Ananda's appeal to the Buddha in the Mahaparinibbana Sutta

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Individual,

Lastly, the Digha Nikaya seems to be particularly reflective of this sort of thing. The other collections are somewhat more literal, or so I've heard.

From my readings, that seems a fair assessment.

Metta,
Retro.

[Kare]

Hi Kare

The texts are not stenographical reports of what was said and done at the actual moment. They are probably based on real events and real sayings, but they were edited before collected into Nikayas and later written down.
Sometimes the Commentaries mention the editors, as for instance in the Therigatha Commentary: Imā tisso gāthā saṅgītikārehi ṭhapitā, "These three verses were added by the editors". Here, saṅgītikārehi refers to the editors.
When reading the Pali Texts, we should remember that they have been passing through the hands of editors, and we should also ask ourselves what motives the editors may have had for inserting passages or editing the text into the shape that has reached us.
We know that Ananda had an important position. He was the personal assistant of the Buddha, which means that he always had access to him, and, still more important, he could grant or bar access to the Master for others.
How did other monks react to this? Did some of them feel envy? Did some of them grasp the opportunity for revenge by inserting passages in the Mahaparinibbanasutta intending to blame Ananda for the death of the Buddha?
It is difficult to say for sure, ... ... but my personal feeling is that these passages may be the result of editors having a chip on their shoulder against Ananda.

Do you have any evidence that supports your argument? If so, I would appreciate it you could share it with us.
Thanks

Ben

I have already given evidence for the existence of editors. They are mentioned in the commentaries. And it should be self-evident that the Buddha did not present his teachings like this: "Now, listen, guys - here I am going to give you Sutta 87 in the Majjhima Nikaya!" We see the hands of the editors clearly in the compiling and ordering of texts into the canonical collections.

Now, if we look at the Chinese Agamas, we find mainly the same doctrinal stuff as in the Pali Canon. But the arrangement of texts, chapters and paragraphs is sometimes different from the Pali Canon. This shows that different editors took different decisions. It also clearly indicates that the longer texts were not delivered in one piece, but was composed by the editors putting together shorter sayings of the Buddha and also adding their own stuff.

Next, we should read the texts with a critical eye, and not like naive believers. We should also remember that the texts were not composed in order to give readers a few thousand years ahead in time an objective and exact description of what was going on. They were composed for an contemporary audience, and they were composed for a reason. The editors probably were not mindless copying machines, but living human beings with their own views and their own intentions. Surely the main intention was to preserve the teachings of the Buddha. But we have to ask ourselves if they also had other intentions. Did they for instance try to make the teachings more convincing by adding stuff that they knew would appeal to their contemporary audiences? Did they try to lessen new converts fears of the gods by describing how gods came and paid their respects to the Buddha?

If we feel shocked by such thoughts as these, we should remember that "pious fraud" is a well-known phenomena in all religions. Believers adapt the message - often with the best of intentions, but also with intentions connected with preserving or increasing their own status and power. We would be rather naive if we thought Buddhists immune against this kind of thing - especially since we can observe it on a broader scale in the Mahayana writings. Read for instance "Text as Father", by Alan Cole, where he gives very interesting analysis of the Lotus Sutra and other Mahayana texts, showing how these were composed in order to rob the "old schools" of authority. It would of course be easy to say, "Oh, but they were Mahayana Buddhists ... Theravada Buddhists would never do such a thing!" But who would we be deceiving - except ourselves?

Therefore I think we should read with a critical eye ... not in order to belittle the Buddha, his teachings or those who preserved his teachings - but in order not to waste time and energy on those parts of the texts that were composed specifically for an audience in India two thousand years ago. The real Dhamma of the Buddha shines clearly through all that superfluous stuff anyway, and I am convinced we spend our time better on concentrating on that.

[appicchato]

[tiltbillings]

Agreed.

[retrofuturist]

Spot on.

Metta,
Retro.

[Cittasanto]

Well said Kare!

[Ceisiwr]

I quite like this passage of what you said

Next, we should read the texts with a critical eye, and not like naive believers. We should also remember that the texts were not composed in order to give readers a few thousand years ahead in time an objective and exact description of what was going on. They were composed for an contemporary audience, and they were composed for a reason. The editors probably were not mindless copying machines, but living human beings with their own views and their own intentions. Surely the main intention was to preserve the teachings of the Buddha. But we have to ask ourselves if they also had other intentions. Did they for instance try to make the teachings more convincing by adding stuff that they knew would appeal to their contemporary audiences? Did they try to lessen new converts fears of the gods by describing how gods came and paid their respects to the Buddha?

metta

[Mawkish1983]

a Buddha cannot make major decisions on his own but needs to be asked... having completely eliminated craving. He does not crave to teach or to help people, he does not crave to live. He does what is asked of him.

I like this. I don't know why, but I do. I think maybe this is a perfect way to distinguish between karuna and pity. The Buddha must have oozed karuna, but without the craving to help that would have come from pity. So much karuna that the Master became our servant, remaining here in this dukkha-filled world for years and years to teach us the dhamma simply because he was asked to. Thanks Peter. I may have interpreted this all wrong but even so it's helped me

[Fede]

Therefore I think we should read with a critical eye ... not in order to belittle the Buddha, his teachings or those who preserved his teachings - but in order not to waste time and energy on those parts of the texts that were composed specifically for an audience in India two thousand years ago. The real Dhamma of the Buddha shines clearly through all that superfluous stuff anyway, and I am convinced we spend our time better on concentrating on that.

And what means do the poor, new and unknowing studious Buddhists have, of knowing what these are?

Sometimes the indications are obvious, but at others, it's far more complicated, subtle and difficult to discern....

Therefore I guess we have to try to ascertain within our own logic and framework of discernment, what sits well and is entirely compatible with other teachings, and what appears to contradict or go against the gist of other teachings, where there appears to be conflict.

Would that be appropriate?

Maybe I'll just stick to the good ol' reliable, inarguable, definitive and unshakeable 4 and 8.....

[tiltbillings]

a Buddha cannot make major decisions on his own but needs to be asked... having completely eliminated craving. He does not crave to teach or to help people, he does not crave to live. He does what is asked of him.

I like this. I don't know why, but I do. I think maybe this is a perfect way to distinguish between karuna and pity. The Buddha must have oozed karuna, but without the craving to help that would have come from pity. So much karuna that the Master became our servant, remaining here in this dukkha-filled world for years and years to teach us the dhamma simply because he was asked to. Thanks Peter. I may have interpreted this all wrong but even so it's helped me

I did not catch that the first around. Interesting but very odd. Where does one draw the line between major decisions and minor ones? Does craving fuel only major decisions? Can one decide something without craving? Of course he decides not to act on everything asked of him, even though they are major decisions. The Buddha refused Mara's many requests after his awakening, which indicates making a major decision or two. He refused Devadatta's requests. Interesting idea. Does this warrant a separate thread?

[Jechbi]

Why would the Buddha drop hints, only to effectively go "too bad, so sad" once Ananda worked out what the Buddha was hinting about.

I don't see the sense in it, and am confused here about the Buddha's intentions (assuming of course that it is a legitimate passage... Maurice Walshe raises some serious doubts about the legitimacy of certain passages of this sutta).

A couple thoughts occurred to me on this topic as I was catching up with the Dhamma Drops thread, which included this:

Such speech as the Perfect One knows to be untrue and incorrect,
disadvantageous, and which also is unwelcome and disagreeable to
others, that he does not speak. (No need at all...)
Such speech as the Perfect One knows to be true and correct, yet
still disadvantageous, and which also is unwelcome and disagreeable
to others, that neither does he speak. (No advantage for listener!)
Such speech as the Perfect One knows to be both true and correct,
and also advantageous, yet still unwelcome & disagreeable to others,
that speech the Perfect One waits for the right time to speak!
(Correct constructive critique should fall, when it does not hurt!)
Such speech as the Perfect One knows to be untrue and incorrect,
disadvantageous, but pleasing, agreeable and welcome to others,
that he does neither speak. (Empty and false flatter is all out...)
Such speech as the Perfect One knows to be both true and correct,
but disadvantageous, though pleasing, agreeable & welcome to others,
that he does not speak. (No speech, when no advantage for listener!)
Such speech as the Perfect One knows to be both true and correct,
advantageous, and also pleasing, agreeable and welcome, that speech
the Perfect One knows and picks the exact right time to speak.
(Making well timed maximum impact of advantage for listener!)
MN 58

On the issue of whether the passage regarding Ananda is legitimate, I'd be inclined to say that it probably is, because this doesn't strike me as the kind of passage a person would go out of their way to invent and then insert. What would be the point of that?

Assuming the passage is legitimate, one must conclude that the words the Buddha spoke were "true and correct, advantageous, and also pleasing, agreeable and welcome," as well as well-timed. Ananda's reaction is not described in the passage (right afterward the two go to the Gabled Hall in the Great Forest), but I would guess that Ananda was deeply moved in a very helpful way.

Later in the sutta, the Buddha openly praises Ananda, saying Ananda is wise and has remarkable and wonderful qualities. And still later, moments before parinibbbana, the Buddha says: "Ananda, it may be that you think: 'The Teacher's instruction has ceased, now we have no teacher!' It should not be seen like this, Ananda, for what I have taught and explained to you as Dhamma and discipline will, at my passing, be your teacher."

So as I try to make sense of the remarks to Ananda as noted in the OP, the thought occurs to me that there's an underlying, implied message: whether the Buddha is physically alive in a conventional sense has no bearing on whether we have a teacher. And moreover, the physical passing away in itself is a powerful teaching about anicca, anatta and dukkha, regardless of whether it comes sooner or later on. Maybe the exact moment of death was arbitrary, and maybe Ananda's action could have influenced when that moment occurred. But in the long run, would it have made any difference? In this case, the Buddha's words seem very gentle to me. fwiw.

[tiltbillings]

Greetings,

I'm trying to work out the significance of the following passage from DN16.

Is there some lesson to be learned from it? Why would the Buddha drop hints, only to effectively go "too bad, so sad" once Ananda worked out what the Buddha was hinting about.

Like the 32 marks, the idea of omniscience, and Brahma, the idea of an awakened one living beyond a normal life span was likely common currency among the various groups and had to be dealt with. What we see with this story is a neat way of both saying our guy could have done it, and then giving a convenient, plausible excuse for not doing so.

[Jechbi]

What we see with this story is a neat way of both saying our guy could have done it, and then giving a convenient, plausible excuse for not doing so.

Yes, I can see how a person might feel a need to create a "plausible" story in order to deal with such groups, as a matter of convenience. But would this story really allay such doubts? I'm reminded of what Retro pointed out earlier:

If it was a good idea and possible he would have done it, surely... not allowing something as minor as Ananda not being able to read between the lines to be the deciding factor as to whether or not to live another 20+ years.

[tiltbillings]

But would this story really allay such doubts?

It obviously hasn't, but if such a story were constructed, as it likely was, to meet a particular need, its audience would long be gone and we are left trying to figure this out. Where we get bogged down is in the bugbear of literalism: if it is all not literally true, how can any of it be true? What must we take as being literally true in the texts? Human life-spans dropping to 5 years and expanding to 80,000 years?

[Jechbi]

Good points. If it's not a legitimate text passage, then there's not much point in spending too much time with it, I guess.

As an aside, I find it useful to approach these texts from the perspective of how they inform such things as recollection of the Buddha, recollection of the Dhamma, understanding with regard to practice, and so on. In other words, how they are useful as Dhamma instruction rather than whatever else we might wish them to be. In that respect, I would agree that the perspective of rote literalism can just get in the way.