[Buddha-l] Return of blasphemy?

[Dan Lusthaus]

Joy,

>But as I wrote I expect there are other things
> at stake here and that the declaration may be a bit of a Trojan horse.

Agreed.

> The one to attack for defamation for treating the Buddha as deadbeat dad
> would be Asvaghosa, although his version makes better movie material
> than the Ariyapariyesanā Sutta [MN 26] (See Jayarava's Raves
> http://jayarava.blogspot.com/2011/07/buddhas-biography.html).

One way a modern adherent of a tradition deals with an uncomfortable event 
or issue in the past is to deny it really happened. I think it's a bit 
harder to dismiss Buddha's family and child, since Rahula and his 
step-mother do play roles in numerous places elsewhere in the Pali canon --  
one would have to explain away all those occurrences, or accuse the 
composers/redactors of deviously inventing and scattering all those 
references just to cover up their own invention. In the Nikayas especially, 
on those few occasions when the Buddha explains some current issue by 
referring back to his own earlier life and experience, those recountings are 
inevitably laconic and limited to aspects germane to the current issue. 
Gathering all those supposedly autobiographical utterances would not yield 
anything close to an adequate narrative of his biography. He typically skips 
details which are then found in another talk.

As for the Ariyapariyesanā Sutta being earlier or more original than other 
Nikaya, etc. accounts -- doesn't seem to be the case, since he is using 
terms like abhidhamma and kilesa (actually saṅkilesa and saṅkilesadhamma) 
that are not usually found in the early literature. E.g., the PTS Pali-Eng. 
Dictionary, under kilesa (it has not entry for saṅkilesa) observes: "Kilesa 
(and klesa) [from kilissati] ... Its occurrence in the Piṭakas is rare; in 
later works, very frequent, where it is approx. tantamount to our terms 
lower, or unregenerate nature, sinful ..."

Even the narrative flow of the story seems odd. More commonly Buddha speaks 
in response to some issue, question or problem. In this sutta Buddha ends up 
giving this talk, whose topic is unsolicited but only occurs because Ananda 
tricks him into going to a place where Ananda has already suggested to a 
bunch of monks eager to hear Buddha speak -- which they say hasn't happened 
in awhile -- that Buddha will be there, which happens to be the house of a 
Brahman. When Buddha arrives they are already engaged in discussion -- he 
waits outside for a chance, and then with a clearing of his throat, 
interrupts and joins the shindig. And then, with no question or issue to 
address or respond to, he just launches into the benefits of leaving home 
and what it means to properly "search". Why would Ananda have to manipulate 
monks and Buddha to end up one evening in a Brahman's house just so they can 
hear Buddha speak? Too contrived.

Thanissaro Bhikkhu's tr., and an intro that addresses the question of 
whether this is an "earlier" account, is at
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.026.than.html (he point out 
how when Buddha rejoins his ascetic partners to announce he is now the 
Tathagata, the story had omitted their previous experiences together, 
expecting the audience to *already* be familiar with that, another sign that 
this is a late text, rather than early, one which presumes familiarity with 
the basic outlines, so that nonrelevant matters not directly involved in the 
current talk can be elided.

I might add, this is the same sutta that explains that just after Buddha's 
enlightenment, feeling he had accomplished what needed to be accomplished, 
he was about to pass into nirvana when Brahma Sahampati talks him into 
postponing that, that people need his teaching, and he is persuaded to hang 
around longer to spread the Dhamma. So we are not being treated to an 
historical account.

Dan