Ok. UnderstoodZom wrote: ↑Wed Nov 21, 2018 12:10 amI 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.This episode doesn't seem to question the canonical transmission in any way
What is the "pre-sectarian period" ???
Re: What is the "pre-sectarian period" ???
Re: What is the "pre-sectarian period" ???
Adding to your point, @Zom, there is an interesting book from Minh Nhuan, today teaching at the Nalanda University in Rajghir:Zom wrote: ↑Sun Nov 18, 2018 12:54 pmIf 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.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.
- A History of Indian Buddhism From Sakyamuni to Early Mahayana Akira.
It explains the different lines of thought on the timeline of early Buddhism and the period where it splintered in different schools after Asoka. It is written fairly light to read, without getting sidetracked too much in scientific specialist matters, but still mentioning major conflicts in the source materials we have. It is a little bit older, from 1990, so maybe not up-to-date with the latest-latest thinking in the field, but I still recommend it.
A full text can be found here:
- https://www.academia.edu/37286065/A_His ... yana_Akira
The teaching is a lake with shores of ethics, unclouded, praised by the fine to the good.
There the knowledgeable go to bathe, and cross to the far shore without getting wet.
[SN 7.21]
There the knowledgeable go to bathe, and cross to the far shore without getting wet.
[SN 7.21]
- retrofuturist
- Posts: 27839
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
- Location: Melbourne, Australia
- Contact:
Re: What is the "pre-sectarian period" ???
Greetings,
During that time, people could defer to him and clarify the teaching if there were differences of opinion in relation to it. However, once he died, they could no longer do so and "sects" became reliant on their own, ever-divergent understandings of what had formerly been taught by the Buddha.
From memory, even at the First Council there was not unanimous agreement on all matters, and not all differences in opinion were resolved at that session.
To wit, I wouldn't classify any agama or nikaya as "pre-sectarian", as the suttas were not compiled into such collections during the Buddha's lifetime. However, it seems apt to call them "Early Buddhist Texts" (aka EBTs)
As such, I'm more comfortable with terms like "Early Buddhism", which cover a time before such divergent opinions were ossified through formal sectarian "commentary".
Metta,
Paul.
I think the only time that could reasonably be said to be "pre-sectarian" is when the Buddha himself was alive.DooDoot wrote:Given Bhikkhu Sujato appears to include the Samyutta Agama within the "pre-sectarian period", what would be the date of this "pre-sectarian period"?
During that time, people could defer to him and clarify the teaching if there were differences of opinion in relation to it. However, once he died, they could no longer do so and "sects" became reliant on their own, ever-divergent understandings of what had formerly been taught by the Buddha.
From memory, even at the First Council there was not unanimous agreement on all matters, and not all differences in opinion were resolved at that session.
To wit, I wouldn't classify any agama or nikaya as "pre-sectarian", as the suttas were not compiled into such collections during the Buddha's lifetime. However, it seems apt to call them "Early Buddhist Texts" (aka EBTs)
As such, I'm more comfortable with terms like "Early Buddhism", which cover a time before such divergent opinions were ossified through formal sectarian "commentary".
Metta,
Paul.
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
Re: What is the "pre-sectarian period" ???
"Early Buddhism" is "pre-sectarian Buddhism", according to Yin Shun (see pp. 2-5 and note 3, Choong Mun-keat, The Fundamental Teachings of Early Buddhism).retrofuturist wrote: ↑Tue Dec 18, 2018 10:43 pm Greetings,
I think the only time that could reasonably be said to be "pre-sectarian" is when the Buddha himself was alive.DooDoot wrote:Given Bhikkhu Sujato appears to include the Samyutta Agama within the "pre-sectarian period", what would be the date of this "pre-sectarian period"?
During that time, people could defer to him and clarify the teaching if there were differences of opinion in relation to it. However, once he died, they could no longer do so and "sects" became reliant on their own, ever-divergent understandings of what had formerly been taught by the Buddha.
From memory, even at the First Council there was not unanimous agreement on all matters, and not all differences in opinion were resolved at that session.
To wit, I wouldn't classify any agama or nikaya as "pre-sectarian", as the suttas were not compiled into such collections during the Buddha's lifetime.
I'm more comfortable with terms like "Early Buddhism", which cover a time before such divergent opinions were ossified through formal sectarian "commentary".
Metta,
Paul.
- retrofuturist
- Posts: 27839
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
- Location: Melbourne, Australia
- Contact:
Re: What is the "pre-sectarian period" ???
Greetings Thomas,
Metta,
Paul.
Yes, I understand that is the standard academic position, though I hope I have adequately explained why for me the two are not synonymous.
Metta,
Paul.
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."