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 » Mon Jul 31, 2017 11:50 pm

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

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

Post by ToVincent » Tue Aug 01, 2017 3:33 pm

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 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 » Wed Aug 02, 2017 12:15 am

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

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

Post by ToVincent » Wed Aug 02, 2017 12:24 am

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 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 » Wed Aug 02, 2017 1:11 am

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: 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 » Wed Aug 02, 2017 1:15 am

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

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

Post by ToVincent » Wed Aug 02, 2017 2:15 pm

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 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 » Thu Aug 03, 2017 12:14 am

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
Dmytro
Posts: 1477
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 7:24 pm
Location: Kyiv, Ukraine
Contact:

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

Post by Dmytro » Sat Aug 05, 2017 6:31 am

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: 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 Aug 05, 2017 3:39 pm

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 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
Coëmgenu
Posts: 1492
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:55 pm

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

Post by Coëmgenu » Sat Aug 05, 2017 6:29 pm

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.
神足示現者,
世尊隨其所應,而示現入禪定正受,陵虛至東方,作四威儀,
行、住、坐、臥,入火三昧,出種種火光,青、黃、赤、白、
紅、頗梨色,水火俱現, 或身下出火,身上出水,身上出火,
身下出水,周圓四方亦復如是。

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 Aug 05, 2017 7:15 pm

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 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

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 Aug 05, 2017 8:38 pm

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 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 Aug 06, 2017 1:22 am

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: 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 Aug 06, 2017 1:37 am

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

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 Aug 06, 2017 5:25 am

ToVincent wrote:
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.
Definitely something wrong :rolleye: about the Sanskrit root, though Buddhism is part of Indian philosophy.

Thomas

User avatar
Dmytro
Posts: 1477
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 7:24 pm
Location: Kyiv, Ukraine
Contact:

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

Post by Dmytro » Sun Aug 06, 2017 9:35 am

ToVincent wrote: "Sanskrit, - a language created centuries after Buddha's lifetime"
Prove it!
I can prove that Sanskrit wasn't used until first century B.C., - as far as scientific method goes.

As Richard Salomon writes,
"Sanskrit began to come into epigraphic use only in the first century B.C."

https://books.google.com/books?id=XYrG0 ... &q&f=false
https://archive.org/stream/IndianEpigra ... /mode/2up/
Before that, epigraphic lingua franca was much similar to Pāli.
After the Mauryan period there is a major shift in the linguistic features of the inscriptional Prakrits. The predominance of the eastern dialect of the Aśokan and other inscriptions of the Mauryan period ends abruptly; in fact, not a single inscriptional record in eastern dialect has been found from the post-Mauryan era. The dominant role in all regions except the northwest and Sri Lanka falls hereafter to a variety of Prakrit which most resembles, among the Aśokan dialects, the western dialect of the Girnār rock edicts, and which among literary languages has the most in common with Pāli and archaic forms of Śauraseni.

...

This central-western MIA dialect was, in fact, virtually the sole language in epigraphic use in the period in question, and therefore seems, like Pāli, to have developed into something like a northern Indian lingua franca, at least for epigraphic purposes, in the last two centuries B.C.

R. Salomon - Indian Epigraphy: A Guide to the Study of Inscriptions in Sanskrit, Prakrit, and the other Indo-Aryan Languages

https://books.google.com/books?id=XYrG0 ... &q&f=false
https://archive.org/stream/IndianEpigra ... /mode/2up/
So the emergence of Sanskrit can be very well dated by circa first century BCE.

The linguistic features of Sanskrit also betray its age and place of origin.
"The dialect at the basis of Rgvedic language lay to the north-west, while the classical language was formed in Madhyadesa."

Thomas Burrow, The Sanskrit Language

http://books.google.com/books?id=cWDhKTj1SBYC&pg=PA84
Sanskrit, as an artificially (re)constructed language, is similar to Modern Hebrew. For linguists, it's obvious that Modern Hebrew is very much different from Biblical Hebrew. However due to a strong religious lobby, this modern language is considered to be the same as Biblical one. Similarly, due to the strong religious lobby, Sanskrit is often considered as having origins in times immemorial, while epigraphic evidence points out the time when it came into use. The myth of "Sanskrit as a mother of all languages" still lingers even in modern science, but it is fading.

Surely pre-Buddhist philosophy influenced the teachings of the Buddha, as described by Alexander Wynne. And sometimes Sanskrit correspondences can be helpful, when seen in historical perspective. Sanskrit is just one of Indian languages, albeit a very influential one.

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 Aug 06, 2017 3:46 pm

Dmytro wrote:...
Well, I think I can still find some time, to discuss something, somewhat gripping.

No Sir.
You can't prove anything!
How "scientific" is that?
Epigraphic evidence do not "points out the time when (Sanskrit) came into use".
No more than "Lucy" was the first human - until "science" discovered (very lately,) an older human in North Africa.
Also, when one knows how important was the oral transmission in Sanskrit, (and the other languages as well), how reliable is all this?
It is also as absurd, as to say that a philosophy started in 1000 CE, because the first book about it, was written at that exact time.
Ludicrous nonsense, as usual.

Did I ever said that Sanskrit was the "mother language" of the Indo-European languages?
By the way, I don't even call them "Indo-European" anymore. I tend to call them "Indo_upper-mesopotamian_Indo", (although this is as approximative, as the former). I am not a linguist; and I don't pretend to ever be.
However, mtADN might help you understand the "semitic"?!? influence - (maybe in the reflexive N1 Mesopotamian > N Indo hark back? - who knows how "semitic" is that?)

By the way, this is a map I use - not that I consider it perfect; far from it - But it might show you, how I consider these languages (often made of many dialects). https://justpaste.it/19rrs

I just said that Sanskrit was the literary and religious orthodox language of the highest varnas. That's all I said.
And I said that the Buddha, being a Kśatrya, was using it quite profusely when studying AND criticizing the religious Texts of the time (which were not WRITTEN!).
How the Pali fits into that? - Certainly as a "less considered" language by the elite at the time, (and before that time). Therefore, the important influence that Sanskrit had on Pali, before Buddha's time, seems quite obvious.
In other words, it is not on the linguistics that the influence was acted upon, but upon the minds. And the linguistics did follow.
To make it simple; when a Pali speaker did hear about the ("Vedic/Sanskrit/or whatever language or dialect the Brahmanical tradition did speak across the ages") concept of "Dharman," and turned it linguistically in his Pali native language as "Dhamma"; he certainly did so, by retaining the philosophical concept. He did not have to operate philosophical changes, as he did linguistically.
Understand? - (Note: I know you do!).
So linguistics is absolutely irrelevant in that matter.
The words (and their roots,) that appeared first in the Ṛg Veda, for instance, have not changed a bit over the millennia.
Dharman, for instance was pronounced that way since its inception. The gurukuls applying the vedāṅga, made sure that it remained absolutely the same over the transmissions; whatever the language or dialect was spoken at the time.
When Dharman became Dhamma in Pali, it is because it sort of went out of the Vedic tradition - so to speak. But within the Vedic tradition, it remained always the same. However, the Pali person who heard this word "dharman" the first time, in the philosophical context of his time, did not have to operate a philosophical change, as he did with the linguistical change. Maybe, later on, studying that word, might he have said "wait a minute! - this is not the original meaning! - however this is an other issue).

Today, someone at the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, will pronounce "dharman", exactly the same way as it was pronounced by the first utterer of that word, millenniums ago - intonations included.
Whatever dialects, languages it went through; or scripts it was written into later on, dharman retains its pronounciation of yesteryear - within the texts, that have not changed.

The notions behind the philosophy at time (t), remained the same across the ages; because the notions did not change with a change in the texts - although the linguistics around did change. What Dharman meant in the early Ṛg, remained the same across the age. And the notion of Dharman, which changed in the later Ṛg, did not change either across the age. We can be sure that the early Ṛg Vedists spoke of dharman as a kind of will or law; And we can be sure that the late Ṛg Vedists spoke of it as an established creation from conjecture - that is the beauty of it.
The vedāṅga was there to make it so.

Did the Pali become the language of the elite after Buddha's time? - I suppose, definitely yes.
Did Sanskrit regained its position as a language of choice, when the Brahmins made a come back - I suppose, definitely yes.
Did the Buddha preached in Pali? - Did he discuss with the Brahmins in Sanskrit?
WHO KNOWS! WHO KNOWS?
One thing for sure though, is that the Sanskrit texts were the basis of the Indian philosophy of the time.
As much for the orthodox Brahminical mind, than for the revolutionary Upaṇishadic mind, or the Buddhist mind, or the Jain mind, or the Saṃkhya mind, or whatever philosophy was taking place at the time.

Once more the issue is not in the linguistics, but in the philosophy. And maybe also, in the little "war of influence" that was going on between Brahmins & Kśatryas at the time, (maybe?).

-----

Moreover, and although I had a great esteem for Wynne (who grants them all, anyway?), I do not need him to understand the strong relationship (discussed above) between the Vedic philosophy at large, and Buddhism. I just have to read this extract from the Chandogya (already referenced in another previous post), to see the relationship between the notions in the Suttas, and in the late Vedic prose. And that is just one instance among many others. Many.

Now, again, if one wants to understand the Suttas, one has to go back to these Vedic notions. Period!
I see what's your problem; but the use of the Vedic (or Sanskrit root - who cares!,) is paramount in understanding a notion, that has been expressed later on (and sometimes somewhat differently,) in the Pali.
It is not the other way around.
The Buddha did not influence the early Upaniṣadic philosophers - Nor did He influence the Early Vedic Ṛṣis of the Saṁhitās.

It is not the linguistical root that imports; but the philosophical root, of the notion. And the philosophical root is the Veda.

Your craftiness, (by all kind of means,) to occult such evidence, is obvious to me - for a lot of reasons I just know. And I just hope that some wise people should wonder about that.

Now, it's your kamma; it's my kamma; and it's their kamma. That's how I see it.

Mudita.


PS. By the way, you should study the root meaning of Nirvāṇa (Nibbana) while you're at it. It might be quite informative; if you can "see".
However, as I said before, your underlying oneirism, of making a transfiguration of the world of becoming, has nothing Buddhist in it, ... at all.
Last edited by ToVincent on Mon Aug 07, 2017 8:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.
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 Aug 07, 2017 1:10 am

ToVincent wrote:
It is not the linguistical root that imports; but the philosophical root, of the notion. And the philosophical root is the Veda.
...
PS. By the way, you should study the root meaning of Nirvāṇa (Nibbana) while you're at it. It might be quite informative; if you can "see".
However, as I said before, your underlying oneirism, of making a transfiguration of the world of becoming, has nothing Buddhist in it, ... at all.
You may need to see the philosophical change, not just the root, e.g. the meaning of Nirvāṇa (Nibbana) in Early Buddhism. Cf. SN 22.90: SN iii pp.132-5 (Choong Mun-keat's The Fundamental Teachings of Early Buddhism, p. 53): "the calming of all activities, renunciation of all attachment, the destruction of craving, the fading away of desire, cessation, nirvana".

Thomas

User avatar
Kumara
Posts: 615
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2012 8:14 am

ToVincent's interesting translations

Post by Kumara » Thu Aug 17, 2017 3:56 am

I can't agree with this:
ToVincent wrote:Therefore, I would study the word Ekaggata in the following way: see here.
As I've mentioned in the other thread: "If ekaggata is rightly analyzed as "eka-g-gata", how are we to analyze ekagga?"
Last edited by Kumara on Mon Aug 21, 2017 6:16 am, edited 1 time in total.
I'm not just a monk. I'm a human being. — Sayadaw U Jotika

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests