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

Textual analysis and comparative discussion on early Buddhist sects and texts.
thomaslaw
Posts: 164
Joined: Fri Apr 19, 2013 12:55 am
Location: Australia

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

Post by thomaslaw » Fri Jul 21, 2017 6:38 am

Dmytro wrote:Hi Thomas,
thomaslaw wrote:
Dmytro wrote: What I find somewhat new is an attempt to use such kind of statements, in a very simplified form, to justify religious movements and religious practices..
What is 'a very simplified form'?
A very simplified form is to reduce all the chronological intricacies to black-and-white statement: one part is authentic, and another isn't.

Instead, one can employ the full scope of chronological research, exploring the full corpus of Pali texts. For example, I use "the earliest possible" approach. That is, I look for earliest definitions of Pāli words. Sometimes the earliest definitions can be found in the Suttanta, sometimes in Vibhanga (from Abhidhamma Pitaka), and sometimes in Atthakatha (Commentary).

If the earliest definition is found only in Atthakatha, - as is the case with "ekaggatā", - this is invaluable information. Without it I would may have fallen on the modern established interpretation of this term as "one-pointedness", which doesn't have a foundation in any Pāli sources. Or even worse, some people in such situation may just invent their own plausible interpretation, without any solid ground for it.

I also use Sanskrit and Chinese sources, - but it's important to preserve a chronological prespective, knowing the relative age of texts. Sometimes a Sanskrit text of 5th century CE can be quite useful, especially if it gives the earliest found Sanskrit definition.

We can move only as early as our preserved sources allow, - and this has to be acknowledged. Buddha's teaching can't now be reconstructed in precisely the same form it was in 5th century BCE. Even if we have lots of texts, meanings of the terms are partly lost. However, we can make best use of all the sources we have available.
Many thanks for your response to the question.

Hopefully one day we can discover the Mahasanghika's Samyukta-agama, to compare with the Sarvastivada's SA and the Pali/Vibhajyavada's SN. Without the Mahasanghika's Samyukta-agama, for example, we only can reconstruct the SA/SN (of the Buddha's teachings) back to before the two schools (Sarvastivada and Vibhajyavada) divided (about 270 BCE).

Thomas

User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 1805
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:55 pm
Location: Whitby, Canada

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

Post by Coëmgenu » Fri Jul 21, 2017 11:52 am

Dmytro wrote:but then simplify it as much as possible, leaving just one dividing line between "early" and "inathentic", to make it easily comprehensible and attractive for wide audience.
I think this has to do with a lack of discrimination between later texts (inauthentic EBTs, e.g. the Lotus Sūtra, but also Abhidharmas of various schools that predate Mahāyāna), reasonably plausible EBTs, and likely definite EBTs. The amount of texts that can be reasonably "confirmed" to be authentic EBTs by the methods of modern inquiry and textual criticism is definitely much smaller than the actual amount of authentic EBTs. All of the reasonable scholars working in the field acknowledge this. Whether it makes its way to "Early Buddhism" or not, as a movement, is another thing.

The very word "EBTs" is misleading though. It should be "EBV", because what EBT studies actually tries to look for, reasonably or unreasonably, is actual old substantiated "authentic Buddhavacana" in the sense of "discourse related to Buddhadharma that is confirmable from many places and more substantiated (and substantiated as older) than other discourses (and this is a very wide category) attributed to the Buddha", not just "authentic Buddhist texts". Given that Buddhavacana has always meant more than just the literal word coming out of the mouth of the ascetic Gomata, "EBV" strikes me as more reasonable, but that is just my opinion.
世尊在靈山會上拈華示眾眾皆默然唯迦葉破顏微笑世尊云
The Lord dwelt at the Vulture Peak with the assembly and plucked a flower as a teaching. The myriad totality were silent, save for Kāśyapa, whose face cracked in a faint smile. The Lord spoke.
吾有正法眼藏涅槃妙心實相無相微妙法門不立文字教外別傳付囑摩訶迦葉。
I have the treasure of the true dharma eye, I have nirvāṇa as wondrous citta, I know signless dharmatā, the subtle dharma-gate, which is not standing on written word, which is external to scriptures, which is a special dispensation, which is entrusted to Mahākāśyapa.

