Buddhism before Theravada

Textual analysis and comparative discussion on early Buddhist sects and texts.
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 16307
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: Buddhism before Theravada

Post by mikenz66 » Sun Dec 09, 2012 5:44 am

Thanks Sylvester,

Even worse (depending on your POV), from BB's footnotes to AN 3.65:
MA 16 [The Chinese equivalent] does not have this passage on the ten inadequate sources of knowledge ["Do not go by oral tradition...]. Instead, the Buddha immediately explains to the Kalamas the three unwholesome roots of action and how they lead to moral transgressions. And then he explains the ten courses of wholesome kamma, the explanations being very similar to AN 10.176 (threefold purity) [Cunda sutta here: http://www.metta.lk/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pit ... ggo-e.html and 10:211 (on rebirth in heaven) [http://www.metta.lk/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pit ... ggo-e.html. In MA 16, the Buddha does not ask the Kalamas to judge the themselves but categorically tells them what he himself has known by direct experience. It is possible that MA 16 is a normalization of an original Indic text corresponding to the Pali version, made at a time when the Buddha was regarded as an unquestionable authority.
:anjali:
Mike

danieLion
Posts: 1947
Joined: Wed May 25, 2011 4:49 am

Re: Buddhism before Theravada

Post by danieLion » Sun Dec 09, 2012 10:47 am

mikenz66 wrote:Thanks Sylvester,

Even worse (depending on your POV), from BB's footnotes to AN 3.65:
MA 16 [The Chinese equivalent] does not have this passage on the ten inadequate sources of knowledge ["Do not go by oral tradition...]. Instead, the Buddha immediately explains to the Kalamas the three unwholesome roots of action and how they lead to moral transgressions. And then he explains the ten courses of wholesome kamma, the explanations being very similar to AN 10.176 (threefold purity) [Cunda sutta here: http://www.metta.lk/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pit ... ggo-e.html and 10:211 (on rebirth in heaven) [http://www.metta.lk/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pit ... ggo-e.html. In MA 16, the Buddha does not ask the Kalamas to judge the themselves but categorically tells them what he himself has known by direct experience. It is possible that MA 16 is a normalization of an original Indic text corresponding to the Pali version, made at a time when the Buddha was regarded as an unquestionable authority.
:anjali: invited
Mike
Yes. But it gets even "worse". If you listen to the Analayo sections I painstakingly delineated, and the suttas he references (see my post above), you'll see he interprets these to mean that the Buddha invited criticism of himself and his teachings and that this is investigation, not doubt. One of Analayo's students even postulated that the Chinese version is different because of their respect for religious and ethical teachers, to which Analayo does not necessarily object. Analayo (and Bhikkhu Bodhi by my reading) come down on the Charter of Free Inquiry interpretation side of the Kalama sutta.

I don't see how Buddhism could've developed without the assistance of this and other free inquiry interpretatations. Perhaps the Kalama sutta and similar teachings were the thorn in the flesh for those who wished to seal off an authoritative canon lickity split after the Buddha's death. Perhaps the Chinese version reflects one such attempt.

Sylvester
Posts: 2205
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:57 am

Re: Buddhism before Theravada

Post by Sylvester » Sun Dec 09, 2012 11:15 am

Thanks Mike!

BB is probably more likely to be correct in his "normalisation" conjecture, since textual loss is typically rarer and much more difficult to detect.

Still, my personal preference is to lean towards the Chinese reading. It's my "gamble" that the "voice of another" is an absolutely essential condition for Dhamma to be known.

:anjali:

User avatar
daverupa
Posts: 5980
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 6:58 pm

Re: Buddhism before Theravada

Post by daverupa » Sun Dec 09, 2012 7:12 pm

Sylvester wrote:Still, my personal preference is to lean towards the Chinese reading. It's my "gamble" that the "voice of another" is an absolutely essential condition for Dhamma to be known.
The other would be appropriate attention; not really a gamble when it's attested, is it?
  • "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.

    "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.

- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]

Sylvester
Posts: 2205
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:57 am

Re: Buddhism before Theravada

Post by Sylvester » Mon Dec 10, 2012 6:43 am

Hi Dave

I should explain my resort to AN 2.126 against a liberal reading of AN 3.65.

It would be a "gamble", if we discounted the voice of another as a necessary condition. I take the more conservative reading of the meaning of "condition" (paccaya) in AN 2.126 to mean a necessary condition, rather than a sufficient condition, for Stream Entry. As a necessary condition, the presence of the Buddha's voice is no guarantee that the auditor would make the breakthrough to the Dhamma.

danieLion
Posts: 1947
Joined: Wed May 25, 2011 4:49 am

Re: Buddhism before Theravada

Post by danieLion » Sat Dec 15, 2012 1:14 pm

Sylvester wrote:Hi Dave

I should explain my resort to AN 2.126 against a liberal reading of AN 3.65.

It would be a "gamble", if we discounted the voice of another as a necessary condition. I take the more conservative reading of the meaning of "condition" (paccaya) in AN 2.126 to mean a necessary condition, rather than a sufficient condition, for Stream Entry. As a necessary condition, the presence of the Buddha's voice is no guarantee that the auditor would make the breakthrough to the Dhamma.
The suttas qualify as a voice/voices of another/others, right?

Sylvester
Posts: 2205
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:57 am

Re: Buddhism before Theravada

Post by Sylvester » Mon Dec 17, 2012 2:07 am

danieLion wrote:
Sylvester wrote:Hi Dave

I should explain my resort to AN 2.126 against a liberal reading of AN 3.65.

It would be a "gamble", if we discounted the voice of another as a necessary condition. I take the more conservative reading of the meaning of "condition" (paccaya) in AN 2.126 to mean a necessary condition, rather than a sufficient condition, for Stream Entry. As a necessary condition, the presence of the Buddha's voice is no guarantee that the auditor would make the breakthrough to the Dhamma.
The suttas qualify as a voice/voices of another/others, right?

Yes, I believe so.

danieLion
Posts: 1947
Joined: Wed May 25, 2011 4:49 am

Re: Buddhism before Theravada

Post by danieLion » Tue Dec 18, 2012 9:43 am

Sylvester wrote:
danieLion wrote:
Sylvester wrote:Hi Dave

I should explain my resort to AN 2.126 against a liberal reading of AN 3.65.

It would be a "gamble", if we discounted the voice of another as a necessary condition. I take the more conservative reading of the meaning of "condition" (paccaya) in AN 2.126 to mean a necessary condition, rather than a sufficient condition, for Stream Entry. As a necessary condition, the presence of the Buddha's voice is no guarantee that the auditor would make the breakthrough to the Dhamma.
The suttas qualify as a voice/voices of another/others, right?

Yes, I believe so.
Then I think we're of one accord--or close enough.


User avatar
Sekha
Posts: 789
Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2010 12:32 am
Location: Earth
Contact:

Re: Buddhism before Theravada

Post by Sekha » Sun Jan 27, 2013 11:41 pm

danieLion wrote:"In early Buddhist mediation theory, faith," he says, "is not what's required to overcome doubt, but rather investigation" (41:07-41:23).
:thumbsup:

Unfortunately, even some very highly developed meditation teachers don't seem to have understood this. Fortunately, some others did.
Where knowledge ends, religion begins. - B. Disraeli

http://www.buddha-vacana.org" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: gavesako, mikenz66 and 15 guests