[Buddha-l] Dharmapala

[Dan Lusthaus]

Lance wrote:
> The commentary is sanitizing the text. They feel uncomfortable with the
> fact that Saccaka doesn't convert. So they make up the story of his 
> sisters.

That's clever and plausible. :-) At least we seem to agree on one thing: 
Commentaries sometimes sanitize the root texts due to discomfort.

>That Saccaka remains a Jain monk is
> absolutely clear from the conclusion where the Licchavis donate food to
> Saccaka and he then donates it to the Buddha.

Pardon my ignorance, but can you explain further why this proves Saccaka has 
remained a Jain? Since when is giving food to the Buddha a sign of being 
non-Buddhist? He remains a lay follower, and they feed the monks.

> As for the following "Greater" Saccaka sutta, it begins precisely with
> the Buddha declaring that Saccaka wishes to discredit the Buddha, the
> Dhamma and the Sangha.
> (eso kho, bhante, avaṇṇakāmo buddhassa, avaṇṇakāmo dhammassa, avaṇṇakāmo
> saṅghassa). That's hardly presenting him as a disciple.

Actually, it is Ananda describing Saccaka this way to Buddha, as if 
informing him about someone he's never met before. So one would have to 
assume that, Buddha not having met Saccaka before, this would precede the 
previous sutta, in which Saccaka almost died. But in that one, Saccaka was 
seeking out the Buddha to debate him for the first time since he only knew 
of the Buddha's teachings indirectly by the report of one of the disciples 
whom he interrogates before deciding to gather up the Licchivis and debating 
Buddha (whose doctrine he thinks he can easily refute).

Both suttas cannot be recounting the first time the two meet.

Thus I conclude that the introductory comment by Ananda is a redactors 
framing device, one which causes problems. The reason I characterized that 
sutta as feeling like teacher-disciple conversation is that it provides one 
of the rare and significant occasions when Buddha talks autobiographically 
about his personal experiences prior to his Awakening. It's not the only 
sutta where he does this, but it suggests -- at least to me -- a certain 
intimacy between the conversants, something he wouldn't and didn't typically 
talk about on most occasions.

Dan