[Buddha-l] Ariyapariyesana

[Dan Lusthaus]

(continued -- #3)

Lance, while challenging the characterization by the PTS Pali-Eng. 
Dictionary of the term kilesa as infrequent in the early texts, but more in 
the later literature, writes:

> In fact, it seems more likly to be a pre-Buddhist term. It
> probably has its original meaning of 'affliction' or 'disturbance'. The
> metaphor is probably that of a pool which is disturbed so that you can't
> see clearly. Later the metaphor of a pool which has become dirty is
> common.

The Kilesa sutta of the Samyutta Nikaya, which I cited in the first message, 
treats the term as something that infuses itself into something, spoiling 
it, so that that original thing -- gold, the mind -- loses its natural 
abilities and capacities. Since that is closer to "the metaphor of a pool 
which has become dirty," would that entail that the Kilesa sutta is a later 
text, reflecting a later development?

>Whether this is anything to do with concepts of 'sin' depends on
> your definition.

I vote we exile the word "sin" from any discussions of Buddhist thought, and 
deny it is an acceptable rendering for any Buddhist term.

Lance then responds to my characterization of Ananda setting up the meeting 
between Buddha and the monks as "tricking" him.

> It is Ānanda's job to arrange things for the Buddha. In this case he
> asks the monks to go to a location near where the Buddha will go to
> bathe. There is no question asked because the Buddha has been invited to
> speak. It is quite silly to talk of Ānanda tricking the Buddha. That's
> just fanciful imagination.

Ananda is his personal manager, arranging his engagements, the guy one goes 
through to get access, etc. What the Ariyapariyesana sutta tells us, though, 
is the following:

1. The monks approach Ananda, asking to have some face to face time with the 
Buddha because it's been a long time since they heard him speak.

2. Ananda tells them to be a certain Brahmin's house that evening, Rammaka 
by name, promising them that the Buddha will be there.

3. Buddha, after his morning alms rounds, tells Ananda he'd like to go here 
and there (including a bath at a river).

**4. After the bathing, Ananda suggests to Buddha that they go visit the 
Brahman, since he's a nice guy who likes the Dhamma. Buddha agrees to the 
suggestion by remaining silent. Ananda does NOT tell him that there'll be a 
bunch of monks there eagerly awaiting his presence and a chance to talk to 
him.

5. When Ananda and Buddha arrive at the Brahmin's house, everyone inside is 
already engaged in a discussion. Buddha waits outside for a lull, and then 
announces himself by clearing his throat.

6. He comes in and asks them what they have been talking about. They say 
they were talking about him. He takes that as his cue to launch into his 
autobiographical account. One gets the impression that he is now old, and is 
recounting his youth and earlier experiences to reassure young monks that 
their choice to become monks was sound.

Since, per #4, Ananda did not tell Buddha WHY they should go to Rammaka's 
house, in fact, the reason he gives is a best a partial truth, it is clear 
he is manipulating Buddha and events. (If you prefer "manipulates" to 
"tricks" that's fine.) I think that's a charming detail, and gives us 
probably a good glimpse of how things looked to young monks in the Sangha 
who found access to the Buddha difficult. It also gives some additional 
nuances to those passages where Buddha is extolling solitude, avoiding noise 
and crowds, etc. It also reminds one of other accounts where, when groups of 
monks become rancorous, Buddha threatens to walk, telling his subordinates 
to get the monks under control or he's leaving. He treasured his personal 
time, and his quiet time.

> I would rather say that material from a number of sources has been
> collected into an oral chant for memorization and placed in several
> suttas. Whether this happened already in the lifetime of the Buddha,
> just after or at some later point, is open to debate.

That has been the traditional view. I suggest that a judicious reading of 
Analayo's treatment of the Vatthupama-sutta (and I omitted several sections, 
as well as his very illuminating, profuse footnotes) indicates much more 
complicated processes were at work. If one patiently works through both 
volumes of his work, which goes in order from the first to the last sutta of 
the received MN in a similar manner, one finds more than some templates and 
modules -- oral or otherwise -- being shifted around, though that too is 
obviously ubiquitous.

Concerning Brahma's intervention, convincing Buddha to teach, Lance writes:

> There is no suggestion that the Buddha was 'about to pass into nirvana'.
> That's more imagination.

There are several accounts of that intervention in the Pali texts, and I 
would argue that the implication that Buddha was ready to just slip away is 
a fair reading of them, and one which, in any event, does not originate with 
me.

(still one more to come)

Dan