Since these relations have caused much confusion (namely people being convinced that they are EBT) I’d wish for more careful expressions like “We learn that Gotama had a wife and a son only from later literature / Vinaya”. The same with all the cousins incl. Ananda, Devadatta etc. whose family relation are sometimes mentioned as late as the Mahavastu (except for Nanda and Tissa which are EBT).
Maybe “years of striving” suffices since again the six years are tradition but not backed up by suttas.
This paragraph contains mostly references to AN and SN. Which I find a bit confusing in the essay. It seems to be mainly an introduction to the MN, but there are some paragraphs that read like a general introduction to early Buddhism and have more references to Vinaya, (e.g. in the Sangha chapter) so that I sometimes lost the otherwise present focus on character and content of the MN.
Thanks for the suggestions, I have incorporated most of them.
I’m pretty happy with these as they are.
This is a result of the somewhat odd history of this essay. This was the first introduction I wrote, and it was while writing it that I realized I needed a general introduction. So I wrote that, originally by taking most of the material from the MN introduction. Then I wrote the other introductions, and finally came back to the MN. Then I realized that there were some important topics that had not been addressed elsewhere, so I found room for them here.
Anyway, that’s just the background. The other reason is, of course, that I’m lazy. I’ve chased down a number of references in the MN now, so hopefully it is a little more focussed. As I mention in the General Intro, I don’t mind having a few references outside the current nikaya, but I agree, here it had become too many. Currently there are about 128 references to MN suttas, 11 to DN, 22 to SN, and 23 to AN. (The essays for SN and AN are much more focussed.)
Wonderful! I still haven’t read the whole thing, but so far I am mightily impressed. These are going to be marvellous companions to the suttas. Would you like to write an intro for the vinaya as well? Please ?
Perhaps “auto-biographical”, so as to distinguish them from the later biographies.
In the suttas he is normally known as Mahāmoggallāna. It is only the Buddha, I think, who calls him Moggallāna.
I wonder, was he amāra or the Māra? The idea that Māra was the ruler of the paranimittavassavattī realm seems to be post-Canonical. In the suttas the nature of māra/Māra is more ambiguous. One hint, perhaps, is found in the list of eight assemblies, among which the assembly of māra/Māra is one. Bhikkhu Bodhi translates this as Māra’s assembly, giving the impression that there is only one Māra, presiding over his followers. Yet a comparison with the other assemblies suggests the correct rendering is “an assembly of māras”. My suggestion is that māra in the EBTs refers to a kind of being, not a cosmic kind of kingship, which would mean that Mahāmoggallāna was amāra, not the Māra, in a past life. This is a less grandiose claim, and therefore perhaps preferable.
I love it!
“MN 135 and MN 136”
I tend to consider these suttas as dealing with right effort. Sammāsaṅkappa to me deals with right aim or purpose. Once you have right view, to whatever extent, it affects your attitude to life, sammāsaṅkappa. This then leads to moral behaviour, which culminates in the morality of the mind, sammāvāyāmā. MN 19 and MN 20 are all about overcoming mental obstacles, the morality of the mind, if you like. For quite a while now I have been sceptical of the common claim that the second path factor deals with “right thought”. I admit, of course, that there is some overlap between factors 2 and 6, and that they influence each other, but at the same time there is a distinction that is often overlooked.
Both parents are also mentioned in the pericope of his going forth found in MN 26, MN 36, MN 85, and MN 100.
I am not sure if I follow you here. Why have you added “to the Teacher”, which is not in the Pali? Also, the content of the sutta is about more than just offerings to the Teacher.
“led”
“see”?
Ven. Analayo argues that MN 12 is a later development, whereas MN 36 is likely to contain an earlier version of these practices. MN 12 does actually seem “a bit” over the top.
“aspects”
“near”?
“(MN 1; AN 4.23)”
“no matter”
I would suggest “who illuminated”. The “had” can be read as the illumination no longer being available, as the path being a thing of the past.
or “follower by faith” ( saddhānusāri )
Perhaps “a self” is preferable. “The self” makes it seem as if there is such a thing, but that it is apart from the khandhas.
Perhaps: “and they reach”. “Reaches” sounds a bit awkward.
I think a good case can be made that non-returners may be reborn in any of the Brahma realms. Beings reborn in The Pure Abodes do not seem to be in a state of immersion (oh no, I’m under the influence! ), since they are sometimes said to visit the Buddha. It seems rather obvious, however, that non-returners would often, perhaps most of the time, be reborn in a state samādhi (I’ve kicked it ). So my understanding is that, while it may be true that the Pure Abodes are only populated with non-returners, non-returners may very well be reborn elsewhere.
I have read the three introductions published so far. Feelings of gratefulness envelop me.
They constitute an introduction to the four Pali āgamas in the same sense that the Feynman Lectures on Physics constitute an introduction to physics; both go far beyond introducing the topics at hand and take the reader on a journey of love and wonder, a journey which may very well ignite a lifetime of love for the subject.
But they also differ. Whereas physics can provide an education, a livelihood and deepened understanding of the natural abiotic world, Early Buddhism can provide an education, a livelihood, and wisdom. The humans of Planet Earth lack wisdom and compassion so staggeringly often. In the āgamas, we find the antidote for foolishness and hate.
If suffering is the illness and extinguishment the medicine, the āgamas are the prescription leaflet. They explicate how to apply the healing forces of love, contentment, and understanding to our lifeworlds. But many do not know about this leaflet. I count it as a great blessing to have four āgamas summarized so eloquently, and with so much care.
Thanks once again to all respondents, I have adopted almost all the suggestions.
The parajika number was wrong, it should be Pj 4; I have corrected this and reworded the passage.
The most common meaning of dakkhiṇa/dakṣinā is the offering to a teacher. I think this sense is still very close to the surface in the suttas, and hence always translate it thus.
Perhaps: “a simple ceremony of going to the three refuges”
From here onwards you use the sutta number together with the Pali name. Earlier you have used the sutta number together with the English name. I think I would prefer to see English names throughout.
“driver”
Something is missing here.
“peak”? I am not sure exactly what you mean by this - whether or not you mean a relative peak compared to existing translations - but it is certainly possible to find short-comings even with this impressive achievement. There are some fairly obvious mistakes. Some of the translations of individual words are not beyond dispute. And sometimes the language is arguably too academic and difficult to understand. Still, it is quite likely it will never really be surpassed.
I might have misunderstood you here, by “to the teacher”. dakṣiṇā was not given from the student to the teacher but from the patron to the officiating priest - it was the ‘fee’ for the performance of the sacrifice.
Also in MN 142 it is obviously not from the monastic student to the teacher but from the layperson to the monastic.
Spot on! Though it is easy to postulate that there would naturally be a gang of decentralized leaders of sorts among the māras whom are dominant figures/organizers/recruiters in their ‘political activist movement,’ but certainly not a single ruler in paranimittavassavattī as you were saying.
Spot on, again! I prefer “right motivation” for reading sammāsaṅkappa myself as it makes much more sense in context.
Yes, I need to enforce consistency through all these essays, actually.
Titles are marked with <cite> tags, which are intended for titles in HTML. By default, browsers usually render this as italic, but here on Discourse it doesn’t happen. But it will work in the final thing!
My understanding was that it is a general term for an offering to brahmin in the performance of his duties, whether that be officiating a rite, or acting as teacher or mentor. The closest sense that works in a Buddhist context is, I think, “teacher”, but perhaps there is a better expression? Perhaps “offerings to respected persons” but it is getting clumsy!
Maybe you could look it up again in the sources available to you - is it commentarial? The Vedic sources up to the Satapatha at least are clear in that it’s given for a ritual, or in most cases for a sacrificial service of the priests.
Mylius (1979, in German) wrote a thorough source-based study on daksina and concludes:
dakṣiṇā was a part of available goods in Early Vedic and later Indian times which the priests claimed as wages or fees for their ritual activities and which they sought to constantly expand by a system of regulations.
The most common goods given were cows, gold, robes, horses (also SB 4.3.4.7). A common reward promised is a place in heaven, devaloka (e.g. SB 1.9.3.1), but also success, victory etc.
I don’t know if I have a good suggestion for a translation in the Buddhist context, maybe something like ‘religious donation’ would be closer?
Mylius, K. (1979). Dakṣinā. Altorientalische Forschungen , 6 (JG), 141-180.
), since they are sometimes said to visit the Buddha. It seems rather obvious, however, that non-returners would often, perhaps most of the time, be reborn in a state samādhi (I’ve kicked it 
). So my understanding is that, while it may be true that the Pure Abodes are only populated with non-returners, non-returners may very well be reborn elsewhere.
