John Peacock: Will the Real Buddha Please Stand Up?

Textual analysis and comparative discussion on early Buddhist sects and scriptures.
User avatar
cooran
Posts: 8503
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2009 11:32 pm
Location: Queensland, Australia

Re: John Peacock: Will the Real Buddha Please Stand Up?

Post by cooran »

Alex123 wrote:
tiltbillings wrote: it is not unreasonable to think that the Buddha had a hand in how his teaching were preserved and there enough hints and statements in the suttas that point to that.
I believe and hope so! But the Buddha did not write anything down, and left no audio-recording. We trust what happened in the First Council. But we do not know and cannot know for sure what the Historical Buddha has actually said, and Ananda's miraculous memory (which is said in the suttas) could have been a story to justify the suttas composed at First Council. There is no certain proof that anything the Historical Buddha Gotama has taught was put into suttas, though I believe them.
Hello all,

How old is the Sutta Pitaka
http://www.buddhanet.net/budsas/ebud/ebsut056.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Repeating an old post:
The Suttas are not 'sound bites' recorded as the Buddha spoke. They are compacted summaries of what was said, rehearsed and agreed upon by the Arahants at the Great Councils and memorised and chanted together by large groups of monks called Bhanakas (Reciters).

"Writing was unknown then, and so the Buddha’s sayings, as collected by his disciples, were committed to memory by a group of monks and were handed down to their disciples orally. There were probably two such groups, who, in order to distinguish themselves from each other, became known as Digha-Bhanakas and Majjhima-bhanakas. The other two Nikayas were later developments, their object being only to rearrange the topics dealt with in the Digha and the Majjhima".
http://www.quangduc.com/English/history" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ... ars07.html

The Suttas are teaching vehicles whose meanings are densely packed layer on layer. They are not to be read as an ordinary page of print, but require 'unpacking' by someone learned in the Dhamma. This condensed form was necessary in order that the Teachings would not be lost in the years before they were finally put into writing ~ engraved on leaves in Sri Lanka. It allowed them to be memorised by the large groups of bhikkhus (bhanakas) assigned to each portion of the Tipitaka. They are not verbatim reports of chats and conversations. This memorisation is said to have commenced before the parinibbana of the Buddha. Anything that is repeated is to be seen as something important which was highlighted by the repetition.

The Suttas are rather like the memory prompts - the dot points of the most important information to be transmitted - similar to those a public speaker carries for reference.
"Thus you should train yourselves: 'We will listen when discourses that are words of the Tathagata -- deep, deep in their meaning, transcendent, connected with emptiness -- are being recited. We will lend ear, will set our hearts on knowing them, will regard these teachings as worth grasping & mastering.' That's how you should train yourselves." (Ari sutta).

.... with regard to the accuracy of oral traditions ... Anthropologists agree that oral teachings are generally more accurate and less prone to "improving" than are written teachings

The Pali Suttas are summaries of what the Buddha meant to be passed on - and great care was taken, while he was alive and afterwards, to memorise them in a form that could not be distorted, and by a method that did not allow of deliberate alterations to meaning and content. The recitations were going on for the forty five years of the Buddha's teaching life. The repetitions in the suttas are pointer to the most important parts.

Venerable Mahá Kassapa, the Head of the First Council. Cúlavagga Xl,1,1 (ii,284) reiterated:
"Come, friends: let us recite the Teaching and the Discipline before what is not the Teaching shines forth and the Teaching is put aside, before what is not the Discipline shines forth and the Discipline is put aside, before those who speak what is not the Teaching become strong and those who speak what is the Teaching become weak, before those who speak what is not the Discipline become strong and those who speak what is the Discipline become weak."

So the system was in place before the Buddha passed away. The Pali suttas are extremely condensed summaries of the Buddha's teachings, packed with meaning, which need to be unpacked by those learned in the Dhamma. They were preserved in that form to aid memorising and chanting by the large groups of Bhikkhus called Bhanakas (Reciters) i.e. Majjhima-bhanakas, Digha-bhanakas etc. Each group was allocated a small portion of the Tipitaka to keep pristine and pass on. This began even while the Buddha was alive.

It was only hundreds of years later in Sri Lanka, in a time of famine and warfare, with many bhikkhus dying, and with Buddhism all but wiped out in India, that the MahaSangha decided the Teachings needed to be written down. They were engraved on Ola Leaves. Many of us have been to Sri Lanka and have had the inestimable good fortune to have seen demonstrations of this being done at the ancient rock temple of Aluvihara Temple (where the Tipitaka was originally written down) in the Matale district 26 km from Kandy
.

metta
Chris
---The trouble is that you think you have time---
---Worry is the Interest, paid in advance, on a debt you may never owe---
---It's not what happens to you in life that is important ~ it's what you do with it ---
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: John Peacock: Will the Real Buddha Please Stand Up?

Post by tiltbillings »

Alex123 wrote:
tiltbillings wrote: it is not unreasonable to think that the Buddha had a hand in how his teaching were preserved and there enough hints and statements in the suttas that point to that.
I believe and hope so! But the Buddha did not write anything down, and left no audio-recording. We trust what happened in the First Council. But we do not know and cannot know for sure what the Historical Buddha has actually said, and Ananda's miraculous memory (which is said in the suttas) could have been a story to justify the suttas composed at First Council. There is no certain proof that anything the Historical Buddha Gotama has taught was put into suttas, though I believe them.
And if we had absolute "historical proof," would it make any difference? The point is in the practice.

The Ananda story is a story, a bit of myth making, which is something all reigions do in various ways, and in that there are things in the suttas that are no different, but then there are things that give us a glimpse of the Buddha as an actual living man dealing with what life throws his way.
"Writing was unknown then, and so the Buddha’s sayings, as collected by his disciples, were committed to memory by a group of monks and were handed down to their disciples orally. There were probably two such groups, who, in order to distinguish themselves from each other, became known as Digha-Bhanakas and Majjhima-bhanakas. The other two Nikayas were later developments, their object being only to rearrange the topics dealt with in the Digha and the Majjhima."
This is probably quite wrong, but the history of these things obscured by time.

The Suttas are teaching vehicles whose meanings are densely packed layer on layer.
Some are, but it seems most do not fit this description.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27839
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: John Peacock: Will the Real Buddha Please Stand Up?

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings,

In relation to the Sutta Nipata discussion above, Ven. Ñāṇasuci has just brought Paññobhāsa Bhikkhu's new translation of the Aṭṭhakavagga (i.e. the fourth chapter of the Sutta Nipata) to our attention here...

The Aṭṭhakavagga – Pali, with English Translation
http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=12666" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

From the appendix of that text....
Some evidence suggesting the great antiquity of the Aṭṭhakavagga

1. The language of the Aṭṭhakavagga contains several rare and archaic
grammatical forms reminiscent of Vedic Sanskrit which are absent in
the more streamlined grammar of most of the rest of the Canon.

2. The Aṭṭhakavagga is referred to by name elsewhere in the Tipiṭaka
at, for example, Udāna 5:6 in the Suttanta Piṭaka and Mahāvagga 5:13
in the Vinaya Piṭaka. Both of these passages tell the story of a young
bhikkhu named Soṇa Kuṭikaṇṇa who, when requested by the Buddha
to speak sore Dhamma, recites the Aṭṭhakavagga. The passage in the
Udāna also (correctly) specifies that the Aṭṭhakavagga has sixteen
parts. Thus it was already compiled and named before the completion
of the works in which the story is found.

3. The Aṭṭhakavagga is one of the very few portions of the Pali Canon
with a line-by-line commentary that is also canonical—namely, the
Mahāniddesa. (Interestingly, the purpose of the Mahāniddesa is apparently
not to expound upon the great profundity of the Aṭṭhakavagga, as
it does more to trivialize than glorify it. Furthermore, the Mahāniddesa
was probably not composed merely to comment upon a notably ancient
text, as at the time of its composition many suttas were believed
to predate the Aṭṭhakavagga—yet they are without a canonical commentary.
Its most likely purpose seems to be to reinterpret—to explain
away—a large body of proto-Theravadin or even pre-Theravadin
philosophy that was clearly at odds with later doctrinal development
but was nevertheless too well known to be deleted from the Canon.)

4. According to the literary evidence the Aṭṭhakavagga (but not the Suttanipāta
as a whole) was common to many, probably most, and possibly
all of the ancient schools of Buddhism, including the Mahasanghikas,
who are historically the first to branch off from the proto-Theravada/
Sarvastivada line (being equivalent to the Vajjiputtas in the Pali account
of the second council). The story of ven. Soṇa Kuṭikaṇṇa’s recitation
of the Aṭṭhakavagga is also recorded in the Mahasanghika Vinaya,
as well as in the vinayas of other ancient schools preserved in
the immense Mahayana Tripiṭaka.

5. The text of the Aṭṭhakavagga contains none of the usual stock passages,
little if any technical systematization of doctrine, and, with the
possible exceptions of the introductory verses to the Māgandiya Sutta
and Sāriputta Sutta, no fairy-tail narratives—all of which are characteristic
of later material.

6. The teachings of the Aṭṭhakavagga are addressed to a Sangha of homeless,
wandering ascetics, and are very simple (often to the point of
being enigmatic) yet also exceedingly profound. They appear to come
from a time when the Sāsana was still in a primitive state, most of its
converts being veterans to the holy life, and being far more inclined to
practically realize than to theoretically philosophize. The existence of
sedentary bhikkhus living in prosperous monasteries and dedicating
their efforts to intellectual investigation of Dhamma, which became
the norm very early in the history of Buddhism, is clearly at variance
with the spirit of these teachings.
Metta,
Retro. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: John Peacock: Will the Real Buddha Please Stand Up?

Post by tiltbillings »

retrofuturist wrote:Greetings,

In relation to the Sutta Nipata discussion above, Ven. Ñāṇasuci has just brought Paññobhāsa Bhikkhu's new translation of the Aṭṭhakavagga (i.e. the fourth chapter of the Sutta Nipata) to our attention here...

The Aṭṭhakavagga – Pali, with English Translation
http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=12666" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

From the appendix of that text.....
. . .
Metta,
Retro. :)
Those notions have been batted around for decades -- 60's at least.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
User avatar
Kim OHara
Posts: 5584
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: John Peacock: Will the Real Buddha Please Stand Up?

Post by Kim OHara »

suttametta wrote: It seems to me that what really happened was that the traditions that arose in the name of the Buddha actually broke the tradition the Buddha was trying to create ...
You could say exactly the same about Christ and Christianity (and about Jefferson and US democracy, and Marx and Communism, for that matter) and we occasionally hear murmurings along the same lines from Islamists.
It seems to be a rule of human nature or history.
:thinking:

Kim
User avatar
Alex123
Posts: 4035
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: John Peacock: Will the Real Buddha Please Stand Up?

Post by Alex123 »

Hello Christine, all,
cooran wrote: The Suttas are not 'sound bites' recorded as the Buddha spoke. They are compacted summaries of what was said, rehearsed and agreed upon by the Arahants at the Great Councils and memorised and chanted together by large groups of monks called Bhanakas (Reciters).


Here is the problem. We believe that they didn't misunderstand the message, and said it like it was.

Unfortunately it is not always so simple. There is evidence that Mahāsāṃghika school had the earliest Vinaya and one of the major differences was that it portrayed Devadatta... as a saint... In Theravada suttas and especially the Jatakas, Devadatta is portrayed as super evil monk.

Why am I sad about this? If due to politics suttas could be altered... Who knows what other alterations took place...


One reason for the interest in the origins of the Mahāsāṃghika school is that their Vinaya recension appears in several ways to represent an older redaction overall.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahasamghika#cite_note-0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The Mahāsāṃghikas therefore saw the Sthaviras as being a breakaway group which was attempting to modify the original Vinaya
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mah%C4%81s ... erated64-7" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The Mahāsāṃghika Vinaya is also significant for its differing accounts from those of other schools. One such example of this is in the figure of Devadatta. The Mahāsāṃghika Vinaya mentions the figure of Devadatta, but the description and attributes of this figure are entirely different from those in the vinayas of sects from the Sthavira branch.[35] In fact, there is no overlap in the characterizations of Devadatta between the Mahāsāṃghika Vinaya and the other five extant vinayas which all come from the Sthavira branch. This has led some scholars to conclude that the story of Devadatta was a legend produced by the Sthaviras after they split from the Mahāsāṃghikas in the 4th century BCE.[35] André Bareau has discovered that the earliest vinaya material common to all sects simply depicts Devadatta as a Buddhist saint who wishes for the monks to live a rigorous lifestyle.[36]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mah%C4%81s ... ite_ref-35" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: John Peacock: Will the Real Buddha Please Stand Up?

Post by tiltbillings »

Alex123 wrote:There is evidence that Mahāsāṃghika school had the earliest Vinaya
Maybe, but then maybe not, and it is not a matter of Vinaya, but also a matter of Patimokka, and the Pali version is likely the oldest.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
User avatar
Alex123
Posts: 4035
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: John Peacock: Will the Real Buddha Please Stand Up?

Post by Alex123 »

tiltbillings wrote:
Alex123 wrote:There is evidence that Mahāsāṃghika school had the earliest Vinaya
Maybe, but then maybe not, and it is not a matter of Vinaya, but also a matter of Patimokka, and the Pali version is likely the oldest.
I hope you are right.
Nyana
Posts: 2233
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 11:56 am

Re: John Peacock: Will the Real Buddha Please Stand Up?

Post by Nyana »

Alex123 wrote:Here is the problem. We believe that they didn't misunderstand the message, and said it like it was.

Unfortunately it is not always so simple. There is evidence that Mahāsāṃghika school had the earliest Vinaya and one of the major differences was that it portrayed Devadatta... as a saint... In Theravada suttas and especially the Jatakas, Devadatta is portrayed as super evil monk.

Why am I sad about this? If due to politics suttas could be altered... Who knows what other alterations took place...
These differences in narrative are rather insignificant and don't affect the soteriological teachings. I've read a fair bit of discourses from other schools which are still extant. And overall, they share a high degree of doctrinal consistency. The inconsistencies generally occur in the narrative story-lines that accompany sutta & vinaya, and this could be due to a number of factors, but this doesn't adversely affect the doctrinal content.
User avatar
manas
Posts: 2678
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2010 3:04 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: John Peacock: Will the Real Buddha Please Stand Up?

Post by manas »

Alex123 wrote: Why am I sad about this? If due to politics suttas could be altered... Who knows what other alterations took place...
Alex, I think you already know the following, so this is just a gentle reminder: don't let questions of authenticity get you down. Gosh, how I used to let this worry me, and I must admit I still get nervous about it. But the very best solution is to put what we read in the suttas to the test. If you are worried about 'observer bias' then don't even go in with the assumption that the suttas are necessarily going to be proven correct. Just investigate deeply and fearlessly. We will get to the heart of things one day.

:anjali:
To the Buddha-refuge i go; to the Dhamma-refuge i go; to the Sangha-refuge i go.
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19932
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: John Peacock: Will the Real Buddha Please Stand Up?

Post by mikenz66 »

Ñāṇa wrote: These differences in narrative are rather insignificant and don't affect the soteriological teachings. I've read a fair bit of discourses from other schools which are still extant. And overall, they share a high degree of doctrinal consistency. The inconsistencies generally occur in the narrative story-lines that accompany sutta & vinaya, and this could be due to a number of factors, but this doesn't adversely affect the doctrinal content.
There are two questions here:

1. Differences between schools. Most are, as Geoff says, narrative, so not particularly important. A few are doctrinal, such as the permanence of awakening:
http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=29&t=11630" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

2. Whether the lists we have in the Nikayas are how the Buddha actually taught, or the result of pre-sectarian rationalization.

If those Sutta Nipata texts are how the Buddha actually taught (or how he taught early in his ministry) then the style of the Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .nymo.html, and the other "early discourses", are highly likely to be a retro-fits.

:anjali:
Mike
User avatar
hanzze_
Posts: 261
Joined: Fri May 25, 2012 4:30 am

Re: John Peacock: Will the Real Buddha Please Stand Up?

Post by hanzze_ »

manas wrote:
Alex123 wrote: Why am I sad about this? If due to politics suttas could be altered... Who knows what other alterations took place...
Alex, I think you already know the following, so this is just a gentle reminder: don't let questions of authenticity get you down. Gosh, how I used to let this worry me, and I must admit I still get nervous about it. But the very best solution is to put what we read in the suttas to the test. If you are worried about 'observer bias' then don't even go in with the assumption that the suttas are necessarily going to be proven correct. Just investigate deeply and fearlessly. We will get to the heart of things one day.

:anjali:
:goodpost:
Once I read something similar like: "Even if we find out one day, that the Buddha (person) did not really exist (did not really exist...) the value of Dhamma would be the same and its practice would go on." We have quite enough skeptic to be able to put it into test.
User avatar
Kim OHara
Posts: 5584
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: John Peacock: Will the Real Buddha Please Stand Up?

Post by Kim OHara »

mikenz66 wrote:If those Sutta Nipata texts are how the Buddha actually taught (or how he taught early in his ministry) then the style of the Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .nymo.html, and the other "early discourses", are highly likely to be a retro-fits.

:anjali:
Mike
Apart from the rather trivial point that you need to be careful about your choice of words, Mike, to avoid retro having fits :tongue: , I will agree - and add that this passage ...
Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta wrote:On hearing the earth-gods' cry, all the gods in turn in the six paradises of the sensual sphere took up the cry till it reached beyond the Retinue of High Divinity in the sphere of pure form. And so indeed in that hour, at that moment, the cry soared up to the World of High Divinity, and this ten-thousandfold world-element shook and rocked and quaked, and a great measureless radiance surpassing the very nature of the gods was displayed in the world.
... is in what I think of as a 'later' style. My rule of thumb is that the more divinities and heavens are mentioned, the closer we are to the Mahayana teachings. :thinking:

:namaste:
Kim
User avatar
hanzze_
Posts: 261
Joined: Fri May 25, 2012 4:30 am

Re: John Peacock: Will the Real Buddha Please Stand Up?

Post by hanzze_ »

Or next to right view...?
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27839
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: John Peacock: Will the Real Buddha Please Stand Up?

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings,
Kim O'Hara wrote:Apart from the rather trivial point that you need to be careful about your choice of words, Mike, to avoid retro having fits :tongue:
:lol:

Thankfully, as has been pointed out, it doesn't impact the doctrinal basis of the teaching... though the process of systematization that continued after the Buddha's death was probably also undertaken by the Buddha during his lifetime too.

The suttas show that his first foray into explaining the Dhamma to a passer-by wasn't particularly successful, so I assume he too had to grow as a teacher in order to improve his efficacy in that regard, and a more systematized curriculum may have facilitated that.

Metta,
Retro. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
Post Reply