Was the Buddha Obliged to Observe Vinaya Rules?, no 2.

Venerable Pandita,

I think that this is a good passage:< Dhamma as the Buddha’s
Personal Guideline.
Now another question arises: if the Buddha was above Vinaya, what was
the moral
principle that he used to guide and regulate his deeds and day-to-day
activities?
I answer that the Dhamma that the Buddha had realized was his sole
guideline
throughout his life: >
and text: (AN 2: 20–21)
<At one time, monks, I stayed at Uruvela first after having been
fully enlightened.
A thought occurred to me thus, “It is miserable to live without
respect (for
someone else), without refuge. Which ascetic or brahmin should I live by
honouring, paying respect to, and depending upon?” . . .
Monks, a thought occurred to me thus, “I would rather live by
honouring,
respecting and depending upon the very Dhamma realized by me” . . .
------
You mention three suttas:
Dhammacakkapavattana Sutta (Vin 1: 10–11; Horner 4: 15–17),
Anattalakkhaṇa Sutta (Vin 1: 13–14; Horner 4: 20–21),
Āditta Sutta (Vin 1: 34–35; Horner 4: 45–46), in which the
Buddha taught Kassapa
and other monks who had been formerly matted-hair ascetics about how
everything is burning
Now I argue that:
1. There must be great significance in the fact of including these
suttas in
Vinaya, especially in the account of events that occurred during the
earliest
period of the monastic order.
2. That significance is probably nothing but that the concepts these
suttas
enshrine were the general framework in which Vinaya was founded and
developed, and based upon which Vinaya rules must be understood.
-------
N: I understand, as you suggest, that the Vinaya rules are based upon
the Dhamma explained in these suttas. When I read about these rules I
see through them and realise: what is citta like at this moment? Is
it burning with lobha, dosa and moha? The rules are very subtle, they
help also laypeople to know lobha which is more subtle. In the whole
of the Vinaya is the Dhamma the Buddha realized himself included.
-------
As to the suttas: Dhammacakkapavattana Sutta (the one I am studying
now), you say: <For instance, the Buddha in this sutta demanded
celibacy from those who wishing to follow his path>.
Here I would like to make a distinction. The anaagaami and arahat do
not lead the home life anymore, but the sotaapanna and sakadaagaami
do. And then, laypeople who are just beginning to develop the Path,
they lead their daily life naturally but learn to be aware of nama
and rupa, defilements included. We have to learn that the lobha that
arises now is a conditoned dhamma, not self. There are three rounds.
Sacca ~naa.na: we have to learn what the nama and rupa are that
should be objects of awareness and right understanding, so that there
is a firm understanding of the way of developing the Path. Then kicca
~naa.na can begin: the development of satipa.t.thaana. Eventually
there can be the realisation of the truth, kata ~naa.na.
--------
Anattalakkhaṇa Sutta, I read your remarks of Ven. Bodhi's
translation, omitting ida.m in rūpaṃ ca h’ idaṃ. Very good,
the Buddha as it were pointing to his body, consisting of impermanent
ruupas . We see here that also the Buddha is subject to the Dhamma
niyata.
-------
quote:
1. If five aggregates are anatta (whatever it means), in the context
of Vinaya,
the lawmaker (the Buddha himself) and the lawful citizens (monks and
nuns)
both must also be anatta since both comprise of five aggregates.
2. Then, according to the Buddha’s own logic, he must also have seen
that both
himself and the Order would inevitably lead to affliction. How?
------------

N: For the explanation of anattaa I would like to add a few things.
What we take for person, monk, nun, are in the ultimate sense nama
and rupa, fleeting elements, not subject to control, without any
owner. The affliction used in the sutta is an example in conventional
sense to help people see that the khandhas, or, nama and rupa, are
mere fleeting elements. They have each their own characteristic and
appear one at a time through the six doorways.
Affliction is not merely sickness and death in conventional sense,
the end of a lifespan, but kha.nika mara.na, momentary death, the
falling away of each naama and ruupa that arises. Their impermanence.
I quote: <Visuddhimagga XVIII, 24,
"...So, as one who opens a box with a knife, as one who splits a twin
palmyra bulb in two, he defines all states of the three planes, the
eighteen elements, twelve bases, five aggregates, in the double way
as 'mentality-materiality', and he concludes that over and above mere
mentality-materiality there is nothing else that is a being or a
person or a deity or a Brahmaa."

("naamarrupamattato uddha.m a~n~no satto vaa puggalo vaa devo vaa
Brahmaa vaa n'atthii ti ni.t.tha.m gacchati.")>
-------------
(to be continued)
respectfully,

Nina.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]