नस्वातोनापिपरतोनद्वाभ्यांनाप्यहेतुतः

ToVincent
Posts: 431
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 6:02 pm
Contact:

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

Post by ToVincent » Fri Jul 21, 2017 1:18 pm

Dmytro wrote: - as is the case with "ekaggatā"
On ekaggata, your logic is absolutely amazing.
What you are saying is that, some late commentator interpreted the word in such and such way. Then someone later on went on interpreting it the same way.
And that would make it a "proof" of the meaning!?!?!

Personally, I'd rather stick to finding the best definitions in pre-Buddhistic texts; with a preference for recensions (shakhas) that were geographically close to where Buddha lived.
In other words, (spiritual) texts that the Buddha used to read and practice, as a Kshatrya, in his youth. Something that definitely went on marking him in his mind.

Therefore, I would study the word Ekaggata in the following way: see here.

That would be my overall kind of lexical study - whose result, in this case, would be much more in line with the Teaching at large.
I mean, if we consider that the "external" must be put under control; if not just restricted.

But that' another issue - whose question would be: "why does so many people want you to "get lost"" (as in going for the improbable papañca)?
Some working for the Mara's world; some for the Brahma's world; some for the Unborn.
.
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
Dhammanando
Posts: 4154
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:44 pm
Location: Ban Sri Pradu Rubber Forest, Phrao, Chiangmai

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

Post by Dhammanando » Fri Jul 21, 2017 3:43 pm

ToVincent wrote:
Dmytro wrote: - as is the case with "ekaggatā"
On ekaggata, your logic is absolutely amazing.
What you are saying is that, some late commentator interpreted the word in such and such way. Then someone later on went on interpreting it the same way.
And that would make it a "proof" of the meaning!?!?!
There is more to it than that. For example, the Sanskrit form of the word (in both Classical and Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit) is consistently ekāgratā. This form would lend itself to the parsing of Dmytro and of the Pali commentaries (i.e., Skt. eka + agra + tā = Pali eka + agga + tā) but is quite impossible with your own proposal, which would require the Sanskrit to take an identical form to the Pali.

ToVincent
Posts: 431
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 6:02 pm
Contact:

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

Post by ToVincent » Fri Jul 21, 2017 7:20 pm

Dhammanando wrote: There is more to it than that. For example, the Sanskrit form of the word (in both Classical and Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit) is consistently ekāgratā. This form would lend itself to the parsing of Dmytro and of the Pali commentaries (i.e., Skt. eka + agra + tā = Pali eka + agga + tā) but is quite impossible with your own proposal, which would require the Sanskrit to take an identical form to the Pali.
Nice try Sir; but I hardly see some pre-Buddhistic reference, as far as your "ekāgratā" is concerned.
And this is exactly where the problem lays.
One cannot make up words later on, to fill a void in the pre-Buddhist texts (and put whatever meaning on them, to suit one's wish and inclination).
However, you can go back to the roots of words in the components of these words - and that is your best guess - but a sure one.

Good day to you.

------

May I take though, the opportunity to propose to those interested, to work on some words in their study of the papañcaless Nikayas with parallels in SA (somewhat quite EBT) - which I think is more than sufficient to understand the true meaning of the Teaching - provided that one does work on the pre-Buddhist roots of these words.
You might be amazed how things become clearer.

Let me give you a small example on an extract that I happen to have under my eyes.
Namely AN 6.64 with a parallel in SA 686–687.

Bodhi is translating the following:
"Again, the Tathāgata understands as it really is the defilement, the cleansing, and the emergence in regard to the jhānas, emancipations, concentrations, and meditative attainments.
Puna caparaṃ, bhikkhave, tathāgato jhānavimokkhasamādhisamāpattīnaṃ saṅkilesaṃ vodānaṃ vuṭṭhānaṃ yathābhūtaṃ pajānāti.

Vuṭṭhāna [sandhi form of uṭṭhāna -(fr.ut + √ ṣṭhā)] is translated as "emergence" (?!?!?) by Bodhi.
Now, if you look closely at the Monier-Williams root √ स्था sthā, you will notice that in the AV. and MBh., you have the following meaning: "to practise virtue."
And this meaning has stood up the harshness of time; from the Atharva, all the way to the Mahabharata.

Does not: "the Tathāgata understands according to what have come to be, the defilement, the cleansing, and the higher practice of virtue in regard to the jhānas, emancipations, concentrations, and meditative attainments", makes much more sense?
Isn't there a much more clear relationship between defilement, cleansing and virtue, than between defilement, cleansing and "emergence" (?!?).
That is the all point of going back to the roots of words.

