Are the Sutta's really ancient?

Textual analysis and comparative discussion on early Buddhist sects and scriptures.
Bankei
Posts: 430
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2009 4:40 am

Re: Are the Sutta's really ancient?

Post by Bankei »

Incidently

Alexander Wynne has a new article out which argues the teachings can be traced back to the Buddha himself. (I haven't found access to read it yet)
"The Buddha's ‘skill in means’ and the genesis of the five aggregate teaching."
Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society (2010), Third Series, 20:191-216 Cambridge University Press

Abstract

The problem tackled in this article is ambitious. Through examination of how certain fundamental teachings of the Buddha originated – the author argues that those teachings must indeed go back to the Buddha himself. Thus the author builds a chain of argument which creates hypothetical links rather than declaring ‘a priori’ that links and connection cannot be established.

This article argues that the Alagaddūpama Sutta, an important early Buddhist text, portrays the Buddha in the process of formulating his thoughts. If so it contradicts the myth that the Buddha awakened to the entire Buddhist Dharma on one occasion, and should be dated to the fourth century bce. Such an antiquity, and peculiar didactic structure suggests that the text contains authentic teachings of the Buddha.
-----------------------
Bankei
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Are the Sutta's really ancient?

Post by tiltbillings »

Bankei wrote:So now you are agreeing with me that the Theravada Pali Tipitaka is not the exact word of the Buddha.
I never said it was
Maybe you are saying it is closer to the exact word than I am? Is that your position?
Probably.
Can you read Japanese? I can, and have read a few works or modern day vinaya scholars such as Yamagiwa and Sasaki. Nakamura's scholarship is dated now. The Pali vinaya is certainly ancient, but that doesn't mean it is the exact word of the Buddha.
You seem stuck on "exact word."
The Pali tradition is remarkably well preserved. But errors have crept in and additions have been made.
And I said otherrwise? Go back and reread what you have written, suggesting something like a wholescale rewrite of what has come down to us.
I suggest you read some of the works or Richard Gombrich, especially his book How Buddhism began: the conditioned genesis of the early teachings.
Have read most of what heas writtewn, I tend to agree with him, and I agree his statement: "I have the greatest difficulty in accepting that the main edifice [of the Pali Texts] is not the
work of one genius."
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Are the Sutta's really ancient?

Post by tiltbillings »

Bankei wrote:Incidently

Alexander Wynne has a new article out which argues the teachings can be traced back to the Buddha himself. (I haven't found access to read it yet)
"The Buddha's ‘skill in means’ and the genesis of the five aggregate teaching."
Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society (2010), Third Series, 20:191-216 Cambridge University Press
Of course buying a copy of that would cost an arm and most of one leg or the other. Anyway thanks for the reference I'll try to track it down at my local university library.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
Sylvester
Posts: 2204
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:57 am

Re: Are the Sutta's really ancient?

Post by Sylvester »

David N. Snyder wrote:Hi Bankei,

The Tipitaka was written around 100 BCE on palm leaves. It has been re-written word-for-word since then as the leaves deteriorate up to this day (as a tradition, they still do it in Sri Lanka, as far as I know). And modern printing has been used since the time they were available. The Tipitaka we have today is the same as the one written at 100 BCE.

If there were any revisions or changes, they would have had to happen while the tradition was still oral. Is that what you are suggesting, that there were changes and revisions from the time of the First to Fourth Councils?

Hello David

Even if the Aloka cave project managed to reduced the Sutta Pitaka into a complete bundle of ola leaves, that is no guarantee that the subsequent preservation of the Texts was perfect. Piya Tan was working off a PTS version of a sutta and noticed a discontinuity in that passage which could be neatly accounted for by a putative leaf gone missing. I'm not sure if Piya managed to compare that PTS version with the other Pitakas preserved in MSS elsewhere, but he was able to reconstruct the missing passage by comparing that sutta against the parallel Agama version. (sorry if I can't furnish a citation, but Piya's web-page is just too gigantic) If the Canon is to be really held to be 100% complete, we may have to acknowledge that the MSS used by the PTS could be missing a leaf or two and to see if other MSS contain the same void or could be used to fill the gap.

Leaving aside the question of deliberate revisions of the Canon, there is some evidence from the Commentaries themselves that the Sutta Pitaka may have suffered some attrition. Try goggling "untraced+sutta+commentary" and similar combinations, and you would find the Commentaries citing long-lost passages from the Canon.
Paññāsikhara
Posts: 980
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 5:27 am
Contact:

Re: Are the Sutta's really ancient?

Post by Paññāsikhara »

Bankei wrote:Incidently

Alexander Wynne has a new article out which argues the teachings can be traced back to the Buddha himself. (I haven't found access to read it yet)
"The Buddha's ‘skill in means’ and the genesis of the five aggregate teaching."
Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society (2010), Third Series, 20:191-216 Cambridge University Press
I'd say just look for the notion of the "five fire sacrifice" in Brahmanism. This is then "internalized" from the external fire to the inner fire, in some traditions, like the samnyasa. Internalized, it becomes the offering of five types of breath. However, the whole notion of the "five fires" and the "five fuel heap" (panca-upadana-kkhandha) seems pretty clear in this light. Seems a deliberate poke in the eye of the aggihotta fire sacrifice - "You think that the five fires are good, they are just burning samsara!" cf. the third teaching on "all is burning". A number of people, inc. Gombrich, Jurewicz, Bronkhorst, have written about this in general.
My recently moved Blog, containing some of my writings on the Buddha Dhamma, as well as a number of translations from classical Buddhist texts and modern authors, liturgy, etc.: Huifeng's Prajnacara Blog.
Paññāsikhara
Posts: 980
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 5:27 am
Contact:

Re: Are the Sutta's really ancient?

Post by Paññāsikhara »

Bankei wrote:
In 1977 Charles Prebish and Jan Nattier showed that the Theravada vinaya was probably added to, and the Mahasamghika vinaya is likely to be older. Prebish has just written a new article in Pacific World standing by his 1977 discovery too.
This is what I mean by editing.
I'm not sure that that is what Prebish and Nattier are actually saying in that article.

I have another thought on the matter: The two parties that later come to be called "mahasamghika" and "sthavira" represent the east and west, res. The Buddha whilst alive is early on more in the east, then later in the west. Could one explain the differences in that although the "sthavira" vinaya has more rules, these may still have been made by the Buddha whilst alive. Whereas the "mahasamghika" shorter list of vinaya rules is because they used the set from earlier in the Buddha's career.

Different lists of rules. Different vinayas. But not really open to the (emotionally loaded) charge of "they added stuff!", or "they removed stuff!", which sometimes seems to get in the way.

That's just a thought, by the way, that I have been toying with. I've tried it on a Prof or two, and they haven't shot it down yet! :tongue:
My recently moved Blog, containing some of my writings on the Buddha Dhamma, as well as a number of translations from classical Buddhist texts and modern authors, liturgy, etc.: Huifeng's Prajnacara Blog.
Paññāsikhara
Posts: 980
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 5:27 am
Contact:

Re: Are the Sutta's really ancient?

Post by Paññāsikhara »

tiltbillings wrote:
Bankei wrote:
There are discrepancies between the Suttas/agamas as preserved in Gandhari, sanskrit, Tibetan and Chinese etc. (would your counterargument would be that these others were all modified and not the Pali?).
And are we talking about finding Buddha-nature doctrines in this other texts? Or are we talking about no real significant doctrinal difference?
Personally, I've seldom found many great differences. Sure, there are enough different things for a desperate scholar to throw in his / her PhD thesis, but, you know, some people will look for anything! :tongue: Not much, or any, "real significant doctrinal difference" to my eyes.
tiltbillings wrote:
Bankei wrote:I am not sure there was any large scale conscious editing, except maybe at the various councils where texts were standardised.
I have not seen any modern scholar hold that there was any large scale editing. Standardization is not uncommon, but I'd like to see where it has made any major change in doctrinal teachings.
I concur.
My recently moved Blog, containing some of my writings on the Buddha Dhamma, as well as a number of translations from classical Buddhist texts and modern authors, liturgy, etc.: Huifeng's Prajnacara Blog.
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Are the Sutta's really ancient?

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings venerable Paññāsikhara,

Your theory may be correct.

Do you have any references or thoughts on how homogenous the Buddhasasana was at the time of the First Council? The homogenity (or lack thereof) at that point in time would seem to be a key factor in determining whether these variations were attributable to movements during the Buddha's lifetime, or later deviations.

Metta,
Retro. :)
"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."
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Are the Sutta's really ancient?

Post by tiltbillings »

Sylvester wrote: Piya Tan was working off a PTS version of a sutta .
Piya Tan is a good scholar.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Are the Sutta's really ancient?

Post by tiltbillings »

Paññāsikhara wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:
Bankei wrote:
There are discrepancies between the Suttas/agamas as preserved in Gandhari, sanskrit, Tibetan and Chinese etc. (would your counterargument would be that these others were all modified and not the Pali?).
And are we talking about finding Buddha-nature doctrines in this other texts? Or are we talking about no real significant doctrinal difference?
Personally, I've seldom found many great differences. Sure, there are enough different things for a desperate scholar to throw in his / her PhD thesis, but, you know, some people will look for anything! :tongue: Not much, or any, "real significant doctrinal difference" to my eyes.
Even looking at a work as detailed as Ven Minh Chau's THE CHINESE MADHYAMA AGAMA AND THE PALI MAJJHIMA NIKAYA, I would agree with that.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
User avatar
BlackBird
Posts: 2069
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:07 pm

Re: Are the Sutta's really ancient?

Post by BlackBird »

I think this essay may be of interest here, specifically the chapter I have linked to, but indeed the whole thing:

Beginnings: The first council - Ven. Bodhisako

(again, would love to know your thoughts on Ven. Bodhisako's essays)

metta
Jack
"For a disciple who has conviction in the Teacher's message & lives to penetrate it, what accords with the Dhamma is this:
'The Blessed One is the Teacher, I am a disciple. He is the one who knows, not I." - MN. 70 Kitagiri Sutta

Path Press - Ñāṇavīra Thera Dhamma Page - Ajahn Nyanamoli's Dhamma talks
User avatar
DNS
Site Admin
Posts: 17187
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 4:15 am
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada, Estados Unidos de América
Contact:

Re: Are the Sutta's really ancient?

Post by DNS »

BlackBird wrote:I think this essay may be of interest here, specifically the chapter I have linked to, but indeed the whole thing:

Beginnings: The first council - Ven. Bodhisako

(again, would love to know your thoughts on Ven. Bodhisako's essays)
Interesting that Venerable Purāna did not agree with the organization of the Suttas at the First Council. But it should be noted that he was a "wandering monk" and not one of the 500 arahants. Also, perhaps more importantly, the fact that this disagreement is even in the Canon, along with some other disputes and controversies, imo, at least shows indication that the Suttas are ancient and authentic.

For example, in other places less than commendable things are mentioned and not 'sugar-coated' such as the monks who committed suicide after hearing the Buddha talk on the foulness nature of the body.
User avatar
Chula
Posts: 180
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2009 5:58 am
Location: Sri Lanka

Re: Are the Sutta's really ancient?

Post by Chula »

David N. Snyder wrote:Interesting that Venerable Purāna did not agree with the organization of the Suttas at the First Council. But it should be noted that he was a "wandering monk" and not one of the 500 arahants. Also, perhaps more importantly, the fact that this disagreement is even in the Canon, along with some other disputes and controversies, imo, at least shows indication that the Suttas are ancient and authentic.
Ven. Purāna's quote does not show the disagreement implied in this article. In fact, it's more like his own personal preference. It would be a little foolhardy to say that he "didn't agree" from the quote given.

Interestingly, this is the third time I'm pointing this out in the Early Buddhism forum itself - this article has been quoted multiple times..
Bankei
Posts: 430
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2009 4:40 am

Re: Are the Sutta's really ancient?

Post by Bankei »

Paññāsikhara wrote:
Bankei wrote:
I'm not sure that that is what Prebish and Nattier are actually saying in that article.

I
Hi Bhante

You might be interested in this more recent article by Prebish
"The Role of Prātimokṣa Expansion in the Rise of Indian Buddhist Sectarianism", Pacific World, Vol 3/9
Charles S. Prebish
http://www.shin-ibs.edu/documents/pwj3- ... bish39.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
-----------------------
Bankei
Post Reply