[Buddha-l] Dharmapala

[L.S. Cousins]

Dan Lusthaus wrote:

> 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.
>
>
No. They give the food to Saccaka. That's why they only get the merit 
from giving to Saccaka. Saccaka gives to the Buddha. That's why Saccaka 
gets the merit from giving to the Buddha. This is spelt out at the end. 
He is a Jain mendicant and remains one.

>> 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.
>
Yes, you are right that it is Ānanda. But it is a lead in to asking the 
Buddha to wait 'out of compassion'. I don't think it means they have not 
met before. Ānanda wants to create an opportunity for Saccaka to be helped.

The Sanskrit version has a similar idea:
tena khalu samayena Sātyakir nirgranthīputro Vaiśālyāṃ niryāti Bhagavato 
[’]ntikaṃ Bhagavantaṃ darśanāya yaduta vādārthīvādapariṣkārāya. adrākṣīd 
āyuṣmān [Ānan]{das Sātya}kiṃ nirgranthīputraṃ dūrād eva dṛṣṭvā ca punar 
Bhagavantam idam avocat: ayaṃ bhadanta Sātyakir nirgranthīputro na 
Buddhe [’]bhiprasanno na dharme na saṃghe [’]bhiprasannaḥ. sādhu 
Bhagavān Sātya[ke]{r  n}i[rgranth]ī[putrasya] . . . Sātyakir 
nirgranthīputro Bu[ddhe] [’][bh]iprasīde<d> dharme saṃghe [’]bhiprasīded.
>
> So one would have to
> assume that, Buddha not having met Saccaka before, this would precede the
> previous sutta, in which Saccaka almost died.
>
Hardly.
>
> 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.
>
That's rather an assumption. But in fact I see no problem in the 
Mahāsaccakasutta describing a later meeting.
>
>
> 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.
>
The long autobiographical sequence is found in several Majjhima suttas. 
So I doubt that you can draw any conclusions from that.

More to the point is the fact that Saccaka's question concerns the need 
to train both body and mind and suggests that the Buddha and his 
disciples train only the mind.

Asked by the Buddha what he understands is training of the body, we get 
a Jain view with specific mention of Jain (and Ājīvaka?) teachers. And 
he is not able to answer at all on the training of the mind.

There can really be no doubt that he isn't and doesn't become the 
Buddha's disciple. (Of course, according to later tradition I believe he 
becomes a monk in Ceylon and an arahat.)

Note too that he always addresses the Buddha as bho Gotama i.e. as an equal.

Lance