Peter Masefield wrote:
PM> Well, of course, anyone is entitled to hold personal views. My remarks seek only to
PM> give voice to what is contained in the texts, which are probably the nearest we can
PM> come to the actual utterances of the Buddha.

Well, let's first establish two facts:

First, in the time of Buddha there was no Internet, no fax, no phone,
and no books with his suttas. Thus the only way to convey the teaching
was obviously oral.

Second, the Tipitaka is mostly devoted to Buddha himself and his
discourses, paying less attention to his disciples.

From this two facts it is obvious why the overwhelming majority of
'oral initiations' were described as done by Buddha himself.

Many times we read that Buddha's disciples had their followers,
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/khuddaka/theragatha/thag6.html#10
however there was no Ananda near them to record the suttas.

PM> There are always exceptions that seem to (dis)prove the rule. Saariputta is indeed
PM> recorded as having penetrated things upon hearing Dhamma from the newly enlightened
PM> Assaji. The commentary (Ps II 346) states that although Saariputta had fulfilled
PM> the perfections for one asa"nkheyya and a hundred thousand kappas besides, he was
PM> still unable to get rid of even the slightest kilesa of his own accord, yet attained
PM> penetration upon hearing one verse of Dhamma from Assaji.

Talking about commentaries, we step on the shaky ground. In the
interview you said that you rely mostly on first Nikayas.

PM> In fact, the texts (and their commentaries and sub-commentaries) distinguish two
PM> means of acquring right view, namely that of (1) the parato ghosa, or sound from
PM> beyond/another person; and (2) that of yonisomanasikaara, or paying methodical
PM> attention (M I 294; A I 87). According to the commentaries, the former applies in
PM> the case of Buddhas and Paccekabuddhas, since there is for them no parato ghosa, the
PM> latter applying in the case of saavakas (literally, hearers).

Even on this shaky ground I would like to point out that nobody was
able then to read the suttas, thus naturally they were hearers.

PM> Agreed; but note that the original Pali (M III 72) uses the term dvaya.m, twofold,
PM> or forming a pair, depending upon whether sammaadi.t.thi is lokiya (mundane) or
PM> lokuttara (supermundane). But only twofold, and at that mutually opposed to each
PM> other. To see these as degrees (of one and the same thing) seems quite wrong to me,
PM> and is not the way of the texts.

I see them as initial level and perfect level. Why do you think it is
quite wrong?

>> The teaching is holographic and it would be an oversimplification to divide
>> it in just two levels.

PM> I would be very interested to see any sustained textual support for such a view.

You seem to divide the teaching into 'esoteric' and 'exoteric'. There
are no such terms in Pali Canon. Buddha said that he doesn't hold
anything in a closed fist, doesn't conceal anything, and the Dhamma is
'ehipassika', welcome for all to come and see. For example, in the
first suttas of Digha Nikaya he reveals whole course of training to a
wide variety of people.

You divided the followers as 'having Dhamma eye' and 'not having
Dhamma eye', i.e. those who reached sotapatti and those who have not
reached it. It is but a minor division. There are also three levels
higher than sotapatti, and Buddha often used different ways of
describing the path. Levels were just one way of description. The
progress is often described through training in morality, overcoming
hindrances, and developing jhanas (MN 107), and in various other ways
(MN 36, MN 19, AN 9.41, MN 138).

There is often a tendency to absolutize some aspect of Buddha's words.
However it is amazing that he never resorted to the 'one-and-only'
interpretation or view, and always described slightly different angles
of the same thing. That's what I mean when I say that his teachings
were holographic.

PM> Otherwise, thank you for your kind remarks.

Otherwise, I am glad to meet someone so deeply versed in Pali Canon.
I agree that studying from Buddha or his disciples in person is most
beneficial, however, as he said in Mahaparinibbana sutta, we can as
well make Dhamma our refuge.

Dimitry Ivakhnenko