After Awakening (Enlightened), The Buddha Was Reluctant To Teach?

[JurgenG]

What if enlightenment is not the end of the road ? Maybe Buddha was worried that people focus too much on personal enlightenment and miss the big picture.

[Jawnie]

Rockyysd: don't really understand your questions. The enlightened mind is complete, uncompounded, and can not be touched. Nothing needs to be added to it or taken away. It is beyond all compounded entities or approaches to it. Omnipotence?

Unlimited, all knowing, supreme, infinite in power.

A state which is permanent and unconditioned.

In terms of hesitation towards teaching, why would such a mind need time to decide whether to be compassionate enough to teach the Dharma?

Why did the Buddha have to think about it?

Doesn't what appears to be the need for a thinking process to take place indicate a state (Awakening), as powerful as it is, not as omnipotent as many of us believe, but rather the pinnacle of the state the human can aspire to?

The Buddha was perfect, with perfect knowledge. Everything he did proceeded from this perfect knowledge. He was also selfless with complete confidence. Whatever he did was for us, not him. Any hesitation was not doubt on his part but an illustration to us for how difficult and subtle the knowledge he realized is.

[rockyysdt]

The Buddha was perfect, with perfect knowledge. Everything he did proceeded from this perfect knowledge. He was also selfless with complete confidence. Whatever he did was for us, not him. Any hesitation was not doubt on his part but an illustration to us for how difficult and subtle the knowledge he realized is.

That's the part which is puzzling to me.

If he was perfect why didn't he immediately recognize that some only had a little dust in their eyes.

Also, as Dharma is the only way out of Samsara, wouldn't one with perfect knowledge go about teaching without hesitation?

Isn't the concept of difficult (aversion) something that would only affect a non enlightened being?

[rockyysdt]

Buddha was not all-knowing,

I've heard the expression "Buddha Eye".

Doesn't Buddha Eye make the Buddha all knowing?

[huli]

Buddha was not all-knowing,

I've heard the expression "Buddha Eye".

Doesn't Buddha Eye make the Buddha all knowing?

The only exceptions I can think of to Buddha's "all-knowing" would be to not intuitively know certain truths about the physical realm, examples of which I stated in my original post. He did however intuit that time has a discrete minimum moment, and is not infinitely divisible, which is now scientifically posited, to his credit. But I don't think it is necessary or reasonable to suggest that he had all knowledge whatsoever. Also certain metaphysical questions he denied knowing, such as whether the universe had a beginning or not.

As to expressions, such as "Buddha Eye", they can never make the Buddha anything, expressions being merely concepts created by lesser beings.

[yellow1red1]

Buddha had good reason for being reticent upon observing [reality]. Once we discover, see for ourselves, that Creation was born of Great Distress, not Ordered Glory, the Suffering and Lonliness would break most. All of the Scriptures of ALL of the Mythologies, including the Bible, deliniate UNlightenement as the Stucture of Existence, yet our weak Minds want to Imagine these are, only, 'Stories'.

No matter what 'some' [think] Thought cannot be destroyed. Thought is one of the Prime Elements of all Existence. So is Time, so is Distress, so is Matter. Remove any one of these Elements and there is No Existence. You can call that Nirvana, out of fear? out of hope?, however that state IS be No Existence.

Notice how the Abrahamic Supplicants always 'claim' there Entity is ALL Powerful, ALL Good. Well, why doesn't there Torah, Bible, Quaran say so? eg [in the Beggining ALL was Perfect ....]

Truth is [in the Beginning there was Darkness]. [in the Present there is Darkness] In the Future, too.

Would you feel [safe/saved] with this Knowledge? Would you feel inclined to teach it?

You would understand; it really doesn't matter. Solomon told us this, exactly. ALL is Vanity, Vanity is ALL. < TRUE

[IMA_FARANG]

Once again this is a personal view... and everyone's free to disagree if they choose to.

I hope I don;t get in trouble for saying this, but here it goes anyhow.

Here's that story I told again.

There is a story...I'll have to tell it from memory, as I don't remember where exactly i heard it, that goes something like this.

Two monks are travelling. They come to a small stream. On a rock in the stream is a Scorpion trapped by the water, unable to get off that rock.

One of monks tries to get that Scorpion of that rock to save the Scorpion's life.

But blinded by it's fear of the rushing water, each time the monk tries to help it, that Scorpion tries to strike at the monk who wants to save it.

The other monk gets exasperated with the first monk.

"Don't you see", he asked, "that the Scoprion will always try to string you? Don't you understand that trying to attack you is the Scorpion's nature? So why are you trying to help it?"

"Because", said the first monk, "helping that Scorpion is MY nature"

-------------

Now consider the moral of that story.

The first Monk did not stop trying to save that Scorpion even though he was repeately stung because it WAS his Nature to save that Scorpion.

For the same reason the Buddha could NOT stop teaching .... because as Buddha teaching was HIS NATURE in the same way that the first monk's nature was to try to save the Scorpion.

If teaching was not the true nature of the awakened (enlightened) Buddha, then he would not be Buddha.

As for Nibbana or Nirvana ,,,, or whatever you want to call it ... consider this.

When you were young your paremts told you about a thing called "Santa Claus" that brought you presents at Christmas.

When you got older you learned there was no Santa Claus ... but you still got presents at Christmas.

Now, you are an adult, maybe with children of your own.

You tell them of a "Santa Claus", don't you?

And you give them presents, don't you?

Now, did the Buddha ever say if "enlightened" you would be freed from Samsara .... or did he really say that you would be freed from the Pain and Suffering of Samsara.

Think very carefully about the difference between those two things.

Again.....just my opinion.

You tell your children about that Santa Claus who gives them presents.

Edited October 29, 2012 by IMA_FARANG

[rockyysdt]

Now, did the Buddha ever say if "enlightened" you would be freed from Samsara .... or did he really say that you would be freed from the Pain and Suffering of Samsara.

Think very carefully about the difference between those two things.

Again.....just my opinion.

Exactly IMA.

And in terms of: "Why did the Buddha hesitate?".

This fits in to what you illustrate.

Is Enlightenment/Awakening a passage into Omnipotence/Buddhist Heaven or is it a state, the very best a human can aspire to, nothing more, nothing less?

Once Awakened, hesitance to teach, even though after much thought he did, suggests limitation/of this world.

Edited October 29, 2012 by rockyysdt

[camerata]

Like the Buddha's rather pompous proclamation after being born, I think his having to be asked to teach is an episode concocted by the compilers of the Canon to glorify him and highlight his uniqueness. It emphasizes his being a sammasambuddha rather than a paccekabuddha (who doesn't have the ability to teach).

It also helps establish the Theravadin tradition that one should be invited to teach the Dhamma rather than forcing it on unwilling listeners. It can be paired with the strange episode before the Buddha's death in which the Buddha hints three times that if invited he would remain in the world until the end of the era. But Ananda doesn't pick up on the hints.

[weary]

I guess we'll see when we get there.

[rockyysdt]

I guess we'll see when we get there.

None can get there as it is a state not a place.

Thus have I heard: The end of the world can never be reached by walking.

[rockyysdt]

I think his having to be asked to teach is an episode concocted by the compilers of the Canon to glorify him and highlight his uniqueness. It emphasizes his being a sammasambuddha rather than a paccekabuddha (who doesn't have the ability to teach).

This opens up a huge can of worms.

BuddhaDasa Bhikkhu placed special emphasis on the purity and security of Theravadan Buddhism.

Quote: Being the only teaching which succeeds in preserving the ancient pure Buddhism by admitting only the additional which enhances the strictness of the original while being against the revoking, changing, or altering of the original even in the least form. (Ref: Some Marvellous Aspects of Theravada Buddhism, P 5).

"O Bihikkus, so long as Bikkhus do not abrogate that which is established, do not introduce that which is not introduced, and observe in good term those matters well established, so long the Sangha may be expected not to decline, but to prosper." (Ref: Some Marvellous Aspects of Theravada Buddhism, P 6).

Have compilors of the Canon already abrogated some of the Buddhas teaching by embellishment?

If they have, could the Canon be full of such embellishments/misinterpretations?

Edited October 31, 2012 by rockyysdt

[rockyysdt]

It also helps establish the Theravadin tradition that one should be invited to teach the Dhamma rather than forcing it on unwilling listeners. It can be paired with the strange episode before the Buddha's death in which the Buddha hints three times that if invited he would remain in the world until the end of the era. But Ananda doesn't pick up on the hints.

If this tradition, of requiring an invitation, came about through Canonical embellishment from its compilors, then isn't it false to adhere to?

Was Ananda an Arahant at the time three hints were put to him?

[huli]

I guess we'll see when we get there.

None can get there as it is a state not a place.

Thus have I heard: The end of the world can never be reached by walking.

Why is it not possible to get to a state? Don't people get calm and get smart?

What do you think "the end of the world" means? Is this a state?

[rockyysdt]

Buddha had good reason for being reticent upon observing [reality]. Once we discover, see for ourselves, that Creation was born of Great Distress, not Ordered Glory, the Suffering and Lonliness would break most. All of the Scriptures of ALL of the Mythologies, including the Bible, deliniate UNlightenement as the Stucture of Existence, yet our weak Minds want to Imagine these are, only, 'Stories'.

No matter what 'some' [think] Thought cannot be destroyed. Thought is one of the Prime Elements of all Existence. So is Time, so is Distress, so is Matter. Remove any one of these Elements and there is No Existence. You can call that Nirvana, out of fear? out of hope?, however that state IS be No Existence.

Notice how the Abrahamic Supplicants always 'claim' there Entity is ALL Powerful, ALL Good. Well, why doesn't there Torah, Bible, Quaran say so? eg [in the Beggining ALL was Perfect ....]

Truth is [in the Beginning there was Darkness]. [in the Present there is Darkness] In the Future, too.

Would you feel [safe/saved] with this Knowledge? Would you feel inclined to teach it?

You would understand; it really doesn't matter. Solomon told us this, exactly. ALL is Vanity, Vanity is ALL. < TRUE

It depends what you are referring to Y1R1

If you refer to Awakening/Nirvana as a "mundane state" in which you are free from suffering which was due to attachment to aversion, delusion and greed, then the teaching and attainment is priceless, while you live.

If you refer to Awakening/Nirvana as a "supramundane state" in which you become free of suffering from the cycle of attachment to that which is created, that which is controlled, and that which dies, then isn't this superior to bondage (attachment) to a conditioned Deity (God = The Creator, The Controller, & the Destroyer)?

One who is in bondage to a deity is subject to transience, control, and change over time.

You mention there is nothing without time.

Time is only relevevant to that which is impermanent.

Perfection, beyond that which is created, that which is controlled, and that which is destroyed (permanent & unconditioned), is Nibbhana.

It contains Ajata (unborn), Abhuta (unexisting), & Amata (Undying).

Yes, this is the big question!

Is Nibbhana nothingness, or is it a supramundine state beyond our understanding (as nothingness can also contain Ajata, Abhuta, & Amata)?

Edited October 31, 2012 by rockyysdt

[rockyysdt]

Why is it not possible to get to a state? Don't people get calm and get smart?

What do you think "the end of the world" means? Is this a state?

I'm probably incorrect.

Many may use such terminology, but I thought one attains a state, rather than get there!

Also, if one is not aware of the distinction (Nibbhana the state) then "attain" assists readers to more fully comprehend.

Edited October 31, 2012 by rockyysdt

[Jawnie]

I think his having to be asked to teach is an episode concocted by the compilers of the Canon to glorify him and highlight his uniqueness. It emphasizes his being a sammasambuddha rather than a paccekabuddha (who doesn't have the ability to teach).

This opens up a huge can of worms.

BuddhaDasa Bhikkhu placed special emphasis on the purity and security of Theravadan Buddhism.

Quote: Being the only teaching which succeeds in preserving the ancient pure Buddhism by admitting only the additional which enhances the strictness of the original while being against the revoking, changing, or altering of the original even in the least form. (Ref: Some Marvellous Aspects of Theravada Buddhism, P 5).

"O Bihikkus, so long as Bikkhus do not abrogate that which is established, do not introduce that which is not introduced, and observe in good term those matters well established, so long the Sangha may be expected not to decline, but to prosper." (Ref: Some Marvellous Aspects of Theravada Buddhism, P 6).

Have compilors of the Canon already abrogated some of the Buddhas teaching by embellishment?

If they have, could the Canon be full of such embellishments/misinterpretations?

Well, here's some information from a sutra regarding the Buddha. Some traditions say that to find fault in the teacher is really a manifestation of our own obscurations and that seeing the teacher as imperfect or incomplete is a construct of our own impure minds.

