Re: another question based on Digha Tika

Dear Ven. Paṇḍita,

This is very interesting.

Your reference to Dhs-mṭ has made me aware of a few additional passages:
Th-a I 8; Sv-pṭ II 23; III 73; Ps-pṭ I 76; 223; II 153; Spk-pṭ II 474;
Mp-ṭ I 136; Abhidh-av-ṭ I 148; Pāc-y 184; cf. Spk-pṭ I 170

Many of these conclude with vuccatīti. I take the iti to mean that this
is a quotation.

> ​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.

Agreed.
>   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. ​
Yes, it is less ambiguous. But I doubt whether it is the source. It
seems more likely that all are citing some earlier statement from some
authoritative source. The author of the Mūlaṭīkā has rewritten it
slightly to fit the abhidhamma context. And he does express himself very
creatively and precisely, using a later style of Pali.

Even if we assume that the Dhammapāla who is the author of many of the
aṭṭhakathā to the Khuddakanikāya is different to the Dhammapāla who
wrote the ṭīkā, at least Ud-a seems to cite an Anuṭīkā, if this is not a
textual intrusion. So the Mūlaṭīkā should be older than It-a. But if the
ṭīkās were citing the Mūlaṭīkā, at least some of them would cite it
correctly.

It seems to me much more likely that the Suttanta commentators did not
see a problem because they saw it as pariyāyadesanā. Dhs-mṭ has
rewritten it to fit the situation of nippariyāyadesanā.

> 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.
I don't think this is very different to what I was saying. From the
standpoint of pariyāyadesanā we can say that sabbaññutāñāṇa is present
when the maggañāṇa arises at least in potentia. So the wisdom that has
the potential for knowing anything and the path knowledge can be seen as
mutually supportive. Even from a strict ābhidhammika standpoint all this
happens in a flash.

Lance Cousins