What is the "pre-sectarian period" ???

[DooDoot]

Dear forum,

In his excellent looking book A History of Mindfulness, Bhikkhu Sujato refers to the "pre-sectarian period". Given Bhikkhu Sujato appears to include the Samyutta Agama within the "pre-sectarian period", what would be the date of this "pre-sectarian period"?

Thank you

[thomaslaw]

Dear forum,

In his excellent looking book A History of Mindfulness, Bhikkhu Sujato refers to the "pre-sectarian period". Given Bhikkhu Sujato appears to include the Samyutta Agama within the "pre-sectarian period", what would be the date of this "pre-sectarian period"?

Thank you

It may refer to the period of Early Buddhism (unified Sangha) (= pre-sectarian Buddhism), from the death of the Buddha up to the first schism of the Sangha into two main branches (Mahasanghika and Sthavira) after the second council (samgiti). This period convened two Sangha councils.

[Zom]

from the death of the Buddha up to the first schism of the Sangha into two main branches (Mahasanghika and Sthavira) after the second council (samgiti). This period convened two Sangha councils.

If I'm not mistaken (read this book a long time ago), Sujato argues that unified Sangha existed even during Asoka period and so called "schools" started to appear when he sent missionaries here and there. So, pre-sectarian period is pre-Asoka's period.

[DooDoot]

If I'm not mistaken (read this book a long time ago), Sujato argues that unified Sangha existed even during Asoka period and so called "schools" started to appear when he sent missionaries here and there. So, pre-sectarian period is pre-Asoka's period.

If this is so then it seems Sujato is arguing the suttas of the MN and DN were not finalised until after Asoka because Sujato seems to claim only the SN is non-sectarian.

[Zom]

What do you mean by finalized?

[WorldTraveller]

What do you mean by finalized?

This refers to whenever the compilers stopped adding things to the piṭaka.

[Zom]

I don't remember Sujato ever said something on this particular matter. But I read one paper (don't remember who was the author), where it was said that main 4 nikayas were closed by the time of 2nd council (last period of buddhist history when some "early patriarchs" - students of best Buddha's disciples - were still alive; after their death no one had enough authority to add something there). But that was not the case with 5th, Khuddaka, which was opened still, a place where theravadins put their later works like Buddhavamsa, etc., so ironically it became not a "minor collection", but "major".

However, strict "nikaya/agama" division appeared still later (as clearly seen from how the suttas were allocated), probably during Asoka period. Before that, as it seems, there was just "Dhamma" (all suttas and poems) and "Vinaya".

[DooDoot]

I don't remember Sujato ever said something on this particular matter.

Bhikku Sujato, a contemporary scholar monk, argues that the remarkable congruence of the various recensions suggests that the Samyutta Nikaya/Saṃyukta Āgama was the only collection to be finalized in terms of both structure and content in the pre-sectarian period.

Wikipedia

[Volo]

If I'm correct, MN and Chinese MĀ have a lot of similar suttas and most of them have parallel in the "middle" collection of the other sect. DN/DĀ I think also have a lot of parallels with each other. Also all schools organized martial in the 4 collections of similar type (long, middle, by topic, by number). All this would suggest that all Nikayas appeared before sectarian division.

[Zom]

All this would suggest that all Nikayas appeared before sectarian division.

This doesn't agree well with the fact that same text could easily make its way into this or that nikaya/agama depending on school. As I see it, when someone offered "agama" classification idea, it became popular, but every school made its own agama version. Each decided for itself which text (or group of texts, like DN core with its 13 suttas) should be "long" or "middle" or "numerical". Maybe some schools even didn't have "nikaya/agamas" at all. As we know from Vinaya, at least one monk refused to accept standardized suttas of the 1st council, but said he will keep them for himself in a form "as he heard it from the Buddha personally".

[thomaslaw]

All this would suggest that all Nikayas appeared before sectarian division.

This doesn't agree well with the fact that same text could easily make its way into this or that nikaya/agama depending on school. As I see it, when someone offered "agama" classification idea, it became popular, but every school made its own agama version. Each decided for itself which text (or group of texts, like DN core with its 13 suttas) should be "long" or "middle" or "numerical". Maybe some schools even didn't have "nikaya/agamas" at all. As we know from Vinaya, at least one monk refused to accept standardized suttas of the 1st council, but said he will keep them for himself in a form "as he heard it from the Buddha personally".

The extant all four basic Agamas/Nikayas are sectarian texts, according to Yinshun. But he suggests that the SN/SA (i.e. the synthesis of the three angas) came into existence first (originated in the first council), and that subsequent expansion of it developed the other Agamas/Nikayas in the sequence MN/MA, DN/DA, AN/EA (originated in the second council). So, SN/SA was the foundation of the four basic Agamas/Nikayas. (See pp. 10-11, Choong Mun-keat, The Fundamental Teachings of Early Buddhism).

It is understandable that, Bhikku Sujato, "argues that the remarkable congruence of the various recensions suggests that the Samyutta Nikaya/Saṃyukta Āgama was the only collection to be finalized in terms of both structure and content in the pre-sectarian period." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samyutta_Nikaya

[Volo]

This doesn't agree well with the fact that same text could easily make its way into this or that nikaya/agama depending on school.

Yes, that is true. But I mean that most suttas are in the same collection of different schools, and only some are moved to another collection. Also, we should keep in mind that not the whole Canon was preserved by the one person. Some people remembered digha (dīghabhāṇaka), some - majjhima, etc. Those who remembered diigha, also remembered some suttas from majjhima, therefore it could get mixed to some extent.

As I see it, when someone offered "agama" classification idea, it became popular, but every school made its own agama version. Each decided for itself which text (or group of texts, like DN core with its 13 suttas) should be "long" or "middle" or "numerical".

I think the differences would be much greater in this case.

But yes, Nikayas/agamas were not at the time of the Buddha (at that time the texts were organized in so called "ańga": discourses, prose combined with verse, explanatory expositions, stanzas, inspired utterances, etc) And this makes it more probable that Nikaya/Āgama appeared before sectarian division, since why monks from different sects, separated by a great distance (Sri Lanka and Gandhari) would develop the same structure.

As we know from Vinaya, at least one monk refused to accept standardized suttas of the 1st council, but said he will keep them for himself in a form "as he heard it from the Buddha personally".

As far as I remember, this is from non-Theravada Vinaya. If you remember, where it is, could you give a source, since I've heard it many times, but don't know, where is it from (I'm also curious about exact wording used there.

[Zom]

So, SN/SA was the foundation of the four basic Agamas/Nikayas. (See pp. 10-11, Choong Mun-keat, The Fundamental Teachings of Early Buddhism).

Thanks, sounds interesting, I'll take a look.

I think the differences would be much greater in this case.

And the difference is great already, if we take all sources, not just Chinese agamas. Gandhari Dirgha for example. As for Chinese, they (and Pali) seem to stem from one school, this is why they could have greater similarity. It would be interesting to read other canons for comparison, from other distinct, wide-spread and well-known schools, like Sammitiya, but they don't exist, only fragments, like (presumably of mahasanghika origin) Ekottara agama, which by the way differs greatly from its Pali version, or Udanavarga which has a poor similarity with Pali Udana.

As far as I remember, this is from non-Theravada Vinaya.

Theravadin Vinaya.. It is Culavagga 11 Monk's name is Purana

[Volo]

Theravadin Vinaya.. It is Culavagga 11 Monk's name is Purana

Thanks, found it:

Kd.21.1.11 Now at that time the venerable Purāṇa was walking on almstour in the Southern Hills together with a large Order of monks, with at least five hundred monks. Then the venerable Purāṇa, having stayed in the Southern Hills for as long as he found suiting, after the monks who were elders had chanted dhamma and discipline Vin.2.290 , approached Rājagaha, the Bamboo Grove, the squirrels’ feeding place, and the monks who were elders; having approached, having exchanged BD.5.402 friendly greetings with the monks who were elders, he sat down at a respectful distance. The monks who were elders spoke thus to the venerable Purāṇa as he was sitting down at a respectful distance:
“Reverend Purāṇa, dhamma and discipline have been chanted by monks who are elders. Submit yourself40 to this chanting.”
“Your reverences, well chanted by the elders are dhamma and discipline, but in that way that I heard it in the Lord’s presence, that I received it in his presence, in that same way will I bear it in mind.”

He still says "well chanted by the elders are dhamma and discipline", and, of course, he couldn't hear all Dhamma and discipline form the Buddha, like the Ven. Ananda did. For me his words don't sound like a disapproval, but rather as he wanted to be on the a safe side and follow only what he was 100% sure about. This episode doesn't seem to question the canonical transmission in any way (from the Vinaya it seems that he even hadn't heard the recitation itself, and was met after it had been finished).

[Zom]

This episode doesn't seem to question the canonical transmission in any way

I never said that. I just meant there were different suttas versions, not everyone accepted new standard. Maybe there even were suttas known by someone but not collected on the 1st council.