Questions about "Early" as in early early.

Discuss and learn about the traditional Mahayana scriptures, without assuming that any one school ‘owns’ the only correct interpretation.
Padmist
Posts: 187
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2021 3:12 am

Questions about "Early" as in early early.

Post by Padmist »

It is synonymous in many people's minds that EBT is Pali Text. But a few questions:
  • What currently are the earliest texts we have?
  • Gandharan text? What does it tell us about Early Buddhism we don't already know from the later records?
  • Did Early Buddhists have multiple different canons by group, region (pre-sect) and per sect (post-schism)?
  • Since Pali Canon is not so dissimilar to the Chinese Canon, why does it take as preeminent prestige in EBT studies?
  • Are there verifiable Mahayana sutras that predates the Buddhist canons and/or Pali canon?
  • Is there a consensus in Early Buddhism (pre-sect/post-schism) that the Canons (all canons) and/or Pali Canon contain the original teachings of the Buddha?
  • Before 19th century, did Southern Buddhists know they have a full Buddhist canon in their possession and did they use it to argue they have the authentic teachings?
  • How do Mahayana Buddhists handle claims that Pali Canon is the authentic teachings of the Buddha and anything beyond it is isn't Buddha's teachings?
User avatar
DNS
Site Admin
Posts: 5268
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 4:23 pm
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada, Estados Unidos de América
Contact:

Re: Questions about "Early" as in early early.

Post by DNS »

T. Rhys Davids made a pretty good list back in the 19th century:

https://www.dhammawiki.com/index.php?ti ... Pali_Canon

Most of these have parallels in the Chinese Agamas, which are Mahayana.

The Pali Canon was an Oral Tradition for several centuries before being written around 100 BCE to 100 CE. Mahayana sutras were around from the time of the Pali Canon being written, so no tradition can stake claim with full proof of being the original.
tingdzin
Posts: 1948
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2013 7:19 am

Re: Questions about "Early" as in early early.

Post by tingdzin »

Padmist wrote: Thu Jan 21, 2021 11:47 pm Gandharan text? What does it tell us about Early Buddhism we don't already know from the later records?
Gandharan texts are forcing a reappraisal of early Buddhism in many ways. Of course one has to remember that "early" in either Gandhari or Pali texts still means centuries after Shakyamuni, and it would be difficult to make the case that Buddhism had not already undergone major changes in those centuries.
Padmist wrote: Thu Jan 21, 2021 11:47 pm Are there verifiable Mahayana sutras that predates the Buddhist canons and/or Pali canon?
There is material which we would call (with our penchant for classification) "early Mahayana" or perhaps "proto-Mahayana" in the early Gandhari stuff, by which I mean it includes themes that we now associate with Mahayana, but the name "Mahayana" is a later thing, and there is ferocious argument about what the label should include. "Verifiable Mahayana sutras" are later than this earliest Gandharan stuff.
Padmist wrote: Thu Jan 21, 2021 11:47 pm Since Pali Canon is not so dissimilar to the Chinese Canon, why does it take as preeminent prestige in EBT studies?
The Pali canon is no longer privileged by historical scholars. Its privilege on the popular level as the most authentic Buddhism is a hangover from British Protestant assumptions.
Padmist wrote: Thu Jan 21, 2021 11:47 pm How do Mahayana Buddhists handle claims that Pali Canon is the authentic teachings of the Buddha and anything beyond it is isn't Buddha's teachings?
They shrug and say "each to his own tastes". At least, that is the current tendency. There was a time when fierce arguments took place.
PeterC
Posts: 5192
Joined: Tue May 20, 2014 12:38 pm

Re: Questions about "Early" as in early early.

Post by PeterC »

Padmist wrote: Thu Jan 21, 2021 11:47 pm It is synonymous in many people's minds that EBT is Pali Text. But a few questions:
  • What currently are the earliest texts we have?
Physically oldest? The Gandharan texts
Determined by textualists to be earliest? Depends on which textualist you ask and what assumptions/methodology they apply
  • Gandharan text? What does it tell us about Early Buddhism we don't already know from the later records?
It tells us that as far back as we have physical records there were multiple streams of thinking circulating and combining in different configurations, which includes prajnaparamita and tathagatagarbha ideas. It's only possible to say more than that if you apply assumptions and inference.
  • Did Early Buddhists have multiple different canons by group, region (pre-sect) and per sect (post-schism)?
Yes, clearly, but to say exactly what they are prior to the existence of written documentation is hard.
  • Since Pali Canon is not so dissimilar to the Chinese Canon, why does it take as preeminent prestige in EBT studies?
It is in many ways quite dissimilar. Don't know how much of the Chinese canon you have read but it includes a lot of material that doesn't overlap with the Palo Canon, some of which was probably composed in China, some of which was probably composed in India.
  • Are there verifiable Mahayana sutras that predates the Buddhist canons and/or Pali canon?
We can't verify the dating of the Pali canon itself, let alone the relative age of sutras not included in the pali canon
  • Is there a consensus in Early Buddhism (pre-sect/post-schism) that the Canons (all canons) and/or Pali Canon contain the original teachings of the Buddha?
The proponents of the term "Early Buddhism", which is an academic term and to some degree a sectarian term, have always asserted that the pali canon represents an earlier stratum of texts, and therefore is closest to the "original teachings" of the buddha. Their evidence for this is mostly supposition and textual inference.
  • Before 19th century, did Southern Buddhists know they have a full Buddhist canon in their possession and did they use it to argue they have the authentic teachings?
You mean "believe", not "know". Before the 19th century these sects didn't really interact very often. Again, you're greatly overstating the degree to which we can "prove" anything here. A lot of our knowledge of the schools even just a thousand years after the Buddha is brief descriptions from secondary sources. We simply don't know much about their practices. The modern Theraveda is just that - modern - it didn't exist then.
  • How do Mahayana Buddhists handle claims that Pali Canon is the authentic teachings of the Buddha and anything beyond it is isn't Buddha's teachings?
They don't need to handle it any more than they need to handle claims that there is one true god and Jesus is his son, Muhammed is his prophet, Krishna will save the world, true salvation lies in the flying spaghetti monster, etc. If you're looking for the directions to enlightenment in critical textual analysis or 19th century religious aesthetics, I can say with confidence that you're wasting your time. That's not even consistent with the teachings of the Pali canon itself.
User avatar
Johnny Dangerous
Global Moderator
Posts: 17092
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:58 pm
Location: Olympia WA
Contact:

Re: Questions about "Early" as in early early.

Post by Johnny Dangerous »

Padmist wrote: Thu Jan 21, 2021 11:47 pm
  • How do Mahayana Buddhists handle claims that Pali Canon is the authentic teachings of the Buddha and anything beyond it is isn't Buddha's teachings?
It depends. Some teachers explicitly state that Shakyamuni taught the Mahayana sutras directly, in this dimension so to speak. Others say that the Mahayana is beyond just physical transmission in time and space, and give examples of things like the size of Vulture peak (it would not hold the kind assembly mentioned in the Heart Sutra, much less the part of the assembly that was non-human!) as examples of the fact that the Mahayana sutras (and even more the Tantras) are a kind of direct teaching that did not reach the sravakas, who only perceived the teaching they heard directly in linear time.

This kind of hing is of course shocking to be people who start their journey as dyed in the wool materialists.

The thing is that even in Pali literature, the Buddha does not say that only his particular words are Buddhavacana, because there were Buddhas before him, and will be Buddha's after him. Again a fact alluded to even in "early" texts. in fact, when criteria of what is Buddhavacana are given, it tends to be less about who is saying in than what is said. So, in the Mahayana Buddhavacana is not just words perceived as sound from the nirmanakaya of our time, but has a more expansive meaning.

This is very much an article of faith, one that either one can have confidence in or not. As far as I know it's pretty well established that ideas that came to be the Bodhisattvayana did in some sense exist historically alongside the more established 'early' Buddhism, but I am just going on what I've read about Gandharan manuscripts etc.

To me personally attempts to freeze and emulate a "historical Buddhism" can be a way of deadening the entire enterprise, and actually can cut one off from the living experience when taken to extremes. I do think such studies are very useful in places, but once historicity becomes more important than practice, it ceases to be a worthwhile pursuit to my mind.

BTW I have seen Gandharan Rupas at the museum and they were amazing!
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when afflicted by disease

Meditate upon Bodhicitta when sad

Meditate upon Bodhicitta when suffering occurs

Meditate upon Bodhicitta when you are scared

-Khunu Lama
neander
Posts: 68
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2020 10:24 pm

Re: Questions about "Early" as in early early.

Post by neander »

Johnny Dangerous wrote: Fri Jan 22, 2021 3:07 am
Padmist wrote: Thu Jan 21, 2021 11:47 pm
  • How do Mahayana Buddhists handle claims that Pali Canon is the authentic teachings of the Buddha and anything beyond it is isn't Buddha's teachings?

To me personally attempts to freeze and emulate a "historical Buddhism" can be a way of deadening the entire enterprise, and actually can cut one off from the living experience when taken to extremes. I do think such studies are very useful in places, but once historicity becomes more important than practice, it ceases to be a worthwhile pursuit to my mind.

BTW I have seen Gandharan Rupas at the museum and they were amazing!
I think historical research is fundamental and we are lucky that we live in an era with the internet where we can access for free information

prof Bronkhorst for instance in "two traditions of mediation in ancient India" states that is very likely that non-authentic views and practices found their way into the canonical collections and he examines possible the Jaina contaminations,the text is very interesting in relation to meditation history and he points out how difficult in any case is to prove anything since centuries elapsed after the historical Buddha

nothing can be proven but a critical eye must be always present, the Kalama sutta for le is the reference, staff must work..in another post, I personally doubted that temples and monastic life were part of original Buddhism as it looks to me an extreme that enfeebles men and that was rejected by the Middle Way path but that is my opinion ..

in the Kalama Sutta itself, Buddha invites his followers to doubt history and traditions, and this is awesome, you cannot find this in any other religion..
Norwegian
Posts: 2632
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2011 7:36 pm

Re: Questions about "Early" as in early early.

Post by Norwegian »

neander wrote: Sat Jan 23, 2021 11:26 pm in the Kalama Sutta itself, Buddha invites his followers to doubt history and traditions, and this is awesome, you cannot find this in any other religion..
The Kalama Sutta is a teaching intended for people who are not followers of the Buddha. For those who are followers of the Buddha, there is the Eastern Gatehouse Sutta: https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html
User avatar
Johnny Dangerous
Global Moderator
Posts: 17092
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:58 pm
Location: Olympia WA
Contact:

Re: Questions about "Early" as in early early.

Post by Johnny Dangerous »

neander wrote: Sat Jan 23, 2021 11:26 pm

I think historical research is fundamental and we are lucky that we live in an era with the internet where we can access for free information
Fundamental to what though? Certainly living Buddhist traditions, which are extant today, were just fine before this kind of research. That is not to say it has no value (I think it definitely does), but the tradition is not reliant on it for continuity or for quality. I have asked for years how advocates of "Early Buddhism" use it to inform their actual practice, and I have never gotten anything but more prapanca in response. How exactly does this kind of research inform people's actual Buddhist practice?
prof Bronkhorst for instance in "two traditions of mediation in ancient India" states that is very likely that non-authentic views and practices found their way into the canonical collections and he examines possible the Jaina contaminations,the text is very interesting in relation to meditation history and he points out how difficult in any case is to prove anything since centuries elapsed after the historical Buddha
From my perspective it is really not for academics to say what is "non authentic" in the case of something being Dharma with a capital D, unless they are actually Buddhist teachers. "Authenticity" in Buddhism is addressed in a number of different writings, and virtually none say that something is Buddhavacana because a professor somewhere develops some new theory about a text. Even if it's a sound theory, it uses a completely different schema for the type of "truth" being looked into.

I don't remember if Bronkhort is just a Buddhologist, a practitioner, or something in between, but his opinion on "authenticity" of a tradition means little to the people who actually practice in a tradition, rather than trying to (I guess, somehow, no one can ever define how exactly) base their practice on modern historical findings.
nothing can be proven but a critical eye must be always present, the Kalama sutta for le is the reference, staff must work..in another post, I personally doubted that temples and monastic life were part of original Buddhism as it looks to me an extreme that enfeebles men and that was rejected by the Middle Way path but that is my opinion ..

in the Kalama Sutta itself, Buddha invites his followers to doubt history and traditions, and this is awesome, you cannot find this in any other religion..
This is just insulting to the monastic community and I would request that you stop referring to it as "something which enfeebles men" and similar hyperbole, it is close enough to being a ToS violation to skirt the line of what's acceptable. If you have a-specific- criticism of monastic culture in this or that way, no problem.

That seems like the common nterpretation of the Kalama Sutta one sees from outside of Dharma, like taking it farther than the text recommends. The Kalama Sutta says absolutely nothing about using modern historical research methods as method of finding truth in the Dharmic sense, it does not encourage a modern sense of naive realism or materialist skepticism, or using empirical measurement of outer phenomena to establish "truth", but rather to establish truth by testing the Buddha's words in one's own experience.

Those are not the same thing, and I would argue that if you contextualize the Kalama alongside all the other Pali literature, that becomes very obvious. The are exhortations all over the place in the Pali Canon that fly in the face of "Buddhalogical" approach to crafting one's Dharma practice after something like modern textual research, in far greater quantity than the recommendations in the Kalama - even if they are (in my opinion wrongly) interpreted as meaning that one should approach Dharma with complete skepticism . I mean yes critical thought is vital to the Dharma, but it is not the same critical thought as the Buddhologists exhibit, from my point of view.
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when afflicted by disease

Meditate upon Bodhicitta when sad

Meditate upon Bodhicitta when suffering occurs

Meditate upon Bodhicitta when you are scared

-Khunu Lama
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Questions about "Early" as in early early.

Post by Malcolm »

Padmist wrote: Thu Jan 21, 2021 11:47 pm
  • How do Mahayana Buddhists handle claims that Pali Canon is the authentic teachings of the Buddha and anything beyond it is isn't Buddha's teachings?
Mahāyāna, as a self-conscious movement, begins with Nāgārjuna. Why do I say this? Nāgārjuna was the first identifiable author that we know of in the history of Buddhism to defend the sūtra tradition we call Mahāyāna. This is why he is the most important Mahāyāna figure, apart from the Buddha in Mahāyāna sūtras. Of course there were Mahāyāna sūtras prior to Nāgārjuna, but he was the first person to articulate a polemical defense of Mahāyāna and the first historical person (by western criteria) to give Mahāyāna a serious intellectual platform.
PeterC
Posts: 5192
Joined: Tue May 20, 2014 12:38 pm

Re: Questions about "Early" as in early early.

Post by PeterC »

neander wrote: Sat Jan 23, 2021 11:26 pm ...I personally doubted that temples and monastic life were part of original Buddhism as it looks to me an extreme that enfeebles men and that was rejected by the Middle Way path
How do you think the Buddha spent his time? How did he live? In what sense was monastic life *not* part of "original Buddhism", however described?
but that is my opinion ...
Indeed. And describing it as "enfeebling" is disrespectful to those that have dedicated their lives to the study and practice of the Dharma through ordination. Or did you miss all the references in the sutras about the importance of monks and respect due to the sangha? There's plenty in the pali canon.
neander
Posts: 68
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2020 10:24 pm

Re: Questions about "Early" as in early early.

Post by neander »

PeterC wrote: Mon Jan 25, 2021 7:03 am
neander wrote: Sat Jan 23, 2021 11:26 pm ...I personally doubted that temples and monastic life were part of original Buddhism as it looks to me an extreme that enfeebles men and that was rejected by the Middle Way path
How do you think the Buddha spent his time? How did he live? In what sense was monastic life *not* part of "original Buddhism", however described?
but that is my opinion ...
Indeed. And describing it as "enfeebling" is disrespectful to those that have dedicated their lives to the study and practice of the Dharma through ordination. Or did you miss all the references in the sutras about the importance of monks and respect due to the sangha? There's plenty in the pali canon.
There is already a specific thread on this related to the temples...

Kalama sutta is subject to various interpretations some more restrictive others closer to modern science, you can choose whatever you prefer; I believe everything has to be put to the test especially in modern times when we know the Buddhist tradition is not reliable, studies on early Buddhism are very important in pointing out how everything was mixed up..
PeterC
Posts: 5192
Joined: Tue May 20, 2014 12:38 pm

Re: Questions about "Early" as in early early.

Post by PeterC »

neander wrote: Mon Jan 25, 2021 7:38 am
PeterC wrote: Mon Jan 25, 2021 7:03 am
neander wrote: Sat Jan 23, 2021 11:26 pm ...I personally doubted that temples and monastic life were part of original Buddhism as it looks to me an extreme that enfeebles men and that was rejected by the Middle Way path
How do you think the Buddha spent his time? How did he live? In what sense was monastic life *not* part of "original Buddhism", however described?
but that is my opinion ...
Indeed. And describing it as "enfeebling" is disrespectful to those that have dedicated their lives to the study and practice of the Dharma through ordination. Or did you miss all the references in the sutras about the importance of monks and respect due to the sangha? There's plenty in the pali canon.
There is already a specific thread on this related to the temples...

Kalama sutta is subject to various interpretations some more restrictive others closer to modern science, you can choose whatever you prefer; I believe everything has to be put to the test especially in modern times when we know the Buddhist tradition is not reliable, studies on early Buddhism are very important in pointing out how everything was mixed up..
This has nothing to do with the Kalama sutra at all. There are innumerable places in the Pali canon alone where the Buddha emphasizes the importance of the ordained sangha and that it is worthy of respect. You can't dismiss that with some handwaving on the unreliability of traditions. There is no Buddhist lineage extant, or even attested historically, that does not accord respect to the ordained sangha.
PeterC
Posts: 5192
Joined: Tue May 20, 2014 12:38 pm

Re: Questions about "Early" as in early early.

Post by PeterC »

neander wrote: Mon Jan 25, 2021 7:38 am There is already a specific thread on this related to the temples...
Just read it. Your comments in that were uninformed nonsense too.
neander
Posts: 68
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2020 10:24 pm

Re: Questions about "Early" as in early early.

Post by neander »

PeterC wrote: Mon Jan 25, 2021 9:42 am
neander wrote: Mon Jan 25, 2021 7:38 am
PeterC wrote: Mon Jan 25, 2021 7:03 am

How do you think the Buddha spent his time? How did he live? In what sense was monastic life *not* part of "original Buddhism", however described?



Indeed. And describing it as "enfeebling" is disrespectful to those that have dedicated their lives to the study and practice of the Dharma through ordination. Or did you miss all the references in the sutras about the importance of monks and respect due to the sangha? There's plenty in the pali canon.
There is already a specific thread on this related to the temples...

Kalama sutta is subject to various interpretations some more restrictive others closer to modern science, you can choose whatever you prefer; I believe everything has to be put to the test especially in modern times when we know the Buddhist tradition is not reliable, studies on early Buddhism are very important in pointing out how everything was mixed up..
This has nothing to do with the Kalama sutra at all. There are innumerable places in the Pali canon alone where the Buddha emphasizes the importance of the ordained sangha and that it is worthy of respect. You can't dismiss that with some handwaving on the unreliability of traditions. There is no Buddhist lineage extant, or even attested historically, that does not accord respect to the ordained sangha.
Buddhist lineages not only did not respect but killed and slaughtered different versions of Shangha.

You can just study a short period like Kamakura and Sengoku in Japan to realize this. Armed attacks were very frequent between various lineages. In the main monasteries in mount Hiei armed attacks occurred within the very same temple, each side accusing the other of slandering the Dharma.

The implementation of what a Shanga should have been was not clear since the first council when already 19 different schools had different ideas...
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Questions about "Early" as in early early.

Post by Malcolm »

neander wrote: Mon Jan 25, 2021 3:41 pm
Buddhist lineages not only did not respect but killed and slaughtered different versions of Shangha.

You can just study a short period like Kamakura and Sengoku in Japan to realize this. Armed attacks were very frequent between various lineages. In the main monasteries in mount Hiei armed attacks occurred within the very same temple, each side accusing the other of slandering the Dharma.

The implementation of what a Shanga should have been was not clear since the first council when already 19 different schools had different ideas...
You are conflating politics of Medieval Japan with Ancient India now? The Buddha's split into eighteen schools was predicted in King Krikin's dream. This split occurred because in a past life, the Buddha himself had been a sectarian.
User avatar
Caoimhghín
Posts: 3419
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:35 pm
Location: Whitby, Ontario

Re: Questions about "Early" as in early early.

Post by Caoimhghín »

Padmist wrote: Thu Jan 21, 2021 11:47 pm
  • How do Mahayana Buddhists handle claims that Pali Canon is the authentic teachings of the Buddha and anything beyond it is isn't Buddha's teachings?
IMO, it's evident that if Mahayana comes from a specific community of practitioners who are all more or less in the same community and in the same place, i.e. if the "historical" Buddha taught a dispensation to a group of disciples called "the bodhisattvas" and this community was located in a particular region and not dispersed into all of the Buddha's communities, it is likely the Āndhrakas in Southern India or the Mahāsāṃghikas generally. The Mahāsāṃghikas themselves appear to have been a Śrāvaka school, much like the aforementioned Āndhrakas (an offshoot of Mahāsāṃghika), yet their doctrines seem to be greatly influenced by what we will later call "Mahayana Buddhism" and these schools will later be absorbed into the Mahayana as their practitioners convert. The text-critical evolutionary model favoured in academic Buddhology, where the Mahayana is the gradual work of numerous Yogis interpreting the words of the Buddha, potentially also practitioners channeling or communicating with the Buddha in dreams, meditations, etc., favours that it developed in Mahāsāṃghika communities generally.

What follows is entirely my own theory: If we dismiss the text-critical evolutionary model but retain what we have learned from the critical study of the texts, then we get an image of Mahāsāṃghika communities significantly more influenced by Mahayana than the Sthaviravada communities are and who commit their scriptures to writing much later than other sects and commit them into writing in different literary genres than the scriptures of, say, the Sarvastivadins, Dharmaguptakas, and Theravadins. We arguably don't have any "Mahāsāṃghika sutras." We have EA, an agama collection, which appears to be Sarvastivada/Theravada style EBTs freely intermixed with Mahayana ideas. This is what we would expect actually from the Mahāsāṃghikas. The Lotus, Flower Garland, etc., many Mahayana sutras, likely have their genesis in an older Mahāsāṃghika form IMO because this was the community remembering these sermons. Potentially, it was the only community to which these sermons were given at all. It is ultimately an argument from ignorance, however, because we have almost no Mahāsāṃghika scriptures at all and know little of their precise redaction of teachings of the Buddha. The Sarvastivadins and Theravadins already in their sutras do not agree as to what the Buddha taught, to who, and when, and these schools are both derived from the Sthaviravada. The Mahāsāṃghikas are only going to be even more different historically, being a significantly less closely related sect.
Then, the monks uttered this gāthā:

These bodies are like foam.
Them being frail, who can rejoice in them?
The Buddha attained the vajra-body.
Still, it becomes inconstant and ruined.
The many Buddhas are vajra-entities.
All are also subject to inconstancy.
Quickly ended, like melting snow --
how could things be different?

The Buddha passed into parinirvāṇa afterward.
(T1.27b10 Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra DĀ 2)
User avatar
Caoimhghín
Posts: 3419
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:35 pm
Location: Whitby, Ontario

Re: Questions about "Early" as in early early.

Post by Caoimhghín »

Something that we don't often pay attention to is when one of the great Mahayanika masters quotes a sermon of the Buddha's from the dispensation to the sravaka, we often don't know the precise redaction of the sutras they were using and don't have those recensions anymore. When Ven Candrakirti says "The unenlightened person is at variance with me; I am not at variance with the unenlightened person." This could be his own paraphrase of the Buddha's statement "The world is at variance with me; I am not at variance with the world," but it could also possibly be what the sutra says in the version that Ven Candrakirti has in front of him. "A world is a sentient being" is easily deduceable in Buddhadharma and the Buddha says as much elsewhere in his sutras, but the extant Pali and Sarvastivadin versions do not have this actually in the sutra itself.
Caoimhghín wrote: Mon Jan 25, 2021 5:57 pmIt is ultimately an argument from ignorance, however, because we have almost no Mahāsāṃghika scriptures at all and know little of their precise redaction of teachings of the Buddha. The Sarvastivadins and Theravadins already in their sutras do not agree as to what the Buddha taught, to who, and when, and these schools are both derived from the Sthaviravada. The Mahāsāṃghikas are only going to be even more different historically, being a significantly less closely related sect.
Another point. Ven Bhavaviveka cites a version of the Sīsapāvanasutta (familiar to us via the Pali Canon most likely) where the Buddha addressed it to Ven Ananda instead of the bhiksusamgha like it is in both the Sarvastivadin and Theravadin versions. Similarly, the actual content of the sutra is different. In Ven Bhavaviveka's version, it says:
“Ānanda, I have understood an extremely large number of dharmas, as many as there are leaves in this Śiṃśapā grove, but I have not taught them to you. They are not profitable for you; they do not cause you to be weary [with saṃsāra] or free from desire.”
This is fundamentally a different message than the Pali version and the version in Chinese translation coming from the Theravadin and Sarvastivadin schools respectively.
Then, the monks uttered this gāthā:

These bodies are like foam.
Them being frail, who can rejoice in them?
The Buddha attained the vajra-body.
Still, it becomes inconstant and ruined.
The many Buddhas are vajra-entities.
All are also subject to inconstancy.
Quickly ended, like melting snow --
how could things be different?

The Buddha passed into parinirvāṇa afterward.
(T1.27b10 Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra DĀ 2)
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Questions about "Early" as in early early.

Post by Malcolm »

Caoimhghín wrote: Mon Jan 25, 2021 6:15 pmAnother point. Ven Bhavaviveka cites a version of the Sīsapāvanasutta (familiar to us via the Pali Canon most likely) where the Buddha addressed it to Ven Ananda instead of the bhiksusamgha like it is in both the Sarvastivadin and Theravadin versions.
It can also be a paraphrase, a misquote, and so on.
User avatar
Caoimhghín
Posts: 3419
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:35 pm
Location: Whitby, Ontario

Re: Questions about "Early" as in early early.

Post by Caoimhghín »

Yes, just like the earlier Ven Candrakirti quotation.
Then, the monks uttered this gāthā:

These bodies are like foam.
Them being frail, who can rejoice in them?
The Buddha attained the vajra-body.
Still, it becomes inconstant and ruined.
The many Buddhas are vajra-entities.
All are also subject to inconstancy.
Quickly ended, like melting snow --
how could things be different?

The Buddha passed into parinirvāṇa afterward.
(T1.27b10 Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra DĀ 2)
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Questions about "Early" as in early early.

Post by Malcolm »

Caoimhghín wrote: Mon Jan 25, 2021 5:57 pm What follows is entirely my own theory: If we dismiss the text-critical evolutionary model but retain what we have learned from the critical study of the texts, then we get an image of Mahāsāṃghika communities significantly more influenced by Mahayana
Walser's new book opines that the Ur-PP sūtra was written by a Sarvastivādin monk who was from a Maitrayaṇī Brahmin family in Mathura in the last half of the first century, CE, and that it intended to present a Buddhist compatible version of brahman, and further, that is was a fundamentally political move to secure a position at court. He further argues that Mahāyāna arose in Brahmin communities where "Buddhist" and "Brahmin" were ambiguous distinctions at best.

:popcorn:
Post Reply

Return to “Sūtra Studies”