Why didn't the Buddha teach around the world?

[retrofuturist]

Greetings,

If I can reply on behalf of Paul..

Yeah, you'd better... 'cos I'm keeping out of this one.

Metta,
Retro.

[Shonin]

The Buddha defines some of the powers in the suttas. He not only demonstrated them but he also listed the type of psychic powers that are available through jhanas. I can't recall which suttas so can't provide the links. You'll gonna have to search it and read it for yourself.

And although some powers are mention in the Suttas, it is better not to speculate the extent of his powers as it has been mentioned earlier that would be a waste of time.

Your logic is: it is mentioned in some texts that were written down some 2300 years ago from originals (now lost) of texts that were transcribed from an oral tradition that continued some 100-200 years after Buddha's death. This isn't proof of anything. There are many fantastical tales that come out of the Indian sub-continent even now.

[PeterB]

Sorry Paul..I thought that as grasshopper appeared to be answering mine and quoting it that there was a Peter/Paul mix up. I blame those Popes..

[PeterB]

The Buddha defines some of the powers in the suttas. He not only demonstrated them but he also listed the type of psychic powers that are available through jhanas. I can't recall which suttas so can't provide the links. You'll gonna have to search it and read it for yourself.

And although some powers are mention in the Suttas, it is better not to speculate the extent of his powers as it has been mentioned earlier that would be a waste of time.

Your logic is: it is mentioned in some texts that were written down some 2300 years ago from originals (now lost) of texts that were transcribed from an oral tradition that continued some 100-200 years after Buddha's death. This isn't proof of anything. There are many fantastical tales that come out of the Indian sub-continent even now.

What is unique to Buddhadhamma is D.O The 4NT the 8FP.etc They are not found anywhere else.
Iddhis, Devas, supernatural elephants etc are found in Jainism as well as the various Vedic religions and so on.
All described and portrayed in just the same way.
Personally I am amazed that anyone confronted with the sheer beauty and elegance and profundity of the doctrine of Dependant Origination should want custard with it.

[Shonin]

If supernatural skills are undigestable, then I am not sure how rebirth, moving across different realms in different lives, delayed workings of karma-vipaka and nibbana itself can be digestable. They all, at least to me, seem like from the same basket. Just for the record though, according to scripture, flying in air and through walls is not a skill unique to Buddhas.

My acceptance and practice of Dhamma is not dependent on pure-faith-based belief in any unverified phenomena. However, Nibbana can be glimpsed in this life. Whether there is such a thing as 'final nibbana' I can't be certain, but eliminating ignorance, craving, aversion and suffering here and now in this life is enough for me to practice.

In short: it works! I don't need to wait until my next life or until I gain the power of flight in order to find that out.

[grasshopper]

Haha...my apologies guys for the Paul/Peter mix up. I have no idea where the name Paul came up; may an unknown retrospective influence from a futurist.

Being an agnostic, I neither accept these flying stories/rebirth/nibbana stories nor reject them. Was merely trying to prove a point that they could be in the same league, so to speak. But you know, fantastical stories come out of all continents. One American fantasy story was: Iraq has Weapons of Mass Destruction An Australian one: John Howards candidacy for the ICC Presidentship/Vice-presidentship hehe.

[Shonin]

Personally I am amazed that anyone confronted with the sheer beauty and elegance and profundity of the doctrine of Dependant Origination should want custard with it.

Interesting that you should say that, as personally I find aspects of it rather hard to make sense of. But that's another topic I think.

[kc2dpt]

Who gets to define what powers he does and does not have?

He does. He talks about his powers in the scriptures.
Let me ask you a counter question:
Why do YOU get to take away the powers he said he had?

[Shonin]

Why do YOU get to take away the powers he said he had?

I didn't. Saying something is or is not the case and it being the case are not the same. Arguments based purely on the authority of the speaker are vacuous.

My turn: do you really have as much problem with the concepts of evidence and fallibility as your question would imply? What gives you the power to take away Santa Clause's existence?

[Anicca]

Howdy All!
Couldn't find the Santa Claus Sutta but regardless the (fact or folklore) of supernatural powers and beings permeates the suttas. There is a reason that monks were banned from the public display of said (powers or flights of fantasy):
Of all the abhiññas, only the power to end the asava was central to the cessation of suffering.

In the following sutta Buddha both praises their use and condemns their distraction. They could be used to enhance instruction and condemned to confound the public. If we stay central to the teachings there is no need to enter into these arguments - why waste the time and energy?

I believe the devisiveness displayed in this thread underscores the genius of the Buddha when he says:

Seeing this drawback to the miracle of psychic power, Kevatta, I feel horrified, humiliated, and disgusted with the miracle of psychic power.

DN 11 Kevatta (Kevaddha) Sutta: To Kevatta

Metta

[PeterB]

I agree. There simply is no point arguing about the existence of that which even if it exists the Buddha himself said is not condusive to Enlightenment. It seems to just descend into point scoring on a point of principle.
Iddhis, Devas, non human Rebirth ...no one one was ever Enlightened by the consideration of such matters. And I think it safe to assume that one one was ever prevented from Enlightenment by a lack of consideration of such issues.

[kc2dpt]

I think the OP question is a fair one and I'm glad to see it has received some intelligent speculation in reply. I like most the answer regarding focusing his efforts to establish a community. That makes good sense to me.

I think answering with "Because it was too far to walk, dummy" is unhelpful and, frankly, infantile. If you don't want to talk about Buddha powers as they are described in the scriptures then no one is forcing you. There are lots of other threads you can participate in.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Shonin,

Why do YOU get to take away the powers he said he had?

I didn't. Saying something is or is not the case and it being the case are not the same. Arguments based purely on the authority of the speaker are vacuous.

My turn: do you really have as much problem with the concepts of evidence and fallibility as your question would imply? What gives you the power to take away Santa Clause's existence?

I understand the point you're trying to make here with regards to argumentation, but the reality is that the Sutta Pitaka is considered authoritative (either in full, or at least most of it) by the majority of Theravadins, and to that extent, it is perfectly legitimate for people to construct arguments from it in the General Theravada forum. In this sub-forum there needn't be any onus on participants to justify the validity of direct sutta references or examples which they draw from the suttas. If you don't consider them authoritative then that's for you to decide for yourself in accordance with your own personal criteria - but be mindful that others don't need to share your criteria.

Metta,
Retro.

[Shonin]

I understand the point you're trying to make here with regards to argumentation, but the reality is that the Sutta Pitaka is considered authoritative (either in full, or at least most of it) by the majority of Theravadins, and to that extent, it is perfectly legitimate for people to construct arguments from it in the General Theravada forum. In this sub-forum there needn't be any onus on participants to justify the validity of direct sutta references or examples which they draw from the suttas. If you don't consider them authoritative then that's for you to decide for yourself in accordance with your own personal criteria - but be mindful that others don't need to share your criteria.

My interest is primarily in reality itself, thus I don't consider any text or authority figure infallible. (Nor, did the Buddha BTW, see the Kalama Sutta). Evidence for me is cumulative and cross-referenced.

I was simply responding to the question "Why do YOU get to take away the powers he said he had?". And I did so of course according to the principles of argument that I employ. I have not insisted that the onus is on anyone else to do anything nor have I insisted that others share my criteria. (Being limited to scriptural argumentation is, I would argue, why Buddha not teaching around the world seems to be puzzling in the first place). So this is not a case of me being intolerant or failing to understand other people's criteria as you say. Of course I am going to respond in terms of the criteria that I employ - is this not acceptable?

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Shonin,

I have not insisted that the onus is in anyone else to do anything not have I insisted that others share my criteria. (Being limited to scriptural argumentation is, I would argue, why Buddha not teaching around the world seems to be puzzling in the first place). So this is not a case of me being intolerant or failing to understand other people's criteria as you say. Of course I am going to respond in terms of the criteria that I employ - is this not acceptable?

Using that Santa Claus analogy as if it was equally applicable was pushing it, that's all.

Metta,
Retro.