Actually we don't know what the write meant by "What is mythological, magical and almost superstitious". Maybe those stranger stuff in DN.Qianxi wrote:What can be talked about with some clarity is the (considerable) shared material between the various versions of the four Agamas. That is what Analayo means when he refers to early buddhism. In that layer there are plenty of references to things we might consider mythical or magical. Almost all of the content of the pali Nikayas is also found in the Chinese agamas, so devas, teleportation, psychic powers etc. are all part of what Analayo refers to as 'Early Buddhism'.Spiny Norman wrote:I noticed this as one of the criteria in the guide:Kumara wrote: This is helpful as a guide: http://www.dhammaforeveryone.com/is-the ... avada.html
What is mythological, magical and almost superstitious is later development since the philosophy of the commonly agreed texts as early teachings is non-magical and free of mythology.
Is this intended to include sutta content relating to rebirth and kamma? And who has "commonly agreed" that certain texts are early?
As time goes on there's a tendency to elaborate accounts of the Buddha's powers, but things we might consider magical or mythological were there 'from the beginning' (or as far back as it is possible to go).
I think the criterion you quote draws into question the reliability of the article.
Anyway, looks like this thread is already derailed before anything I was hoping for show up.
To give an example:
Orthodox Theravada: No intermediate being.
Early Buddhism: Highly suggestive of intermediate being.