Page 2 of 2

Re: original buddhism

Posted: Fri Jul 14, 2017 12:19 am
by Lucas Oliveira
David N. Snyder wrote:The Life of the Buddha by Bhikkhu Nanamoli does that, places the life of the Buddha from the Suttas in chronological order. As far as when they were written, that would be meaningless, I believe since the whole Tipitaka was put to writing around 100 BCE. However, there are EBT scholars who demonstrate which suttas are older than others (from the oral transmission period of the teachings). Bhante Sujato and Bhante Brahmali have done one such study with their The Authenticity of Early Buddhist Texts (Buddhist Publication Society, 2014).

Both books mentioned above are available online as a pdf.

From a suttacentral thread, here is the tldr conclusion of The Authenticity of Early Buddhist Texts
Bhante Sujato wrote:As per our book, The Authenticity of the Early Buddhist Texts, we believe that most of the texts included in what we call the early Buddhist Texts (EBTs) can be regarded as authentic. These texts are:

1. The 4 main nikayas in Pali
2. The six early books of the Khuddaka (Dhammapada, Udāna, Itivuttaka, Thera- and Therīgāthā, and Sutta Nipāta)
3. The Vinaya (especially the patimokkha and portions of the Khandhakas; but excluding the Parivāra, a later addition)
4. Such parallels to these texts as are found in Chinese, Sanskrit, Tibetan, etc.

All other Buddhist texts are later, and where they contain genuine words of the Buddha, these are quotes from the EBTs. In saying that these later texts are inauthentic, we are merely acknowledging the historical facts of their provenance. Whether such texts are true or beneficial expressions of the Dhamma is an entirely different matter.
:goodpost:

:anjali:

Re: original buddhism

Posted: Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:30 am
by thomaslaw
Lucas Oliveira wrote:
David N. Snyder wrote:The Life of the Buddha by Bhikkhu Nanamoli does that, places the life of the Buddha from the Suttas in chronological order. As far as when they were written, that would be meaningless, I believe since the whole Tipitaka was put to writing around 100 BCE. However, there are EBT scholars who demonstrate which suttas are older than others (from the oral transmission period of the teachings). Bhante Sujato and Bhante Brahmali have done one such study with their The Authenticity of Early Buddhist Texts (Buddhist Publication Society, 2014).

Both books mentioned above are available online as a pdf.

From a suttacentral thread, here is the tldr conclusion of The Authenticity of Early Buddhist Texts
Bhante Sujato wrote:As per our book, The Authenticity of the Early Buddhist Texts, we believe that most of the texts included in what we call the early Buddhist Texts (EBTs) can be regarded as authentic. These texts are:

1. The 4 main nikayas in Pali
2. The six early books of the Khuddaka (Dhammapada, Udāna, Itivuttaka, Thera- and Therīgāthā, and Sutta Nipāta)
3. The Vinaya (especially the patimokkha and portions of the Khandhakas; but excluding the Parivāra, a later addition)
4. Such parallels to these texts as are found in Chinese, Sanskrit, Tibetan, etc.

All other Buddhist texts are later, and where they contain genuine words of the Buddha, these are quotes from the EBTs. In saying that these later texts are inauthentic, we are merely acknowledging the historical facts of their provenance. Whether such texts are true or beneficial expressions of the Dhamma is an entirely different matter.
:goodpost:

:anjali:
Regarding the 4 main nikayas/agamas, according to Yinshun, SA/SN originated at the first council; MA/MN, DA/DN and EA/AN originated at the second council (p. 11, nn. 36, 37, in Choong Mun-keat's The Fundamental Teachings of Early Buddhism).

Regards,

Thomas

Re: original buddhism

Posted: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:46 pm
by ToVincent
budo wrote:I would be interested in finding a chronology of the suttas
Go with the BORI. At least we have (Indian) people there, who really know the languages, the history, the narrative behind Buddhism, etc. In other words, quite acquainted with Indian philosophy at large.
These people went with the flow (Vedism > Buddhism). Not backward (Buddhism > Vedism).
Major difference.
No affected rookies there. Just a bit jingoistic (sometimes) :)

Re: original buddhism

Posted: Sat Jul 15, 2017 2:47 am
by thomaslaw
ToVincent wrote:
... I am just wondering why he is not working more on the Sutra-aṅga, or on other more interesting Samyuttas.
I am just wondering what are other more interesting Samyuttas, and why?

Thomas

Re: original buddhism

Posted: Thu Sep 14, 2017 5:05 am
by thomaslaw
thomaslaw wrote:
I think he did continue his great work on parallels in Nikayas/Agamas, particularly on samyukta/samyuttas:

Choong Mun-keat. 2012. ‘A comparison of the Chinese and Pāli versions of the Bala Saṃyukta, a collection of early Buddhist discourses on “Powers” (Bala)’. Journal of the Oxford Centre for Buddhist Studies 2: 84-103.

The following articles relevant to particular saṃyukta/saṃyuttas of the geya-aṅga portion of SA/SN:

2006. ‘A comparison of the Pāli and Chinese versions of the Kosala Saṃyutta, an early Buddhist discourse on King Pasenadi of Kosala’. The Indian International Journal of Buddhist Studies 7: 21-35.

2006. ‘A comparison of the Pāli and Chinese versions of the Bhikkhu Saṃyutta, a collection of early Buddhist discourses on monks’. Buddhist Studies Review 23 (1): 61-70.

2007. ‘A comparison of the Pāli and Chinese versions of the Vaṅgīsa-thera Saṃyutta, a collection of early Buddhist discourses on the Venerable Vaṅgīsa’. Buddhist Studies Review 24 (1): 35-45.

2009. ‘A comparison of the Pāli and Chinese versions of the Brāhmaṇa Saṃyutta, a collection of early Buddhist discourses on the priestly Brāhmaṇas’. Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society 19 (3): 371-382.

2009. ‘A comparison of the Pāli and Chinese versions of the Māra Saṃyutta, a collection of early Buddhist discourses on Māra, the Evil One’. The Indian International Journal of Buddhist Studies 10: 35-53.

2011. ‘A comparison of the Pāli and Chinese versions of the Devatā Saṃyutta and Devaputta Saṃyutta, collections of early Buddhist discourses on devatas “gods” and devaputras “sons of gods”’. Journal of the Oxford Centre for Buddhist Studies 1: 60-88.

2012. ‘A comparison of the Pāli and Chinese versions of the Sakka Saṃyutta, a collection of early Buddhist discourses on ‘Śakra, rules of the gods’’. Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society 22 (3-4): 561-574.

2014. ‘A Comparison of the Pāli and Chinese Versions of the Brahmā Saṃyutta, a Collection of Early Buddhist Discourses on Brahmās, the Exalted Gods’. Buddhist Studies Review 31 (2): 179-194.

The following articles relevant to particular saṃyukta/saṃyuttas of the vyākaraṇa-aṅga portion of SA/SN:

2014. ‘A Comparison of the Pāli and Chinese Versions of the Gāmaṇi Samyutta, a Collection of Early Buddhist Discourses to Headmen’. Journal of Oxford Centre for Buddhist Studies 7: 98-115.

2016. ‘A comparison of the Chinese and Pāli versions of the Śāriputra Saṃyukta, a collection of early Buddhist discourses on the Venerable Śāriputra’. Journal of the Oxford Centre for Buddhist Studies 10: 27-52.

2017. ‘A comparison of the Pāli and Chinese versions of the Kassapa Saṃyutta, a collection of early Buddhist discourses on the Venerable Kāśyapa’. Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society 27 (2): 295-311.

Regards,

Thomas
Another article relevant to the vyākaraṇa-aṅga portion of SA/SN is recently published by Mun-keat Choong in Buddhist Studies Review:

2017. "A comparison of the Chinese and Pāli Saṃyukta/Saṃyuttas on the Venerable Mahā-Maudgalyāyana (Mahā-Moggallāna)"
https://journals.equinoxpub.com/index.p ... ue/current

Thomas

Re: original buddhism

Posted: Sat Nov 04, 2017 4:43 am
by Dhammarakkhito
fwiw

Re: original buddhism

Posted: Sat Nov 04, 2017 5:23 am
by DNS
Sovatthika wrote:
Sat Nov 04, 2017 4:43 am
fwiw
Where is that from? It looks like some people chatting on facebook? In any event, it was just a brief sketch, not something written in stone. Of course the intricacies are quite complex with lots of influences and branches going in multiple directions, it was just a brief outline.

Re: original buddhism

Posted: Sat Nov 04, 2017 6:14 am
by Dhammarakkhito
yeah me and this other guy from my orthodox buddhism group
i didn't like that he was not expounding on his complaint, which is actually something i've noticed from him before, but since there might be something to it i thought i'd drop it in

Re: original buddhism

Posted: Wed Nov 08, 2017 1:29 pm
by Coëmgenu
Indeed, this graph here Image is quite wrong. But not necessarily "utterly wrong".

It is just very speculative, and should probably be marked as such. Most "Pure Land Buddhism", in its contemporary form, is not at all the Pure Land Buddhism speculated to have existed in Ghandara ~0-200AD. For instance, the traditional Indian Pure Land Buddhism still involved the following of prātimokṣa and bodhisattvaśīla, two practices generally discarded in Pure Land Buddhism today.

I myself would place the ascendence of contemporary Pure Land around ~4-600AD, as exemplified by when it entered into China and started to gradually take its modern-day form.

Similarly, Mahāyāna's beginnings are much more mysterious than what the chart implies.

For instance, all of the Sarvāstivāda & Mūlasarvāstivāda monks converted to Mahāyāna, then some converted to Vajrayāna when it began to become popular in India. It seems here that they all converted to Vajrayāna.

Another issue is ordination lines vs sects. The modern Mūlasarvāstivāda that "became" Tibetan Buddhism was not a 'school' anymore, given that they were fully converted and discarded their traditional Sarvāstivāda beliefs and theories of the Buddhadharma, rather, they were a vinaya lineage of ordination, I believe.

If Mūlasarvāstivāda is listed as "becoming" Vajrayāna, than Dharmaguptaka (once again coming from the Sarvāstivādins again), not Mahāsāṃghika, should be listed as what "Mahāyāna" came out of, as all modern Mahāyāna ordination lineages trace themselves to the Dharmaguptaka.

Re: original buddhism

Posted: Wed Nov 08, 2017 3:47 pm
by DNS
As I have mentioned previously, it is just a brief sketch, not meant to be something as impressive and ambitious as this graph:
http://funki.com.ua/ru/portfolio/lab/wo ... ions-tree/

But my brief sketch does show the approximate dates of each of the early and later major schools. It could not list all of the schools and all of the interactions because as I say, it was not the huge project like the world religions tree. It does however, show the major time frames involved and the very cursory overview of the evolution. Others can disagree and of course I'm fine with that. As I mention, this is just one interpretation and analysis, ymmv.

Re: original buddhism

Posted: Thu Nov 09, 2017 3:01 am
by Coëmgenu
DNS wrote:
Wed Nov 08, 2017 3:47 pm
As I have mentioned previously, it is just a brief sketch, not meant to be something as impressive and ambitious as this graph:
http://funki.com.ua/ru/portfolio/lab/wo ... ions-tree/
I feel the need to clarify that my suggestions were not meant to add to the "pile up" on that chart. Just to offer some suggestions that are quite fallible and human. For instance, many Pure Landers would be very upset and fiercely argue with how far back I would have pushed back the date on Pure Land Buddhism, if I had made the chart. No chart is going to perfectly clarify all manner of historical ambiguity.

Re: original buddhism

Posted: Thu Nov 09, 2017 3:32 am
by DNS
Coëmgenu wrote:
Thu Nov 09, 2017 3:01 am
I feel the need to clarify that my suggestions were not meant to add to the "pile up" on that chart. Just to offer some suggestions that are quite fallible and human. For instance, many Pure Landers would be very upset and fiercely argue with how far back I would have pushed back the date on Pure Land Buddhism, if I had made the chart. No chart is going to perfectly clarify all manner of historical ambiguity.
No worries, yes I think so. If about 50,000 or so Buddhists who have a pretty good knowledge of Buddhist history made a chart, there would be about 50,000 versions. In Israel, we had a joke that for every 2 Jews, there were 3 opinions.

Re: original buddhism

Posted: Sun Jan 14, 2018 6:50 am
by James Tan
:reading: