arhats reach the stage of no more learning before they even get further, their various faculties are inferior to the Buddhas.

So you think you reach a limit in dharma where, once you cross this line, you freeze? But obviously you have some Mahayanist in mind who matches the Buddha?

[deepbluehum]

You talk just like Tilt and block off all other information. There is nothing more I can say to you if you refuse to even come up with a proper counter.

What you don't get is that you haven't come up with a proper counter. I mentioned Maha-moggallana who had the faculties Buddha had.

[deepbluehum]

You can see in today's time many Theravadins who have published vast amounts of literature on dharma. They are not limited in their ability to expound on the dharma.

[deepbluehum]

It does not matter if all one wants to do is simple cooking. But that is totally different to saying that a chef at a Michellin star restaurant is the same as the cook at Brooklyn Diner around the corner. That is the point.

This is a bad analogy. The Arahant is working at the Michellin star joint.

That is what you think. All I and others here have said can be simply drawn from the Pali suttas.

Fail.

[dharmagoat]

Yes, and the quality is the key here. The quality is different.

But that is irrelevant. Are we restaurant critics or aspiring cooks?

It is relevant if one is comparing the two.

There's the pitfall. A skilfully boiled egg is the same no matter who prepares it. While one is learning the basics of cooking, it makes no difference whether one's tutor works in a diner or a high class restaurant.

[pueraeternus]

Buddhas develop the faculty to a depth that no Arhats can match. And since Arhats reach the stage of no more learning before they even get further, their various faculties are inferior to the Buddhas.

So you think you reach a limit in dharma where, once you cross this line, you freeze? But obviously you have some Mahayanist in mind who matches the Buddha?

Obviously? What is obvious is that you do not know enough about the suttas, pick and choose those you like and come up with your pet theory (granted, you seem to have just followed whatever Tilt said and it is really his theory). Even when presented with sutric citations you don't come up with a proper counter.

[pueraeternus]

You talk just like Tilt and block off all other information. There is nothing more I can say to you if you refuse to even come up with a proper counter.

What you don't get is that you haven't come up with a proper counter. I mentioned Maha-moggallana who had the faculties Buddha had.

And I countered that Shariputra had those powers too - so your counter is moot.

[pueraeternus]

There's the pitfall. A skilfully boiled egg is the same no matter who prepares it. While one is learning the basics of cooking, it makes no difference whether one's tutor works in a diner or a high class restaurant.

But it is not the basics that we are talking about here. We are talking about people aspiring to be a great chef.

[dharmagoat]

There's the pitfall. A skilfully boiled egg is the same no matter who prepares it. While one is learning the basics of cooking, it makes no difference whether one's tutor works in a diner or a high class restaurant.

But it is not the basics that we are talking about here. We are talking about people aspiring to be a great chef.

Are we? What if they are better suited to working in a diner? What if working in a diner provides valuable work experience for someone aspiring to be a great chef? Anyway, why are diner chefs not to be considered great chefs?

[Jnana]

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

I'm not so sure that they do, but that really wasn't the point of my reply. The point was that the Mahāyāna conceptions of bodhi developed in the same general historical milieu as the Theravāda commentaries. In that thought-world the ideas regarding the omniscience of a buddha and samyaksaṃbodhi of a buddha being superior to that of an arhat were ubiquitous and uncontested.