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

Textual analysis and comparative discussion on early Buddhist sects and texts.
thomaslaw
Posts: 102
Joined: Fri Apr 19, 2013 12:55 am
Location: Australia

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

Post by thomaslaw » Sat Jul 22, 2017 2:05 am

Dear All,

Having read the arguments about the Pali and Sanskrit words (such as ekāgratā, vuṭṭhāna) for studying early Buddhist texts, remember that the Buddha did not speak Pali and Sanskrit for his dharma/dhamma. Also, Pali and Sanskrit were not the languages used for the first and second councils. The early Buddhist texts are just sectarian 'texts', not the actual words of the Buddha, and also not the languages of the councils for collecting the Buddha's teachings and texts.

So, one can seek an understanding of SA and SN, for example, of the early Buddhist teachings by studying them comparatively (cf. Choong Mun-keat, The Fundamental Teachings of Early Buddhism, p. 11).

Regards,

Thomas

thomaslaw
Posts: 102
Joined: Fri Apr 19, 2013 12:55 am
Location: Australia

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

Post by thomaslaw » Sat Jul 22, 2017 2:31 am

ToVincent wrote:
Dhammanando wrote: There is more to it than that. For example, the Sanskrit form of the word (in both Classical and Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit) is consistently ekāgratā. This form would lend itself to the parsing of Dmytro and of the Pali commentaries (i.e., Skt. eka + agra + tā = Pali eka + agga + tā) but is quite impossible with your own proposal, which would require the Sanskrit to take an identical form to the Pali.
Nice try Sir; but I hardly see some pre-Buddhistic reference, as far as your "ekāgratā" is concerned.
And this is exactly where the problem lays.
One cannot make up words later on, to fill a void in the pre-Buddhist texts (and put whatever meaning on them, to suit one's wish and inclination).
However, you can go back to the roots of words in the components of these words - and that is your best guess - but a sure one.

Good day to you.

------

May I take though, the opportunity to propose to those interested, to work on some words in their study of the papañcaless Nikayas with parallels in SA (somewhat quite EBT) - which I think is more than sufficient to understand the true meaning of the Teaching - provided that one does work on the pre-Buddhist roots of these words.
You might be amazed how things become clearer.

Let me give you a small example on an extract that I happen to have under my eyes.
Namely AN 6.64 with a parallel in SA 686–687.

Bodhi is translating the following:
"Again, the Tathāgata understands as it really is the defilement, the cleansing, and the emergence in regard to the jhānas, emancipations, concentrations, and meditative attainments.
Puna caparaṃ, bhikkhave, tathāgato jhānavimokkhasamādhisamāpattīnaṃ saṅkilesaṃ vodānaṃ vuṭṭhānaṃ yathābhūtaṃ pajānāti.

Vuṭṭhāna [sandhi form of uṭṭhāna -(fr.ut + √ ṣṭhā)] is translated as "emergence" (?!?!?) by Bodhi.
Now, if you look closely at the Monier-Williams root √ स्था sthā, you will notice that in the AV. and MBh., you have the following meaning: "to practise virtue."
And this meaning has stood up the harshness of time; from the Atharva, all the way to the Mahabharata.

Does not: "the Tathāgata understands according to what have come to be, the defilement, the cleansing, and the higher practice of virtue in regard to the jhānas, emancipations, concentrations, and meditative attainments", makes much more sense?
Isn't there a much more clear relationship between defilement, cleansing and virtue, than between defilement, cleansing and "emergence" (?!?).
That is the all point of going back to the roots of words.

Moreover, by going back to another root in this extract, viz. √ पद् pad, in the Pali word samāpatti [fr.Saṁ + ā + √ पद् pad ] - √ पद् pad: stand fast or fixed (Dhātup.); one can attune the signification of "attainment" to an underlying meaning of having oneself also "stand firm" in one's attainment.

Here is the list of some of the words. ( https://justpaste.it/197ca )
And the list of Suttas to read. ( https://justpaste.it/197c7 )
Sorry about the layout.

Metta.
Pali is not entirely come from Sanskrit. Pali is also not the same as Sanskrit. The verbal form of vuṭṭhāna is vuṭṭhāti.

Thomas

User avatar
Dhammanando
Posts: 3775
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:44 pm
Location: Ban Sri Pradu Cremation Ground, Phrao District, Chiangmai

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

Post by Dhammanando » Sat Jul 22, 2017 6:53 am

ToVincent wrote:And this is exactly where the problem lays.
One cannot make up words later on, to fill a void in the pre-Buddhist texts (and put whatever meaning on them, to suit one's wish and inclination).
What grounds have you for supposing ekāgratā to be a "made-up word"? Ekāgra and ekāgratā are simply the forms that ekagga and ekaggatā invariably take in any Sanskrit passage that parallels a Pali one. For example:

From the Theragāthā verses of Mahākassapa:

Pañcaṅgikena turiyena,
na ratī hoti tādisī.
Yathā ekaggacittassa,
sammā dhammaṃ vipassato ti.
(Thag. 1074)

Compare with a verse from the Citta chapter of the Udānavarga:

Pañcāṅgikena tūryeṇa
na ratir bhavati tādrsī.
Yādṛśy ekāgracittasya
samyag dharmāṃ vipaśyataḥ.

Moreover, this pattern is to be found in Sanskrit Buddhist sources as diverse as the Dharmaskandha, the Sarvāstivāda Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra, the Mūlasarvāstivāda Prātimokṣa, the Sanghabhedavastu’s account of Devadatta, the Bhaiṣajyavastu’s account of Piṇḍolabharadvāja, the Mahāvastu’s version of the Kṣāntivādin and Gaṅgapāla Jātakas, etc., etc.

ToVincent
Posts: 395
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 6:02 pm
Contact:

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

Post by ToVincent » Sat Jul 22, 2017 3:04 pm

Dhammanando wrote: What grounds have you for supposing ekāgratā to be a "made-up word"? Ekāgra and ekāgratā are simply the forms that ekagga and ekaggatā invariably take in any Sanskrit passage that parallels a Pali one.

..., this pattern is to be found in Sanskrit Buddhist sources as diverse as the Dharmaskandha, the Sarvāstivāda Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra, the Mūlasarvāstivāda Prātimokṣa, the Sanghabhedavastu’s account of Devadatta, the Bhaiṣajyavastu’s account of Piṇḍolabharadvāja, the Mahāvastu’s version of the Kṣāntivādin and Gaṅgapāla Jātakas, etc., etc.
What's your point, Sir?

I am talking about putting a pre-Buddhistic (root) meaning to the word Ekagga. Not to find a somewhat late Sarvastivadin meaning to that word.
We are again, veering into some red herring nonsense.

There is nothing एकाग्र ekāgra, in pre-Buddhist texts. It only appears in the Mahābhārata.
So Dmytro is right to say that the meaning of "one-pointedness" is, if not useless, at least quite controversial.
But this meaning should, at least, be preferable to the Atthakatha's meaning, he is preaching us about (as an "invaluable information" !?!?).

So, because there is nothing close to "ekagga" in pre-Buddhist Vedic or Sanskrit texts, one has to reconstruct from the roots - AND NOT to base oneself on later post-Buddhistic references.
Therefore, one's best shot is to split the word into the noun एक Eka, and the root √ गम् Gam (https://justpaste.it/1970m).
This is the only way to arrive at a pre-Buddhistic somewhat correct meaning. [And boy, is it correct!].

Relying on the Atthakatha is simply a joke. And generally "exploring the full corpus of Pali texts" is a joke too. It's making the bed of the "corrupters", if ever the text has meaningly been corrupted. It's ludicrous. Absolutely ludicrous.

So, "ekaggatta" as the "prevalence of one arammana in the mind," is a purely speculative papāñca. It has absolutely no sound fundament attached to it. None! - None, whatsoever.
In this world with its ..., Māras, ... in this population with its ascetics.... (AN 5.30).
------
We are all possessed - more or less.
------
And what, bhikkhu, is inward rottenness? Here someone is immoral, one of evil character, of impure and suspect behaviour, secretive in his acts, no ascetic though claiming to be one, not a celibate though claiming to be one, inwardly rotten, corrupt, depraved. This is called inward rottenness.”
SN 35.241
------
https://justpaste.it/j5o4

User avatar
Dhammanando
Posts: 3775
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:44 pm
Location: Ban Sri Pradu Cremation Ground, Phrao District, Chiangmai

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

Post by Dhammanando » Sat Jul 22, 2017 4:24 pm

ToVincent wrote:What's your point, Sir?
My point is that if your proposed parsing of ekaggatā as eka + gata is correct, then we should expect the Sanskrit form to also be ekaggatā. But no such form is to be found.

On the other hand, if the eka + agga parsing is correct, then we should expect the Sanskrit form to be ekāgratā. This form is invariably found.

Therefore your proposal requires one to assume that not a single translator of Prakritic Buddhist texts into Sanskrit correctly construed how the word ekaggatā is constructed. They all got it wrong. And not just the Sarvāstivadin translators but also the Lokuttaravādins, the Sammitiyas, the various Mahāyāna schools — everybody without exception got it wrong. I find this assumption highly improbable.

Besides this, one further problem with your proposal is that ekaggatā is plainly a noun, but you have translated it as a past participle: “caused to obtain an understanding of .... (the one).” If you wanted to make your proposed participial construal into a noun, then its form would not be ekaggatā but rather ekaggatatā. But no such word exists.

By the way, may I ask, have you actually studied any Pali or Sanskrit, or does your research just consist in ransacking 19th century dictionaries?

ToVincent
Posts: 395
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 6:02 pm
Contact:

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

Post by ToVincent » Sat Jul 22, 2017 6:13 pm

Dhammanando wrote:... (see above)...
Again, what's your point, Sir?

The point of the discussion IS that there is no such thing as Ekagga, or ekāgra in pre-Buddhist texts !?!?! - NO WORDS LIKE THIS!
So your logic is still amazing to me. I must have my head upside down when I deal with you.

There is some obscure late एकग ekaga lexicologists' reference, whose meaning is: "attentive to only one object".
There is also this एकाग्र ekāgra [agra], in the post-Buddha MBh. - that means: one-pointed , having one point , fixing one's attention upon one point or object , closely attentive , intent , absorbed.
When you delve towards the root of the latter word, you arrive at अग्र agra > fr. √ aṅg: foremost , anterior , first , prominent , projecting , chief , best. And some form of [agreṇa] ind., meaning: in front , before - in the ŚBr.
Also it can mean: from - up to, in the ŚBr., and: before (in time), in the AitUp.
So the only true pre-Buddhist reference leans towards the following underlying meaning: "in front , before" - from - up to, in the - before (in time).

