Re: another question based on Digha Tika

​Dear Dr. Cousins,​


​You
​ ​
wrote:

   This is an ingenious interpretation, but like Bhikkhu Bodhi I find it
> difficult to believe that can have been the intended meaning of the ṭīkā
> writers. Normally when here is ambiguity of meaning in a citation they
> explain in detail. Do you have a source for this interpretation ? Or,
> is it your own idea ?
>
​So, if they do not explain in detail, it means they do not see any
ambiguity in this sentence, at least for their targeted audience. And, no,
this is not my own idea:

"Sabbaññutāya hi padaṭṭhānabhūtaṃ maggañāṇaṃ, maggañāṇapadaṭṭhānañca
sabbaññutaññāṇaṃ ‘‘mahābodhī’ti vuccatīti."(Dhs-t 4 Be)

You can notice that this sentence is less ambiguous than other Ṭīkās. In
one authoritative Burmese translation of Dhs-t, "maggañāṇapadaṭṭhānaṃ" in
the sentence above is rendered the same as mine.

>
> The passage occurs in all four of Dhammapāla's Āgama ṭīkās and also in
> his Nett-pṭ. Slightly differently at Sv-pṭ I 257 (Be 198). It is also
> quoted in Sāriputta's Mp-ṭ and Sp-ṭ, as well as in Vmv. Later it is
> found with slight variations three times in Sv-nṭ. In none of these is
> it explained. We also find the same statement but with sabbaññutāñāṇa
> instead of unobstructed knowledge at Sv-pṭ II 23 (Be II 19).
>
​When a similar or identical passage occurs in several Ṭīkās, it is highly
probable that this comes from one original source, which the Burmese
tradition maintains is Mūlaṭīkā, the sub-commentary on Abhidhamma. ​


So are you saying that at the moment of maggañāṇa he was a Buddha but
> not sabbaññū ? That seems difficult to accept.
>

Well, I do not know how you interpret the concept of sabbaññū, but
according to the Theravada orthodoxy, it can be defined as  "being
potentially omniscient," that is, a Buddha can know anything if he is
inclined to do so. So if he gains this ability at the time of maggañāṇa, we
can say that he turns into a Buddha as well as a sabbaññū at that moment.


> The ancient texts do not usually say much about how the mind of a Buddha
> worked. We can assume it is the same as an arahat, but that is only a
> guess. If it is correct, then it is certainly reasonable to say that it
> must be one of the four sense-sphere beautiful functional minds
> associated with knowledge. And that seems to be implied at Vibh-a 464:
> sabbaññutañāṇaṃ pana savitakkasavicāram eva, kāmāvacaram eva, lokiyam evā.
>
> But I tend to feel that the relationship between the different kinds of
> wisdom in different moments is rather more subtle and nuanced than you
> are allowing.
>

​Here I must refer to my own experience.

Have you ever met clairvoyant people? I have. In Burma, such persons are
not so rare---they are usually practitioners of some occult art. Some of
such persons work like this. Suppose a seer meets a stranger, and while
chatting, wants to know deeper about the latter. Then, an out-of-context
thought, "This guy is cheating on his wife," suddenly breaks upon the seer,
and this just happens to be correct. This is why such people are called
"seers by guess" in Burma; they can make guesses (not backed up by data nor
by logic) that happen to be correct.

Now, in these circumstances, that seer is not meditating nor in any jhānic
state but only a normal participant in a conversation. If I were in his
place, I may also wonder about the secrets of the person I am chatting
with.  The only difference is that the seer gets his silent query answered
by his own mind, but I would certainly achieve nothing.  This is why he is
a seer and I am not.

I think the same can be said about the difference between Buddhas and
ordinary arahats. Even though they all have sense-sphere beautiful
functional minds associated with knowledge, the mind of a Buddha can bring
all answers and facts he needs but that of an arahat does not have such an
ability.

with metta,

Ven. Pandita


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