Tevijjā vs. Paññāvimutti: A development in the Buddha's career?

[knotty36]

Good stuff on both sides! I hope this thread goes on for a while. To that end, here’s my contribution:

@Vaddha

This brings us to a distinction that, I hypothesize, may have been a development within the Buddha’s teaching career. That is, the distinction between the arahant with the tevijjā and the paññāvimutti arahant. Whereas the tevijjā were essential for the Buddha’s awakening—even if not as dramatically as the above hypothesis—it seems as he gave wisdom teachings, people could attain arahantship without realizing the same depth of knowledge.

First of all, for what it’s worth, this is essentially what the late Bhante Punnaji teaches. He teaches it, however, within the context of saññāvedayitanirodha of as the vehicle for the Buddha’s awakening. (Attested in the Tapussa Sutta) He ascribes liberation in both ways to the Buddha while surmising, similarly to you, that he realized that such attainments (and their attendant insights into reality) were not strictly necessary to achieving liberation. Slightly different paradigm, but same basic premise, I think.

@Vaddha

It seems that paticcasamuppāda as exemplified in the traditional 12 nidānas leans to the wisdom side, whereas the tevijjā leans to the samādhi(?) side.

To continue from points we explored, as I remember, on the nāmarūpa thread, what about the 9/10 chain? (That chain, I’d like to reiterate, is overwhelmingly associated in the suttas with the Buddha’s awakening, as well as those of past Buddhas.) According to the explanation given in DN 15 on the mutual conditioning of viññāṇa and nāmarūpa, such an insight would encompass all the saṁsāric knowledge you ascribe to the tevijjā. Your point that

@Vaddha

Paticcasamuppāda seems to be the model of samsāric existence that accounts for all states of being and the conditionality of all phenomena—past or future—without necessarily needing the tevijjā.

holds especially true and is made particularly explicit in the case of DN 15.

@Vaddha

Paticcasamuppāda is also quite intimately related to the pañc’upādānakkhandhā.

I agree. But I feel this is perhaps the particular emphasis of the 12-link chain–not really an “emphasis” as much as an “association”: for 12-link DO is associated with the 5 khandhas, the 4 NTs, and liberation through the 4th jhāna as kind of a dhammacakkappavattana package deal. I would say the 9/10-link chain is better associated with the nāmarūpa and viññāṇa “tangle” (SN 1.23 and SN 7.6). Or even the four foods.

But, when you get down to it, the 5 khandhas and the tangle are actually easily interchangeable synonyms, aren’t they?

@CurlyCarl

The above, if true, rules out the entire tradition of the reported 1st and 2nd sermons of the Buddha.

Personally, I ruled that tradition out long ago.

It’s a bit off-topic, but, when reconstructing the days following the awakening, people usually neglect to mention the 3rd sermon: the Ādittapariyāya (SN 35.28), delivered in Gāya.

Can I accept that, over the course of his career, did the Buddha communicate astrally with his disciples? Sure. Or that he travelled to deva heavens? Why not. Well, what about that he, in striving to build a saṅgha to help spread his brand new discovery, walked 150 miles to reach five anonymous wanderers (with whom he apparently lost all contact not long thereafter), all the while bypassing 1,000 potential converts and their three revered masters who dwelt in the next town, only to walk all the way back and convert them all anyway immediately following?! No. My faith has its limits.