BUT AGAIN, THESE WORDS (ekaga, ekāgra, ekāgratā, ...etc.) COME LATER - AFTER THE BUDDHA!
Ok?

My question is: from what did Buddha make up this word ekagga, (that became later on ekāgra, in post-Buddha "Sanskrit time")?
And how post-Buddha folks (Buddhist & post-Vedic,) interpreted this word?

I see no reason why it should not be the "one pointed mind" that Dmytro rejects so badly, for that matter.

But I also see no reason why the meaning of the word should not be derived from the noun Eka & the √ गम् Gam - as it is a new word.
Buddha had to make it up, from "something".

Don't ask me why the Brahmins of the Vedic times, never used this word?
Maybe, I suppose, that discriminating between the external and the internal, and having the internal being the one (between two), was not much into a Vedic Brahman idea of a Self. Was it?
But that is pure speculation, I agree.

On the other hand, we are faced with someone, (Buddha,) that had to make up a NEW WORD from scratch. And what did he pick up?
Eka + √ गम् Gam OR Eka + √ अङ्ग् aṅg (√ ag or √ aṅk)
Does that sound ridiculous?
Dhammanando wrote: Besides this, one further problem with your proposal is that ekaggatā is plainly a noun, but you have translated it as a past participle: “caused to obtain an understanding of .... (the one).” If you wanted to make your proposed participial construal into a noun, then its form would not be ekaggatā but rather ekaggatatā. But no such word exists.
Sk. गत gata = pp. √ गम् gam
Although it is true that it is a past passive participle. But again - would it make any difference.
There are indeed quite a lot of participles attached to √gam:
Past Passive Participle: gata m. n. gatā f. - Past Active Participle: gatavat m. n. gatavatī f. - Present Active Participle: gacchat m. n. gacchantī f. -
Present Passive Participle: gamyamāna m. n. gamyamānā f. - Future Active Participle: gamiṣyat m. n. gamiṣyantī f. - Future Passive Participle: gantavya m. n. gantavyā f. - Future Passive Participle: gamya m. n. gamyā f. - Future Passive Participle: - gamanīya m. n. gamanīyā f. - Perfect Active Participle: jagmivaḥ m. n. jagmuṣī f.

I am not much into that red herring "grammar nazi" stuff.

As you see, I do delve in the grammar a bit - But I must say that I favor meaning (lexicography) over grammar. And I love to go into the texts, to check those lexicons' references.
What the point of having the right participle, if the meaning is erroneous.

Good day, Sir.
In this world with its ..., Māras, ... in this population with its ascetics.... (AN 5.30).
------
We are all possessed - more or less.
------
And what, bhikkhu, is inward rottenness? Here someone is immoral, one of evil character, of impure and suspect behaviour, secretive in his acts, no ascetic though claiming to be one, not a celibate though claiming to be one, inwardly rotten, corrupt, depraved. This is called inward rottenness.”
SN 35.241
------
https://justpaste.it/j5o4

User avatar
Dhammanando
Posts: 3775
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:44 pm
Location: Ban Sri Pradu Cremation Ground, Phrao District, Chiangmai

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

Post by Dhammanando » Sat Jul 22, 2017 7:45 pm

Dhammanando wrote:By the way, may I ask, have you actually studied any Pali or Sanskrit, or does your research just consist in ransacking 19th century dictionaries?
ToVincent wrote:I am not much into that red herring "grammar nazi" stuff.
Your latest post confirms my suspicion that you haven't a clue how either of the two languages work and are incompetent to evaluate what is a tenable analysis of a word and what is not. I prefer not to spend any more time addressing your pseudo-scholarship.

ToVincent
Posts: 395
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 6:02 pm
Contact:

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

Post by ToVincent » Sat Jul 22, 2017 8:57 pm

Dhammanando wrote: Your latest post confirms my suspicion that you haven't a clue how either of the two languages work ...
This kind of easy ostracism, certainly fits your desiderata alright.
Usual sectarian tactic.
Yet, the little lesson on the participle of √ gam (you seemed not to be aware of,) seems to prove the contrary.

O, I know, I did forget the "being" in my reading of the P.P. participle of √ gam. (https://justpaste.it/1970m)
Damn me! - Huge difference it seems. Big deal!
Do I have though, as a low life human, to be eradicated from the face of this earth, so full of maras, Brahmas, .... and lower beings like me who, sometimes, don't want to play "kasiṇa" - (AN 10.26), or enjoy the carnal feelings of this world; unjudgementaly and without restrictions?
Tell me , Sir?
Am I some kind of a .... "bad" Buddhist?
Dhammanando wrote: ... and are incompetent to evaluate what is a tenable analysis of a word and what is not.
Maybe, then.
In the meantime, I will state something quite basic and rational:
How do you define a noun like ekacitta?
Often by a past passive participle. Don't you? - like "being absorbed (thought, ... whatever) in one".
Or else, ekatāna? > being directed (having the mind fixed) to one object only. Etc.,etc.

So, where do you start from, when a word does not exist yet?
Don't you define it (with participles), before you make a noun out of it?
Then, how do you define that noun, once "made up"? ........
Dhammanando wrote: ...I prefer not to spend any more time addressing your pseudo-scholarship.
I won't mind a bit. I'll do the same.

Note: (more important than this petty grammar flack)
Don't get me wrong on that speculation above, about the Brahmins, etc.
I am not saying that the Buddha did make a "self" out of that "one of two," aka the "internal".
I mean there, that, after getting rid of the influence on the senses (external) - one should get into seclusion (viveka,) in the "internal", to work out the form part. Then do away with the form part and get to the formless, ...., so on and so forth.
Remember? - one must first get rid of the appropriation (clinging) of the senses, then of the forms, then of the formless, etc.

There is definitely in that, something that the Brahmins of old, would not have even dared to think of.
And there is definitely in that, something that certain "people" nowadays, don't want you to achieve - As in (at least,) "doing away with the sense world".
Are you following me, Sir?


Good night - sleep on it quietly, Sir.
In this world with its ..., Māras, ... in this population with its ascetics.... (AN 5.30).
------
We are all possessed - more or less.
------
And what, bhikkhu, is inward rottenness? Here someone is immoral, one of evil character, of impure and suspect behaviour, secretive in his acts, no ascetic though claiming to be one, not a celibate though claiming to be one, inwardly rotten, corrupt, depraved. This is called inward rottenness.”
SN 35.241
------
https://justpaste.it/j5o4

thomaslaw
Posts: 102
Joined: Fri Apr 19, 2013 12:55 am
Location: Australia

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

Post by thomaslaw » Fri Jul 28, 2017 2:33 am

About the languages used in the early Buddhist texts, e.g. SN/SA, it seems to me the Buddha did not actually make up any new difficult words for his teachings. So, for example, about the notion of not-self 'anatta', it will be better to see how the word, anatta, being used in the SN/SA texts about the teachings, rather than just checking the Skt. root of the term, anatta.

Also, when reading the meaning of the Pali noun words, it is irrelevant to check the Skt. root of the Pali term. Pali is not the same as Sanskrit. It is better to check the verbal form of the nouns used in the texts.

Thomas

ToVincent
Posts: 395
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 6:02 pm
Contact:

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

Post by ToVincent » Fri Jul 28, 2017 2:54 pm

thomaslaw wrote:......
Dear Thomas,

All Middle Indo-Aryan dialects seem to be pretty related.
For instance, the Pali & Sanskrit grammar are quite similar.
I think the issue is elswhere.

(I leave the diacritics aside).

In the second urbanisation of India (around +/- 550–150 BCE), the higher jatis (castes) of India - the Brahmins and Kshatriyas (of which the Buddha was part), were certainly using the liturgical and philosophical Sanskrit, as the bases of their education, and maybe even as a vernacular language between folks of the same higher level of culture.

In any case, the Buddha did recite the Samhitas; did learn the liturgical Brahmanas; was definitely influenced by the "forest texts" that are the Aranyakas, (as far as His ascetic ways were concerned later on;) and did certainly read the Sutras and Upanishads; from which, in the latter case, He did engage in a quite conservative, yet revolutionary line of reasoning, much in contrast with the prevalent notion of a "Self/selves" of the time. Namely the Prajāpati (aka Ka) and the saṃ+Ka+iya dṛṣṭi ( https://justpaste.it/191nd ) - which became the sakkāyadiṭṭhi of the Pali, once that new concept from the Buddha, had been taught or translated in the latter language.
Saṃ+Ka+iya dṛṣṭi does not exist in Vedic Sanskrit, because, for a Brahmin of the time, the following was just self-evident. There was not even a reason to discuss that. The Self was pervasive, continuous, and in everything and everyone. Point! (as it is still today in Hinduism) - Identification with Self/selves, was just a matter of fact. "I am Brahma (Prājapati/Ka) was, and is still the motto of the astika-mata (saddarsana orthodox schools).

Did the Buddha know and did He care about the subtleties that occured linguistically between the early hymns of the Rigvedic period, the Mantra and prose language, the Samhita & Brahmana proses, the Sutra languages?
Maybe. But is that relevant?
One thing for sure, is that he must have been more acquainted with the Sanskrit, than with the Pali language, the "language of Magadha".
And another thing for sure, is that, if as a kshatriya, one has to wonder what kind of notions were in His mind at the time - and if one of these notions, came from the early hymns of the Rigvedic period, then one might as well find the roots of it, way back in the Avestan language, if necessary.

The Buddha did certainly teach in several Middle Indo-Aryan dialects, and in the Magadhan Pali. But I am not sure that, when He discussed philosophical questions in whatever shakha (recension) that was, it would have been in the Pali.
Buddha did spend quite some times in Maghada, but certainly not all of his time.
Did the Buddha really teach the Maghadans in the Pali? - Only Buddha knows.

Don't forget also that Buddha's disciples were, in most cases, "good family" people, that had given up their wealth for the ascetic, truly homeless life. That means, people which certainly had to deal with the philosophical and liturgical texts in Sanskrit.

So why Pali? - Why not Sanskrut?
Definitely, everything originated from that Sanskrit. And every new word that originated from the Buddha did not come from the Pali, but from the latter. And He did decline it in the Pali, or in the other Middle Indo-Aryan dialects outside of Maghada (including His own?).
Did the Buddha teach in the Pali, when He was in Pañcāla? - I doubt so.

