tiltbillings wrote:You don't get it. While the Psm may be an authoritative texts among Theravadins, but that does not mean that it is accurately reflecting the suttas on every point in every detail. It might be, but that is for you to show, since that seems to be your claim.
You're the one making provocative statements explicitly asserting a view that opposes the received tradition.
I have simply reported what is said in the suttas, but I did not know that the suttas were provocative. You have not shown that what I said opposes the Theravada.
Therefore the onus is entirely on you to show that you are right and the tradition is wrong.
I am not claiming that the tradition is wrong, assumely your portrayal of it is accurate, which you have yet to establish. I am simply making a claim about what the suttas say, which is not a claim about what the tradition says about itself.
You can't prove that: "The "enlightenment" -- bodhi -- of the arahant is no different from that of the Buddha,"based on text-critical analysis.
I think I have gone some fair distance in showing that that claim is in line with what the suttas say, which is all I am claiming. Also, I am not doing "text critical analysis." I am doing basic textual exegesis.
Nor can you prove that the doctrine of six types of buddha knowledge that are not shared by disciple arahants postdates the Buddha's parinibbāna. For that matter, you can't even prove that the Psm. was composed after the death of the Buddha. Your entire premise is based on speculation. A conceptual house of cards.
Can you prove Psm was composed by Ven Sariputta? Can you show that the "double miracle" of water and fire are part of the sutta tradition? I'll go with the scholarship on this matter: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patisambhidamagga
" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
tiltbillings wrote:Also, I have been looking at the question of bodhi in the suttas, not omniscience. You have yet to show in the suttas that omniscience is tied directly, without question, to bodhi as a defining aspect of bodhi.
Your penchant for textual literalism on this issue is both amusing and rather ironic, given that you vehemently object to criticisms of Burmese Vipassanā that employ the strategy of rejecting it because terms such as "momentary concentration" or the technique of "labeling" aren't explicitly stated in the suttas.
This is not, of course, an argument.
Actually, I asked more than once that you show that omniscience is a necessary defining aspect of bodhi in the suttas.