There is one passage I’m aware of that specifically says that it’s ‘teaching special to the Buddhas’
When the Blessed One knew that …'s mind was pliant, softened, rid of hindrances, uplifted, and confident, he revealed that Dhamma teaching special to the Buddhas: suffering, its origin, its cessation, and the path.
Yadā bhagavā aññāsi … kallacittaṃ muducittaṃ vinīvaraṇacittaṃ udaggacittaṃ pasannacittaṃ, atha yā buddhānaṃ sāmukkaṃsikā dhammadesanā, taṃ pakāsesi – dukkhaṃ samudayaṃ nirodhaṃ maggaṃ. (more or less the same in DN 3, DN 5, DN 14, MN 56, MN 91, AN 8.12, AN 8.21, AN 8.22)
Do you know of any other formulas or passages that point out explicitly that this is Buddha-only-teaching?
Thanks
The Four Noble Truths is quite a lot in itself. The other thing that comes close is when he says the four attained disciples are only found in his dispensation (sutta?).
Sure the 4NT carry a lot of weight, but it’s a very specific headline. As you know some say “everything is included in the 4NT”, but the EBT know very different kinds of dhamma, bojjhangas, paticcas., nimittas, danger-escape, ayatanas, gradual training… …
So what you mention with the attained disciples would be very interesting to have, and a friend told me something similar without recalling the source. Is it possible that it comes from this (misleading) translation from Dhp XVIII?
There is no track in the sky, and no recluse outside (the Buddha’s dispensation). Mankind delights in worldliness, but the Buddhas are free from worldliness. samaṇo natthi bāhire
Taken this interpretation literally the sentence would be of course nonsense. The EBT know very well samaṇabrāhmaṇā of other sects and they are mentioned hundreds of times. Do you maybe recall where else you could have found it?
MN 11 is pretty interesting. It compares the teachings of others to the Buddha’s.
“Bhikkhus, there are these four kinds of clinging. What four? Clinging to sensual pleasures, clinging to views, clinging to rules and observances, and clinging to a doctrine of self.”
Basically it lists three kinds of non-Buddhist teachers. Those who understand the first kind of clinging, those who understand the first and second, those who understand the first and second and third kinds of clinging. No non-Buddhist teacher understands the fourth kind of clinging, however: clinging to a doctrine of self.
In my opinion, the present day world is much the same way. There are plenty of religions that teach people the danger of clinging to sensual pleasures, views, and to rules and observances. When it comes to ideas about a self the situation is different. All non-Buddhist religions cling to one kind of self or another, it seems to me. Plenty of Buddhists also want to keep the “higher” self or concepts that are similar to the hindu “brahman”. The pure Awareness that pervades the universe.
But there are also many Buddhists, who have let go of clinging to doctrines of self or clinging to doctrines concerning the non-existence of a self (as if we were talking about something meaningful to negate), like the Buddha taught his followers to do. This sets Buddhism apart from all other world religions. It did then and it also does now.
There is the phrase: “pubbe ananussutesu” (never heard before), which has been applied to the 4NTs (MN 56.11), D.O. (SN 12.10), satipatthana (SN 47.31), iddhipadda (SN 51.9) and gratiification-danger-escape (SN 36.10) teachings and possibly elsewhere.
There is also the phrase: “tathāgatabhāsitānaṃ” or ‘tathāgatabhāsitā’ (words of the Tathagata), as found in SN 20.7, SN 55.53, AN 5.79 & AN 2.47, which are about ‘supramundane connected to emptiness’ (lokuttarā suññatāpaṭisaṃyuttā).
There is also the phrase ‘dhammo desito/dhamma desito’ may be worth investigation. It could possibly be found only a certain genre of teachings, such as in AN 3.61:
But, bhikkhus, this Dhamma taught by me (dhamma desito) is unrefuted, undefiled, irreproachable, and uncensured by wise ascetics and brahmins. And what is the Dhamma taught by me that is unrefuted, undefiled, irreproachable, and uncensured by wise ascetics and brahmins?
‘These are the six elements’: this, bhikkhus, is the Dhamma taught by me that is unrefuted … uncensured by wise ascetics and brahmins. ‘These are the six bases for contact’ … ‘These are the eighteen mental examinations’ … ‘These are the four noble truths’: this, bhikkhus, is the Dhamma taught by me that is unrefuted, undefiled, irreproachable, and uncensured by wise ascetics and brahmins.
[quote=“Gabriel, post:3, topic:5803”]
So what you mention with the attained disciples would be very interesting to have, and a friend told me something similar without recalling the source. Is it possible that it comes from this (misleading) translation from Dhp XVIII?
There is no track in the sky, and no recluse outside (the Buddha’s dispensation). Mankind delights in worldliness, but the Buddhas are free from worldliness.
samaṇo natthi bāhire[/quote]
The rendering of samaṇo n’atthi bāhire as “there is no recluse outside (the Buddha’s dispensation)” is based on the Dhammapada Commentary’s gloss:
_“Bāhire” ti mama sāsanato bahiddhā maggaphalaṭṭho samaṇo nāma natthi.
Though the commentator doesn’t say so, it is likely that what he (and @Mat above) have in mind is a passage from the Mahāparinibbānasutta:
Void are the outside doctrines of these other ascetics (suññā parappavādā samaṇebhi aññehi), Subhadda, but if monks should live well, the world will not be void of Worthy Ones.
[…]
Existing in the realm of the right Teaching
Outside of this there is no true ascetic (ñāyassa dhammassa padesavattī ito bahiddhā samaṇopi natthi),
dn16
It would not be nonsense if it were taken as referring to samaṇa in the special sense of “true ascetic” rather than the general sense of “[any old] ascetic”.
small correction here, at least in BB’s translation it’s SN 36.25…
Another sutta, MN 100, uses this the expression “pubbe ananussutesu” in a context that I think clarifies the meaning. Here, three kinds of samaṇabrāhmaṇā are contrasted:
“traditionalists, who on the basis of oral tradition claim the fundamentals of the holy life… such are the brahmins of the Three Vedas”
those “who, entirely on the basis of mere faith, claim the fundamentals of the holy life… such are the reasoners and investigators”
"There are some recluses and brahmins who, having directly known the Dhamma for themselves among things not heard before, claim the fundamentals of the holy life after having reached the consummation and perfection of direct knowledge here and now.
It seems clear to me that based on this “not heard before” does not mean that a new knowledge appeared in the world. Rather that someone (the Buddha) didn’t speak from hearsay, or out of mere faith in someone else’s words. That he didn’t hear his teaching from someone else. Which leaves open the possibility of paccekabuddhas, or even other contemporary self-enlightened beings just outside of northern india’s grapevine. Interesting also the sentence’s subject “There are some recluses and brahmins”, implying more than one.
I’m not making too much of it, but 1. it’s a much weaker stand than suttas with “A Tathagata appears in the world” 2. regarding the “not heard before” teachings it implies not that they are world-unique but just that the Buddha didn’t get them from somebody else - which is still pretty close to ‘teaching unique to Buddhism’.
I looked into these “discourses spoken by the Tathagata that are deep, deep in meaning, supramundane, dealing with emptiness.” But I couldn’t derive an exclusivity out of them yet. Since we have to assume that other teachers preached up to the highest arupas, they necessarily must have talked about emptiness. My question still: is lokuttara, i.e. supramundane, always associated with noble people up to arahantship. Or are devas or mere arupas also lokuttara?
I found two other sources for this expression. You already mentioned DN 16:
Now, Subhadda, in this Dhamma and discipline the Noble Eightfold Path is found, and in it are to be found ascetics of the first, second, third and fourth grade. Those other schools are devoid of ascetics.
More explicit is AN 4.241 since it specifies the four as stream-enterer… arahant:
Bhikkhus, ‘only here is there an ascetic, a second ascetic, a third ascetic, and a fourth ascetic. The other sects are empty of ascetics.’ It is in such a way that you should rightly roar your
lion’s roar.
Finally there is the same claim by MN 11:
Bhikkhus, only here is there a recluse, only here a second recluse, only here a third recluse, only here a fourth recluse. The doctrines of others are devoid of recluses: that is how you should rightly roar your lion’s roar… What are the four? (1) We have confidence in the Teacher, (2) we have confidence in the Dhamma, (3) we have fulfilled the precepts, (4) and our companions in the Dhamma are dear and agreeable to us whether they are laymen or those gone forth.
But this reasoning is not convincing, a Nigantha could probably claim the same…
What I don’t understand is the translation. In all cases the Pali goes: Idheva samaṇo, idha dutiyo samaṇo, idha tatiyo samaṇo, idha catuttho samaṇo.
This doesn’t mean only here, it simply means here. Walshe translates it like that, just BB translates ‘only here’, probably influenced by the commentaries.
Ven. Thanissaro translates it “right here”. Walshe and Ven. Ānandajoti leave eva untranslated. Francis Story and Sister Vajira give the fortissimo rendering: “Now in this Dhamma and Discipline … and in it alone…”
Yes, and the sutta says they might say that. I think the above 4 points is essentially saying not only are these 4 present, but we are part of the 4- this is the ‘Mirror of the dhamma’ teaching where one ascertains whether one is a stream entrant or not. So the monks answering know that there is no way that someone from another religion could have these 4 attained disciples because of the training they have undergone themselves. It is a bit like Ven Sariputta knew that the Buddha’s teaching was like a fortress wall only a cat could get through, without having studied/practiced all the other teachings around at the time, or even having knowledge of how other Buddhas taught. Also after he lists things which people from other religions could determine for themselves (assuming they understood it of course) that what is taught in Buddhism is something quite deep- and finishes with the DO- a unique teaching to Buddhism.