Now, the question is: "why is there this quite hysterical attitude from Buddhism, when one wants to relate the latter to its Vedic origin?". Why this ostracism?
Today, the all scholarship favors the study of the interpretation of the Chinese texts, by some Taoist or Confucian translators, passing through India, and not even able to take the original Sanskrit texts back home.
How good can that be? - And what's behind all this? - The nonsense merry-go-round once again?
For what? - Tell me!

For me the Chinese texts are only good to show the correspondences between sectarian texts (the parallels). That is all that counts. The rest is quite useless.
What counts is in the study of the root of the Vedic notions. And that is in Sanskrit - And that is in the Sanskrit roots of their words. What is so deranging? - A better understanding that bothers some?
Check here the difference that is made when studying the Sanskrit root of a Pali word. https://justpaste.it/19eb6 - Do you see the difference in #2 - Do you see the importance of that root meaning, that covered the pre and post Buddha's era? - What could be the implication here, that bothers so much some people in the past, and particularly nowadays. Tell me! - Does fumigating (smoking the sheds) such a problem? (AN 11.17) - For who?.

Mudita
In this world with its ..., Māras, ... in this population with its ascetics.... (AN 5.30).
------
We are all possessed - more or less.
------
And what, bhikkhu, is inward rottenness? Here someone is immoral, one of evil character, of impure and suspect behaviour, secretive in his acts, no ascetic though claiming to be one, not a celibate though claiming to be one, inwardly rotten, corrupt, depraved. This is called inward rottenness.”
SN 35.241
------
https://justpaste.it/j5o4

thomaslaw
Posts: 102
Joined: Fri Apr 19, 2013 12:55 am
Location: Australia

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

Post by thomaslaw » Sat Jul 29, 2017 1:16 am

ToVincent wrote:
thomaslaw wrote:......
Dear Thomas,

All Middle Indo-Aryan dialects seem to be pretty related.
For instance, the Pali & Sanskrit grammar are quite similar.
Sanskrit is not a dialect. Pali and Sanskrit are 'not' quite similar, though related. Buddhist Sanskrit belongs to the so-called 'hybrid Sanskrit'.
ToVincent wrote: One thing for sure, is that he must have been more acquainted with the Sanskrit, than with the Pali language, the "language of Magadha"... Definitely, everything originated from that Sanskrit.
Completely incorrect.

Thomas

ToVincent
Posts: 395
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 6:02 pm
Contact:

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

Post by ToVincent » Sat Jul 29, 2017 2:21 pm

thomaslaw wrote:Sanskrit is not a dialect. Pali and Sanskrit are 'not' quite similar, though related. Buddhist Sanskrit belongs to the so-called 'hybrid Sanskrit'.
Etc...
There are ususually two uses of the term "dialect":

- One concerns the noticeable heterogeneity of languages in a country. As in somewhat, one among the pluricentric (aka polycentric) languages of a country.

- the other refers to a sub-language (like a provincial language).

My use of the term "dialect" concerns the first one.

----

Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit comes after Budha's time. So it is not relevant as far as a language (dialect) the Buddha could have spoken.
However, if we could admit that Panini was a contemporary of the Buddha, and even a bit of a predecessor; then the संस्कृत saṃskṛta (Sanskrit) [the refined, the consecrated, the sacred and now standardized language,] of Panini, would be adding water to my mill.
In other words, when a dialect becomes a standard language; this denotes the importance of such a language at the time.
From that time, the Sanskrut became the dominant language; up to the new Indo-Aryan era (~1000 CE).

Anyway, this is red herring as usual.
The main issue here, is that the philosophy of India at the time of Buddha was based mostly, if not totally on notions from the residual influence of the liturgical texts (Brāhmaṇas); and on the still influential nature of the ascetic & philosophical texts (Āraṇyakas-Upaniṣads). These were transmitted orally, in middle Vedic-Sanskrit, and late Vedic-Sanskrit (and perhaps ‘Pāṇinian Sanskrit’); not in Pali.
And again, as a Kśatriya, the Buddha knew them, certainly in different shakhas.
When, for instance, the Buddha spoke about nāmarūpa, this notion comes right out from the Vedic-Sanskrit "texts".
Nāmarūpa is not a Buddhist notion. And when Buddha invented the term anatta, it came right out from Atta in the Vedic-Sanskrit "texts" -that were transmitted orally, in the not yet perfected Panini's Saṃskṛta.
Whatever the slight differences between old Vedic-Sanskrit , middle Vedic-Sanskrit, late Vedic-Sanskrit, ‘Pāṇinian Sanskrit’; or even within the semi-colloquial scholarly discourse of the learned community of Sanskrit scholars of the times - this is called "Sanskrit" by the communis opinio. And this was the language the philosophers of the time, did refer to - For the स्मृति smṛti was transmitted in Sanskrit; not in Pali.

So the question is not to know if the Buddha did preach in the Pali all around, or in Sanskrit, or in whatever other language, if ever; but to admit, once and for all, that Buddhism is part of the Indian philosophy; and not something coming out of the blue.
In that case, refering to notions in the liturgical, ascetic and philosophical texts of the Vedic corpus - notions that also, can be found in Buddhism - is far from being a "useless" endeavour. Far from it.

And I have given you just a proof of that. But you'd rather answer shortly, with some derogatory, tenuous (quantitatively and qualitatively;) if not ludicrous rationale.

Going for an explanation of a word through the Early Buddhist texts is not sufficient.
And trying to get it from the Taoists is just plain derisory.

In the example of MN 59 (https://justpaste.it/19eb6 ), how could you come with a correct notion of that "paṭighasaññāna", reading only the EBT's (to be serious with)? - What came up?:
"Perception of sensory-reactions", or "perceptions of resistance", or else "perceptions of sensory impact" ?!?!

You have to delve in the all stratum of the Indo-Aryan language, to find the right and rationally evident answer.
What "perception of sensory-reactions", or "perceptions of resistance", or else "perceptions of sensory impact", could probably mean?
Do we have to hop on that "nonsense merry-go-round" once again? - and speak about it endlessly and futilely.
For what?
For who?

There is a quite simple answer capable of being simply apprehended in the EMLVTs (pre & post Buddha's time:
" perceptions based upon the organs of senses".
Period!
"Perceptions of resistance" ?!?!? - Ouch!

I am off with this preposterous discussion.

EBTs are also EMLVTs (when it applies).
That's my kamma.
And yours is yours.


P.S.
May I suggest you to read Chāndogya Upaniṣad (ChUp.) of the Taṇḍya shakha - Adhyāya 8 (7 to 15). It might be informatory.

So yes, a word like sakkāyadiṭṭhi can be better understood, not only through the Sanskrit; but also through the pre-Buddhist texts, such as the ChUp, in this case.
सम् saṃ+ क Ka + ॰ईय iya - where Ka is the other name of Prājapati, as shown in the reference at the bottom of this page https://justpaste.it/191nd. Namely (identifying) lit. "with what belongs to Ka"
Sakkāyadiṭṭhi is therefore, with very little doubt, the identification with the Self/self (Prājapati/Ka), as depicted in ChUp.

Therefore, in just one thread - and just with the help of the Sanskrit roots, words & texts - we can easily define two words that had, either an ambiguous nature; or else, an absolute non-sense.
Yes we can.
In this world with its ..., Māras, ... in this population with its ascetics.... (AN 5.30).
------
We are all possessed - more or less.
------
And what, bhikkhu, is inward rottenness? Here someone is immoral, one of evil character, of impure and suspect behaviour, secretive in his acts, no ascetic though claiming to be one, not a celibate though claiming to be one, inwardly rotten, corrupt, depraved. This is called inward rottenness.”
SN 35.241
------
https://justpaste.it/j5o4

thomaslaw
Posts: 102
Joined: Fri Apr 19, 2013 12:55 am
Location: Australia

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

Post by thomaslaw » Sun Jul 30, 2017 1:14 am

ToVincent wrote:
thomaslaw wrote:Sanskrit is not a dialect. Pali and Sanskrit are 'not' quite similar, though related. Buddhist Sanskrit belongs to the so-called 'hybrid Sanskrit'.
Etc...
There are ususually two uses of the term "dialect":

- One concerns the noticeable heterogeneity of languages in a country. As in somewhat, one among the pluricentric (aka polycentric) languages of a country.

- the other refers to a sub-language (like a provincial language).

My use of the term "dialect" concerns the first one.

----

Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit comes after Budha's time. So it is not relevant as far as a language (dialect) the Buddha could have spoken. ......
So, Sanskrit is simply not a dialect. It is irrelevant to a spoken language (dialect) of the Buddha who could possibly use it for communication and teaching activities for all people.

Also, the Buddha did not use Pali and Sanskrit for his teachings. He used a dialect (or different dialects) which is still not known for sure what it should be. His teachings were also certainly responding to the Sanskrit religion/philosophy and other religions at that time. But when studying early Buddhist texts, such as SN and SA, it is important to look at the content being presented in the texts regarding the early Buddhist teachings.

Thomas

ToVincent
Posts: 395
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 6:02 pm
Contact:

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

Post by ToVincent » Sun Jul 30, 2017 2:40 pm

thomaslaw wrote:quite some nonsense, as usual
I would also advise you - but this is absolutely not necessary, as seen below - to read Dr. Swaminathan "Panini's Understanding of Vedic Grammar", and stay away from the "grammar & the myths boys" Witzel's crowd. https://justpaste.it/19ivg

Not much to fuss about.
Twelve types of infinitives becoming one. That kind of subaltern stuff, might have made the new "Sanskrit" unintelligible to the old Vedic Brahmins; but that does not mean that we should worry unnecessarily.
The old "Sanskrit" dialects of the Vedic Brahmins, just happened to become standardized. That's all it is all about. On that one, I think Witzel was right to call them "Vedic dialects".
However, the morphological, grammatical and phonological changes, in the attempt, since the 8th century, to "saṃskṛtize" (saṃ-kṛ) the Vedic dialects, could not change the original meaning of the orally transmitted "texts" (sṃrti).

Sanskrit comes from the word संस्कृत saṃskṛta (pp. of saṃskṛ) - संस्कृ saṃskṛ - (sam-√ कृ kṛ).
It means "put together". As in putting together the different Vedic/"Sanskrit" dialects.
In other words, it is not because it is "put together", that the change of name from Vedic to Sanskrit, means that they are two different languages. It is just a standardization. Vedic is Sanskrit, so to speak; and Sanskrit is Vedic.
Saṃskṛta means "putting (the different Vedic dialects) together". Does that make Sanskrit less Vedic? - or Vedic(s) less Sanskrit?
Gee!
Saṃskṛta is the same as the Pali Saṅkhata: put together,compounded; produced by a combination of ...
Can you understand the nuance?
So they said "o, darn, we have ten infinitives here! - let's just make only one!.
Verstehen?

I am definitely sure that Mr. Panini did his best to keep the sacred Texts intact in the process.
They used to dismember horses; but humans too, in that time of Brahminical preponderance.

What imports, and what we might infer from that, is that the Texts we have now in Sanskrit (S., Br. Ār., Up & Śr.), are pretty close to what Buddha might have read them into.
And definitely, the roots of the words have not change that much; if ever.

---

Also - on the side - mtDna might help settle quite a bit this - ? how did you call them Mr. Witzel ? - O yes, .... "Petty Professorial Politicking".
Ha!

Nothing beats a good hark back, to have a sound (spiritual) brooding citta. Does it?

---

All this to say that the EBTs are not only the Pali texts, but also the EMLVTs (Early, Middle & Late Vedic texts), as Buddhism is part of the Indian Philosophy. With a preference for the texts that Buddha might have been the most influenced by .

And now, I really shall let it rest, for good.

Mudita
In this world with its ..., Māras, ... in this population with its ascetics.... (AN 5.30).
------
We are all possessed - more or less.
------
And what, bhikkhu, is inward rottenness? Here someone is immoral, one of evil character, of impure and suspect behaviour, secretive in his acts, no ascetic though claiming to be one, not a celibate though claiming to be one, inwardly rotten, corrupt, depraved. This is called inward rottenness.”
SN 35.241
------
https://justpaste.it/j5o4

thomaslaw
Posts: 102
Joined: Fri Apr 19, 2013 12:55 am
Location: Australia

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

Post by thomaslaw » Mon Jul 31, 2017 12:23 am

ToVincent wrote:
thomaslaw wrote:quite some nonsense, as usual
Do you mean you are "quite some nonsense, as usual"?
(which you made it up as "... wrote")
ToVincent wrote: I would also advise you - but this is absolutely not necessary, as seen below - to read Dr. Swaminathan "Panini's Understanding of Vedic Grammar", and stay away from the "grammar & the myths boys" Witzel's crowd. https://justpaste.it/19ivg

Not much to fuss about. ...
since the 8th century, to "saṃskṛtize" (saṃ-kṛ) the Vedic dialects, could not change the original meaning of the orally transmitted "texts" (sṃrti). ... in putting together the different Vedic/"Sanskrit" dialects... means that they are two different languages. It is just a standardization. Vedic is Sanskrit, so to speak; and Sanskrit is Vedic. ... I am definitely sure that Mr. Panini did his best to keep the sacred Texts intact in the process. ... we have now in Sanskrit (S., Br. Ār., Up & Śr.), are pretty close to what Buddha might have read them into.
And definitely, the roots of the words have not change that much; if ever. ... Also - on the side - mtDna might help settle quite a bit this - ? how did you call them Mr. Witzel ? - O yes, .... "Petty Professorial Politicking". Ha! ...
It seems you are 'quite some nonsense'?
ToVincent wrote: All this to say that the EBTs are not only the Pali texts, but also the EMLVTs (Early, Middle & Late Vedic texts), as Buddhism is part of the Indian Philosophy. With a preference for the texts that Buddha might have been the most influenced by .
I agree: The Pali texts are not the only early Buddhist texts. So the comparative studies of the early Buddhist texts, such as SN and SA, are important. Remember that the Buddha belonged to the Sramanas, outside the orthodox 'Sanskrit' Brahmanical system (Jainism also belonged to the Sramanas).
ToVincent wrote: And now, I really shall let it rest, for good.
Good on you!

Thomas

ToVincent
Posts: 395
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 6:02 pm
Contact:

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

Post by ToVincent » Mon Jul 31, 2017 1:56 am

thomaslaw wrote:still, quite some nonsense, as usual
Rādha, those ascetics and brahmins who do not understand as they really are the gratification, the danger, and the escape in the case of these five aggregates subject to clinging: these I do not consider to be ascetics among ascetics or brahmins among brahmins, and these venerable ones do not, by realizing it for themselves with direct knowledge, in this very life enter and dwell in the goal asceticism or the goal of brahminhood.
E.g. SN 23.5
Buddha was not a Brahmin. But a Kśatrya - of the Brahmanical tradition.
"Manifold is the prosperity of him who is weary,"
So have we heard, O Rohita;
Evil is he who stayeth among men,
Indra is the comrade of the wanderer.
Do thou wander."
AitBr. 7.15
As you can see above, the verb √ śram is already used in the pre-Buddhist litterature - in this case, śrama is associated with the life of a wanderer.

But what is more important though, is that, in the Taittirīya-Āraṇyaka of the Taittiriya Shakha (YV. Krishna) - that predates Buddha - you can find the first reference of the word śramaṇa; were it is said that "the vatarasana seers (Ṛṣi) were śramaṇas".
I don't know how familiar you are with the Indian philosophy; but these Ṛṣi originated from the flesh that fell off when Prājapati shook his body after he had performed austerities (tapas). And these Ṛṣi are regarded as the founding fathers of the Brahmanical tradition.

Don't mix up Brahmins and Brahmanical tradition.

And don't rely too much on Wikipedia.

Mudita.

P.S.
I (still) like you Thomas - don't worry!
In this world with its ..., Māras, ... in this population with its ascetics.... (AN 5.30).
------
We are all possessed - more or less.
------
And what, bhikkhu, is inward rottenness? Here someone is immoral, one of evil character, of impure and suspect behaviour, secretive in his acts, no ascetic though claiming to be one, not a celibate though claiming to be one, inwardly rotten, corrupt, depraved. This is called inward rottenness.”
SN 35.241
------
https://justpaste.it/j5o4

thomaslaw
Posts: 102
Joined: Fri Apr 19, 2013 12:55 am
Location: Australia

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

Post by thomaslaw » Mon Jul 31, 2017 2:14 am

ToVincent wrote: still, quite some nonsense, as usual ...

As you can see above, the verb √ śram is already used in the pre-Buddhist litterature - in this case, śrama is associated with the life of a wanderer.

But what is more important though, is that, in the Taittirīya-Āraṇyaka of the Taittiriya Shakha (YV. Krishna) - that predates Buddha - you can find the first reference of the word śramaṇa; were it is said that "the vatarasana seers (Ṛṣi) were śramaṇas".
I don't know how familiar you are with the Indian philosophy; but these Ṛṣi originated from the flesh that fell off when Prājapati shook his body after he had performed austerities (tapas). And these Ṛṣi are regarded as the founding fathers of the Brahmanical tradition.

Don't mix up Brahmins and Brahmanical tradition.

And don't rely too much on Wikipedia.

Mudita.

P.S.
I (still) like you Thomas - don't worry!
"still, quite some nonsense, as usual"

Thomas

ToVincent
Posts: 395
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 6:02 pm
Contact:

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

Post by ToVincent » Mon Jul 31, 2017 2:26 am

thomaslaw wrote:...
I (still) like you even more.
In this world with its ..., Māras, ... in this population with its ascetics.... (AN 5.30).
------
We are all possessed - more or less.
------
And what, bhikkhu, is inward rottenness? Here someone is immoral, one of evil character, of impure and suspect behaviour, secretive in his acts, no ascetic though claiming to be one, not a celibate though claiming to be one, inwardly rotten, corrupt, depraved. This is called inward rottenness.”
SN 35.241
------
https://justpaste.it/j5o4

thomaslaw
Posts: 102
Joined: Fri Apr 19, 2013 12:55 am
Location: Australia

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

Post by thomaslaw » Mon Jul 31, 2017 3:42 am

ToVincent wrote:
thomaslaw wrote:...
I (still) like you even more.
Something wrong!

Thomas

ToVincent
Posts: 395
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 6:02 pm
Contact:

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

Post by ToVincent » Mon Jul 31, 2017 3:15 pm

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.
I have given you THE PROOF that Ṛṣis can be Śramanas - and what's more, these particular Ṛṣis (in the TaittĀr.,) were the founding fathers of the Brahminical tradition - AND they were Śramanas.
Ṛṣi is the epitome; the pure prototype of Brahmanism. And these Ṛṣi (in the TaittĀr.,) are the epitome of the epitome.

So, that means that you can be a śramana AND belong, (like the Buddha, as a Kśatrya,) to the "Brahmanical system" (as you put it).
Comprendo?

Who says nonsense here? - Tell me!

Also, (because I think you mix up with this notion,) Āstika आस्तिक [vr. asti-ka] means "he becomes like (BṛĀrUp.) or is equal to (ŚBr.) Ka" = Prajapati (as seen before). (Note that the word Āstika is incorrectly used by modern scholars like you).
Buddha did not believe in becoming (as in: being equal to) Ka (Prājapati). He did not follow the late Vedic belief. He did not believe that there was an Ātman (somewhat made Prājapati in the late Vedic creed,) in the धर्मन् dharmán [dhṛ-man] (viz. "that which is established" [RV.]), that is paṭiccasamupāda.
He didn't think, that this Prājapati was continuous, to the point that a man or an immaterial body could be Āt-man.
As I said earlier, the Buddha was quite a revolutionnary conservative.

-----

And YES!, going for parallels in the EBTs is a MUST - (I have given a while ago a list of them). And once you have the non-sectarian "Text," then you delve in the root of the words - and that means Pali, Sanskrit/Vedic, and even Zend, if necessary.
However, finding the "root" meaning of these words, in non-Indian later interpretations, remains quite if not, very dubious.

-----

However, the "nature of your game" sounds to me now, like mere trolling; if only.
So, I'll keep in mind your brilliant reading of Śramanism; and I doubt that I will discuss further, upon such a thin knowledge of the Indian philosophy - of which, I say it again, the Buddha was plainly a part of.
In this world with its ..., Māras, ... in this population with its ascetics.... (AN 5.30).
------
We are all possessed - more or less.
------
And what, bhikkhu, is inward rottenness? Here someone is immoral, one of evil character, of impure and suspect behaviour, secretive in his acts, no ascetic though claiming to be one, not a celibate though claiming to be one, inwardly rotten, corrupt, depraved. This is called inward rottenness.”
SN 35.241
------
https://justpaste.it/j5o4

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests