Dhamma Wheel Buddhist Forum

Stumbled across this regarding the DN:

Recent scholarship suggests that a distinguishing trait of the Digha Nikaya may be that it was "intended for the purpose of propaganda, to attract converts to the new religion." 1

The footnote is:

1. Bhikkhu Bodhi, Connected Discourses of the Buddha (Somerville, Mass.: Wisdom Publications, 2000), p.31, referring to Joy Manné's "Categories of Sutta in the Pali Nikayas and Their Implications for Our Appreciation of the Buddhist Teaching and Literature," Journal of the Pali Text Society 15 (1990): 29-87.

From: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sutta.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I tried briefly to find the Joy Manne article online, but was unsuccessful.

So, is this a common conclusion, that perhaps part of the Digha Nikaya's purpose was to attract new Buddhists?

(If this is a silly question I apologize, I just haven't heard anything like this before. Thanks in advance for any insight.)

Greetings Tex,

I'll move this to the General Theravada section, because it's not really relevant to Classical Theravada.

In the meantime, while you wait for some responses, check out the following thread...

Chronology of the Pali Canon
http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=530" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Metta,
Retro.

Would you believe I started typing it in the General Forum and then changed my mind?



Thanks for moving.

According to that citation, Bhikkhu Bodhi mentions this in pg. 31 of his translation (from Wisdom Publications) of the Samyutta Nikaya. Anyone who has this translation, please look at pg. 31 and see if he says anything more about it.

Volume 15 of the PTS journal, in 1990, when this was mentioned, can also be bought here for 22 pounds (whatever that is in dollars).

Bhikkhu Bodhi mentions this in several places. Perhaps "proaganda" is too strong. The point seems to be that Suttas that would appeal to non-Buddhists tend to be in the DN. The MN and SN contains Suttas that would be mostly of interest for Monks to study and the AN has helpful lists that a monk might select from when giving Dhamma talks.

Metta
Mike

mikenz66 wrote:Perhaps "proaganda" is too strong.

I would definitely say so. Propaganda, in English, has strong connotations of radicalism and proselytizing. It's largely associated with the "propaganda" of Marxism and Fascism, the far-left and far-right.

Tex wrote:

Recent scholarship suggests that a distinguishing trait of the Digha Nikaya may be that it was "intended for the purpose of propaganda, to attract converts to the new religion." 1

The DN has attracted its fair share of criticism. In reading it, one can discern where it diverges from the other collections. In it is also the impression of the beginnings of the Mahayana style suttas, where all of the various deities are below the Buddha. In brief, more than enough view much of the DN was not actually spoken by the Buddha.

Element wrote:In reading it, one can discern where it diverges from the other collections.

Could you or anyone else give specific examples?

Greetings,

Does anyone know of any other scholars who make similar claims regarding the Digha Nikaya?

Metta,
Retro.

The Digha Nikaya is a gradual teaching, much similar to the Majjhima. Propoganda, in the sense it has been interpreted & discussed here, would probably not apply since one would have already been attracted to Buddhism before reading or listening to the Dialogues.

I have spent a great deal of time & effort doing research over the past 2 years to answer questions such as those asked in this thread. In fact, I'm creating a website to help others avoid the confusion I went through.

The Digha Nikaya, as with the other 4 Nikayas, can be considered extremely authentic...more so than any other scripture. It was recited, checked for errors, and the such during the 1st Council (and those that convened later). You should never discount something as the word of Buddha just because dieties are mentioned. Given, the Buddha never spoke of the pantheon of gods that the Mahayana would have us believe, but heavenly & hellish planes of existence is very central to the Buddha's doctrine. He spoke of it quite often.

Look at it like this: It is the difference between believing there is life on other planets & believing that they are all little green men. Alternate dimensions & dieties WERE spoken of by the Buddha, quite regularly. However, dieties appearing visible to the human eye & intervening with the human existence can be questioned.

For example, more Thervadins believe in the alternates planes as taught by the Buddha. However, when the Buddha hesitated to teach & we are told the diety Brahma Sahampati came down to earth to convince him...well, there is a division as to whether this is symbolic of his inner tormoil.

In short, the Nikayas are very authentic. In fact, the only authentic texts available. The Mahayana tradition is based of of the Lotus Sutra, which we now know (as fact) is not the word of the historical Buddha, but was rather authored by Nargarjuna and several others. No surprise there, as the sutra contradicts several teachings that are central to the Buddha's entire doctrine.

A lot of the confusion comes about because the Mahayana perpetuate the nonsense. They can't say "This isn't the word of Buddha, but it IS by one of the leading spiritual philosophers of that time...and as such is very authentic in another way". Let's face it...the Bible is almost entirely written by Apostles. Why can't we admit & accept that many Buddhist sutras are the same...and STOP THE CONFUSION!

With metta,
Brian Ananda

Bit of thread necromancy going on here, but I just wanted to point out that I was able to find the Manne article on the Pali Text Society's website. They make the old journal editions available as PDFs: check it out. (It's in Vol XV)

Thought this might be useful to somebody like me who came here via Google search

I was trying to use inductive reasoning to basically say the same thing here: viewtopic.php?f=29&t=33108


Now I will go with complete intuition, and throw logic out the window = I think Majjhima is older.

Not the sutta with Greeks in it, but the general collection.

Its so haphazard, but wide-ranging it seems that it covers all Buddhist topics without hardly any real organization.

Also, its more personal than the other collections = The Buddha speaks of his own personal experience in the first person very often, and is very biographical, as in the Ariyapariyesana Sutta and the Maha-Saccaka Sutta.

I read all of the Bikkhu Bodhi introductions and understand his reasoning behind the purposes of the Nikayas, but something makes the Buddha seem the most like a real human being in the Majjhima.

I don't claim to be a real scholar, and I do admire the work of Analayo, Bodhi, and others, but since its not conclusive, I am just posting my "gut feeling."

The Digha does feel more like pericope-patchwork to me, as the Samyutta and Anguttara feel like snippets to answer specific questions.