Someone please explain this passage in DA2

The Watercooler
1

Uploading: Screenshot_20250622-083311.png…

So I love @cdpatton Agama translations.

Im doing great, and then I see this.

Can someone tell me what I’m reading because, as I understand the Dhamma, Buddha knew everything about the Dhamma and that it would take lifetimes to relate even a fraction of that knowledge. So I have to assume my view is distorted.

3

Buddha said this: “Ānanda, the Dharma that I’ve taught is complete inside and out, but I’ve never claimed to have mastered its view.”

1 Like
4

That’s a good question. I think it must be intended to leave the door open to other interpretations of Dharma rather than close the door and make the Buddha’s teachings the only possible truth. That sort of attitude is really a later development, when Buddhism became more ideological like other religions. That’s my own thought about it.

3 Likes
5

Thank you very much.

6

Possibly not. Best not to assume anything.

Have you looked at DN 2 to see if you can find that uncharacteristic quote? If its not found in DN 2 why not?

1 Like
7

I thought it was just because the Agamas redactors assembled things a certain way, either because of damaged manuscripts or their preferences or whatever.

Would love to find a book explaining how these suttas got around after the first two councils.

1 Like
8

I believe it isn’t, but I haven’t looked at all of the parallels. There are four other translations of the Nirvana Sutra in Chinese. One by the Mulasarvastivadins that’s included in their Vinaya. Three others that were translated as independent sutras to Chinese. Probably there are several others in Sanskrit or Tibetan. The number of parallels is a bit overwhelming.

I sat in on a sutta reading group that read through my translation of DA 2 last year, and everyone scratched their heads when they reached this line, like @Bearofmediocrenews. And so did I, to be honest. After thinking about it for a while, I think the Dharma in this passage is not referring the Buddha’s teaching, but the universal Dharma that all religions express in different ways in Indian thought. It’s not so different from the Dao in Chinese culture. It wasn’t the property of Daoists, Confucianists and other traditions all talked about Dao. Dharma was like that in India.

I’ve been reading a recent book about Ashoka (Ashoka: Portrait of a Philosopher King) that includes all of his edicts translated to English. Ashoka spoke of Dharma not as a Buddhist teaching but as a universal principle. His concept was much more ecumenical than the way Buddhists think of it today.

Me, too! It’s unfortunate we don’t have much history of these texts to help us understand how they developed the way they did.

3 Likes
9

Thanks! That’s very helpful. :anjal:

1 Like