Moreover, by going back to another root in this extract, viz. √ पद् pad, in the Pali word samāpatti [fr.Saṁ + ā + √ पद् pad ] - √ पद् pad: stand fast or fixed (Dhātup.); one can attune the signification of "attainment" to an underlying meaning of having oneself also "stand firm" in one's attainment.

Here is the list of some of the words. ( https://justpaste.it/197ca )
And the list of Suttas to read. ( https://justpaste.it/197c7 )
Sorry about the layout.

Metta.
Some working for the Mara's world; some for the Brahma's world; some for the Unborn.
.
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: 164
Joined: Fri Apr 19, 2013 12:55 am
Location: Australia

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

Post by thomaslaw » Sat Jul 22, 2017 2:05 am

Dear All,

Having read the arguments about the Pali and Sanskrit words (such as ekāgratā, vuṭṭhāna) for studying early Buddhist texts, remember that the Buddha did not speak Pali and Sanskrit for his dharma/dhamma. Also, Pali and Sanskrit were not the languages used for the first and second councils. The early Buddhist texts are just sectarian 'texts', not the actual words of the Buddha, and also not the languages of the councils for collecting the Buddha's teachings and texts.

So, one can seek an understanding of SA and SN, for example, of the early Buddhist teachings by studying them comparatively (cf. Choong Mun-keat, The Fundamental Teachings of Early Buddhism, p. 11).

Regards,

Thomas

thomaslaw
Posts: 164
Joined: Fri Apr 19, 2013 12:55 am
Location: Australia

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

Post by thomaslaw » Sat Jul 22, 2017 2:31 am

ToVincent wrote:
Dhammanando wrote: There is more to it than that. For example, the Sanskrit form of the word (in both Classical and Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit) is consistently ekāgratā. This form would lend itself to the parsing of Dmytro and of the Pali commentaries (i.e., Skt. eka + agra + tā = Pali eka + agga + tā) but is quite impossible with your own proposal, which would require the Sanskrit to take an identical form to the Pali.
Nice try Sir; but I hardly see some pre-Buddhistic reference, as far as your "ekāgratā" is concerned.
And this is exactly where the problem lays.
One cannot make up words later on, to fill a void in the pre-Buddhist texts (and put whatever meaning on them, to suit one's wish and inclination).
However, you can go back to the roots of words in the components of these words - and that is your best guess - but a sure one.

Good day to you.

------

May I take though, the opportunity to propose to those interested, to work on some words in their study of the papañcaless Nikayas with parallels in SA (somewhat quite EBT) - which I think is more than sufficient to understand the true meaning of the Teaching - provided that one does work on the pre-Buddhist roots of these words.
You might be amazed how things become clearer.

Let me give you a small example on an extract that I happen to have under my eyes.
Namely AN 6.64 with a parallel in SA 686–687.

Bodhi is translating the following:
"Again, the Tathāgata understands as it really is the defilement, the cleansing, and the emergence in regard to the jhānas, emancipations, concentrations, and meditative attainments.
Puna caparaṃ, bhikkhave, tathāgato jhānavimokkhasamādhisamāpattīnaṃ saṅkilesaṃ vodānaṃ vuṭṭhānaṃ yathābhūtaṃ pajānāti.

Vuṭṭhāna [sandhi form of uṭṭhāna -(fr.ut + √ ṣṭhā)] is translated as "emergence" (?!?!?) by Bodhi.
Now, if you look closely at the Monier-Williams root √ स्था sthā, you will notice that in the AV. and MBh., you have the following meaning: "to practise virtue."
And this meaning has stood up the harshness of time; from the Atharva, all the way to the Mahabharata.

Does not: "the Tathāgata understands according to what have come to be, the defilement, the cleansing, and the higher practice of virtue in regard to the jhānas, emancipations, concentrations, and meditative attainments", makes much more sense?
Isn't there a much more clear relationship between defilement, cleansing and virtue, than between defilement, cleansing and "emergence" (?!?).
That is the all point of going back to the roots of words.

Moreover, by going back to another root in this extract, viz. √ पद् pad, in the Pali word samāpatti [fr.Saṁ + ā + √ पद् pad ] - √ पद् pad: stand fast or fixed (Dhātup.); one can attune the signification of "attainment" to an underlying meaning of having oneself also "stand firm" in one's attainment.

Here is the list of some of the words. ( https://justpaste.it/197ca )
And the list of Suttas to read. ( https://justpaste.it/197c7 )
Sorry about the layout.

Metta.
Pali is not entirely come from Sanskrit. Pali is also not the same as Sanskrit. The verbal form of vuṭṭhāna is vuṭṭhāti.

Thomas

User avatar
Dhammanando
Posts: 4154
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:44 pm
Location: Ban Sri Pradu Rubber Forest, Phrao, Chiangmai

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

Post by Dhammanando » Sat Jul 22, 2017 6:53 am

ToVincent wrote:And this is exactly where the problem lays.
One cannot make up words later on, to fill a void in the pre-Buddhist texts (and put whatever meaning on them, to suit one's wish and inclination).
What grounds have you for supposing ekāgratā to be a "made-up word"? Ekāgra and ekāgratā are simply the forms that ekagga and ekaggatā invariably take in any Sanskrit passage that parallels a Pali one. For example:

From the Theragāthā verses of Mahākassapa:

Pañcaṅgikena turiyena,
na ratī hoti tādisī.
Yathā ekaggacittassa,
sammā dhammaṃ vipassato ti.
(Thag. 1074)

Compare with a verse from the Citta chapter of the Udānavarga:

Pañcāṅgikena tūryeṇa
na ratir bhavati tādrsī.
Yādṛśy ekāgracittasya
samyag dharmāṃ vipaśyataḥ.

Moreover, this pattern is to be found in Sanskrit Buddhist sources as diverse as the Dharmaskandha, the Sarvāstivāda Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra, the Mūlasarvāstivāda Prātimokṣa, the Sanghabhedavastu’s account of Devadatta, the Bhaiṣajyavastu’s account of Piṇḍolabharadvāja, the Mahāvastu’s version of the Kṣāntivādin and Gaṅgapāla Jātakas, etc., etc.

ToVincent
Posts: 431
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 6:02 pm
Contact:

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

Post by ToVincent » Sat Jul 22, 2017 3:04 pm

Dhammanando wrote: What grounds have you for supposing ekāgratā to be a "made-up word"? Ekāgra and ekāgratā are simply the forms that ekagga and ekaggatā invariably take in any Sanskrit passage that parallels a Pali one.

..., this pattern is to be found in Sanskrit Buddhist sources as diverse as the Dharmaskandha, the Sarvāstivāda Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra, the Mūlasarvāstivāda Prātimokṣa, the Sanghabhedavastu’s account of Devadatta, the Bhaiṣajyavastu’s account of Piṇḍolabharadvāja, the Mahāvastu’s version of the Kṣāntivādin and Gaṅgapāla Jātakas, etc., etc.
What's your point, Sir?

I am talking about putting a pre-Buddhistic (root) meaning to the word Ekagga. Not to find a somewhat late Sarvastivadin meaning to that word.
We are again, veering into some red herring nonsense.

There is nothing एकाग्र ekāgra, in pre-Buddhist texts. It only appears in the Mahābhārata.
So Dmytro is right to say that the meaning of "one-pointedness" is, if not useless, at least quite controversial.
But this meaning should, at least, be preferable to the Atthakatha's meaning, he is preaching us about (as an "invaluable information" !?!?).

So, because there is nothing close to "ekagga" in pre-Buddhist Vedic or Sanskrit texts, one has to reconstruct from the roots - AND NOT to base oneself on later post-Buddhistic references.
Therefore, one's best shot is to split the word into the noun एक Eka, and the root √ गम् Gam (https://justpaste.it/1970m).
This is the only way to arrive at a pre-Buddhistic somewhat correct meaning. [And boy, is it correct!].

Relying on the Atthakatha is simply a joke. And generally "exploring the full corpus of Pali texts" is a joke too. It's making the bed of the "corrupters", if ever the text has meaningly been corrupted. It's ludicrous. Absolutely ludicrous.

So, "ekaggatta" as the "prevalence of one arammana in the mind," is a purely speculative papāñca. It has absolutely no sound fundament attached to it. None! - None, whatsoever.
Some working for the Mara's world; some for the Brahma's world; some for the Unborn.
.
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
Dhammanando
Posts: 4154
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:44 pm
Location: Ban Sri Pradu Rubber Forest, Phrao, Chiangmai

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

Post by Dhammanando » Sat Jul 22, 2017 4:24 pm

ToVincent wrote:What's your point, Sir?
My point is that if your proposed parsing of ekaggatā as eka + gata is correct, then we should expect the Sanskrit form to also be ekaggatā. But no such form is to be found.

On the other hand, if the eka + agga parsing is correct, then we should expect the Sanskrit form to be ekāgratā. This form is invariably found.

Therefore your proposal requires one to assume that not a single translator of Prakritic Buddhist texts into Sanskrit correctly construed how the word ekaggatā is constructed. They all got it wrong. And not just the Sarvāstivadin translators but also the Lokuttaravādins, the Sammitiyas, the various Mahāyāna schools — everybody without exception got it wrong. I find this assumption highly improbable.

Besides this, one further problem with your proposal is that ekaggatā is plainly a noun, but you have translated it as a past participle: “caused to obtain an understanding of .... (the one).” If you wanted to make your proposed participial construal into a noun, then its form would not be ekaggatā but rather ekaggatatā. But no such word exists.

By the way, may I ask, have you actually studied any Pali or Sanskrit, or does your research just consist in ransacking 19th century dictionaries?

ToVincent
Posts: 431
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 6:02 pm
Contact:

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

Post by ToVincent » Sat Jul 22, 2017 6:13 pm

Dhammanando wrote:... (see above)...
Again, what's your point, Sir?

The point of the discussion IS that there is no such thing as Ekagga, or ekāgra in pre-Buddhist texts !?!?! - NO WORDS LIKE THIS!
So your logic is still amazing to me. I must have my head upside down when I deal with you.

There is some obscure late एकग ekaga lexicologists' reference, whose meaning is: "attentive to only one object".
There is also this एकाग्र ekāgra [agra], in the post-Buddha MBh. - that means: one-pointed , having one point , fixing one's attention upon one point or object , closely attentive , intent , absorbed.
When you delve towards the root of the latter word, you arrive at अग्र agra > fr. √ aṅg: foremost , anterior , first , prominent , projecting , chief , best. And some form of [agreṇa] ind., meaning: in front , before - in the ŚBr.
Also it can mean: from - up to, in the ŚBr., and: before (in time), in the AitUp.
So the only true pre-Buddhist reference leans towards the following underlying meaning: "in front , before" - from - up to, in the - before (in time).

BUT AGAIN, THESE WORDS (ekaga, ekāgra, ekāgratā, ...etc.) COME LATER - AFTER THE BUDDHA!
Ok?

My question is: from what did Buddha make up this word ekagga, (that became later on ekāgra, in post-Buddha "Sanskrit time")?
And how post-Buddha folks (Buddhist & post-Vedic,) interpreted this word?

I see no reason why it should not be the "one pointed mind" that Dmytro rejects so badly, for that matter.

But I also see no reason why the meaning of the word should not be derived from the noun Eka & the √ गम् Gam - as it is a new word.
Buddha had to make it up, from "something".

Don't ask me why the Brahmins of the Vedic times, never used this word?
Maybe, I suppose, that discriminating between the external and the internal, and having the internal being the one (between two), was not much into a Vedic Brahman idea of a Self. Was it?
But that is pure speculation, I agree.

On the other hand, we are faced with someone, (Buddha,) that had to make up a NEW WORD from scratch. And what did he pick up?
Eka + √ गम् Gam OR Eka + √ अङ्ग् aṅg (√ ag or √ aṅk)
Does that sound ridiculous?
Dhammanando wrote: Besides this, one further problem with your proposal is that ekaggatā is plainly a noun, but you have translated it as a past participle: “caused to obtain an understanding of .... (the one).” If you wanted to make your proposed participial construal into a noun, then its form would not be ekaggatā but rather ekaggatatā. But no such word exists.
Sk. गत gata = pp. √ गम् gam
Although it is true that it is a past passive participle. But again - would it make any difference.
There are indeed quite a lot of participles attached to √gam:
Past Passive Participle: gata m. n. gatā f. - Past Active Participle: gatavat m. n. gatavatī f. - Present Active Participle: gacchat m. n. gacchantī f. -
Present Passive Participle: gamyamāna m. n. gamyamānā f. - Future Active Participle: gamiṣyat m. n. gamiṣyantī f. - Future Passive Participle: gantavya m. n. gantavyā f. - Future Passive Participle: gamya m. n. gamyā f. - Future Passive Participle: - gamanīya m. n. gamanīyā f. - Perfect Active Participle: jagmivaḥ m. n. jagmuṣī f.

I am not much into that red herring "grammar nazi" stuff.

As you see, I do delve in the grammar a bit - But I must say that I favor meaning (lexicography) over grammar. And I love to go into the texts, to check those lexicons' references.
What the point of having the right participle, if the meaning is erroneous.

Good day, Sir.
Some working for the Mara's world; some for the Brahma's world; some for the Unborn.
.
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
Dhammanando
Posts: 4154
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:44 pm
Location: Ban Sri Pradu Rubber Forest, Phrao, Chiangmai

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

Post by Dhammanando » Sat Jul 22, 2017 7:45 pm

Dhammanando wrote:By the way, may I ask, have you actually studied any Pali or Sanskrit, or does your research just consist in ransacking 19th century dictionaries?
ToVincent wrote:I am not much into that red herring "grammar nazi" stuff.
Your latest post confirms my suspicion that you haven't a clue how either of the two languages work and are incompetent to evaluate what is a tenable analysis of a word and what is not. I prefer not to spend any more time addressing your pseudo-scholarship.

ToVincent
Posts: 431
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 6:02 pm
Contact:

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

Post by ToVincent » Sat Jul 22, 2017 8:57 pm

Dhammanando wrote: Your latest post confirms my suspicion that you haven't a clue how either of the two languages work ...
This kind of easy ostracism, certainly fits your desiderata alright.
Usual sectarian tactic.
Yet, the little lesson on the participle of √ gam (you seemed not to be aware of,) seems to prove the contrary.

O, I know, I did forget the "being" in my reading of the P.P. participle of √ gam. (https://justpaste.it/1970m)
Damn me! - Huge difference it seems. Big deal!
Do I have though, as a low life human, to be eradicated from the face of this earth, so full of maras, Brahmas, .... and lower beings like me who, sometimes, don't want to play "kasiṇa" - (AN 10.26), or enjoy the carnal feelings of this world; unjudgementaly and without restrictions?
Tell me , Sir?
Am I some kind of a .... "bad" Buddhist?
Dhammanando wrote: ... and are incompetent to evaluate what is a tenable analysis of a word and what is not.
Maybe, then.
In the meantime, I will state something quite basic and rational:
How do you define a noun like ekacitta?
Often by a past passive participle. Don't you? - like "being absorbed (thought, ... whatever) in one".
Or else, ekatāna? > being directed (having the mind fixed) to one object only. Etc.,etc.

So, where do you start from, when a word does not exist yet?
Don't you define it (with participles), before you make a noun out of it?
Then, how do you define that noun, once "made up"? ........
Dhammanando wrote: ...I prefer not to spend any more time addressing your pseudo-scholarship.
I won't mind a bit. I'll do the same.

Note: (more important than this petty grammar flack)
Don't get me wrong on that speculation above, about the Brahmins, etc.
I am not saying that the Buddha did make a "self" out of that "one of two," aka the "internal".
I mean there, that, after getting rid of the influence on the senses (external) - one should get into seclusion (viveka,) in the "internal", to work out the form part. Then do away with the form part and get to the formless, ...., so on and so forth.
Remember? - one must first get rid of the appropriation (clinging) of the senses, then of the forms, then of the formless, etc.

There is definitely in that, something that the Brahmins of old, would not have even dared to think of.
And there is definitely in that, something that certain "people" nowadays, don't want you to achieve - As in (at least,) "doing away with the sense world".
Are you following me, Sir?


Good night - sleep on it quietly, Sir.
Some working for the Mara's world; some for the Brahma's world; some for the Unborn.
.
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: 164
Joined: Fri Apr 19, 2013 12:55 am
Location: Australia

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

Post by thomaslaw » Fri Jul 28, 2017 2:33 am

About the languages used in the early Buddhist texts, e.g. SN/SA, it seems to me the Buddha did not actually make up any new difficult words for his teachings. So, for example, about the notion of not-self 'anatta', it will be better to see how the word, anatta, being used in the SN/SA texts about the teachings, rather than just checking the Skt. root of the term, anatta.

Also, when reading the meaning of the Pali noun words, it is irrelevant to check the Skt. root of the Pali term. Pali is not the same as Sanskrit. It is better to check the verbal form of the nouns used in the texts.

Thomas

ToVincent
Posts: 431
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 6:02 pm
Contact:

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

Post by ToVincent » Fri Jul 28, 2017 2:54 pm

thomaslaw wrote:......
Dear Thomas,

All Middle Indo-Aryan dialects seem to be pretty related.
For instance, the Pali & Sanskrit grammar are quite similar.
I think the issue is elswhere.

(I leave the diacritics aside).

In the second urbanisation of India (around +/- 550–150 BCE), the higher jatis (castes) of India - the Brahmins and Kshatriyas (of which the Buddha was part), were certainly using the liturgical and philosophical Sanskrit, as the bases of their education, and maybe even as a vernacular language between folks of the same higher level of culture.

In any case, the Buddha did recite the Samhitas; did learn the liturgical Brahmanas; was definitely influenced by the "forest texts" that are the Aranyakas, (as far as His ascetic ways were concerned later on;) and did certainly read the Sutras and Upanishads; from which, in the latter case, He did engage in a quite conservative, yet revolutionary line of reasoning, much in contrast with the prevalent notion of a "Self/selves" of the time. Namely the Prajāpati (aka Ka) and the saṃ+Ka+iya dṛṣṭi ( https://justpaste.it/191nd ) - which became the sakkāyadiṭṭhi of the Pali, once that new concept from the Buddha, had been taught or translated in the latter language.
Saṃ+Ka+iya dṛṣṭi does not exist in Vedic Sanskrit, because, for a Brahmin of the time, the following was just self-evident. There was not even a reason to discuss that. The Self was pervasive, continuous, and in everything and everyone. Point! (as it is still today in Hinduism) - Identification with Self/selves, was just a matter of fact. "I am Brahma (Prājapati/Ka) was, and is still the motto of the astika-mata (saddarsana orthodox schools).

Did the Buddha know and did He care about the subtleties that occured linguistically between the early hymns of the Rigvedic period, the Mantra and prose language, the Samhita & Brahmana proses, the Sutra languages?
Maybe. But is that relevant?
One thing for sure, is that he must have been more acquainted with the Sanskrit, than with the Pali language, the "language of Magadha".
And another thing for sure, is that, if as a kshatriya, one has to wonder what kind of notions were in His mind at the time - and if one of these notions, came from the early hymns of the Rigvedic period, then one might as well find the roots of it, way back in the Avestan language, if necessary.

The Buddha did certainly teach in several Middle Indo-Aryan dialects, and in the Magadhan Pali. But I am not sure that, when He discussed philosophical questions in whatever shakha (recension) that was, it would have been in the Pali.
Buddha did spend quite some times in Maghada, but certainly not all of his time.
Did the Buddha really teach the Maghadans in the Pali? - Only Buddha knows.

Don't forget also that Buddha's disciples were, in most cases, "good family" people, that had given up their wealth for the ascetic, truly homeless life. That means, people which certainly had to deal with the philosophical and liturgical texts in Sanskrit.

So why Pali? - Why not Sanskrut?
Definitely, everything originated from that Sanskrit. And every new word that originated from the Buddha did not come from the Pali, but from the latter. And He did decline it in the Pali, or in the other Middle Indo-Aryan dialects outside of Maghada (including His own?).
Did the Buddha teach in the Pali, when He was in Pañcāla? - I doubt so.

Now, the question is: "why is there this quite hysterical attitude from Buddhism, when one wants to relate the latter to its Vedic origin?". Why this ostracism?
Today, the all scholarship favors the study of the interpretation of the Chinese texts, by some Taoist or Confucian translators, passing through India, and not even able to take the original Sanskrit texts back home.
How good can that be? - And what's behind all this? - The nonsense merry-go-round once again?
For what? - Tell me!

For me the Chinese texts are only good to show the correspondences between sectarian texts (the parallels). That is all that counts. The rest is quite useless.
What counts is in the study of the root of the Vedic notions. And that is in Sanskrit - And that is in the Sanskrit roots of their words. What is so deranging? - A better understanding that bothers some?
Check here the difference that is made when studying the Sanskrit root of a Pali word. https://justpaste.it/19eb6 - Do you see the difference in #2 - Do you see the importance of that root meaning, that covered the pre and post Buddha's era? - What could be the implication here, that bothers so much some people in the past, and particularly nowadays. Tell me! - Does fumigating (smoking the sheds) such a problem? (AN 11.17) - For who?.

Mudita
Some working for the Mara's world; some for the Brahma's world; some for the Unborn.
.
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

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests