[Buddha-l] Abdhidharma vindicated once again

[JKirkpatrick]

Since Paul Griffiths has already been pulled into this, let me
continue by noting that what you describe sounds like what he
calls (in his subsequent book, _On Being Buddha_), the push to
maximal greatness. I don't have the book at hand, but the idea is
something like any property that is considered important to a
religious community will be attributed maximally to those the
tradition considers maximally great.

BTW, Buddha doesn't come off much better in this later book than
nirodha-samapatti does in _On Being Mindless_. Especially fun is
the section on What It Feels Like To Be a Bat/What It Feels Like
To Be Buddha, in which it feels like nothing to be a Buddha: “We
know all that there is to know about what it’s like to be a
Buddha precisely because there is nothing to know” (p. 192).

Jamie
----------------------
Hi Jamie

I never came across Griffiths until he surfaced here. What's his
Buddha bag anyway? Zen 
maybe? 

As for the assertion "something like any property that is
considered important to a religious community will be attributed
maximally to those the tradition considers maximally great."
That strikes me as a  pretty circular statement. (But then
circularity is familiar in religious thought.) 
It doesn't explain maximal greatness, whereas my sociological
surmise CAN explain it, although it's unknown if it DOES explain
it. 
Looking at the nirodha-samaapatti concept--it seems to have
changed over time, as between what Dan brought out-- from the
Pali suttas and from what Ashvagosha said later. There seems to
have been proliferation--prapanca--of the idea and its relatives
over the centuries, as with other various traditions (e.g.,
compare Lotus Sutra concepts with Pali sutta concepts). Plus ça
change, plus c'est la même chose.....doesn't always hold, does it
:)

Cheers, Joanna