Is There Clear Delineation Of What Is/Not "Early Buddhism"?

Textual analysis and comparative discussion on early Buddhist sects and scriptures.
thomaslaw
Posts: 812
Joined: Fri Apr 19, 2013 12:55 am
Location: Australia

Re: Is There Clear Delineation Of What Is/Not "Early Buddhism"?

Post by thomaslaw »

ToVincent wrote:
thomaslaw wrote: Something wrong!
Definitely!

Like when you say in that post, that
thomaslaw wrote: ... the Buddha belonged to the Sramanas, outside the orthodox 'Sanskrit' Brahmanical system (Jainism also belonged to the Sramanas).
"outside" ?!?!?
That is nonsense to me.
...
Who says nonsense here? - Tell me! ... could be Āt-man. ...
Definitely 'something wrong' :rolleye: :clap:
ToVincent wrote: So, I'll keep in mind your brilliant reading of Śramanism; and I doubt that I will discuss further
Good on you!

:twothumbsup:
ToVincent
Posts: 1839
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 6:02 pm

Re: Is There Clear Delineation Of What Is/Not "Early Buddhism"?

Post by ToVincent »

thomaslaw wrote:
ToVincent wrote: Who says nonsense here? - Tell me! ... could be Āt-man. ...
You might again be blurred by the subtlety of nuances. Or you might just apply the usual "sect" method of:
1. Ostracising dissenters of your creed (aka the "establishment scholarship"), or
2. If you can't bring off #1 - then make the contestant look like crazy - (the Russian were pretty good at that, under the USSR).
Or 3. whatever ... !
But I should add something that might be a bit difficult to grasp, for unknowleagable people in Indian philosophy. Yet, you are not the only one to read this post. Some might understand it.
It's been quite a while, that I am not trying to get you into my explanations. A nuance that you might have caught up a while ago.

Although not a follower of the Advaita Vedanta, (I am a Buddhist,) - and also, in spite of the fact that I really don't follow Śaṃkara's view on a Buddha that would have rejected the existence of an Atman; I do agree with him that 'atman' is not derived from the √ अन् an 'to breathe;' but instead from the root √ अत् at (vedic) - linked to √ अट् aṭ

अत् at - √ मन् man - somewhat meaning an "on going thinking" (Atma)
which would better explain:
बृह् bṛh - √ मन् man - somewhat meaning an "expanding & pervasive thinking" (Brahma)
or even further:
ध dha (or √ dhā) - √ मन् man - somewhat meaning a "performed & established "thinking"" (dharma) [धर्मन् dharmán]
Paṭiccasamuppāda being one of these dharmán.
Who hath beheld him as he sprang to being, seen how the boneless One supports the bony?
Where is the blood of earth, the life, the spirit? Who may approach the man who knows, to ask it?
ko dadarśa prathamaṁ jāyamānam asthanvantaṁ yad anasthā bibharti
bhūmyā asur asṛg ātmā kva svit ko vidvāṁsam upa gāt praṣṭum etat
RV. 1.164.04
is what the early Vedic "orthodox" Brahminic crowd believed, before the advent of the Upaniṣadic Brahmā/Prajāpati (Ka) "I put you everywhere" & "I am you" shebang.
Did I say "orthodox"?

--
Anattakatāni kammāni kathamattānaṃ phusissantī”ti?
What self, then, will deeds done by what is nonself affect?”
SN 22.82
No-Self/self in paṭiccasamupāda (dharmán), answers the Buddha.
Meaning by the way, that satta is the only responsible of the deeds - but not Atta/atta.

----

Sorry for the messy diacritics.
In this world, there are many people acting and yearning for the Mara's world; some for the Brahma's world; and very few for the Unborn.
thomaslaw
Posts: 812
Joined: Fri Apr 19, 2013 12:55 am
Location: Australia

Re: Is There Clear Delineation Of What Is/Not "Early Buddhism"?

Post by thomaslaw »

ToVincent wrote:
thomaslaw wrote:
ToVincent wrote: Who says nonsense here? - Tell me! ... could be Āt-man. ...
...
Although not a follower of the Advaita Vedanta, (I am a Buddhist,) - and also, in spite of the fact that I really don't follow Śaṃkara's view on a Buddha that would have rejected the existence of an Atman; ...
--
Anattakatāni kammāni kathamattānaṃ phusissantī”ti?
What self, then, will deeds done by what is nonself affect?”
SN 22.82
No-Self/self in paṭiccasamupāda (dharmán), answers the Buddha.
Meaning by the way, that satta is the only responsible of the deeds - but not Atta/atta.
Atta 'self' is clearly rejected by the Buddha, according to the SN/SA sutta/sutras (e.g. SN 12.15; Choong MK's The Fundamental Teachings of Early Buddhism, p. 194). The Buddha teaches anicca, dukkha, anatta for the cessation of dukkha.

Thomas
ToVincent
Posts: 1839
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 6:02 pm

Re: Is There Clear Delineation Of What Is/Not "Early Buddhism"?

Post by ToVincent »

thomaslaw wrote:...
O, sorry! I didn't understand what you meant. Now that I am more acquainted with your parlances, I shall reply with a lot less nonsense, you'll see.

:zzz: :coffee: :roll: :hello: :thumbsup: :twothumbsup: three thumbs up, :reading: :buddha1: :popcorn: :coffee: again, .... oops ... :toilet: ............ Sorry :embarassed: . :thinking: - O yes! double :coffee: :idea: :clap: :clap: :thumbsup:
Maybe a bit :rolleye: though? - :lol:
:thanks: :hug:
:hello:

Ajo ajo ajo ajo ajo ajo :rolleye: ja ja ja ja ja ja ja :rolleye: Ajo ajo :rolleye: :rolleye: :rolleye: ja ja :rolleye:
Jan jan jan jan jan jan :rolleye: :rolleye: Aja aja aja aja aja si si ya ya ya ya ya :rolleye: Jo jo jo Ajo :rolleye:


Again sorry for the messy diacritics.

P.S.
My-self --> :thinking: "I wish I had never been born." :thinking:
In this world, there are many people acting and yearning for the Mara's world; some for the Brahma's world; and very few for the Unborn.
thomaslaw
Posts: 812
Joined: Fri Apr 19, 2013 12:55 am
Location: Australia

Re: Is There Clear Delineation Of What Is/Not "Early Buddhism"?

Post by thomaslaw »

ToVincent wrote:
thomaslaw wrote:...
O, sorry! I didn't understand what you meant. Now that I am more acquainted with your parlances, I shall reply with a lot less nonsense, you'll see.

:zzz: :coffee: :roll: :hello: :thumbsup: :twothumbsup: three thumbs up, :reading: :buddha1: :popcorn: :coffee: again, .... oops ... :toilet: ............ Sorry :embarassed: . :thinking: - O yes! double :coffee: :idea: :clap: :clap: :thumbsup:
Maybe a bit :rolleye: though? - :lol:
:thanks: :hug:
:hello:

Ajo ajo ajo ajo ajo ajo :rolleye: ja ja ja ja ja ja ja :rolleye: Ajo ajo :rolleye: :rolleye: :rolleye: ja ja :rolleye:
Jan jan jan jan jan jan :rolleye: :rolleye: Aja aja aja aja aja si si ya ya ya ya ya :rolleye: Jo jo jo Ajo :rolleye:


Again sorry for the messy diacritics.

P.S.
My-self --> :thinking: "I wish I had never been born." :thinking:
:jumping:
thomaslaw
Posts: 812
Joined: Fri Apr 19, 2013 12:55 am
Location: Australia

Re: Is There Clear Delineation Of What Is/Not "Early Buddhism"?

Post by thomaslaw »

thomaslaw wrote:
ToVincent wrote:
thomaslaw wrote:...
O, sorry! I didn't understand what you meant. Now that I am more acquainted with your parlances, I shall reply with a lot less nonsense, you'll see.

:zzz: :coffee: :roll: :hello: :thumbsup: :twothumbsup: three thumbs up, :reading: :buddha1: :popcorn: :coffee: again, .... oops ... :toilet: ............ Sorry :embarassed: . :thinking: - O yes! double :coffee: :idea: :clap: :clap: :thumbsup:
Maybe a bit :rolleye: though? - :lol:
:thanks: :hug:
:hello:

Ajo ajo ajo ajo ajo ajo :rolleye: ja ja ja ja ja ja ja :rolleye: Ajo ajo :rolleye: :rolleye: :rolleye: ja ja :rolleye:
Jan jan jan jan jan jan :rolleye: :rolleye: Aja aja aja aja aja si si ya ya ya ya ya :rolleye: Jo jo jo Ajo :rolleye:


Again sorry for the messy diacritics.

P.S.
My-self --> :thinking: "I wish I had never been born." :thinking:
:jumping: I see!
ToVincent
Posts: 1839
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 6:02 pm

Re: Is There Clear Delineation Of What Is/Not "Early Buddhism"?

Post by ToVincent »

thomaslaw wrote: :jumping: I see!
Neither dṛśyase, nor paśyasi.
You "see" nothing at all.
The bucklers of your friends, might rise up in unison, shielding you with generalities now; but you still won't "see" better.
That's your kamma, it seems.

Now, some people around here, might "see" differently; although they might be tied up to silence. But they'll "see" (paśyeyuḥ). Trust me.
I will still go *through* you, and your friends' habitual nonsenses, to reach them, though.

Neither in SN 12.15, as you put it, nor in any other (non-sectarian) Suttas, did The Buddha "clearly rejected" (as you put it,) a "Self".
The proof is not in the fact that the "धर्मन् dharmán" (see above,) that is paṭiccasamupāda, is void of atta (sabbe dhamma anatta).
That, the smart people on this forum have understood that days ago. Namely that the Buddha did rise against the Upaniṣadic view of the Chandogya for instance (see link above).
That is settled by now in a sound mind.
What I meant, when I called the Buddha a "revolutionary conservative", is about that; but also about the following.
The Buddha did act as a conservative against the view of the upaniṣadic Brahmins; when He expounded a Dhamma (paṭiccasamupāda) with no Atta/atta. And His Dhamma was quite revolutionary, for that matter.

BUT he did also act as a revolutionary, towards the still orthodox view of the non-upaniṣadic Brahminhood; of which he was a part, by questioning the nature of the "One" in RV. 1.164.06.

We have already seen above, that Atta (Atma) was a riddle for the early Vedic creed.
Who hath beheld him as he sprang to being, seen how the boneless One supports the bony?
Where is the blood of earth, the life, the spirit? Who may approach the man who knows, to ask it?
ko dadarśa prathamaṁ jāyamānam asthanvantaṁ yad anasthā bibharti
bhūmyā asur asṛg ātmā kva svit ko vidvāṁsam upa gāt praṣṭum etat
RV. 1.164.04
However, the notion of the "Unborn" (Ajo) [ https://justpaste.it/19m0u ], was also the root from which all the speculation did start with. Atma was the "Unborn" in the early Vedic creed.
The "Unborn", which, by the way, finds its counterpart in the Buddha's notion of Jati (Birth).

So where did the Buddha come as a revolutionary in that matter?
It sounds like He did not quite agree with the nature of the demiurge called the "One" in RV. 1.164.06
And He certainly did not believe in the equivalence between the image of the "Unborn" and this demiurge, (which later on, we've seen in the upaniṣadic creed, becomes like man, and is man, and through which man becomes He).

Yet the Unborn/Born notion seems quite prevalent in the Buddha's mind.
An "Unborn," as a non-maker of धर्मन् dharmán; leading, in the case of Buddhism, to the end of birth (jati) - that arises through & because of the paṭiccasamupāda's Dhamma (dharmán), born of Ignorance (avijja).
In other words, no Dharma, no birth.

What is the nature of this "Unborn" - of this "Self," for the Buddha?
Buddha says (clearly this time - e.g. Snp 5.6 or 7-Upasiva,) that we cannot put a name on It, in the context of the Dhamma, that is paṭiccasamupāda' s Dhamma.
When all phenomena are done away with, all means of speaking are done away with as well. - Sabbesu dhammesu samohatesu, samūhatā vādapathāpi sabbeti. - (as in "cannot be classified/named" = "na upeti saṅkhaṃ")

Pretty straightforward, isn't it?

How you will interpret all this, is the least of my concern, Thomas; but some people will appreciate your, and your friend' s poor knowledge of the Indian philosophy, that has driven us up, to this point.

Thank you again.
This is the reason why I (still) like you.

P.S.
By the way, giving a reference to a all book, has never made the referencer, a reader or a studier, nor even an expert in the matter of that book.
Sometimes it makes him, just a self-assertive waverer.
Good references from a book, on the other hand, brings something sound to the readers.
And a sound - well documented - argumentation, is way better also. Avoiding as well, petty details; for we know who dwells in details.

Mudita
In this world, there are many people acting and yearning for the Mara's world; some for the Brahma's world; and very few for the Unborn.
thomaslaw
Posts: 812
Joined: Fri Apr 19, 2013 12:55 am
Location: Australia

Re: Is There Clear Delineation Of What Is/Not "Early Buddhism"?

Post by thomaslaw »

ToVincent wrote:
thomaslaw wrote: :jumping: I see!
Neither dṛśyase, nor paśyasi.
You "see" nothing at all.
The bucklers of your friends, might rise up in unison, shielding you with generalities now; but you still won't "see" better.
That's your kamma, it seems.

Now, some people around here, might "see" differently; ....

Thank you again.
This is the reason why I (still) like you. ...
I see! :jumping: Something wrong! :rolleye: :clap:
User avatar
Assaji
Posts: 2106
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 7:24 pm

Re: Is There Clear Delineation Of What Is/Not "Early Buddhism"?

Post by Assaji »

Hi Vincent,
ToVincent wrote:Neither in SN 12.15, as you put it, nor in any other (non-sectarian) Suttas, did The Buddha "clearly rejected" (as you put it,) a "Self".
The proof is not in the fact that the "धर्मन् dharmán" (see above,) that is paṭiccasamupāda, is void of atta (sabbe dhamma anatta).
Some of your ideas are quite sound.
But continued forced reliance on Sanskrit, - a language created centuries after Buddha's lifetime, - ruins your linguistic conclusions.

As Thomas Oberlies writes, Pali doesn't descend from Sanskrit or even from Vedic language:
"Pāli as a MIA language is different from Sanskrit not so much with regard to the time of its origin than as to its dialectal base, since a number of its morphological and lexical features betray the fact that it is not a direct continuation of Ṛgvedic Sanskrit; rather it descends from a dialect (or a number of dialects) which was (/were), despite many similarities, different from Ṛgvedic.[1] Some examples may help to illustrate this point [2]:..."

"This base dialect (or dialects) of Pāli was (/were) in several points more archaic than Rgvedic Sanskrit: ..."

Pāli: A Grammar of the Language of the Theravāda Tipiṭaka
By Thomas Oberlies
page 6

http://books.google.com/books?id=zFc5_SU_uwwC&pg=PA6

Thomas Oberlies, 'Aśokan Prakrit and Pali', page 163:

1.1 The Middle Indo-Aryan languages

The Indo-Aryan languages are commonly assigned to three major groups - Old, Middle and New Indo-Aryan -, a linguistic and not strictly chronological classification as the MIA languages ar not younger than ('Classical') Sanskrit. And a number of their morphophonological and lexical features betray the fact that they are not direct continuations of Ṛgvedic Sanskrit, the main base of 'Classical' Sanskrit; rather they descend from dialects which, despite many similarities, were different from Ṛgvedic and in some regards even more archaic.

MIA languages, though individually distinct, share features of phonology and morphology which characterize them as parallel descendants of Old Indo-Aryan. Various sound changes are typical of the MIA phonology:

(1) The vocalic liquids 'ṛ' and 'ḷ' are replaced by 'a', 'i' or 'u';
(2) the diptongs 'ai' and 'au' are monophthongized to 'e' and 'o';
(3) long vowels before two or more consonants are shortened;
(4) the three sibilants of OIA are reduced to one, either 'ś' or 's';
(5) the often complex consonant clusters of OIA are reduced to more readily pronounceable forms, either by assimilation or by splitting;
(6) single intervocalic stops are progressively weakened;
(7) dentals are palatalized by a following '-y-';
( 8 ) all final consonants except '-ṃ' are dropped unless they are retained in 'sandhi' junctions.

The most conspicious features of the morphological system of these languages are: loss of the dual; thematicization of consonantal stems; merger of the f. 'i-/u-' and 'ī-/ū-' in one 'ī-/ū-' inflexion, elimination of the dative, whose functions are taken over by the genitive, simultaneous use of different case-endings in one paradigm; employment of 'mahyaṃ' and 'tubhyaṃ' as genitives and 'me' and 'te' as instrumentals; gradual disappearance of the middle voice; coexistence of historical and new verbal forms based on the present stem; and use of active endings for the passive. In the vocabulary, the MIA languages are mostly dependent on Old Indo-Aryan, with addition of a few so-called 'deśī' words of (often) uncertain origin.

The most archaic of the MIA languages are the inscriptional Aśokan Prakrit on the one hand and Pāli and Ardhamāgadhī on the other, both literary languages.Two other stages of MIA may be distinguished, that of the Prakrits proper (excluding Ardhamāgadhī) and that of the Apabhraṃśa languages.

http://books.google.com/books?id=jPR2OlbTbdkC&pg=PA161
Moreover, your reliance on some imaginary fixed and single meaning of Pali roots as equivalent to some arbitrarlily chosen meanings of somewhat similar Sanskrit roots ruins your conclusions even further.
Have you thought about studying Pāli deeply?
For example, there's a great book "The Pali Roots In Saddaníti" which can be helpful for a start.
I would appreciate your original research, when it will have a more solid foundation.
ToVincent
Posts: 1839
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 6:02 pm

Re: Is There Clear Delineation Of What Is/Not "Early Buddhism"?

Post by ToVincent »

Dmytro wrote:...
Here we go again! - Gee.

I am glad that you see the lexical correspondance between dharmán (dharma) and dhamma. Although you add that Sanskrit and Pali are quite different languages.
As a French, I would say that I speak and understand well the standardized French language; but that I can also pick up quite well, the Limousin or the Languedocien, if people speak slowly enough.
One thing for sure, however, is that I will understand the gist of an old Languedocian philosopher, translated in modern French. No problemo!

Thomas Oberlies writes:
"Rgvedic Sanskrit: ..." ?!?!?
Dmytro writes:
"Sanskrit, - a language created centuries after Buddha's lifetime"
!?!?!?!?
You have to get your violins in tune, here.

Sanskrit did not come out of the blue. Neither did Buddhism come out of the blue.

Knowing deeply the Pali does not make either, someone knowledgable in Indian philosophy.
It's like saying that an American philosopher cannot understand Descartes, because he does not know the French grammar. Or that I have to know where the English of Thomas Hobbes comes from, to understand the general meaning of his ideas. That's utterly absurd.

Anyway, there is a too great void (lack of factual proof) in these linguistic speculations, to arrive at a definite conclusion.
Like - and although this is absolutely irrelevant to me - when you say:
"Sanskrit, - a language created centuries after Buddha's lifetime"
Prove it!
You just can't prove that, as much as I can't prove that Pāṇini and its predecessors, started the endeavour of standardizing the Vedic dialects, since the 8th century.
Who knows? - Certainly not you - not me either; or whatever great scholar out there.

However, knowing that fact, you are just beating around the bush to prevent what the "buddhist" Establishment is just dreading about; and what the Universalist crowd dreads also - viz. the refusal by the true Buddhists, to acknowledge the somewhat Advaita universalist philosophy they are pushing, or have pushed Buddhism into; like in the times of old. That is to say, to see Buddhism as a transfiguration of the world of becoming; instead of its nullification.

So I will pass on that great knowledge of yours concerning the Pali, and turn to the translation we have nowadays of the pre-Buddistic Indian texts; which are mostly the Vedas (Saṁhitās, Brāhmaṇas, Sūtras, Āraṇyakas and Upaniṣads) and some other texts as well, like the Dhātupāṭha, etc.
It is in the former, that the Buddha draw His philosophy. And the meaning of the Pali words are just a reflection of that.
Period!

When one wants to understand the primary notion of "Atma", or "Dhamma", for instance, one has to rely on the meaning that is conveyed, since the first religious-"philosophical" book that is the Ṛg Veda and in the following texts as well - whatever language or dialect the first Hymn was passed on to the allowed varnas ("castes").
Atta and Dhamma did not come out of the blue, in Buddha's mind.
That is what you have a hard time to assert, when you ride on your universalist merry-go-round pseudo-"buddhism".
The philosophy of the Upaniṣads, and the philosophy of the Buddha, come directly from the religious and epic hymns of the Saṁhitās, then the liturgical Brāhmaṇas, the aphoristical Sūtras, the ascetic and philosophical Āraṇyakas, and the philosophical Upaniṣads. How these texts were transmitted to the Buddha, or to the Upaniṣadic crowd, is practically of no interest. What counts is how Buddhism did and does relate to them.
As I already said previously, Mr. Pāṇini and his predecessors attempts, at making the different Vedic dialects, that existed since the first Hymn, a standardized language, does not make Sanskrit a new language - and certainly does not temper with the validity of the Vedic concepts (early and late).
However, I insist again that the gist of these religious and philosophical texts has been preserved through the transcription we generally have now in Sanskrit.

There are some people out there, like me, quite fed up with the "buddhist" scholarship, (that is usually not Buddhist,) and which has its own view of what Buddhism should be - shielding themselves behind a pseudo linguistic and grammatical scholarship; that is most of the time quite interpretative, to serve us with their universal philosophy.
Grammaticaly speaking, English translations by people like Bhikkhu Bodhi are quite accurate; if for some often petty particulars - However, the lexical side of it, has always been, and is still quite poor (for a good reason!).
I have given enough examples in the above posts - that you just turn down, with no explanation - to prove that a hark back to the root meaning in these texts, with the help of the lexical root in Sanskrit, gives the true meaning of that word. Just because the original notion is there.

By the way, in the Indian philosophy at large, vedāṅga is considered an ancillary knowledge.
It seems that it has become (for a good reason!,) the "prime meat" for some.
It is about time that the serious people about Buddhism, see the hierarchy in the elements of thoughts.

What imports then, is to rely on the notions in the Vedic texts, that have influenced the Buddha; and not, as we experience it lately - and it's been now for a quite a while, on "THE UPANISHADS" at large and only - (another merry-go-round free ride from the "buddhist" crowd).
That is to say, the relevant excerpts and concepts, within these texts (Upaniṣads included) - and the notions that have their counterpart in the Suttas.
For instance, the concepts of Ajo (RV.) [unborn] and jati (Suttas) [birth] - BOTH from janati (same declination in Sanskrit & Pali - coincidence???) - both coming from the same root √ jan (coincidence???).
http://obo.genaud.net/backmatter/glosso ... oots.htm#J (By the way, see here how many roots do coincide, for languages that are supposed to be apart????)

So when you will understand that the issue is not in the linguistics, nor in the grammar; but first of all, in the philosophical notions conveyed in the Suttas - that come, for the most part, from the Veda - we might advance a bit.
For that, you have to know the philosophy; not the linguistics.
Therefore, I put your ancillary knowledge (aṅga) in the "secondary" category; with no offense whatsoever.
As I have already said before, I sometime use your research, when it pertains to extracts that you reference, in the Suttas only. And I am showing some gratitude for that.

-----
Ajo is the "Unborn", and avijja, the "One".
That's Echt Buddhism.
Last edited by ToVincent on Sat Aug 05, 2017 7:25 pm, edited 2 times in total.
In this world, there are many people acting and yearning for the Mara's world; some for the Brahma's world; and very few for the Unborn.
User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 8150
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:55 pm
Location: Whitby, Canada

Re: Is There Clear Delineation Of What Is/Not "Early Buddhism"?

Post by Coëmgenu »

Since you seem to think that the Buddha was a Vedic philosopher of some sort... do you believe he was an avatar of Viṣṇu as well? You might as well go all the way now.
What is the Uncreated?
Sublime & free, what is that obscured Eternity?
It is the Undying, the Bright, the Isle.
It is an Ocean, a Secret: Reality.
Both life and oblivion, it is Nirvāṇa.
ToVincent
Posts: 1839
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 6:02 pm

Re: Is There Clear Delineation Of What Is/Not "Early Buddhism"?

Post by ToVincent »

Coëmgenu wrote:Since you seem to think that the Buddha was a Vedic philosopher of some sort... do you believe he was an avatar of Viṣṇu as well? You might as well go all the way now.
No Sir.
I am not a Hinduist.
What happened to Vedism after the Buddha - and particularly after the Ashokan period - is the Brahmins' problem.
If they wanted to reclaim their authorithy, through allowing a new pantheon that included animals, avatars, magic from the dark side of the Atharva, etc.; on top of the reinstated Upaniṣadic creed, to please the enlarged lowbrow pleb's predilection - that is their problem.

But they (the Brahmins) of today, will certainly not be inclined either, to see nowadays that some people depict Buddhism as a very conservative Vedism - with yet, a very revolutionary Dharma.
I have explained above (with the sanskrit root and the word Ka,) what nasti-ka really means.
Which, by the way, means that the Brahmins believe Buddhism to be an Indian philosophy - that does not believe in the existence of Ka (Prāja-pati).

Don't get me wrong.
In this world, there are many people acting and yearning for the Mara's world; some for the Brahma's world; and very few for the Unborn.
ToVincent
Posts: 1839
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 6:02 pm

Re: Is There Clear Delineation Of What Is/Not "Early Buddhism"?

Post by ToVincent »

Dmytro wrote:...
One more thing (from the above):

Reading the introduction of your referenced book https://archive.org/details/ThePaliRootsInSaddaniti,
I am quite surprised to parse the following:
"Sanskrit (or at least the older Vedic Sanskrit) is definitely older than Pāli, since we know from comparative study of the two languages (Pāli & Sanskrit,) that the majority of the Pāli words are derived from Sanskrit.
I guess the guy knows what he is talking about - which does not seem to be your case.
Anyway, what he says is just something, that any idiot like me, could have easily found out; browsing a bit the PTS.

Your feet are not made to shoot bullets at, Dmytro. You should reconsider.

This is getting too farcical for me.

Mudita y karuna.

---------------

Message to all:
I have important things to do now - so i'll be off from now.

Maybe it's time for some, to hit some other best shot!
In this world, there are many people acting and yearning for the Mara's world; some for the Brahma's world; and very few for the Unborn.
thomaslaw
Posts: 812
Joined: Fri Apr 19, 2013 12:55 am
Location: Australia

Re: Is There Clear Delineation Of What Is/Not "Early Buddhism"?

Post by thomaslaw »

Pāli and Sanskrit (Vedic Sanskrit or Classical Sanskrit) are definitely not the same languages, although they are related. Those who know Sanskrit cannot read and understand Pali. The Sanskrit root is also not directly relevant to Pali, though related. One need to identify the 'base form' of the Pali words, and how the Pali words being used in the texts (cf. PTS Pali-English Dictionary, not Sanskrit-English Dictionary). Vedic Sanskrit or Classical Sanskrit is definitely not a spoken language (dialect), not a Prakrit; but Pali belongs to a Prakrit, "which is based on a dialect from the region of Ujjeni (Ujjayani), capital of Avanti in western India" (p. 6 in Choong MK's The Fundamental Teachings of Early Buddhism). Thus, one needs to pay attention to how the Pali words being presented in the texts, not just the Sanskrit root.

Thomas
Last edited by thomaslaw on Sun Aug 06, 2017 1:55 am, edited 1 time in total.
thomaslaw
Posts: 812
Joined: Fri Apr 19, 2013 12:55 am
Location: Australia

Re: Is There Clear Delineation Of What Is/Not "Early Buddhism"?

Post by thomaslaw »

Hi Dmytro,
Dmytro wrote:Hi Vincent,
ToVincent wrote:Neither in SN 12.15, as you put it, nor in any other (non-sectarian) Suttas, did The Buddha "clearly rejected" (as you put it,) a "Self".
The proof is not in the fact that the "धर्मन् dharmán" (see above,) that is paṭiccasamupāda, is void of atta (sabbe dhamma anatta).
Some of your ideas are quite sound.
But continued forced reliance on Sanskrit, - a language created centuries after Buddha's lifetime, - ruins your linguistic conclusions..
Classical Sanskrit is certainly not a Prakrit.
Dmytro wrote: As Thomas Oberlies writes, Pali doesn't descend from Sanskrit or even from Vedic language:
"Pāli as a MIA language is different from Sanskrit not so much with regard to the time of its origin than as to its dialectal base, since a number of its morphological and lexical features betray the fact that it is not a direct continuation of Ṛgvedic Sanskrit; rather it descends from a dialect (or a number of dialects) which was (/were), despite many similarities, different from Ṛgvedic.[1] Some examples may help to illustrate this point [2]:..."

"This base dialect (or dialects) of Pāli was (/were) in several points more archaic than Rgvedic Sanskrit: ..."

Pāli: A Grammar of the Language of the Theravāda Tipiṭaka
By Thomas Oberlies
page 6

http://books.google.com/books?id=zFc5_SU_uwwC&pg=PA6

Thomas Oberlies, 'Aśokan Prakrit and Pali', page 163:

1.1 The Middle Indo-Aryan languages

The Indo-Aryan languages are commonly assigned to three major groups - Old, Middle and New Indo-Aryan -, a linguistic and not strictly chronological classification as the MIA languages ar not younger than ('Classical') Sanskrit. And a number of their morphophonological and lexical features betray the fact that they are not direct continuations of Ṛgvedic Sanskrit, the main base of 'Classical' Sanskrit; rather they descend from dialects which, despite many similarities, were different from Ṛgvedic and in some regards even more archaic.

MIA languages, though individually distinct, share features of phonology and morphology which characterize them as parallel descendants of Old Indo-Aryan. Various sound changes are typical of the MIA phonology:

(1) The vocalic liquids 'ṛ' and 'ḷ' are replaced by 'a', 'i' or 'u';
(2) the diptongs 'ai' and 'au' are monophthongized to 'e' and 'o';
(3) long vowels before two or more consonants are shortened;
(4) the three sibilants of OIA are reduced to one, either 'ś' or 's';
(5) the often complex consonant clusters of OIA are reduced to more readily pronounceable forms, either by assimilation or by splitting;
(6) single intervocalic stops are progressively weakened;
(7) dentals are palatalized by a following '-y-';
( 8 ) all final consonants except '-ṃ' are dropped unless they are retained in 'sandhi' junctions.

The most conspicious features of the morphological system of these languages are: loss of the dual; thematicization of consonantal stems; merger of the f. 'i-/u-' and 'ī-/ū-' in one 'ī-/ū-' inflexion, elimination of the dative, whose functions are taken over by the genitive, simultaneous use of different case-endings in one paradigm; employment of 'mahyaṃ' and 'tubhyaṃ' as genitives and 'me' and 'te' as instrumentals; gradual disappearance of the middle voice; coexistence of historical and new verbal forms based on the present stem; and use of active endings for the passive. In the vocabulary, the MIA languages are mostly dependent on Old Indo-Aryan, with addition of a few so-called 'deśī' words of (often) uncertain origin.

The most archaic of the MIA languages are the inscriptional Aśokan Prakrit on the one hand and Pāli and Ardhamāgadhī on the other, both literary languages.Two other stages of MIA may be distinguished, that of the Prakrits proper (excluding Ardhamāgadhī) and that of the Apabhraṃśa languages.

http://books.google.com/books?id=jPR2OlbTbdkC&pg=PA161
Moreover, your reliance on some imaginary fixed and single meaning of Pali roots as equivalent to some arbitrarlily chosen meanings of somewhat similar Sanskrit roots ruins your conclusions even further.
Have you thought about studying Pāli deeply?
For example, there's a great book "The Pali Roots In Saddaníti" which can be helpful for a start.
I would appreciate your original research, when it will have a more solid foundation.
Very good point, indeed.

Regards,

Thomas
Post Reply