Ten Powers of the Tathagata (from the Arthaviniscaya Sutra)

1. Knows what is truly possible and what is not possible.

2. Knows the results of actions and undertakings of the past, present, and future.

3. Knows the different and diverse dispositions of other being and persons.

4. Know the world of different and diverse elements.

5. Knows the higher and lower faculties of other beings.

6. Knows the way leading to all destinies.

7. Knows the faculties, powers, and constituents of enlightenment, meditations, deliverances, concentrations, and attainments of other beings as well as their differences in defilements and purity.

8. Regarding the former existences of beings, he remembers their size, place of birth, and the causes of their birth, not just for one, two, three, or four existences, but for the myriads of existences.

9. With heavenly vision, pure and superhuman, he sees beings dying and taking birth in good and bad states in accord with their good and bad actions of body, speech, and mind.

10. He knows with true wisdom the undefiled deliverance of mind through the destruction of defilements.

[rockyysdt]

I think his having to be asked to teach is an episode concocted by the compilers of the Canon to glorify him and highlight his uniqueness. It emphasizes his being a sammasambuddha rather than a paccekabuddha (who doesn't have the ability to teach).

This opens up a huge can of worms.

BuddhaDasa Bhikkhu placed special emphasis on the purity and security of Theravadan Buddhism.

Quote: Being the only teaching which succeeds in preserving the ancient pure Buddhism by admitting only the additional which enhances the strictness of the original while being against the revoking, changing, or altering of the original even in the least form. (Ref: Some Marvellous Aspects of Theravada Buddhism, P 5).

"O Bihikkus, so long as Bikkhus do not abrogate that which is established, do not introduce that which is not introduced, and observe in good term those matters well established, so long the Sangha may be expected not to decline, but to prosper." (Ref: Some Marvellous Aspects of Theravada Buddhism, P 6).

Have compilors of the Canon already abrogated some of the Buddhas teaching by embellishment?

If they have, could the Canon be full of such embellishments/misinterpretations?

Well, here's some information from a sutra regarding the Buddha. Some traditions say that to find fault in the teacher is really a manifestation of our own obscurations and that seeing the teacher as imperfect or incomplete is a construct of our own impure minds.

Ten Powers of the Tathagata (from the Arthaviniscaya Sutra)

1. Knows what is truly possible and what is not possible.

2. Knows the results of actions and undertakings of the past, present, and future.

3. Knows the different and diverse dispositions of other being and persons.

4. Know the world of different and diverse elements.

5. Knows the higher and lower faculties of other beings.

6. Knows the way leading to all destinies.

7. Knows the faculties, powers, and constituents of enlightenment, meditations, deliverances, concentrations, and attainments of other beings as well as their differences in defilements and purity.

8. Regarding the former existences of beings, he remembers their size, place of birth, and the causes of their birth, not just for one, two, three, or four existences, but for the myriads of existences.

9. With heavenly vision, pure and superhuman, he sees beings dying and taking birth in good and bad states in accord with their good and bad actions of body, speech, and mind.

10. He knows with true wisdom the undefiled deliverance of mind through the destruction of defilements.

In the context of my earlier post, the reference was to the compilors of the Canon, and not the Buddha.

Quote: I think his having to be asked to teach is an episode concocted by the compilers of the Canon to glorify him and highlight his uniqueness.

Edited October 31, 2012 by rockyysdt

[rockyysdt]

Well, here's some information from a sutra regarding the Buddha. Some traditions say that to find fault in the teacher is really a manifestation of our own obscurations and that seeing the teacher as imperfect or incomplete is a construct of our own impure minds.

Ten Powers of the Tathagata (from the Arthaviniscaya Sutra)

1. Knows what is truly possible and what is not possible.

2. Knows the results of actions and undertakings of the past, present, and future.

3. Knows the different and diverse dispositions of other being and persons.

4. Know the world of different and diverse elements.

5. Knows the higher and lower faculties of other beings.

6. Knows the way leading to all destinies.

7. Knows the faculties, powers, and constituents of enlightenment, meditations, deliverances, concentrations, and attainments of other beings as well as their differences in defilements and purity.

8. Regarding the former existences of beings, he remembers their size, place of birth, and the causes of their birth, not just for one, two, three, or four existences, but for the myriads of existences.

9. With heavenly vision, pure and superhuman, he sees beings dying and taking birth in good and bad states in accord with their good and bad actions of body, speech, and mind.

10. He knows with true wisdom the undefiled deliverance of mind through the destruction of defilements.

In terms of the Buddha's hesitation: "Why did the Buddha hesitate?".

Either Enlightenment/Awakening is of the "mundane", the very best a human can aspire to, nothing more, nothing less, or the compilors of the Canon embellished it?

Once Awakened, hesitance to teach suggests "limitation/conditioning/of this world".

[camerata]

Have compilors of the Canon already abrogated some of the Buddhas teaching by embellishment?

The Buddha's teaching isn't at issue here. It's simply a dramatic episode involving a deity - to which there were no witnesses - which seems out-of-place other than as an illustration of a point. There are other scenes involving deities which scholars tell us are used to emphasize the superiority of Buddhism over Brahmanism.

Ananda did not attain arahantship until the night before the 1st council. Traditionally, it's believed he didn't become an arahant during the Buddha's lifetime because of his attachment to the Buddha.

[Jawnie]

Well, here's some information from a sutra regarding the Buddha. Some traditions say that to find fault in the teacher is really a manifestation of our own obscurations and that seeing the teacher as imperfect or incomplete is a construct of our own impure minds.

Ten Powers of the Tathagata (from the Arthaviniscaya Sutra)

1. Knows what is truly possible and what is not possible.

2. Knows the results of actions and undertakings of the past, present, and future.

3. Knows the different and diverse dispositions of other being and persons.

4. Know the world of different and diverse elements.

5. Knows the higher and lower faculties of other beings.

6. Knows the way leading to all destinies.

7. Knows the faculties, powers, and constituents of enlightenment, meditations, deliverances, concentrations, and attainments of other beings as well as their differences in defilements and purity.

8. Regarding the former existences of beings, he remembers their size, place of birth, and the causes of their birth, not just for one, two, three, or four existences, but for the myriads of existences.

9. With heavenly vision, pure and superhuman, he sees beings dying and taking birth in good and bad states in accord with their good and bad actions of body, speech, and mind.

10. He knows with true wisdom the undefiled deliverance of mind through the destruction of defilements.

In terms of the Buddha's hesitation: "Why did the Buddha hesitate?".

Either Enlightenment/Awakening is of the "mundane", the very best a human can aspire to, nothing more, nothing less, or the compilors of the Canon embellished it?

Once Awakened, hesitance to teach suggests "limitation/conditioning/of this world".

You are correct but maybe not in the way you intend. The Buddha hesitated because he thought beings would not understand, or to use your worlds, were limited and conditioned by this world, hence they would not understand. You are imputing your interpretation of the act onto what might be going on with the Buddha, ie, trapped by a limitation. He had no limitations.

[rockyysdt]

What do you think "the end of the world" means? Is this a state?

Thus have I heard:

The end of the world can never

Be reached by walking. However,

Without having reached the world’s end

There is no release from suffering.

He is talking to one who has tried to find "Nibbhana" the place.

The "end of the world" may refer to "the deathless, the unborn, the unexisting".

The goal of the "eightfold path".

A state free from suffering due to the cycle birth, death & rebirth.

Edited October 31, 2012 by rockyysdt

[rockyysdt]

Well, here's some information from a sutra regarding the Buddha. Some traditions say that to find fault in the teacher is really a manifestation of our own obscurations and that seeing the teacher as imperfect or incomplete is a construct of our own impure minds.

Ten Powers of the Tathagata (from the Arthaviniscaya Sutra)

1. Knows what is truly possible and what is not possible.

2. Knows the results of actions and undertakings of the past, present, and future.

3. Knows the different and diverse dispositions of other being and persons.

4. Know the world of different and diverse elements.

5. Knows the higher and lower faculties of other beings.

6. Knows the way leading to all destinies.

7. Knows the faculties, powers, and constituents of enlightenment, meditations, deliverances, concentrations, and attainments of other beings as well as their differences in defilements and purity.

8. Regarding the former existences of beings, he remembers their size, place of birth, and the causes of their birth, not just for one, two, three, or four existences, but for the myriads of existences.

9. With heavenly vision, pure and superhuman, he sees beings dying and taking birth in good and bad states in accord with their good and bad actions of body, speech, and mind.

10. He knows with true wisdom the undefiled deliverance of mind through the destruction of defilements.

In terms of the Buddha's hesitation: "Why did the Buddha hesitate?".

Either Enlightenment/Awakening is of the "mundane", the very best a human can aspire to, nothing more, nothing less, or the compilors of the Canon embellished it?

Once Awakened, hesitance to teach suggests "limitation/conditioning/of this world".

You are correct but maybe not in the way you intend. The Buddha hesitated because he thought beings would not understand, or to use your worlds, were limited and conditioned by this world, hence they would not understand. You are imputing your interpretation of the act onto what might be going on with the Buddha, ie, trapped by a limitation. He had no limitations.

How can that be if he has attributes 1 through to 10?

[rockyysdt]

Well, here's some information from a sutra regarding the Buddha. Some traditions say that to find fault in the teacher is really a manifestation of our own obscurations and that seeing the teacher as imperfect or incomplete is a construct of our own impure minds.

Ten Powers of the Tathagata (from the Arthaviniscaya Sutra)

1. Knows what is truly possible and what is not possible.

2. Knows the results of actions and undertakings of the past, present, and future.

3. Knows the different and diverse dispositions of other being and persons.

4. Know the world of different and diverse elements.

5. Knows the higher and lower faculties of other beings.

6. Knows the way leading to all destinies.

7. Knows the faculties, powers, and constituents of enlightenment, meditations, deliverances, concentrations, and attainments of other beings as well as their differences in defilements and purity.

8. Regarding the former existences of beings, he remembers their size, place of birth, and the causes of their birth, not just for one, two, three, or four existences, but for the myriads of existences.

9. With heavenly vision, pure and superhuman, he sees beings dying and taking birth in good and bad states in accord with their good and bad actions of body, speech, and mind.

10. He knows with true wisdom the undefiled deliverance of mind through the destruction of defilements.

In terms of the Buddha's hesitation: "Why did the Buddha hesitate?".

Either Enlightenment/Awakening is of the "mundane", the very best a human can aspire to, nothing more, nothing less, or the compilors of the Canon embellished it?

Once Awakened, hesitance to teach suggests "limitation/conditioning/of this world".

You are correct but maybe not in the way you intend. The Buddha hesitated because he thought beings would not understand, or to use your worlds, were limited and conditioned by this world, hence they would not understand. You are imputing your interpretation of the act onto what might be going on with the Buddha, ie, trapped by a limitation. He had no limitations.

More specifically "how could he have thoughts that beings could not understand", or that "teaching would not be of value", or "that he would need time to digest this", when clearly they could, particularly in light of his powers 1 - 10?

[rockyysdt]

Have compilors of the Canon already abrogated some of the Buddhas teaching by embellishment?

The Buddha's teaching isn't at issue here. It's simply a dramatic episode involving a deity - to which there were no witnesses - which seems out-of-place other than as an illustration of a point. There are other scenes involving deities which scholars tell us are used to emphasize the superiority of Buddhism over Brahmanism.

Quote: I think his having to be asked to teach is an episode concocted by the compilers of the Canon to glorify him and highlight his uniqueness.

As it was concocted and compiled in the Canon, doesn't it make it an embellishment?

We are not talking about what the Buddha taught, but rather what a compilor compiled in the Canon.

Edited October 31, 2012 by rockyysdt

[rockyysdt]

What do you think "the end of the world" means? Is this a state?

A more complete extract:

Rohitassa, a deva:

"Lord, the world's end where one is neither born nor ages nor dies, nor passes away nor reappears: is it possible to know or see or reach that by traveling there?"

The Buddha:

"Friend, that there is a world's end where one is neither born nor ages nor dies, nor passes away nor reappears, which is to be known or seen or reached by traveling there — that I do not say. Yet I do not say that there is ending of suffering without reaching the world's end. Rather it is in this fathom-long carcass with its perceptions and its mind that I describe the world, the origin of the world, the cessation of the world, and the way leading to the cessation of the world."

— S. II. 36, A. IV. 46, trans, Ven. Ñanamoli

The end of the world is where one is neither born nor ages nor dies, nor passes away nor reappears but you can't travel there.

The "world" is of the mundane, & the "end of the world" is of the supramundane.

The Buddha also appears to be saying that the world he describes is found within us (within this fathom long carcass - mind and perception).

Poignant if you consider mind cannot exist without body and body without mind.

Edited October 31, 2012 by rockyysdt

[camerata]

We are not talking about what the Buddha taught, but rather what a compilor compiled in the Canon.

What you asked was whether the compilers of the Canon "abrogated some of the Buddha's teaching by embellishment." Clearly that isn't the case here because the Buddha isn't actually teaching anything in this episode. He just seems to be musing whether it's worth teaching the Dhamma or not, and I don't see that it makes much sense unless it is illustrating a point. Why make a vow before a previous Buddha, spend aeons of lifetimes perfecting the paramis, then attain nibbana, only to dither on the home straight? It's an embellishment of the Buddha's biography, not of his teaching.

[Jawnie]

Well, here's some information from a sutra regarding the Buddha. Some traditions say that to find fault in the teacher is really a manifestation of our own obscurations and that seeing the teacher as imperfect or incomplete is a construct of our own impure minds.

Ten Powers of the Tathagata (from the Arthaviniscaya Sutra)

1. Knows what is truly possible and what is not possible.

2. Knows the results of actions and undertakings of the past, present, and future.

3. Knows the different and diverse dispositions of other being and persons.

4. Know the world of different and diverse elements.

5. Knows the higher and lower faculties of other beings.

6. Knows the way leading to all destinies.

7. Knows the faculties, powers, and constituents of enlightenment, meditations, deliverances, concentrations, and attainments of other beings as well as their differences in defilements and purity.

8. Regarding the former existences of beings, he remembers their size, place of birth, and the causes of their birth, not just for one, two, three, or four existences, but for the myriads of existences.

9. With heavenly vision, pure and superhuman, he sees beings dying and taking birth in good and bad states in accord with their good and bad actions of body, speech, and mind.

10. He knows with true wisdom the undefiled deliverance of mind through the destruction of defilements.

In terms of the Buddha's hesitation: "Why did the Buddha hesitate?".

Either Enlightenment/Awakening is of the "mundane", the very best a human can aspire to, nothing more, nothing less, or the compilors of the Canon embellished it?

Once Awakened, hesitance to teach suggests "limitation/conditioning/of this world".

You are correct but maybe not in the way you intend. The Buddha hesitated because he thought beings would not understand, or to use your worlds, were limited and conditioned by this world, hence they would not understand. You are imputing your interpretation of the act onto what might be going on with the Buddha, ie, trapped by a limitation. He had no limitations.

More specifically "how could he have thoughts that beings could not understand", or that "teaching would not be of value", or "that he would need time to digest this", when clearly they could, particularly in light of his powers 1 - 10?

That this occurred is a dilemma, if it is that, for you to solve unless you think the Buddha was not perfectly enlightened or that enlightenment is incomplete.

[rockyysdt]

We are not talking about what the Buddha taught, but rather what a compilor compiled in the Canon.

What you asked was whether the compilers of the Canon "abrogated some of the Buddha's teaching by embellishment." Clearly that isn't the case here because the Buddha isn't actually teaching anything in this episode. He just seems to be musing whether it's worth teaching the Dhamma or not, and I don't see that it makes much sense unless it is illustrating a point. Why make a vow before a previous Buddha, spend aeons of lifetimes perfecting the paramis, then attain nibbana, only to dither on the home straight? It's an embellishment of the Buddha's biography, not of his teaching.

Yes but doesn't it abrogate the content of the Canon?

Whether the Buddha taught it or not, if someone compiles an attribute/feature of the Buddha in the Canon, then this can mislead or influence, with an authoritative stamp of approval (Canon).

Quote: I think his having to be asked to teach is an episode concocted by the compilers of the Canon to glorify him and highlight his uniqueness.

Doesn't this embellishment have three repercussions?

1. It can undermine the content of the Canon.

2. It can cause as Fred puts it: This is why buddhism does not prosthletize....monks are only allowed to teach dhamma after it has been requested, they are invited to teach.

(For example, perhaps the Buddha might have preferred a more forward approach on the disemination of the 4 Noble Truths)

3. It can contradict the Buddhas Ten Powers of the Tathagata (from the Arthaviniscaya Sutra) as listed by Jawnie.

Edited October 31, 2012 by rockyysdt

[camerata]

It didn't mislead me. I mean I am not going to consider the entire Canon invalid just because of some supernatural episodes added to it. It's not a scientific theory that crumbles once the tiniest flaw is found. All that's needed is a bit of critical thinking.