tiltbillings wrote:This being a section for discussing the Theravada "enlightenment"...
Is there such a thing as "Theravada enlightenment"? As opposed to what? Are you implying a taxonomy of enlightenment?
tiltbillings wrote:Attending to this, he looked deeper, without assumption into the rise and fall of all that he was, finding no thing on which to grasp - no self, no god, no assumptions to be found, the Buddha awoke.
You are setting out to prove that insight into dependent origination is a prerequisite for enlightenment, yet you do not deliver this proof. The Buddha becomes aware of dependent origination AT
the instant of enlightenment, not BEFORE
. Nobody taught him, nobody told him. Therefore Gautama could never have become a Buddha if it depended on PRIOR
knowledge of paticcasamuppada or in fact the PRIOR
existence of a Buddhasasana. The same is true for any Paccekabuddha. To say that it does is simply illogical.
tiltbillings wrote:I have yet to see well crafted argument for such a claim...
There are at least three such arguments in this very thread. The primary reason that you don't "see" them is that you don't want
to see them. Which might be rooted in the idea that your personal chosen path is at the apex of human achievement, and that any other path is by implication inferior.
Sanghamitta wrote:While most of the Theravadins take the wiser option and leave them to it.
Now, that is revealing. Theravadins are of course always inevitably "wiser". I believe that is the gist of Sanghamitta's message.
David N. Snyder wrote:Samma-sam-buddhas and Paccekabuddhas are rare beings that come only about once every 10,000 years or more.
Is it possible to cite support for this?